Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05031994 - IO.3 (2) TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS I .O.-2 sE ` Contra r. FROM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Costa a s l DATE: April 25, 1994 County SUBJECT: PROPOSED RESPONSE TO THE 1993-94 GRAND JURY'S REPORT ENTITLED: "ADOPTION" vs LONG TERM FOSTER CARE", REPORT 9402 SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1 . AMEND the proposed response to the 1993-94 Grand Jury' s Report entitled: "Adoption vs Long Term Foster Care" to add the following comment: DIRECT the Social Services Director to prepare a report to the Internal Operations Committee outlining the entire continuum of family preservation and child welfare services, indicating the purpose and function of each element of the system, showing where the Adoptions Unit fits into the continuum, and how each piece of the system works together with each of the other pieces of the system. 2 . AMEND the proposed response to the 1993-94 Grand Jury' s Report entitled: "Adoption vs Long Term Foster Care" to add the following comment: DIRECT the Social Services Director to prepare a letter, to the State Department of Social Services and other appropriate organizations and individuals and AUTHORIZE the Chair, Board of Supervisors, to sign such a letter, calling on the State to adopt regulations or .sponsor legislation which would make it possible for County Welfare Departments to track children who are placed for adoption to determine the success or failure of the adoption, based on subsequent problems, and to track the success or CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINIS ATO RE MENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER JEFF .SMITH MARK DeSAULNIER SIGNATURE S: ACTION OF BOARD ONAPPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER X i In addition to approving the recommendations set forth above, the Board REQUESTED the Social Service Director to invite Jim Brown, Chief of Adoptions , State of California Department of Social Service, to the meeting with the Internal Operations and the Grand Jury to further address the issues as noted in the Grand Jury- Report . VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE X 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 May 3, 1994 Contact: PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF cc: See Page 4 SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY LP. tfG� c� DEPUTY I .O.-2 failure of family preservation efforts in keeping families together so boards of supervisors can make valid, factual judgments about the appropriate allocation of their resources, including money and staff. We would also urge the State to make funding available for this tracking effort. 3 . AMEND the proposed response to the 1993-94 Grand Jury' s Report entitled: "Adoption vs Long Term Foster Care" to add the following comment: DIRECT the Social Services Director to outline for the Internal Operations Committee ways in which staff can be more proactive and provide more outreach in seeking a pool of potential adoptive parents and more actively seek relatives willing to raise children who are unable to stay with their parents, whether or not adoption is a part of the plan. 4 . DIRECT the Social Services Director to offer to meet with the Grand Jury or members thereof to review the Grand Jury' s report and conclusions in more detail in an effort to explain or resolve the discrepancies which exist between the findings and conclusions of the Grand Jury and the report of the Social Services Department, which appears to be substantially at odds with the Grand Jury Report. REQUEST the Grand Jury and the Social Services Director to meet with the Internal Operations Committee again in 30 days to further explore these discrepancies, identify any resolution of these differences which has occurred and further explore in detail the findings and conclusions of the Grand Jury. 5 . ADOPT the staff ' s proposed response to the Grand Jury' s Report on "Adoption vs Long Term Foster Care" , as amended by Recommendations # 1, # 2 , and # 3 above and in view of the continuing jurisdiction our Committee wishes to maintain over this subject matter, as outlined in Recommendation # 4 above, and DIRECT the County Administrator to transmit this response to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, pursuant to the provisions of Penal Code S 933 (c) . BACKGROUND: On March 1, 1994 , the Board of Supervisors received and referred to our Committee the Report from the 1993-94 Grand Jury entitled: "Adoption vs Long Term Foster Care", which had been issued by the Grand Jury on February 9, 1994 and accepted for filing by the Superior Court on February 10, 1994 . The Board of Supervisors is required to respond to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court within 90 days of the issuance of each Report from the Grand Jury. We understand that such a response is, therefore, due to the Presiding Judge by approximately May 10, 1994 . As has been the practice of the Board of Supervisors for the past several years, staff prepared a proposed response to the Grand Jury' s report and shared the proposed response with our Committee and the Grand Jury. On April 25, 1994, our Committee met with the Social Services Director, members of his staff, staff from the County Administrator' s Office and members of the Grand Jury. We reviewed the attached report from the Social Services Director in some detail . We are extremely appreciative to the Social Services Director and his staff for the substantial research and time which has obviously gone into the preparation of this proposed response. The data which is included appears to adequately respond to each and every comment made by the Grand Jury. We reviewed each of the Recommendations made by the Grand Jury and the proposed response in some detail . We were unable to review each of the findings and conclusions in the same detail, but intend to do so in the immediate future, as is outlined in our Recommendations . -2- I .O.-2` Both members of our Committee believe strongly in the vital importance of adoptions as a piece of the entire continuum of child welfare services which can be made available to a child and the child' s family. These include Family Preservation, Reunification, Foster Care, placement with a member of the extended family, guardianship and adoption. As is so well outlined in the responses to the Grand Jury' s Recommendations, adoption is not the appropriate response for every child who cannot be cared for by his or her birth parents . The preference is for placement with a member of the child' s own extended family, whether or not this includes adoption. Adoption by known foster parents with whom a child has an established relationship is also important. Only when neither of these alternatives is possible is adoption with another family considered appropriate. We agree with the Social Services Department that adoption is much more than simply a way to get a child supported by someone other than the taxpayer. Subsidizing a known and loving grandparent who is willing to care for a child may well be a more appropriate decision for a given child than forcing the child into an adoption by a family the child does not know simply to save money. Clearly the needs of the child and what is best for that child must be of paramount importance. At the same time, we know that in talking about adoptions, we are simply discussing one small, but vital, piece of a continuum of services which perhaps begins with family preservation and ends with adoption. We are asking the Social Services Director to outline this entire system for our Committee so that we can properly see each piece in this continuum and place adoptions in its proper perspective in the continuum. Unfortunately, because in part of the confidentiality and secrecy which has traditionally surrounded the whole subject of adoptions, there is little ability to track adoptive children and their adoptive parents to see what long term success there is from adoption. Likewise, enough time has not yet elapsed in the history of the family preservation program to be able to track the long term benefits of these more intensive services in holding families together and avoid the need for out-of-home placement in the first place, although the short term benefits appear to be substantial . We are, therefore, interested in trying to get the State to provide a mechanism (and funding) to allow counties to track the success or failure of adoptions cases and family preservation work so that we, as policy-makers, can better judge where we should commit our resources . At the same time, our Committee is very troubled by the fact that the Social Service Department' s responses to the Grand Jury Report resulted in the "Grand Jury Statement of 4/25/94" which is attached to this report. This statement, prepared after the Grand Jury had the opportunity to review the Department' s response, elicited the use of words and phrases like "disgraceful" , "travesty" , "subterfuge" , "attempt to hide the problems" , etc . in commenting on the proposed response to the Grand Jury's Report. There appears to be a substantial difference of opinion between the Social Services Department and the Grand Jury regarding the nature and extend of the problems which may or may not exist in the Adoptions Program in this County. Our Committee does not feel comfortable simply endorsing the Department's proposed response as the Board of Supervisors ' s response to this Grand Jury Report without some additional follow-up. Unfortunately, the statutory 90 day limit does not allow further consideration of this issue prior to the time we are required to file a response with the Superior Court. We are, therefore, making several amendments to the staff ' s proposed response and are asking that our Committee be allowed to continue to follow up on this report with staff and the Grand Jury - to the extent that the Grand Jury believes it is able to do so. We will make further reports to the Board of Supervisors as we are able to reconcile some of these differences . -3- I .O.