Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03011994 - IO.1 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS W. , $I Contra .., .. ..oma FROM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Costa g s County DATE: February 14, - 1994 & February 28, 1994 SUBJECT: IMPLEMENTATION OF SERVICES INTEGRATION PROJECTS SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION: 1 . DIRECT the County Administrator to take whatever steps are necessary, or recommend what steps the Board of Supervisors needs to take, to insure that the Ambrose Recreation and Park District' s building in Bay Point remains available for use by the County for the Services Integration Project. 2 . ENDORSE the participation by appropriate County Department Heads and staff in the Policy Academy training and other meetings and REQUEST the County Administrator to keep our Committee advised. of significant steps being taken under the auspices of the Policy Academy. 3 . RATIFY the request of our Committee that the Acting Personnel Director report to the Internal Operations Committee on February 28,. 1994 regarding the outcome of the meet and confer meetings with employee organizations . . 4 . REQUEST the County Administrator to identify those individuals from Contra Costa County who participated in the 1992 Children' s Summit meeting held in Oakland for participants from Alameda and Contra Costa County and offer to brief them on the recent developments regarding the Services Integration Project and Policy Academy, since this Children' s Summit was a natural predecessor of the Policy Academy and Services Integration Project. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADM IS BATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE TH SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 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 ONTHE �,�DATE SHOWN. ATTESTED CMO^"Aw �- 1 , 199 y Contact: PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF cc: See Page 3 SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY�1�J.IIy��4�� DEPUTY -2- 5 . DIRECT the County Administrator and Acting Personnel Director to discuss with employee organizations the value of moving ahead to select the staff who indicate an interest in being a part of. the Service Integration Teams and then soliciting the assistance of the interested staff in designing the precise manner in which Service Integration will be implemented; depending on the nature of the agreements which are worked out with the employee organizations, AUTHORIZE the County Administrator and appropriate staff to move ahead to solicit interest in the Service Integration Teams and select members for the Teams . 6 . DIRECT the County Administrator and Acting Personnel Director to report back to our Committee on March 28, 1994 regarding the status of the selection of Service Integration Team members, the acquisition of space and related issues regarding the co-location of human services staff, including workload and staffing concerns, supervision and security concerns . 7 . DIRECT the County Administrator to schedule a Workshop on Services Integration as soon as possible at the former Work Furlough Building in Richmond for a Tuesday afternoon, at which time each involved Department Head and employee organization can provide comments regarding the implementation of the Services Integration Projects as they affect his or her department or employee organization. BACKGROUND: On January 11, 1994, the Board of Supervisors referred to our Committee continuing oversight of the development and implementation of the services integration projects in North Richmond and Bay Point. At that time, we were awaiting the outcome of meet and confer discussions with the affected employee organizations . We had asked staff to report back to our Committee on February 14, 1994 . On February 14, 1994 we met with Sara Hoffman from the County Administrator' s Office, Rich Heyne from the Personnel Department, and Paul Katz and Henry Clarke from Local 1 . Supervisor-designate Mark DeSaulnier also joined us . Sara Hoffman reviewed the attached report with us . A particular problem has come to light in that Los Medanos College has expressed an interest in using the Ambrose Recreation and Park District facility. This has raised concern about whether this facility will remain available for the Services Integration Project, despite the fact that funds for the necessary remodeling are available from the Keller Canyon Landfill mitigation fund. We believe strongly that the County must insure that this facility remains available for the Services Integration Project. If it is possible to work out an accommodation with Los Medanos College where both organizations could use a portion of the facility, we would be willing to consider such a proposal . However, we believe that all steps necessary should be taken to insure that the County does not lose the opportunity to have this facility for the Services Integration Project in Bay Point. We were very excited to hear that