HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05311994 - IO.1 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 0.-1
5 Contra
_tel.
FROM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
Costa g s L
May 23, 1994 �� ���� County
r� _
DATE: Tr---------
REPORT ON A MEETING WITH THE CHIEF, ADOPTIONS B , STATE
SUBJECT: DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES; COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES DIRECTOR AND
GRAND JURY ON FURTHER FOLLOW-UP ON THE GRAND JURY' S REPORT # 9402
RE ADOPTIONS
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1 . DIRECT the Social Services Director to contact the Family
Welfare Research Group at U.C. Berkeley and determine whether
they would be available to do:
• A customer satisfaction survey with adoptive parents and
prospective adoptive parents who have applied for
adoption through the County Social Services Department.
• A review of and comment on the past practice of "red-
dotting" cases where, in the case of workload and
staffing problems, when it was understood that the foster
parents caring for a child were interested in and would
probably adopt the child a red dot would be placed on the
case folder, meaning the home study would be delayed
until more nearly adequate staffing was available.
2 . If the Family Welfare Research Group at U.C. Berkeley would be
available for these purposes, DIRECT the Social Services
Director to determine the cost of such a survey and review,
the approximate time frame for conducting the survey and
review, the source of funds to pay for the survey and review
and INVITE representatives from the Family Welfare Research
Group at U.C.. Berkeley to join the Internal. Operations
Committee for its meeting on Monday, June 27 , 1994 at 9 : 00
A.M. to further .consider this issue.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
S?4ilpii _4(
ACTION OF BOARD ONiQ QA APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
_Z UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: - ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
ATTESTED QLAA3
Contact: County Administrator PHIL BATCHEL ,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
CC: Social Services .Director SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Grand Jury Foreman
County Counsel
BY \Xli- . \ AAA11 Y � -�� DEPUTY
3 . DIRECT the Social Services Director to prepare a pamphlet on
information regarding the adoptions process which could be
provided to all prospective adoptive parents to assist them in
understanding and following the process through to its
conclusion. This pamphlet should include the general policies
of the Department which govern the placement of children for
adoption.
4 . REQUEST the County Counsel to brief the Board of Supervisors
in closed session on the personnel actions which were taken in
regard to the allegations which were filed with our Committee
and with the Board of Supervisors by Teri Woods and Shiela
Trokey.
5 . REQUEST the Honorable Lois Haight, Judge of the Juvenile
Court, to make any comments regarding the handling of
adoptions cases by the Social Services Department she may wish
to share with the Board of Supervisors, including any
recommendations she may have for ways in which the handling of
adoptions cases could be improved from her perspective.
6 . DIRECT the Social Services Director to provide the Internal
Operations Committee in advance of the Committee' s June 27,
1994 meeting with a report which outlines in detail the "red-
dotting" process, including:
• When "red-dotting" was initiated,
• Why "red-dotting" was used,
• How cases were selected to be "red-dotted" ,
• What the total number of cases is that were "red-dotted" ,
• What the maximum and average delay was in completing the
adoption as a result of having been "red-dotted" , and
• When the last of the "red-dotted" cases was removed from
that status .
7 . REQUEST James Brown, Chief of the Adoptions Branch for the
State Department of Social Services, to make any written
comments he may wish to share with our Committee or the Board
of Supervisors on the practice of "red-dotting" and its
prevalence (or that of any similar practice under a different
name) elsewhere in California.
8 . DIRECT the Social Services Director to prepare a complaint
procedure which can be used by any prospective adoptive parent
or birth parent who is dissatisfied with the actions of the
Social Services Department or any employee in the Department,
INCLUDE the complaint procedure in the pamphlet being prepared
in response to Recommendation # 3, and PROVIDE a copy of the
complaint procedure to our Committee in advance of our June
27 , 1994 meeting.
9 . DIRECT the Social Services Director to report back to the
Internal Operations Committee on Monday, June 27, 1994 at 9 : 00
A.M. on the status of all of the above Recommendations .