-2 cc: County Administrator Social Services Director County Counsel Foreman, 1993-94 Grand Jury Presiding Judge of the Superior Court (Via CAO) -4- IOC Packet 4/25/94 10:05 A.M. Item 1 9 94 I NT E RNAL O P E RATION S COMM=TT E E REFERRAL NUMB E R 45 REPORT FROM THE 1993-94 GRAND JURY ON ADOPTIONS v. LONG TERM FOSTER CARE For the past several years, the Internal Operations Committee has received as referrals most of the reports filed with the Board of Supervisors by the Grand Jury. Staff typically prepares a draft response to the Grand Jury which is presented to your Committee. Discussion of this proposed response is scheduled for . your Committee's consideration so as to insure that the Board's response will be adopted within the 90 day statutory deadline for such responses . April 25, 1994 Attached is a copy of the Grand Jury's report on Adoptions v. Long Term Care and a copy of staff's proposed response, which is prepared in a format which has been developed over the past several years in cooperation with the Grand Jury. You may wish to ask the Social Services Director, Perfecto Villarreal, to review the proposed response with your Committee. Presumably members of the Grand Jury will be present. Following Mr. Villarreal 's presentation, you may wish to ask for comments for the members of the Grand Jury or others present. At the conclusion of all testimony, your Committee will have to determine whether the proposed response is acceptable to you and if not to direct whatever changes you wish to make. We would anticipate that your Committee's report will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors on May 3, 1994 (in the Walnut Creek City Council Chambers at 2 :00 P.M. ) . GRAND JURY STATEMENT OF 4/25/94 The Contra Costa County Grand Jury was initially very impressed with the professional-looking binder of proposed responses to Report No. 9402; we even remain impressed with some of the items included therein, such as the readable organization chart and 'the orderly manner of presentation. However, we feel we need to point out that it is disgraceful that it took a Grand Jury Report to occasion the use of even these most basic management practices., and it is a travesty that it is the children who have been the ones made to suffer while the Adoption Unit has been allowed to degenerate to the depths pointed out in the Grand Jury Report. .The subterfuge of this "binder" is just that--another attempt to hide the problems that are (and have been) going on within this Social Services' Department for many years, all the while pretending, and exhorting, that the children's best interests are being served. It is well known by the County that the Grand Jury is unable to counter publicly these so-called "facts" with the specific evidence which prompted the findings in the first place; however, it can be said that the Grand Jury findings of . fact were based on many hours of subpoenaed testimony taken from a variety of official and non-official County sources. If the statements made in this binder were true at the time the testimony was provided to the Grand Jury (rather� than subsequent to the Grand Jury report, as is suspected), then it would necessitate consultation with the District Attorney for investigation of possible perjury. In any event, we caution the 10 Committee to consider whether it may want to look into these matters more carefully, before accepting this proposed response at face value and taking it on as its own. IOC Packet 4/25/94 10 : 05 A.M. Item 1 9 94 =NT E RNAL O P E RAT 2 ON S COMM 2 TT E E REFERRAL NUMB E R 4 5 REPORT FROM THE 1993-94 GRAND JURY ON ADOPTIONS v. LONG TERM FOSTER CARE For the past several years, the Internal Operations Committee has received as referrals most of the reports filed with the Board of Supervisors by the Grand Jury. Staff typically prepares a draft response to the Grand Jury which is presented to your Committee. Discussion of this proposed response is scheduled for- your Committee' s consideration so as to insure that the Board's response will be adopted within the 90 day statutory deadline for such responses . April 25, 1994 Attached is a copy of the Grand Jury' s report on Adoptions v. Long Term Care and a copy of staff 's proposed response, which is prepared in a format which has been developed over the past several years in cooperation with the Grand Jury. You may wish to ask the Social Services Director, Perfecto Villarreal, to review the proposed response with your Committee. Presumably members of the Grand Jury will be present. Following Mr. Villarreal ' s presentation, you may wish to ask for comments for the members of the Grand Jury or others present. At the conclusion of all testimony, your Committee will- have to determine whether the proposed response is acceptable to you and if not to direct whatever changes you wish to make. We would anticipate that your Committee' s report will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors on May 3, 1994 (in the Walnut Creek City Council Chambers at 2 : 00 P.M. ) . A REPORT BY THE 1993-94 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY 1020 Ward Street Martinez, CA 94553 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYI (5io} 646-2x45 RECEIVED FFR 1 51994 Report No. 9402 OFFICE OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ADOPTION vs LONG TERM FOSTER CARE "Our Children's Welfare at Stake" oh! why does the wind blow upon me so wild?' Is it because I'm nobody's child? Nobody's Child by Phila Case Approved by the Grand Jury: Date: dith M. Mullin d Jury Foreman Accept fo ung: D e: .- RichardE..' Arnason Judge of the Superior Court SECTION 933 (C) OF THE CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE § 933. Findings and recommendations; comment of governing bodies, elective officers, or agency heads (c) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report .on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to_the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body,and every elective county officer or agency head for which the grand jury, has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, wit an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or, agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall. also comment o the findings and recommendations. All such comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file with the applicable grand jury final report by, and in the control of the currently impaneled grand jury where it shall be maintained for a minimum of five years. (Added by Stats. 1961, c. 1284, § 1. Amended by Stats. 1963, c. 674, § 6; Stats. 1974, c. 1396, § 3; Stats. 1977, c. 107, § 6, Stats. 1977, c. 187; § 1; Stats. 1980, c. 543, § 1; Stats. 1981, c. 203, § 1; Stats. 1982, c. 1408, § 5,- Stats. ,Stats. 1985, c. 221, § 1 Stats. 1987, c. 690, § 1; Stats. 1988, c. 1297, §5.) Former §, added by Stats 1982.c. 1982,c. 1408. §6,amended by Stats. 1985, c. 221, §2, operative Jan. 1, 1989, was repealed by Stats. 1987, c. 690, §2. Former §933, added by Stats. 1959,c. 501, §was repealed by Stats. 1959. C. 1812, § 3. r J; INTRODUCTION . More than two thousand children are in Contra Costa County foster care today, with the majority of these children returning to their birth parents. The case dispositions of the children who are not reunited with their parents have three possibilities: adoption, guardianship, or foster care. Long-term foster care is the most common and most expensive choice. This investigation focuses on the County Social Services Department's inability to effectively manage programs designed to objectively assess children as candidates for adoption, and to successfully place them in adoptive homes. Some findings in this report compare relevant adoption and foster care data from comparable California counties. The comparable counties have been selected on 'the basis of a minimum population of 475, 000 persons, with at least twenty percent (20%) minority population. FINDINGS 1. The Child Welfare Division and Adoption Unit was unable to substantiate claims that the Adoption Unit has experienced staff reductions in the current year's budget. The Adoption Unit remains at eleven (11) full time employees. 