the Policy Academy effort in Sacramento is receiving very high-level support and involvement from the Administration, including the presence of the Deputy Secretary of the Health and Welfare Agency and all of the affected State Department Heads at the initial meeting. It seems clear that the State' s level of commitment should be met with a similar level of involvement by our County' s Department Heads and other senior staff. -3- In regard to the meet and confer sessions, the continuing negotiations with employee organizations have delayed the effort to get together to discuss the implementation of the Services Integration Project. The meeting has been set for the afternoon of February 14, 1994 . We are asking that staff report back to our Committee on February 28, 1994 . We will probably have additional recommendations to make following that update. We remain committed to the importance of a focus on families in the delivery of our human services and to the importance of a holistic approach to addressing the complex needs of many families . We particularly are committed to the concept of delivering human services to families in a neighborhood community from a school site. On February 28, 1994,, our Committee met with staff from the Personnel Department; Kathy Armstrong, Consultant to the County Administrator on Service Integration; and Jim Hicks, Business Manager of AFSCME, Local 512 . Rich Heyne from the Personnel Department reviewed the attached report with our Committee. Mr. Heyne noted that another meeting has been scheduled with employee organizations for March 10, 1994 . He emphasized that workload, supervision, and security issues remain important and unresolved issues for employee organizations. Jim Hicks spoke of his members ' concern for their physical safety if they are located in a community which they perceive as more subject to violence than their present office location. Supervisor McPeak expressed her concern that people do not appear to understand the entire concept of Services Integration, which is that staff from a variety of interrelated disciplines need to concentrate their efforts in a small, identifiable community. The staff need to be present in the community - need to be known and recognized in the community. The staff must not remain in their offices behind bullet-proof glass with security guards - they need to be in the community, meeting with people, in contact with the community and aware of what makes the community "tick" . Supervisor Smith agreed that people seem to agree with the concept of service integration intellectually, but throw up barriers to its implementation. Supervisor McPeak noted that even without a physical facility in the community, service integration can work. The important thing is to have the staff from various disciplines communicating with each other and present in the community, regardless of where the staff ' s offices are located. She suggested that it is important to get the members of the Service Integration Teams identified and then let them help decide how best to make services integration work in each community. Our Committee is, therefore, recommending that serious attention be given immediately to soliciting interest on the part of staff to being a part of a Service Integration Team. At the same time, attention needs to be given to adequate physical facilities for office space in each community. However, the availability or lack of availability of space cannot be allowed to stop the movement to services integration. cc: County Administrator Sara Hoffman, CAO's Office Perfecto Villarreal, Social Services Director Mark Finucane, Health Services Director Wendel Brunner, M.D. , Public Health Director Lorna Bastian, Mental Health Director Gerald S. Buck, County Probation Officer Joan Sparks, Community Services Director Eileen Bitten, Acting Personnel Director Kathy Armstrong, Consultant to the County Administrator Henry Clarke, General Manager, Local 1 Jim Hicks, Business Agent, AFSCME, Local 512 x"04 1 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR 651 Pine Street, 10th Floor Martinez, California 94553 Telephone: 646-1390 DATE: February 10, 1994 TO: Supervisor Jeff Smith Supervisor Sunne McPeak Internal Operations Committee FROM: Sara Hoffman Senior Deputy Administrator SUBJECT: Status Report on Service Integration The Service Integration Management Team (STMT) has been working diligently since its last report to the Internal Operations Committee on implementation of service integration. Below is a brief summary of activities by subject area. Training - Service Integration staff will be given training in six areas: 1. orientation/self-managed team practices; 2. confidentiality and release of information; 3. family centered practice; 4. community-based approaches to service delivery; 5. advanced practices in self-managed teams; 6. service re-engineering and automation. The SIMT is scheduled to review the final draft of the training modules at its February 22, 1994 meeting in preparation for