2
BACKGROUND:
On April 25, 1994, our Committee met with representatives from the
Grand Jury and the Social Services Department to review the
proposed response to the Grand Jury' s Report 9402 on the subject of
adoptions . Our Committee recommended some additions to the
proposed response, which the Board of Supervisors approved on May
3, 1994 . Among these additions was a request that the Grand Jury
and Social Services Department staff meet with us again on May 23,
1994 and invite the Chief of the Adoptions Branch for the State
Department of Social Services to join us for this discussion.
On May 23, 1994, our Committee met with Mr. James Brown, Chief of
the Adoptions Branch for the State Department of Social Services,
Perfecto Villarreal and members of his staff, representatives of
the Grand Jury, several adoptive parents, and several interested
citizens . Mr. Villarreal and members of his staff provided our
Committee with an excellent overview of family and children's
services programs and where adoptions fits into this continuum of
services . These programs include Emergency Response, Family
Maintenance, Family Preservation, Independent Living Skills,
Specialized Placement Program, Residential Placement, Permanent
Placement, including guardianship, long-term foster care and
adoptions . The charts andl other materials distributed at our
meeting are attached for the Board members ' information.
Following the presentation by the Social Services Department, the
Grand Jury was asked if it had any comments . The foreman, Judith
Mullin, indicated that the Grand Jury' s Report speaks for itself
and that the Grand Jury could not comment further.
We then asked Mr. Brown to share some of his reactions with us .
Mr. Brown had been provided a copy of both of the Grand Jury' s
adoptions reports, as well as the Department' s proposed response
and the Board' s final response to Report 9402 . Mr. Brown commented
on the very difficult and sensitive job adoptions workers must
perform since they are asked to determine with whom a child will
live and who the child' s parents will be forever after.
Mr. Brown indicated that he sees the job of adoptions workers as
consisting of two components : "content" and "style" . He defined
"content" as the legal requirements of the job, the steps that have
to be followed and the forms that have to be filled out. "Style" ,
j by contrast, is how the worker does the job, the sensitivity and
wisdom with which a worker does the job. He noted that in reading
the Grand Jury' s Reports, he believes that the problem is one of
i "style" , rather than one of "content" . There appear to be no
allegations that things were not done properly, rather that some of
the staff may not have approached their jobs as sensitively as
might be desired.
In terms of staffing levels, Mr. Brown noted that in 1993, Contra
Costa County claimed State funds for 6 . 7 full-time equivalent
positions (FTE' s) in adoptions, generally consistent with what is
noted in the Department' s response to the Grand Jury report.
In reviewing Contra Costa County's performance against statewide
numbers for comparison purposes, Mr. Brown noted that Contra Costa
County completed 10 . 1 adoptions per worker per year, whereas the
Statewide average is 9 .4 adoptions per worker per year. Contra
Costa is the highest in the Bay Area. In the surrounding area,
only Solano at 10 . 7 and San Joaquin at 11 . 6 complete more adoptions
per worker than Contra Costa County.
3
In terms of the likelihood that a child placed in foster care will
end up being adopted, the number in Contra Costa County is 133/1000
children placed in foster care will end up being adopted. This
compares with a Statewide average of 125/1000 children placed in
foster care end up being adopted.
In regard to the admittedly sensitive subject of trans-racial
adoptions, Mr. Brown noted that in Contra Costa County, in 83% of
the cases where the adoptive child is Black, the child will be
placed with two Black adoptive parents . This compares to 81%
Statewide.
The one area in which Mr. Brown noted an apparent discrepancy
between Contra Costa County and Statewide figures is in the area of
adoption by foster parents . In those cases where a child is with
foster parents for more than one year, in Contra Costa County the
foster parents will adopt the child in 67% of the cases .
Statewide, this number is 78% . Mr. Brown indicated that he could
not explain this figure without further examination of the data.
In terms of the speed with which adoptions are completed, the
number in Contra Costa County from placement in foster care to
final adoption is 40 months . Statewide this figure is 37 months .
Social Services Department staff noted that 51% of those providing
care for children who are outside their own homes are relatives
rather than foster parents and this emphasis on the use of
relatives may account for some of the discrepancies from Statewide
averages .