2. Licensed non-profit adoption agencies have additional resources available at no extra cost to the County, and qualify for an additional $3,500 in State reimbursement to assist the County in each adoption of a special-needs child. In FY 1991- 1992, such cooperative placements were only 1. 67% of the sixty (60) completed adoptions by Contra Costa County. Among fifteen (15) comparable counties, Contra Costa County ranks fourteen (14) out of fifteen (15) in the utilization of licensed non-profit adoption agencies (Exhibit A) . 3 . Adoption workers and supervisors voice inflexible attitudes toward trans-racial adoptions which work against the timely placement of minority children, and place the Department of Social Services in non-compliance with the February 13 , 1992 "All County Letter No. 92-23" (which requires a diligent search for adoptive parents of the same race) and the October 15, 1992 "All County Letter No. 92-92" (which requires adoptive placement with any suitable family, regardless of race) . 4 . No standards exist for the required Assessment of Adopt- ability of Children; leaving the adoption workers and their supervisors without objective tools to guide decision-making in the assessments. Such assessments are a critical part of court required permanency planning. 5. The Adoption Unit supervisors, managers, and directors, • as well as the executive staff in the County Administrator's Office, were unable to provide evidence that their operational environment has a clear chain of command or has even the most fundamental management structure and tools in place; e.g. a) no mission statement focusing on its basic responsibilities, b) no understandable organizational chart, c) no annual service plan, d) no measurable operational objectives, and e) no quantifiable adoption placement goals. 6. The County Social Services Department's Services Bureau lacks an adequate evaluation system, standards, or timetable to evaluate the effectiveness of its Adoption Unit's program servic- es or the performance of its employees. 7. Thirty (30) children, all of whom have been freed for adoption by the Juvenile Court, have been labeled as "Red Dot Cases" resulting in an untenable waiting period--often for years--before workers are assigned to work toward an adoptive placement. The lengthy wait requires that these children remain in long-term foster care instead of adoption. The Social Servic- es Department's explanation that this "Red Dot" identification is a result of the lack of staff resources, or workers' desires to place these children with relatives cannot be substantiated. During the course of this investigation, these "Red Dot Cases" were transferred from the Adoption Unit and the status of the adoption of these children still remains uncertain. 8. The Adoption Unit uses one full-time social worker to process step-parent adoptions at the cost of backlogged cases requiring immediate staff attention. They have not explored other options for the provision of step-parent adoptions. 9. The percentage of foster care children (after the assessment of adoptability) who were recommended to the Juvenile Court for adoption for the fiscal year ending in June 1992, was 8.46%, and ranks fifteen (15) out of fifteen (15) comparable California counties (Exhibit B) . 10. The Adoption Unit demonstrates a preference to place children in long-term foster care instead of adoption. In FY 1992-1993, ninety-three (93) children--who were legally free for adoption--were assigned to the Adoption Unit; yet the Adoption Unit did not actively seek adoptive placements for twenty-three (23) of these freed children, of whom twenty (20) remained in long-term foster care after action by the Juvenile Court. Numerous and reasonable attempts to obtain updated information from the Department of Social Services regarding the status of these children have not resulted in usable, consistent, or understandable evidence. -2- 11. Seventy-eight (78) children placed by Contra Costa County in 1992 saved $479,340 in annual foster care payments during the first year of adoptive placement. Since the average adoptive placement is fourteen (14) years in duration, the projected savings is $6.7 million on these placements alone. CONCLUSIONS 1. The County's Social Services Department's Services Bureau is poorly organized and lacks sufficient accountability to objectively assess children for adoption and to place these children in adoptive homes. 2. Implementation of a more vigorous adoption program will increase the placement of children and save the County signifi- cant tax dollars currently being spent on long-term foster care. 3. Inflexible attitudes toward trans-racial adoptions are detrimental to the timely and successful placement of children. 4 . Licensed non-profit adoption agencies are not adequately utilized for cooperative placements of children of special needs. 5. The County Social Services Department's Services Bureau's lack of systematic evaluation of services and employees does not foster performance or program accountability. 6. The absence of standards to assess the adoptability of children encourages inconsistent, subjective, and biased deci- sions that are often based on the limitations of the child welfare system, and not the best opportunities or interest of each child. RECOMMENDATIONS The usefulness of the following twelve (12) recommendations is in their strategic. and planning value, and will have little impact if implemented singularly. Accordingly, the Contra Costa County Grand Jury recommends: 1._ Within ninety (90) days, the Board of Supervisors obtain from the County Administrator a 180-day timetable and implementa- tion plan for these recommendations. 2 . Child Welfare Services have a single administrator re- porting to the Director of Social Services; responsibilities for other than child welfare services should be assigned elsewhere within the Social Services Department. This will focus account- ability. 3 . The supervisor of the Adoption Unit report directly to the Child Welfare Services Administrator. This will focus -3- accountability that is currently diluted among the three operat- ing child welfare divisions. 4 . The Adoption Unit relinquish its involvement and super- vision of all long-term foster care cases in order to focus on its basic mission of adoption. 5., The Adoption Unit develop a written, quantifiable annual service plan tied to measurable accomplishments; and the unit's and its workers' performance against this plan be closely evalu- ated within the framework of professional accountability. 6. Written standards be developed and uniformly applied for the assessment of adoptability of every -child as part of timely permanency planning recommendations to the Juvenile Court. 7. The Adoption Unit act in a timely and aggressive manner in recruiting suitable parents for every child referred to it for adoption. 8. The use of Adoption Unit personnel for step-parent adoptions be eliminated; step-parents be referred to more appro- priate public or private sources. 9. The Adoption Unit pro-actively reach out to additional private adoption agencies and build collaborative relationships that will assist in the recruitment and referral of suitable adoptive parents, thereby increasing the potential for more adop- tions each year. 10. Existing cooperative placement arrangements with these private ate adoption agencies be explored to reduce the backlog of needed home studies, and to innovatively access the $3,500 State of California placement subsidy. 11. The Adoption Unit fully comply with rules regarding "diligent search" for suitable adoptive parents of the same race; and when such a search fails within the prescribed time period, expedite the adoptive placement of the child with a suitable family regardless of race. 12. The Adoption Unit cease the informal "Red Dot" case labelling system and replace it with a formal client tracking system that assures each case is continuously monitored and adoption is expedited. COMMENTS Some County services operate in an environment of shrinking resources, but this need not be the case for improved adoption services. The long term savings in tax dollars are in the millions, and' the implementation of these recommendations will significantly enrich the lives of many hundreds of Contra Costa County children. -4- The necessary budget reductions that government faces today cannot be used as an excuse to allow children to languish in the County's child welfare and foster care limbo. Children caught in the "wait a little longer" syndrome become society's problem, and their opportunities for permanent adoptive homes become dimin- ished. Let us not allow these children to be "further victim- ized" on our watch. Action must be taken now. -5- EXHIBIT A (Cooperative Placements*) San Francisco County 29.25% San Joaquin County 19.39% Sacramento County 14.40% San Mateo County 13.95% Kern County 12.68% Orange County 11.20% Los Angeles County 5. 19% Fresno County 4.88% Santa Clara County 4. 32% Riverside County 3 .70% San Diego County 2 .58% Alameda County 2. 