distribution to the departments and other interested parties for their review and comment during the month of March. Facilities - Renovation will be necessary for the Bay Point and North Richmond facilities. For Bay Point, the Ambrose Center has been selected. For North Richmond, the Furlough Building had been selected. However, with the agreement with General Chemical and the desirability of locating the service integration team.coterminous with the new health clinic, other facilities may need to be considered, at least for the long term. General Services anticipates that it would take approximately two months to complete renovation of the Ambrose Center and the Furlough Building. Financing - Building renovation costs have been covered by two sources: the Keller mitigation funds for the Ambrose Center ($46,185) and the General Chemical settlement for the Furlough building. Most of the operating costs will be covered by the departments'as a continuation of their existing resources. At this time, it is estimated that annual costs not covered include $31,000 for, the Health Department; $38,000 for the Social Service Department; and $21,000 for the Probation Department. Confidentiality - A team of two social service employees, three health employees and Kathy Armstrong have been working on revising and finalizing the confidentiality agreement. In addition, the committee has agreed upon a process for obtaining client signatures. A meeting has been scheduled with County Counsel for February 17, 1994 to review the draft document and proposed process. Outcomes - The SIMT is continuing to work on a definable set of outcomes. These need to be divided into two areas: one, by geographical area for individual pilots; and also by the area of service delivery. Several drafts have been produced and the team is continuing to work on this issue. Data Processing - The SIMT has been working closely with Data Processing and pians on beginning the systems development work by the end of the month. This will include development of an index, family record and communication system. In addition, STMT will be looking for financing through a Pac Bell grant opportunity. Employee Organization Meetings- The Personnel Department has taken the lead on the discussions with the employee organizations. A meeting is scheduled for February 14, 1994 at 2:00 p.m. In addition to these activities which directly relate to service integration, the SIMT has been involved in two other initiatives: Policy Academy. The Policy Academy is directed towards developing more efficient, effective service delivery systems. Contra Costa has been selected as one of three counties to work with Mark Friedman and Frank Farrell, national experts in financing. In addition, the State has agreed to a multi-departmental meeting to discuss ways in which we can achieve service integration financing. Family Maintenance Organization. The Family Maintenance Organization is designed to broaden the thrust of the service integration to include those families who are not yet in crisis and the larger community. The planning grant has been funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. GC'. SIMT Employee Organizations h34:iocomm.mem Contra ,P . Personnel Department Costa �;` Administration Bldg. z -'1=`'w¢ 651 Pine Street '-'/ou►' / Martinez, California 94553 1292 r�cGiiN'�'1 DATE: February 10, 1994 TO: Internal Operations Committee FROM: Eileen Bitten, Acting Director of Personnel SUBJECT: Status of SIT Meet and Confer On Monday, February 14, 1994 representatives of the County Administration Office, County Personnel, IEDA, Social Service Personnel, Health Services Personnel and Probation Administration will meet with representatives of Local One, SEIU 535 and AFSCME 2700/512 at George Gordon Center from 2:00 - 5:00 to address the following items: 1. Review and Discussion of Plan Summary A written summary in question/answer format has been prepared highlighting important union concerns such as supervision of team members, impact on current represented job classifications, training, case sharing and evaluation of employee performance. Through this format, staff hopes to provide a concise overview to the unions and answer their specific, practical concerns. Issues necessary for actual bargaining will also be identified in this discussion. 2. Analysis of Case Problem To model the expected actual interaction between service integration team members under the SIT concept, a representative case problem has been developed. The problem will allow representation of each discipline/program to (1) more concretely identify those elements of the team concept which may need further attention and (2) provide valuable feedback for discussion at the Monday meeting and for meet and confer. 3. Discussion and Decision on Meet and Confer Information and ideas generated from 1 and 2 above will be the basis to discuss with the employee organizations the preferred method of meeting and conferring over those SIT implementation elements within the scope of bargaining. Attempts will be made on Monday to schedule specific meet and confer sessions promptly. Contra ' ': ;`; Personnel Department C `,, Costa r--� ;� Administration Bldg. yx,. ..