In response to a question from Supervisor Smith, Mr. Brown
indicated that there is no routine audit by the State of public
Adoption Agencies, other than the annual license renewal done .by
the Licensing and Certification Division of the State Department of
Social Services . In response to a question from Supervisor
DeSaulnier, Mr. Brown responded that there was nothing in the
statistics that he has available that would indicate the level of
problems identified by the Grand Jury, although again such audits
would not pick up "style" problems in most cases . Mr. Brown also
suggested that "style" is the responsibility of local government.
The success of a program is how the program is administered and
that is the responsibility of local government.
Again in response to questions from Supervisor DeSaulnier, Mr.
Brown suggested that his office might be able to undertake a
limited review of a County Adoption Agency on a very few issues .
He suggested that one way to approach the problem would be to do a
"satisfaction survey" of the Agency' s "customers" , the parents who
have adopted children from the Agency. Mr. Brown indicated that a
firm called Family Welfare Research Group at U.C. Berkeley would be
able to do an objective survey of parents and summarize its
findings and conclusions for the Board of Supervisors.
In response to a question from Supervisor Bishop regarding Appendix
"B" to the Grand Jury Report, Mr. Brown indicated that he could not
depend on the numbers because counties appear to be counting and
reporting different things and he felt that the figures were not
comparable among counties . Regarding Appendix "A" , Mr. Brown
indicated that these figures represent an adoptive placement which
is made by the County, using a home study prepared by another
agency without necessarily taking the time to duplicate that study.
He noted that while this tends to speed up the placement process,
it requires that the Adoptions Agency know the agency developing
and approving the adoptive home very well because the Adoptions
Agency is placing a great deal of trust in the other agency.
4
Various members of the audience spoke both in support of the Social
Services Department and in support of the Grand Jury' s Report and
recommendations . Based on that testimony and on the comments of
Mr. Brown, the Social Services Department staff and the Grand Jury,
our Committee has formulated the above recommendations which we
recommend for the Board' s consideration.
5
- o
8 M �.
Q M 0 p to-CPS Investigations
= w "
8 1
o i � �
i 3
1 2'c
1C
Ito
1
W - Manl
a c i Family MaintenanceCA
C
fi C
� '
a 1 a v 0
(D 1 2 2 Co
1 � co0
i > _ _q c 0
R CD1
i
1
_ Licensing
CD v N n
= z, � ^� �► i 171
ocm
=.< j = mac CA
192 ' I ! 31
o � a N Family Reunification jPerm Placement
a 0 13i E
0
m a " SPP
. MH Staff
1
# CRPU
1 • ICPC
1
1
ILSP
1 • Transitional Housing
1
Guardianship
1
1
1
i
— Adoptions
to
CD
.p
CHILD WELFARE SERVICES
Child Welfare Services are directed toward these purposes:
1) preventing or remedying or assisting in the solution of problems which
may result in the neglect, abuse, exploitation, or delinquency of children
2) preventing the unnecessary separation of children from their families by
identifying family problems, assisting families in resolving their problems,
and preventing breakup of the family where the prevention of child removal
is desirable and possible;
3) restoring to their families children who have been removed, by the
provision of services to the child and the families;
4) identifying children to be placed in suitable adoptive homes, in cases
where restoration to the biological family is not possible or appropriate;
5) and assuring adequate care of children away from their homes, in cases
where the child cannot be returned home or cannot be placed for adoption.
Child Welfare is the provision of services on behalf of children alleged to be
the victims of child abuse, neglect, or exploitation. The child welfare services
I
rovided in Contra Costa County on behalf of children represent a continuum
of services, including:
service programs,5/20/94
disk 1/16,gae page 1
Emergency Response (ER):
Emergency response services consist of a response system providing in-person
response, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to reports of abuse, neglect, or
exploitation, for the purpose of investigation to determine the necessity for
providing initial intake services and crisis intervention to maintain the child safely
in his or her own home or to protect the safety of the child. County welfare
departments shall respond to any report of imminent danger to a child immediately
and all other reports within 10 calendar days. An in-person response is not
required when the county welfare department, based upon an evaluation of risk,
determines that an in-person response is not appropriate. This evaluation includes
collateral contacts, a review of previous referrals, and other relevant information,
as indicated.