19% Ventura County 1.78% CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 1.67% San Bernardino County 0. 63% (*State of California Statistical Services Bureau ADOP 2 -1992 -1, Table 4C. ) -6- EXHIBIT B (Children Recommended for Adoption, After Assessment*} Santa Clara County 49. 68% San Mateo County 46. 63% San Francisco County 46. 62% Orange County 28.97% Riverside County 28.57% Ventura County 26.65% San Joaquin County 23.08% Sacramento County 20.57% Fresno County 19. 82% San Diego County 19. 22% Alameda County 18. 60% Los Angeles County 18.55% Kern County 13. 63% San Bernardino County 9.99% CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 8.460-. (*State of California Statistical Services Bureau ADOP 2- 1992 -1, Table 6. ) -7- • GRAND JURY STATEMENT OF 4/25/94 The Contra Costa County Grand Jury was initially very impressed with the professional-looking binder of proposed responses to Report No. 9402; we even remain impressed with some of the items included therein, such as the readable organization chart and the orderly manner of presentation. However, we feel we need to point out that it is disgraceful that it took a Grand Jury Report to occasion the use of even these most basic management practices., and it is a travesty that it is the children who have been the ones made to suffer while the Adoption Unit has been allowed to degenerate to the depths pointed out in the Grand Jury Report. The subterfuge of this "binder" is just that--another attempt to hide the problems that are (and have been) going on within this Social Services' Department • for many years, all the while pretending, and exhorting, that the children's best interests are being served. It is well known by the County that the Grand Jury is unable to counter publicly these so-called "facts" with the specific evidence which prompted the findings in the first place; however, it can be said that the Grand Jury findings of , fact were based on many hours of subpoenaed testimony taken from a variety of official and non-official County sources. If the statements made in this binder were true at the time the testimony was provided to the Grand Jury (rather' than subsequent to the Grand Jury report, as is suspected), then it would necessitate consultation with the District Attorney for investigation of possible perjury. In any event, we caution the IO Committee to consider whether it may want to look into these matters more carefully, before accepting this proposed response at face value and taking it on as its own. t A REPORT BY THE 1993-94 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY 1020 Ward Street Martinez, CA 94553 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY (510) 646-2345 RECEIVED FFi3 5 l99� Report No. 9402 OFFICE OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ADOPTION vs LONG TERM FOSTER CARE "Our Children's Welfare at Stake" Oh! why does the wind blow upon me so wild? Is it because I'm nobody's child? Nobody's Child by Ph.ila Case Approved by the Grand Jury: Date: dith M. Mullin d Jury Foreman Accept fo xng: Richard Ems.' Arnason Judge of the Superior Court SECTION 933 (C) OF THE CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE § 933. Findings and recommendations; comment of governing bodies, elective officers, or agency heads (c) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report .on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body,and every elective county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the.presiding judge of the superior court, wit an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall. also comment o the findings and recommendations. All such comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file with the applicable grand jury final report by, and in the control of the currently impaneled grand jury where it shall be maintained for a minimum of five years. (Added by Stats. 1961, c. 1284, § 1. Amended by Stats. 1963, c. 674, § 6, Stats. 1974, c. 1396, § 3,- Stars. ,Stats. 1977, c. 107, § 6, Stats. 1977, c. 187; § 1; Stats. 1980, c. 543, § 1; Stats. 1981, c. 203, § 1; Stats. 1982, c. 1408, § 5, Stats. 1985, c. 221, § I Stats. 1987, c. 690, § 1; Stats. 1988, c. 1297, §5.) Former §, added by Stats 1982.c. 1982,c. 1408. §6,amended by Stats. 1985, c. 221, §2, operative Jan. 1, 1989, was repealed by Stats. 1987, c. 690, §2. Former §933, added by Stats. 1959,c. 501, §was repealed by Stats. 1959. c. 1812, § 3. • INTRODUCTION . More than two thousand children are in Contra Costa County foster care today, with the majority of these children returning to their birth parents. The case dispositions of the children who are not reunited with their parents have three possibilities: adoption, guardianship, or foster care. Long-term foster care is the most common and most expensive choice. This investigation focuses on the County Social Services Department's inability to effectively manage programs designed to objectively assess children as candidates for adoption, and to successfully place them in adoptive homes. Some findings in this report compare relevant adoption and foster care data from comparable California counties. The comparable counties have been selected on the basis of a minimum population of 475,000 persons, with at least twenty percent (20%) minority population. FINDINGS 1. The Child Welfare Division and Adoption Unit was unable to substantiate claims that the Adoption Unit has experienced staff reductions in the current year's budget. The Adoption Unit • remains at eleven (11) full time employees. 2. Licensed non-profit adoption agencies have additional resources available at no extra cost to the County, and qualify for an additional $3,500 in State reimbursement to assist the County in each adoption of a special-needs child. In FY 1991- 1992, such cooperative placements were only 1.67% of the sixty (60) completed adoptions by Contra Costa County. Among fifteen (15) comparable counties, Contra Costa County ranks fourteen (14) out of fifteen (15) in the utilization of licensed non-profit adoption agencies (Exhibit A) . 3. Adoption workers and supervisors voice inflexible attitudes toward trans-racial adoptions which work against the timely placement of minority children, and place the Department of Social Services in non-compliance with the February 13, 1992 "All County Letter No. 92-23" (which requires a diligent search for adoptive parents of the same race) and the October 15, 1992 "All County Letter No. 92-92" (which requires adoptive placement with any suitable family, regardless of race) . 4. No standards exist for the required Assessment of Adopt- ability of Children; leaving the adoption workers and their supervisors without objective tools to guide decision-making in the assessments. Such assessments are a critical part of court required permanency planning. • 5. The Adoption Unit supervisors, managers, and directors, • as well as the executive staff in the County Administrator's Office, were unable to provide evidence that their operational environment has a clear chain of command or has even the most fundamental management structure and tools in place; e.g. a) no mission statement focusing on its basic responsibilities, b) no understandable organizational chart, c) no annual service plan, d) no measurable operational objectives, and e) no quantifiable adoption placement goals. 6. The County Social Services Department's Services Bureau lacks an adequate evaluation system, standards, or timetable to evaluate the effectiveness of its Adoption Unit's program servic- es or the performance of its employees. 7. Thirty (30) children, all of whom have been freed for adoption by the Juvenile Court, have been labeled as "Red Dot Cases" resulting in an untenable waiting period--often for years--before workers are assigned to work toward an adoptive placement. The lengthy wait requires that these children remain in long-term foster care instead of adoption. The Social Servic- es Department's explanation that this "Red Dot" identification is a result of the lack of staff resources, or workers' desires to place these children with relatives cannot be substantiated. During the course of this investigation, these "Red Dot Cases" were transferred from the Adoption Unit and the status of the adoption of these children still remains uncertain. 8. The Adoption Unit uses one full-time social worker to process step-parent adoptions at the cost of backlogged cases requiring immediate staff attention. They have not explored other options for the provision of step-parent adoptions. 9. The percentage of foster care children (after the assessment of adoptability) who were recommended to the Juvenile Court for adoption for the fiscal year ending in June 1992, was 8.46%, and ranks fifteen (15) out of fifteen (15) comparable California counties (Exhibit B) . 