••,.. '' :� 651 Pine Street County Martinez, California 94553 1292 U11� DATE: February 10, 1994 TO: Distribution (See Below) FROM: Rich Heyne, Employee Relations Manager SUBJECT: Notice of Service Integration Project Meeting This is to confirm arrangements for the next meeting concerning the status of the Service Integration Project. DATE: Monday, February 14, 1994 TIME: 2:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. PLACE: George Gordon Center, Bay Room 500 Court Street, Martinez The agenda will include: 1. Review and Discussion of Plan Summary (Question/Answer sheet to be provided) 2. Analysis of Case Problem (Written example of "model" case previously provided) 3. Discussion and Decision on Meet and Confer (Establish issues and process for all employee groups) Distribution: Sunne Wright McPeak, Supervisor, District d Sara Hoffman, Senior Deputy County Administrator Kathy Armstrong, Consultant to the County Administrator Eileen K. Bitten, Assistant Director of Personnel Lee Finney, Negotiator, IEDA Judy Campbell, Social Service Personnel Paul Zaro, Probation Administration Shelley Pighin, Health Services Personnel Damita Davis-Howard, SEIU, Local 535 Billie Jo Wilson, Local No. 1 Bill Schlant, Local No. 1 John Stallsmith, Local No. 1 Jere Copeland, Local No. 1 -Jim Hicks, AFSCME, Local 2700 Richard Cabral, AFSCME, Local 512 Beverly Wright, AFSCME, Local 512 Judy Olcott, AFSCME, Local 512 Christina Moore, AFSCME, Local 512 Grace Underwood, SEIU, Local 535 Gerrie Dekker, AFSCME, Local 2700 Pam Pagni, Supervisor Smith's Office Mike Cornwall, Local 1 ,Inn Wnlmon, SEIU, Locsl 535 Bill Weidinger, Social Service Dept. Healthy Families/SIT Briefing SERVICES INTEGRATION/HEALTHY FAMILY 2000 February, 1994 BRIEFING: -PLAN SUMMARY AND ISSUES: -CASE EXAMPLE Planning Process: Logistical Questions/Answers 1. How will the SIT Team process work in relation to current MOU provisions? A pilot Project would be established on a limited term basis. Under that pilot project, after fully operational for one year, applicable classifications and salaries, MOD's would be utilized. 2. What will the job descriptions and typical tasks look like? The current existing job specifications will be used, together with an overall job description for initial project parameters used as a cover document for individual existing County descriptions. At beginning of project, all typical tasks cannot be identified as. they are anticipated to evolve within team structure. However, all tasks will be documented by team leader and change agent and discussed with SIMT. 3. What will the work be, who does what, and'what is different from the current job responsibilities and duties? To significant extent, the work currently done by the different primary classes and professional areas of responsibility will remain the same: Eligibility Workers will do essential Income Maintenance Field casework duties, PHN's will address health issues, etc. Some key distinctions are that: -The work will essentially be done co-located at the same site, allowing sharing of issues and events concerning clients among multidisciplinary team members. -A Team process will be involved on weekly basis to mutually discuss and assess cases amongst the different disciplines 1 Healthy Families/SIT Briefing and classifications involved. The goal result for each case will be a coordinated case management plan, developed by the team, including the family. -Staff will be able to participate in a blended way beyond traditional boundaries of their current, more isolated function. This would NOT. involve abrogation of legally mandated,licensed/professional responsibilities or assignment of tasks as a work avoidance technique to different professional levels; primary emphasis of cross teamwork would be on utilizing the unique relationships of staff with specific clients to best benefit the client. -Staff would also be identifying current required/regulated tasks which could be consolidated, reduced, or avoided through the waiver auspices of the pilot project. 4. What are the anticipated "Phases" of the project, and how do they relate to the "Pilot Project" ?? When do the Phases occur? The SIT Team (s) are anticipated to evolve as the project continues. The first Phase is estimated to essentially correspond to the pilot period. During that phase, the startup, training, initial assessment and operation and building of the team would occur. over time, additional pilot sites could be added, and increased self-management within the team is expected to .evolve, and Phase II in the process would occur. The description of the Phases I and II is a construct essentially related to the process of the evolution and functioning of the teams. Also, waivers of both regulations and enabling blended funding would be needed before Phase II would result. An additional staff assignment may also be created as a "Coach" for support, coordination, and liaison between the teams and the SIT, and community groups. 