Family Maintenance (FM):
Activities designed to provide in-home protective services to prevent or remedy
neglect, abuse, or exploitation, for the purposes of preventing separation of
children from their families.
Family Preservation:
These are intensive family based services provided to avoid or to limit out-of-home
placement of children who, without these services, would need out-of-home
placement, or longer placements, or placement in a more restrictive out-of-home
facility.
Family Reunification (FR):
Activities designed to provide time-limited foster care services to prevent or
remedy neglect, abuse, or exploitation, when the child cannot safely remain at
home, and needs temporary foster care, while services are provided to reunite the
family.
Independent Living Skills (ILS):
The Independent Living Skills Program is a federally funded program whose goal
is to enable participating youth to successfully make the transition from foster care
to adult independent living providing services, programs, and a written
Transitional Independent Living Plan for each youth.
service programs,5/20/94
dist!/16,gae page 2
Specialized Placement Program (SPP):
The purpose of this program is to provide expert care and supervision in family
settings for minors who, due to emotional or behavior problems, cannot be
maintained in regular foster homes and would otherwise be placed in institutions.
Children's Residential Placement Unit:
The Children's Residential Placement Unit is a unit specializing in dealing with
children with serious emotional problems who cannot be maintained in the homes
of their relatives or in county foster care. While the service status of these children
may be either Family Reunification or Permanent Placement, the primary
presenting issues for them are their treatment needs. Children in this unit are
either placed out of county through Foster Family Agencies or are in group homes
ranging from 6 bed community based programs to psychiatric model treatment
facilities. These group homes are generally either in Contra Costa County or
elsewhere in Northern California.
Permanent Placement (PP):
Activities designed to provide an alternate permanent family structure for children
who because of abuse, neglect, or exploitation cannot safely remain at home and
who are unlikely to ever return home. These services shall be provided on behalf
of children for whom there has been a judicial determination of a permanent plan
for adoption, legal guardianship, or long-term foster care.
Licensing of Foster Homes:
State law requires that anyone, other than a relative, who provides care for a child
must be licensed. Our department licenses foster family homes. The purpose of
the license is to assure that the home is a safe environment and that the caregiver
can provide adequate care and supervision. All prospective foster parents must
have a criminal records clearance and a medical examination at the time of
licensure. An inspection of the prospective foster parent(s)' home is made.
Adoptions:
Through State law, our department assumes care, custody and control of a child
through either voluntary relinquishment of the child to the agency or court ordered
termination of parental rights to the child. We assess the birth parents and child,
and study prospective adoptive parents. We place the children in prospective and
approved adoptive homes and supervise the placements through legal finalization
of the adoption.
service programs, 5/20/94
disk#16,gae page 3
CHILD, WELFARE
CASE - FLOW CHART
(numbers-&;*".Wmate Ye of cases repoorW
100 reports
CPS-INTAKE
E. R. do It aaiI�IIOd
Screening
ISOesag„ed
CPS-INTAKE
E. R. ao
Field Unit
�r
�o
CCNU RT
5
8 T
..� S. P. P
,
(Specialized F. R. iPngrem)
(Family Maintenancetreturn
(FmlyRe
In-home lutof-home
hom
rewm 110"a V.R.P.U.
� _rete (Children's resldentlal
placement unh)
F2.
. (Permanency Planning)
-1
option
ardianshi Pete Hartle
ng Term RosterCare
Jan.,1992
::::...:....::...