10. The Adoption Unit demonstrates a preference to place children in long-term foster care instead of adoption. In FY 1992-1993 , ninety-three (93) children--who were legally free for adoption--were assigned to the Adoption Unit; yet the Adoption Unit did not actively seek adoptive placements for twenty-three (23) of these freed children, of whom twenty (20) remained in long-term foster care after action by the Juvenile Court. Numerous and reasonable attempts to obtain updated information from the Department of Social Services regarding the status of these children have not resulted in usable, consistent, or understandable evidence. -2- 11. Seventy-eight (78) children placed by Contra Costa County in 1992 saved $479,340 in annual foster care payments during the first year of adoptive placement. Since the average adoptive placement is fourteen (14) years in duration, the projected savings is $6.7 million on these placements alone. CONCLUSIONS 1. The County's Social Services Department's Services Bureau is poorly organized and lacks sufficient accountability to objectively assess children for adoption and to place these children in adoptive homes. 2. Implementation of a more vigorous adoption program will increase the placement of children and save the County signifi- cant tax dollars currently being spent on long-term foster care. 3. Inflexible attitudes toward trans-racial adoptions are detrimental to the timely and successful placement of children. 4 . Licensed non-profit adoption agencies are not adequately utilized for cooperative placements of children of special needs. 5. The County Social Services Department's Services Bureau's lack of systematic evaluation of services and employees does not foster performance or program accountability. 6. The absence of standards to assess the adoptability of children encourages inconsistent, subjective, and biased deci- sions that are often based on the limitations of the child welfare system, and not the best opportunities or interest of each child. RECOMMENDATIONS The usefulness of the following twelve (12) recommendations is in their strategic and planning value, and will have little impact if implemented singularly. Accordingly, the Contra Costa County Grand Jury recommends: 1.. Within ninety (90) days, the Board of Supervisors obtain from the County Administrator a 180-day timetable and implementa- tion plan for these recommendations. 2. Child Welfare Services have a single administrator re- porting to the Director of Social Services; responsibilities for other than child welfare services should be assigned elsewhere within the Social Services Department. This will focus account- ability. 3. The supervisor of the Adoption Unit report directly to the Child Welfare Services Administrator. This will focus -3- accountability that is currently diluted among the three operat- ing child welfare divisions. 4 . The Adoption Unit relinquish its involvement and super- vision of all long-term foster care cases in order to focus on its basic mission of adoption. 5., The Adoption Unit develop a written, quantifiable annual service plan tied to measurable accomplishments; and the unit's and its workers' performance against this plan be closely evalu- ated within the framework of professional accountability. 6. Written standards be developed and uniformly applied for the assessment of adoptability of every child as part of timely permanency planning recommendations to the Juvenile Court. 7. The Adoption Unit act in a timely and aggressive manner in recruiting suitable parents for every child referred to it for adoption. 8. The use of Adoption Unit personnel for step-parent adoptions be eliminated; step-parents be referred to more appro- priate public or private sources. 9. The Adoption Unit pro-actively reach out to additional private adoption agencies and build collaborative relationships that will assist in the recruitment and referral of suitable adoptive parents, thereby increasing the potential for more adop- tions each year. 10. Existing cooperative .placement arrangements with these private adoption agencies be explored to reduce the backlog of needed home studies, and to innovatively access the $3,500 State of California placement subsidy. 11. The Adoption Unit fully comply with rules regarding "diligent search" for suitable adoptive parents of the same race; and when such a search fails within the prescribed time period, expedite the adoptive placement of the child with a suitable family regardless of race. 12. The Adoption Unit cease the informal "Red Dot" case labelling system and replace it with a formal client tracking system that assures each case is continuously monitored and adoption is expedited. COMMENTS Some County services operate in an environment of shrinking resources, but this need not be the case for improved adoption services. The long term savings in tax dollars are in the millions, and the implementation of these recommendations will significantly enrich the lives of many hundreds of Contra Costa County children. -4- The necessary budget reductions that government faces today • cannot be used as an excuse to allow children to languish in the County's child welfare and foster care limbo. Children caught in the "wait a little longer" syndrome become society's problem, and their opportunities for permanent adoptive homes become dimin- ished. Let us not allow these children to be "further victim- ized" on our watch. Action must be taken now. -5- EXHIBIT A • (Cooperative Placements*) San Francisco County 29.25% San Joaquin County 19.39% Sacramento County 14.40% San Mateo County 13.95% Kern County 12.68% Orange County 11.20% Los Angeles County 5.19% Fresno County 4.88% Santa Clara County 4.32% Riverside County 3 .70% • San Diego County 2.58% Alameda County 2. 19% Ventura County 1.78% CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 1.67% San Bernardino County 0. 63% (*State of California Statistical Services Bureau ADOP 2 -1992 -1, Table 4C. ) • -6- EXHIBIT B (Children Recommended for Adoption, After Assessment*) Santa Clara County 49.68% San Mateo County 46.63% San Francisco County 46. 62% Orange County 28.97% Riverside County 28.57% Ventura County 26.65% San Joaquin County 23. 08% Sacramento County 20.570 Fresno County 19.82% San Diego County 19.22% Alameda County 18. 60% Los Angeles County 18. 55% Kern County 13.63% San Bernardino County 9.99% CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 8.46% (*State of California Statistical. Services Bureau ADOP 2- 1992 -1, Table 6. ) -7- RESPONSE TO THE 1993m94 CONTRA GRAND JURY REPORT 9402 rtii:�,sc`�i.,iarls.L ''[�' ,,., w's.,. a4n:� t�. •t1���'•.tr^��;.''i -t>:-'��'�.a.2.Z..5�.�'�.4Aa.,;. _f;:-" ,ti:- `'rte- ;�- �4:,...nl .;C ;i.vF � �:;7 _ ="Wtive Outcomes for Dependent Childtvn M Rounnemon Guar •S4 f : I /, i, �Fyy � Wilarreal ±�y Social `Y• 'i Y /' / /..' r,w1 './. / , ff 0. /: .'J W':.J. • TABLE OF CONTENTS Section I. Response to the 1993-94 Contra Costa County Grand Jury Report No. 9402 II. Tables 1 through 6 III. Manual Sections IV. Contra Costa County Social Services Department Adult & Children's Services and Area Agency on Aging Organization Chart V. Children's Services Bureau Mission Statement VI. Performance Planning Team Review VII. All County Letters 92-23 & 92-92 VIII. Adoption Yardsticks • IX. Employee Performance Evaluation X. Representative County Permanent Placement Assessment Forms • • PREFACE The Center for the Future of Children, a project of the David and Lucille Packard Foundation, publishes an academic journal on children's issues. The Spring, 1993 publication The Future of Children. Adoptionfocuses on adoption. The following quotations from this source illustrate some important points about adoption services. Each quotation is followed by a factual statement reflecting the current situation in Contra Costa County. The editorial board for The Future of Children is an impressive group of scholars from prestigious universities such as Stanford; University of California, Berkeley and Harvard. Contributors to the journal include nationally known leaders in the field as well as academic researchers. A copy of the frontispiece to this publication is included in the Appendix under "Resource". ► "Linking family preservation and adoption efforts will lead to more timely and effective outcomes for children, be they reunification, extended family placement, and/or adoption." ' of Contra Costa County's strong Family Preservation Program has returned 85% of dependent children home. Extended family placements have increased 349% in • the past ten years from 246 dependent children placed with relatives in 1984 to 1,105 children in 1993. The number of children placed for adoption almost doubled from 1989-1993 (from 48 to 87). ► "In a public child welfare system of services to families where neglect and abuse are extreme and, sometimes, unresolvable risks, adoption programs are critically important. ....implementing plans of adoption takes much longer than other permanency plans such as return home or placement with relatives. ....the average time from entering foster care before adoption is achieved ranges from 3.5 to 5.5 years." 