5. What happens after the Pilot is over? After the end of the initial pilot period, a classification study could be undertaken by the Department of origin for their respective staff of jobs that may have evolved during the pilot; identification and assessment of such assignments would involve employee organizations. 2 Healthy Families/SIT Briefing 6. Staffing components preliminarily identified: NORTH RICHMOND PILOT: Team Staff from Social Service Department: Eligibility/Casework: 3.5 FTE Eligibility Work Specialist 1 .0 FTE Social Worker (GAIN function) .7 FTE Social Casework Specialist (for PP/FR-relative care giver assignment) .5 FTE Eligibility Work Supervisor I (other half in District assignment) 37. 7 FTE Clerical Support for Social Service staff: FTE Senior Level Clerk Reception, on-site Unit support) 1 .5 FTE ELC Clerk (Building Support/clerical backup) 1 Team Staff from Probation/Health De ts: (Clerical support primari y provided off-site) 1 . 0 FTE Probation Officer . 5 FTE Public Health Nurse . 5 FTE Substance Abuse Specialist . 1 FTE (Four Hours) Mental Health Services T.-I-FTE BAY POINT PILOT: Social Service Department Team Staff: Eligibility/Casework: 7 . 5 FTE Eligibility Work Specialist 1 . 0 FTE Social Worker (GAIN function) 1 .5 FTE Social Casework Specialst (PP/FR relative caregiver) 1 . 0 Eligibility Work Supervisor I 1T-.0 FTE Clerical Support for Social Service Team Staff: 1 .0 FTE Senior Leve C er 1 . 5 FTE ELC/Building Support, clerical backup FTE Team Staff from Probation/Health De ts: (Clerical support primarily provide off-site) 3 Healthy Families/SIT Briefing 1. 0 FTE Probation Officer .5 FTE Public Health Nurse .5 FTE Substance Abuse Specialist .1 FTE (Four Hours) Mental Health Services —FTE 7. Who Supervises?? The official Supervisor of each Team member will be from the Department of origin, and would be assigned all traditional supervisory duties while the employee is outstationed with the SIT team. On-site coordination and input to that Supervisor would be given from the team leader and Coach positions. If one entire Eligibility unit is funded/established in East County, the Supervisor would be on-site. S. What is the relationship of the SIT "Teams" to the SIT "Management Team"? The SIT Management Team ("SIMT^') , which evolved from the initial planning group, will continue. This group, with ,significant input from team leaders and Coach, and a blend of policy staff and supervisors, will evaluate, modify as necessary, anticipate changing issues, report on progress and status to the Youth Services Board, and participate as necessary in coordinating issues between the different on site teams. Subject to agreements concerning timing and process, employee organizations would be offered representative participation in ongoing SIT Management Team as part of the pilot process. The preference of the County is that one employee organization representative be designated to serve on the STMT. Employee organization involvement would also continue at all stages, including any necessary discussions during life of pilot. Input from Community and Schools will also continue to be be solicitated and incorporated throughout the process. 9. Where will the pilot projects be located? Subject to funding and other operational issues (leases, etc. ) ; optimum plans in first six months and for purposes of these discussions at least call for two pilots in East County and West County. Census tracts of Bay Point and North Richmond, respectively. 4 Healthy Families/SIT Briefing The Bay Point facility would be located in the Ambrose Recreation and Park District Headquarters; North Richmond would be in the Furlough Center (Brookside and Giant Rd. ) , in a separate building. The Team in North Richmond could later be relocated in order to be co-located with the new projected Health Clinic, if that site is not at the Furlough Center. This results from the new funding agreement with General Chemical. (Tours for current projected sites can be arranged for interested representatives. ) 10. How would staff for pilot projects be selected? For staff originating from Social Service Department, which is estimated to have approximately 80$ of staffing and costs, through bidding procedure; modified process to meet special criteria and needs of pilot has been under discussion with Local 535. Process for Health Services and Probation Departments not yet finalized. 11. What happens if no employee wants an identified assignment? Initially in Social Service Department, response for possible pilot was one of highest ever received; if that level of response remained, scarcity of staff would not be concern. If no responses to posted bid were received, process would be in accordance with the 535 MOU for reassignment. Process for Health Services and Probation Departments not yet finalized. 