RC1$r....... ...... `i..............,. ">
# ..its
1 The fundamental purpose of child Evidence presented in Juvenile Court
1 welfare services is to remove risk 6 must meet legally defined rules of
from children rather than remove children evidence similar to those applicable in other
from risk. civil cases. Examples: hearsay is generally
inadmissible, opinions are generally inadmis-
2 Placing children out of their parents' sible, a parent cannot be required to
home is fraught with risks and prob- incriminate himseWherself.
lems. The State is a very poor parent. The
risk in the parents' home must be substantial At each subsequent Juvenile Court
to justify exposing a child to the risk of 7 hearing after the court orders jurisdic-
placement. tion over a child, the Social Service Depart-
went must show by a preponderance of
3 The State does not intervene to evidence that the conditions still exist which
require good parenting. It intervenes would justify initial assumption of jurisdic-
to require the minimum sufficient level tion, or that such conditions are likely to
of care needed to sustain growth, health exist if jurisdiction is terminated
and safety.
Q Pararts whose cbkh i are ordered placed
4 Child welfare risk assessment is a fu- V by the Juvenile Court have 12 to 18
tune-oriented process The focus is on months to remedy the problems and reur*with
the likelihood of maltreatment, not on the their children. After this period reunification sere
severity of a child's injuries. ices must be terminated and a penmanency plan
must be ordered by the court.
5 The decisions of the Juvenile Court
must meet legally defined standards Non court-ordered services can only
of proof. To bring a child under the court's 9 be provided if parents agree in writing
jurisdiction the court must find by a to voluntary services.
preponderance of evidence that a child is
endangered. In order for the court to removeIn-home child welfare services,
a child from1 parental care the court must find 1 O especially non-court, are limited to
by clear and convincing evidence that the one year's duration.
child requires removal,
Pete Harris, 1994
1
Foster Care Training/Recruitment
Contra Costa County Social Services Department has been allocated special
funding through Assembly Bill 2129 to: (1) recruit and train new foster families
of various cultures, (2) to recruit and train new foster families to care for teens,
sibling groups and medically fragile children, and (3) to preserve and support the
current group of licensed foster families by offering an expanded training program.
The department's plan to utilize the revenue is as follows:
1. The department will hire a trainer/recruiter.
2. The department has prescribed a new policy of mandated training for
all prospective foster parents. Additionally, prospective adoptive
parents, caretaker relatives and legal guardians of dependent children
in permanency planning.will be offered and encouraged to attend this
training. We are currently developing this training curriculum.
3. The AB-2129 funds will be used for targeted recruitment of minority
families, particularly African American families so that children may
be placed within their own culture. Foster families willing to accept
sibling groups, teens and medically fragile children will also be
recruited.
4. The department has committed $25,000.00 to 'Brian's Kids"
program. This program, launched on KPIX-TV in April 1990, is
directed at recruiting foster and adoptive families (and particularly
minority families) through the media. Six Bay Area counties
(Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisoc, San Clara and San
Mateo) and the California Department of Social Services are
participating with the Community Task Force On Homes For Children
to support the continuance of this program.
page 1
In addition, there is The Heritage Project which is a component of Contra Costa
County's "Options for Recovery Program." The program's goal is to break the
intergenerational cycle of substance abuse of mothers who want to stop using drugs
and/or alcohol. This program provides the following:
1. Recruitment of Foster Homes and Relative Homes
2. Placement of Drug exposed Children, 0-3
3. Training in the Care of Special Needs Children
4. Respite and Support Services,
The AB-2129 funding will allow the department to expand the required number of
hours for pre-service training of new licensees to a minimum of 20 hours. Some
of the subjects covered will include the Juvenile Court System, types of foster
homes, Medi-Cal, AFDC/Foster Care payments, the roles of foster parents and
biological parents, the different types of children we care for, abuse issues,
appropriate behavior and discipline, how to help children manage their feelings,
accurate expectations, helping child dealing with grief & loss, medically fragile
infants and health issues. This training will also aid our department in having more
qualified foster parents with specialized skills to care for our children with special
needs. Every 20 hours of training a foster care provider receives entitles him or
her to receive a higher level of the Difficulty of Care rate, when appropriate.
Combined with the Community College Foster Care Education Program, the
Independent Living Skills Training and the Heritage Project, the goal of the
department is to expand and enhance the training opportunities for all of the
caregivers of our dependent children.
foster parent training/recruitment
5/20/94
disk k16.gae page 2