2 of In Contra Costa County the average time from entering foster care to adoption is 52 months (4.4 years). ► "Adoption is a labor intensive service, including both casework and technical procedures.... It is not unusual for the adoption phase of the work to take a ' "Adaption of Children with Special Needs,"by Judah K.McKenzie,MSW,Exewhtive Director of Spaulding for children,ink. National Resource Cel for Special Needs Adoptions,in The Future of(hlldrm Ceder for the Future of Children,Tho David and UdDe Peduwd Foundd ion,Vol.3,No. l--Spring 1993,page 74. • 2 The Future of Children.fljk,pap 67. - 1 - minimum of a year, often longer." S • ,/ Contra Costa County completes all adoptions in as timely a fashion as possible, but completing an adoption in less than twelve months is unusual. In Contra Costa County careful preparation for adoption has resulted in a high rate of adaptive placement successes and a vefy low rate of adoption disruptions(about one a year, on average). ► 'The single most dominant feature of the special needs adoptive family is that the vast majority of them have been foster parents first" ` "Foster parent adoption should be seen as an excellent avenue toward permanency and should receive more emphasis and aggressive promotion." s "Adoption by foster parents consistently predicts reduced risk." • J In Contra Costa County foster parents frequently adopt their foster children. Twenty-fourfosterfamiliesadopted children in placement in FY 9992-93. Nineteen foster families adopted their foster children in FY 1991-92. ► "Financial adoption subsidies may be the single most important post-adoptive service for special needs families." 7 d Contra Costa County funds 341 on-going adoption subsidies for children who have been adopted through our agency (as of September 1993). This is a growing • population. ► In Fiscal Year 1991-92 California public agencies completed 3,847 adoptions while private agencies completed 550.3 2590 of Contra Costa County children placed for adoption were placed with families provided by private and other public agencies in FY 1991-92. Many private agencies do not develop adoptive homes that meet the special needs of dependent children. The FWm of Children.bA pW 68. ` Th*Future of Children.M patio 71. ° The Futuro of Children.M patio 73. ° 'Outman*of Adoption of Children with Special Needs-by Jame*A.Roaontlal,Ph.D.,Associate Professor at the School of Social Work,u0melty of Oakiahoma,in s,patio 81. r The Futuro of ChUren.M,page 77. ° FWure*Atom CalNomia State Department of social services statiftal section handout to CWDA Children's Regiomi • Commiltee,prepared by Joe McOruder. 2 RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY RECOMMENDATIONS Grand Jtmt Reo2mmendpt1,: Within 90 days the Board of Supervisors obtain from the County Administrator a 180-day timetable and implementation pian for these recommendations. The Board of Supervisors thanks the Grand .fury for their concern for children and endorses the Social Service Departments recommendations (see page 9)which will be implemented as expeditiously as possible after consultation with the Juvenile Court Judge in the following areas: ► preadoptive planning ► expanded home studies ► training ► team building ► Board of Supervisors' definition of positive outcomes for children The Board of Supervisors shares the concern of the Grand Jury for children in Contra Costa County. Consistent with the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Budget Committee, the Board of Supervisors has made children a high priority when allocating very limited budget resources. Over the past two years, the state seized • more than $99 million of County revenues. Prior to FY 1991-1992, the County received 24% of property taxes generated in Contra Costa County. We now receive only 13%. Losses of this magnitude have required the Board of Supervisors to cut many valuable services and programs which the Board historically supported through local revenues which no longer exist. Under state law, the State of California has responsibility for allocating funding for adoption services. For FY 1993-1994,the state only allocated$443,549 to Contra r Costa County. Recognizing the importance of adoption services, the Board of Supervisors augmented this allocation by an additional $305,016. The Board of Supervisors hopes the Grand Jury joins with them in urging the State of California to fuller fund adoption services. Grand Juni Reco nmendeftn 2: Child Welfare Services have a single administrator reporting to the Director of Social Services; responsibilities for other than child welfare services should be assigned elsewhere within the Social Services Department. This will focus accountability. Response: Child Welfare Services has a single administrator reporting to the Director of Social Services. Mrs. Yvonne Bullock, Assistant County Welfare Director, administers the Services Bureau which includes Child Welfare and Adult Services. • 3 - • Contra Costa County Social Service Department is organized similarly to other Bay Area counties. (See Table 1.) Of the 15 counties with whom the Grand Jury compared Contra Costa County, all counties had program managers with multiple responsibilities except Los Angeles County, which because of its size had an Adoption Division Manager dedicated solely to their adoption program. In the past four years Contra Costa County Social Service Department has lost 43% of its administrative support due to budget cuts. Therefore, assistant directors and division managers must administer several different programs. Grand Jwv Recommendation S: The supervisor of the Adoption Unit report directly to the Child Welfare Services Administrator. This will focus accountability that is currently diluted among the three operating child welfare divisions. Response: Accountability is not diluted in the Contra Costa County adoption program. The supervisor of the Adoption Unit reports directly to one Division Manager whose sole resoonsibilitX is Child Welfare Services. Linda J. Waddington, LCSW, Division Manager in charge of the county adoptions program has twenty-four years of child welfare experience. She worked for the State of Wisconsin adoption and permanency planning program for ten years, ending her tenure there as Chief of Adoption and Permanent Planning for the Madison Regional Office of the Division of Community Services. She has worked for Contra Costa County for fourteen years as a child welfare manager. She has • managed the Contra Costa County adoption unit since February 1991. Ms. Waddington reports directly to Mrs. Bullock. Grand Jury ReconymndaUon 4: The Adoption Unit relinquish its involvement and supervision of all long-tern foster care cases in order to focus on its basic mission of adoption. Re§g2 g: The Adoption Unit does not supervise any long term foster care cases. All long-term foster care cases are routinely returned to district offices if adoption is no longer the plan. (However, state statistical tables still attribute these cases to the Adoption Unit if the child has been legally freed, even though service is rendered through another unit.) QMnd Jwv Recommert kOm 6: The Adoption Unit develop a written quantifiable annual service plan tied to measurable accomplishments; and the unit's and its workers' performance against this plan be closely evaluated within the framework of professional accountability. Rest: The Adoption Unit completes a required annual state service plan (The Adoption Yardstick). Since 1990 the Adoption Unit has consistently out- performed the plan expectations. Records from the annual on-site review by the • state show complete compliance with Title 22 regulations. Since the annual - 4 - Adoption Yardstick is a technical document, the Department will reformat the • information into an annual narrative service plan to facilitate understanding of the annual state service pian. Grand Jwv Re enda*m 6: Written standards be developed and uniformly applied for the assessment of adoptability of every child as part of timely permanency planning recommendations to the Juvenile Court. e nse: Written standards implemented years ago continue to be used for assessment of adoptability in accordance with state law requirements. Manual sections(300-400/1 and 400/3)describe the process and procedure for assessing the adoptability of every child who is required to have permanency planning recommendations made to the court. Grand Jwv Recornme f m 7: The Adoption Unit act in a timely and aggressive manner in recruiting suitable parents for every child referred to it for adoption. R`: Contra Costa County's Adoption Unit recruits aggressively and in a timely manner for every child referred to it for adoption. By statute, relatives and foster parents must be considered first when planning an adoption for a child. Some children have several relatives and/or foster parents who wish to adopt. In those cases, the county assesses the home of each prospective adoptive family. • While very time consuming, it is done to achieve the best placement for the child. Children are not freed for adoption until an adoptive home has been studied, approved and selected for them. When a child does not have a relative or foster parent available to adopt him/her, then adoptive homes studied and pre-approved by this agency are reviewed for the child. This accelerates the adoption process. State regulations require the placing agency to