12. How will staff in .the pilots be trained? Training/coaching of pilot participants as one of highest priorities of project. The primary formal training will be on-site, with trainers and facilitators brought in to work on identified modules: please refer to the outline distributed with initial packets last fall; the final outlines are expected to be copmleted by the end of February and will be distributed to all concerned . One key training element is the fostering of the primarily self-managed team, and team-building exercises and structure will be a key part of training. Initial estimates are that up to 16 hours per month may be involved in on-site training formal training decreasing to some extent over time. The training concept encompasses formalized work as well as case conferences, and team meetings in on-site support of client service provision. 5 Healthy Families/SIT Briefing 13. How often would the "Teams" meet together? Who Mould run the meetings? How would the meeting be run? As a group, team would meet one to two times per week; team leader would be chosen from within the group, by the group, and would facilitate meetings. The ongoing frequency of meetings would be determined by the team itself and need for such. A group process would be utilized and emphasized. The change agent would also frequently be present and particularly in the initial process to assist and facilitate meetings. 14. Will there be on-site Security? What Kind? Will there be a "Panic button"? Current plan calls for on-site security presence at each pilot location; Ideally, the security representative will function as the community gatekeeper, and will be part of team and be from the identified community. Plan is currently budgeted for Public Service Officer level; mechanism for selection/hiring for needed criteria not yet finalized. All staff would be trained in mutual aid intervention approach, to watch out for and assist each other in team manner if necessary. Current cost estimates include panic buttons for both sites. 15 . Facilities: what will they be like? Will there be staff rooms, separate restrooms, showers, air conditioning etc etc North Richmond facility designed so a separate break room available for staff, including kitchen; offices can be removed from main client area, but overlook waiting area. Separate bathrooms available for staff in both facilities. Ambrose facility air conditioned, with separate restrooms and more private areas separate from office environment available for staff. 16. Who will "meet and greet" and manage incoming clients; where . do they sit? ' Clerical staff at designated reception area will handle incoming clients similarly as in Social Service Department District reception offices, and link clients with staff as available. Team leader and/or change agent would be available for consultation as necessary. Security presence as gatekeeper would also be expected to greet and interact with clients. North Richmond has countered reception area. Both facilities have waiting areas that can be designated 6 Healthy Families/SIT Briefing for clients. Sit Planning Team and YSB stress importance of a community centered office emphasizing access and service for clients, not re-creating the more negatively perceived "mini welfare office" atmosphere; community center model and maximized client access is primary emphasis. 17. What services would be provided on-site and off-site, and why? Essentially, Eligibility maintenance of cases would be conducted in the primary pilot sites; workshops, school interactions, group work would be done on respective designated school sites. Some increased level of home visits by all staff could be possible if case warrants. The Team (s) , community's families and organizations would have input into determining the ongoing topes of services needed and the locations of such services. 18. How would cases be selected and designated? Primary sorting will be by designated zip code of Income Maintenance cases and those cases would be assigned to team members; within the team, cases would be identified for team process which involve or require services from two or more areas or Departments. 19. What about Confidentiality? Procedure being developed and reviewed with County Counsel which would involve individual client consent to participate in pilot project community model. Enabling legislation fosters and encourages sharing of information within project parameters. Special attention to this issue will be given under certain specific service areas. 20. What about legal and professional responsibilities? Not being abrogated and will be expected to be performed, e. g. , alcohol/drugs, HIV/aids issues, Child abuse/sexually transmitted diseases, primary clinical, court ordered responsibilities. 21. Bow would ongoing referrals of cases be made once pilot is established? Would be identified primarily from Departments of origin as cases are brought through Intake from respective pilot areas. A further system will be developed prior to the 7 Healthy Families/SIT Briefing implementation of the pilots. 