supervise the placement at least six months before recommending to the court that the adoption be finalized. Grand Jwv Recommendatbn 8: The use of Adoption Unit personnel for step-parent adoptions be eliminated; step-parents be referred to more appropriate public or private sources. Resperose: Contra Costa County does not use regular Adoption Unit social workers for step-parent adoptions. Several years ago Contra Costa County hired a contract worker to do all step-parent adoptions,thereby freeing up other adoption staff to do other duties. Step-parent adoptions must be referred to either the County Social Service Department or the Probation Department as required by statute. Other public or private agencies are not legally able to process step-parent adoptions. • - 5 - G_ RecommendoWn 9: The Adoption Unit reach out to additional private • adoption agencies and build collaborative relationships that will assist in the recruitment and referral of suitable adoptive parents, thereby increasing the potential for more adoptions each year. Re nse: Contra Costa County's Adoption staff use private agencies when they have an appropriate available home for a spec child who is in need of a home. However, historically, public agencies have placed far more children for adoption than Private agencies, and this trend is continuing. California Adoptions Type of Adoption FY 87-88 FY 92-93 Percent Change Agency Adoptions 2642 4157 + 57.3% Public Agencies 2174 3688 + 69.6% Private Agencies 469 468 - 0.2% Independent Adoptions 2537 2198 - 13.4% Intercountry Adoptions 493 230 - 53.3% • TOTALS 5672 6585 + 16.1% Ethnicity of Children Placed by Public Agencies9 FY87-88 FY92-93 Percent Change White 1032 1294 + 25.4% Hispanic 625 1023 + 63.7% Black 390 1091 + 179.7% Other 127 280 + 120.5% TOTALS 2174 3688 + 69.6% 'CaMomia State Department of Social Services-Statistical Section-.loseph McGruder Notes: Hispanic=both birth parents Hispanic or one birth parent Hispanic and other birth parent white • Black=both birth parents black or one birth parent black and other birth parent white Other=any other combination(e.g.,one Hispanic parent,one black parent) - 6 - • An example of Contra Costa County's proactive adoptive placement activities is the significant number of cooperative adoptive placements done with private and other public agencies. In FY 1992-1993 Contra Costa County placed a total of 25 (29%) children in cooperative adoptive placements: FY 91-92 FY 92-93 ► Black Adoption Placement Center, Oakland - 4 3 ► AASK (in Alameda County) - 2 5 ► Adoption Horizons (in Humboldt County) - 0 1 ► State of Califomia Adoption Program - 3 3 ► Sierra Adoptions (in Nevada County) 1 0 ► Other county agency adoptive homes - 4 4 ► Other state agency adoptive homes (relatives) - 1 9 TOTAL_ 15 25 In FY 1991-1992 Contra Costa County ranked 6th out of the 15 counties compared by the Grand Jury, when 25% of all placements were cooperative placements. (See also Tables 3 and 4) Grand Jury Recommendation 10: Existing cooperative placement arrangements with these private adoption agencies be explored to reduce the backlog of needed home • studies, and to innovatively access the $3,500 State of California placement subsidy. Response: Contra Costa County has used private agencies in the past to home study foster parents or relatives who are waiting to adopt a child placed with them. This process turned out to be more time consuming than doing the home studies in-house and consequently, not in the best interest of the child. Currently, all waiting foster families and relative care givers have been assigned for adoption home study within the Contra Costa County adoption program. Grand Jury Recommendation 11: The Adoption Unit fully comply with rules regarding "diligent search"for suitable adoptive parents of the same race; and when such a search fails within the prescribed time period, expedite the adoptive placement of the child with a suitable family regardless of race. Response: The Grand Jury's recommendation agrees with the Department's current policy and procedure described in DSS Manual Section 30-305.5 which has been reviewed and approved by the state DSS. This manual section details the provisions of Civil Code 275 which mandate child welfare agencies to place dependent children with relatives whenever possible and with foster/adoptive parents of the same racial or ethnic identification as the child if a relative • placement is not in the child's best interests. However, the child's needs are - 7 - paramount. While rating extremely high in priority, race and culture are not the only basis for placement decisions. The total spectrum of a child's needs must be evaluated and priority given to the most compelling need. Grand Jwv RQvommendAm 12: The Adoption Unit cease the informal "Red Dot" case labelling system and replace it with a formal client tracking system that assures each case is continuously monitored and adoption is expedited. Res„-_onse: The Contra Costa County Adoption Unit has ceased the "Red Dot" case labelling system. All old "Red Dot" cases are currently assigned for home study and each case is continuously monitored and tracked through the system until the adoption is completed. We are proud of the excellent adoption services provided in our county and point to our low failure rate (2.7%)* in adoptive placements as one significant measure of our quality work. *25 children failed adoptive placements from 1976 to 1994 during which time 910 children were placed for adoption. • • 8 - • SOCIAL SERVICE DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS The Social Service Department believes that every system can be improved. With the best interests of the child in mind, Contra Costa County Department of Social Services recommends: ► Pre-adoptive Planning - That the Social Service Department accelerate the processes of family preservation and adoption planning, beginning pre-adoptive planning if a family refuses family preservation services at the onset of a case. Birth parents should be told initially that adoption is a possible consequence of their child's placement. • Expanded Nome Studies - That the Adoptions Unit increase its coordination with the Foster Care Licensing Unit by expanding its adoption home studies to include foster care license applicants interested in becoming adoptive parents. This would allow children with a high likelihood of adoption to be placed in foster care with the adoptive family, reducing disruption in the child's life. • Trainin - That foster parents and adoptive parents be trained together in programs emphasizing permanent planning. • • Team-Building - That the Social Service Department strengthen the foster parent/care giver relative team with birth parents, emphasizing the importance of care givers to the child, the birth parents and the agency in making long-term plans for the child. Effective team management will lead to more open adoption planning and/or greater support of the reunification plan. Definition of Positive Outcomes - That the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors publicly recognize that in addition to adoption, reunification with the birth families, extended family placement and guardianship are also positive outcomes for dependent children of the Juvenile Court. • - 9 - ANALYSIS OF GRAND JURY ALLEGATIONS Alienation 1: The Child Welfare Division and Adoption Unit was unable to substantiate claims that the Adoption Unit has experienced staff reductions in the current year's budget. The Adoption Unit remains at eleven (11)full-time employees. Fla The Adopt-on Unit has 8.5 full-time equivalent positions: one supervisor, two clerks; 5.5 MSW Social Workers.. An MSW Social Worker position was bast in December 1992. Additionally, three MSW Social Workerselected to permanently reduce tiherr hours or to take voluntary furlough time off in 1993 and 1994 to assist with the budget deficit, as permitted by the Board of Supervisors. These actions reduced staff by 1.5 FTEs.. This reduces the actual number of MSW Social Workers from 7 to 5.5 ETES. Contra Costa County's .Adoption Unit has fearer workers than other counties even though Contra Costa County added $246>£53 of its own funds to the state's budget allocation in FY 1992.93. (See Tables 1 & 2) Abegallon Licensed non-profit adoption agencies have additional resources available at no extra cost to the County, and qualify for an additional $3,500 in State reimbursement to assist the County in each adoption of a special-needs child. In FY 1991-1992, such cooperative placements were only 1.67% of sixty (60) completed • adoptions by Contra Costa County. Among fifteen (15) comparable counties, Contra Costa County ranks fourteen(14)out of fifteen(15)in the utilization of licensed non-profit adoption agencies. `: 25%of Contra Costa°s 60 completed adoptions in FY 1991-1992 were made using cooperative placements with other agencies, placing us 6th on the list of 15 counties used by The Grand ,fury to compare Contra Costa County, (See Table 3 and Table 4). In 1=Y 1992-93, the County increasers its cooperative placements. The number of placements by agency were: FY 91-92 y k-93 AASK (Alameda Gounty) 2 5 Adoption Honzons (iia Humboldt County) o 1 SAPRC (Agameda County) 4 3 Mata of California Adoptions Program 3 3 Sierra Adoptions (ire Nevada County) 1 0 Other county agencies 4 4 Other state agency adoptive homes 1 9 T_ = 15 adoptive 25 adoptive placements placements • - 10 - • Allegation 3: Adoption workers and supervisors voice inflexible attitudes toward trans- racial adoptions which work against the timely placement of minority children, and place the Department of Social Services in non-compliance with the February 13, 1992 "All County Letter No. 92-23" (which requires a diligent search for adoptive parents of the same race) and the October 15, 1992 "All County Letter No. 92-92" (which requires adoptive placement with any suitable family, regardless of race). Fact, Contra Costa County is in compliance vuith ACS. 92-23 arid 92-92. The State Department of Social Services(DE53SI annually rdi iev s Contra Costa County for compliance. Written records of Department of Socia!Services from I 990 to the present show scubstantial compliance with Title XXII Regulations.. See Table 5). Co4nVa Costa County has an established process to ensure that children are plaaced in situations best suited to their individual ne.