22. Performance evaluations of individuals: how would that work? Current evaluation processes essentially would be used; team leader and change agent would. have input to regularly assigned supervisor in Department of origin. 23. Performance assessments of overall project: how would that work? See goals outlined in Appendix B of 10/28/93 Status Report to Internal Operations Committee. STMT, Change Agent, and YSB would assess in ongoing fashion, and at end of pilot. 24. Workload: will there be a reduction of assigned cases for the SIT team? The Youth Services Board and SIMT does not recommend a reduction or limitation in the funded level of work for team staff. It is anticipated that through the ongoing evolving of the project, and the obtaining of wai vers,. time will be freed from regulatory processing requirements which can be focused on better service provision. 25, Schedules: What options for work schedules will staff have? No limitations of allowable scheduling options have been planned, however the scheduling of individual workers will need to be coordinated within the on-site team structure. a: \hfam.brf 8 r interoffice MEMORANDUM to: Service Integration Meeting Participants from: Sara Hoffman5 Senior Deputy Administrator re: Case Study Example for Discussion at December 8, 1993 Meeting date: December 1. 1993 At the November 19, 1993 meeting, it was agreed that we would examine a case study at the next meeting. The purpose of the case study would be ta-illustrate the interaction between service integration team members under the new service integration team concept. The attached composite 'case is being circulated in advance of the meeting so that everyone will have ample opportunity to think about questions or concerns which they would like addressed at the next meeting. The service integration team members will need to work with each other to identify and resolve family problems, while completing their own job requirements. Working together, the team is expected to identify ways to improve the service delivery system. Currently, the service delivery system is very process oriented. With fewer and fewer resources, the County needs to shift to outcome oriented systems. Service integration team members would be given flexibility on how to approach families in order to best promote stability, self-sufficiency and good health. Consequently, as was discussed at the last meeting, it is anticipated that service integration will be an evolving process that adjusts as more is learned about collaborative, family-centered service delivery and as the County is granted waivers from process oriented regulations. . From the desk of... Sara Hoffman Senior Deputy County Administrator Contra Costa County 651 Pine St., 10th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 tel: (510) 646-1390 fax: (510) 646-1353 SERVICE INTEGRATION CASE STUDY EXAMPLE REASON FOR REFERRAL: The AFDC field worker was concerned about the safety of the four children under the mothers supervision. The Eligibility Worker expressed her concern following an office visit yesterday. During the interview, the mother was "spacey;" i.e., she never made eye.contact with the worker; she paused a long time, before answering any questions; and responded to most questions`with "We'll be OK. The Lord told me He will help us." The three older minors were constantly moving around and disrupting the interview. The 6 month old baby was lethargic and listless even though she was awake. The oldest minor hit his other two siblings several times and the mother never corrected or stopped this behavior. ' This family unit recently arrived in North Richmond from Alabama. The father of the youngest two children was incarcerated in State Prison for a drug related offense. The father of the oldest two children abandoned the family shortly after the birth of the second child. The mother said she had a cousin in Oakland, but could not locate her. Mother and children are currently staying with a man she met when she arrived here. The mother says the man is currently on probation, but she doesn't know what for. He says the kids are too noisy and need some ",good whippings"so they will obey. He wants the mother and kids gone in a week and wants the mother to pay him $400 for staying with him. The mother says she is out of food, most of their belongings are still in Alabama and her two youngest children have colds and she has no money for medicine or a doctor. FAMILY COMPOSITION: Mother. Tanisha 22 years old Father: Roy 30 years old Father: Daniel 28 years old Children: Roy, Jr. 7 years old Tanya 5 Yz years old Damien 3 years old Rochele 6 months old All family members are African American. Roy is the father of the two oldest children. Current whereabouts unknown. Tanisha and Roy had a common law relationship for 3 years. Daniel is the father of..the two youngest children. Currently, he is in Alabama State Prison for 7 years on a drug related charge. Tanisha and Daniel were living together prior to his imprisonment.