-ds. Vvhen a st;.Rable.Matching horne is not available within 90 days through;contra Costa 'County's o,vn. adoption resources, an aooptave family is immed-}afely sought frog": otrier .garde' through ay Area Supe"i"visors of Adoptions �"i'i+�i• ;l?k g ai��i?��t"1C�]r� aggressive recruitment through Sham's Kids(Channel 5 program)and inflora'nal r c"t--orking i ads;;en Contra Costa County ar".' other ageric:is~s. 25% of our children in F*Y 1991-92 and 294; in FY 1992-1993 found adaptive place-ments using these sesourc.�s. The majority of the chifdren `m place for adoption are r Jr,-Can-An-,ea'ican from very- disadvantaged backgrounds. Soryie children nay wait longer, for, placement because the; have special madic-al needs., are mer fibers ., a sibling group; are developmentally delayed or,ernotionaRy disturbed, It is'ue'ry junfortunate, but true, that there may be no appropriate family of 2a ra eaa from any, 11 a i[ornia agency for sorr, -chiloran for many niorlths. Other adoptive placeniemts are delayed. du--e to legal appeals by parents or other family men,,ioars or faster parents. Allegation 4: No standards exist for the required Assessment of Adoptability of Children; leaving the adoption workers and their supervisors without objective tools to guide decision-making in the assessments. Such assessments are a critical part of court required permanency planning. Fact: The starid«rds for the assessmant of adoptability are defined in the Children's Services Manual, Sections 30-40011 and 30-40913 as as in a depa.rl.mental memo describing the PPIAdoption lewd-ew Te—am dated Decembaer 29. 1939. issued by Dose Manning, thele AssistarA Direactor. A arm used durinf. the assessment, DC 1'1; is filed in the child's case; folder as Vrell as Kept by the Adoption Supervisor and the Children's Ser vices Division Wianagar in etch district office. Copies of the manual sections, the memo and the form are attached. See also Table 1 for a ccomparison of 15 California colli ies standards for the • tassessi a,ei tt for adoption. - 11 - • Allegation 5: The Adoption Unit supervisors, managers, and directors as well as the executive staff of the County Administrator's Office were unable to provide evidence that their operational environment has a clear chain of command or even the most fundamental management structure and tools in place; e.g. a. no mission statement focusing on its basic responsibilities b. no understandable organizational chart C. no annual service plan d. no measurable operational objectives e. no quantifiable adoption goals Fact$ The Deprrtmeaffs chain of command, relativtc; to the Adoption Unit is as follows, Director -->.Assistant€ i ectorfor Services Bureau >Division Manager for ,adoptions: Adoption Supervisor -> Adoption 'A for€ger a. The Department dieveloped a Nfiss€on St.0 ment for C."hilc€ren'9 .ces to IF 989. A copy is attached. The Mission Stat ment -Inarly indicates our mission v011e. acro riplished by "providlrtg same, q€ga€y substitute care- in the least Eos€rlctiv . rrio.st farnily-like setting virhssn the child's sdJ`ety cannot be ensured In their ov-,,P home." • b. An organizatio€rvr chart is attached.. We', Defil'eve it is clear and understari42o ble,. I C, An annual services plan for adoptions is submitted to ffie .sn:�-%,te. It is cailed "the Adoption `yardstick". A cape of the 1993 yardstick is attached. I Operational objectives are cor"€'t. Pned in the star's annual r"eview (attached.) and in the Adoption Yardstick. e. Quantifiable adoption"goals"are not appropriate beyond the goal of placing 100% of children in situations best suited to their individual .seeds. As explained before, some children have special needs, are mer hers at sibling groups; are developmentally oelaved or emotionally disturt-ed. Our goal is the r€� pla€.,ernent for each child, nol ac€neve€nenr or arbivar r placement numbers. • - 12 - AI_legadon 6: The County Social Service Department's Services Bureau lacks an • adequate evaluation system, standards, or timetable to evaluate the effectiveness of its Adoption Unit's program services or the performance of its employees. )I,« i�Pt.,e:.Av .� �i%ti C���!E:�,� r.Y��kt� �Z.J!Il"� f1 ;j L•a � �.It ! �i f;>�: ! t't+ it L`'� .rn :.-, �•�� ' 3_\f. t"FJF G { r fit 9V 5 '"i6a AEEa(rt {`i 7 c',v�z,t , �•f;�:. 163 r .rl>�t:.a . !�u J 1 , w{or f3`. 4(t ,1.;:1 {i 4y:{ 16 e• )�r].t... j),� l c. _�C�! .,. C:s \Y 'G!, 5.r�ii;�'i`ik{� C\d t;v.x.��lr;: rrY� �f� N°I'•"-"t, � 5:Y :'� v' t � <� �'r�`�:1�r L s'£ i is Allegation 7: Thirty (30) children, all of whom have been freed for adoption by the Juvenile Court, have been labeled as "Red Dot Cases" resulting in an untenable waiting period--often foryears--beforeworkers are assigned to work toward adoptive placement. The lengthy wait requires that these children remain in long-term foster care instead of adoption. The Social Services Department's explanation that this"Red Dot"identification is a result of the lack of staff resources, or workers' desires to place these children with relatives cannot be substantiated. During the course of this investigation, these"Red Dot Cases" were transferred from the Adoption Unit and the status of the adoption of these children still remains uncertain. ''y 1"�I i �d.5 5 s-/a F._ \ er 1 F' >�e $(.r � v r,� r ^2 G "'r "� � A y r'C`. t t } I C x rr+• /�.1.:,�.r_j. fi-'<:. :1.. }�.w:r:} 43k�t,e,..,,.<rt�.•�, .+.,. .a < �$Y,��.djT `'$>s�, ri,2'i.�'.�I.ft�.. � E`j. ��Af+,ay. t�'Irf,.� � .,;zi:? .";�re!�r£^ "r ��:i' ,��,�_•^• �.k �t�i'� i5.,�.:.�,. $�C�bf"CFrL`..a1 r�,, L•' iNlxil��rfyl ll�. ��$�'9���'lm!�' ji%If e;�__i.�v �" G`�)',.. V�.� n`��3..�'Fb't.rt:fi• t*•.{ i,,, jl f 'C-} F: as"5. €•{Y,<`- S •:r FA j �j 4 Fes. i. L t 3 �' � f': <}`;;i < .3. ( /.�; �,.a.:3'biSirrl� �'..� i..,� att+, tri cc !E �<, tst •:.rf„�,_e' �t=.\.:, i�\r ...,sa{moi:• '14�t'c. i..� �i.� {':II�i>.,. .... t�,.6 �J'F. r' �;:�. s`: 1 dr. "{ f.s F •'C Biog i�r. e r 't';) i}, L.1 r.�.�b� t v{. : 3• ,_A�r+ i Fi.', [ t''fi- ri:..' " csil a)i once'. E n ri'C t`i- \•� �t� r.= (� $ £: (� R. aF (.._r rE., It l�'. \w F f" P ;" r •n t 5,14 - G i it= i. rrr.` �.c • Cpl t 3 *vt. Y' lF'jj_t�\ cs�CjF��Es-i7j t�d i�$ � Ij:ri rCr C.�Y CE- $j t'lT �c•'.tj`i Ch-�t {Y�."Ir j���l ♦l r C�: "l'•aa Y°( C F+ / /•r /,r' F r ^_seg a r 17 f 4 1`' r..iE;£ �1,s7, .. ��C7$s<'£�Ftf �<I�s)L'i:t r., «E1`?; ` >E? . r 1 j Dnn �a-c,.<,� s" `vv�-s, not hh r`iy.C.'; 4 e i { C,- trr•-, [Ad .'\+''£ 1 t'',k=I�4 �' t ��..z ,.rA, v r. Lyrirr',:...r.r �) 5� f.st�F$� '� r.J. {•1'v :.kf.w .-t .11.t,t..,�i :�. A. ,{`j .t•, '1� a fid.: as 'u- : vt,r t t rs F { i[ 11C 4r( t S�•,•;;t I i S j G£ k ja *t.,F rt vaf' IIrF.,< \r j{ "e�t t 6I z =:G?4i, lylj+�.e A:C♦ G ams E '� �(i�;,k �-.. d-.A�-F.a ;E�< \.ri.:�.t�<.: .Q;�GI,.;C o-A Cds ._il Nof „ ,?' C{ l C t }.Y ♦ Psl(�S y{ `5 "FIC✓ CJn ll,l %,,ya {L vitF {.r:,:i..L t'1`i£�ir:jtllc �C ri<..Fy i-1 '_-^i:;<: C .re:1.94 .3T Lt!jfiJ�.%r��i{`.:ul,(..-•Isj`...I I`>' rd.5..r?r "i s. 1}r 2`{{ :aH,..,ars 1f•,.: �.,c�.�r�t:•a: sl f•(:7 '•.ba ,,rr...r. to an �s r-,1 } 'j; snr- r� Mfr fi�}( rl`..�1 F��.),'L vs4:�:l�Ca`� "3:$•.:: C`r��s...�l.�k.� 7�F 'r.1".a!- L:iC%l�ls:,$-Ft� .11r:+��"�Vv� :,��: £ l'�I:1�Q4. .:S r.P�_.c..,• �:/=1('n'jF X41��` rt,l- ! /TF{� � ��Fi_`t Fri }/ hF-.�-..i /" �'i {, ��� (-`•f} �l t` I�u f <tY ( '.) ( r! } II fi�l:� '%'t:;•._,_ ;£:_ _ r ..t! ?y �i$:_� fl<!$�irtrtvv% $i t$�•rf gloAation 8: The Adoption Unit uses one full-time social worker to process step-parent adoptions at the cost of backlogged cases requiring immediate staff attention. They have not explored other options for the provision of step-parent adoptions. Fact: The Department does not use one full-time Social Worker to process step- parent adoptions. The Adoption Unit uses a part-time con. worker to process step-parent adoptions, There is no b..�of these cases. The contract worker completes six to seven step-parent adoption home studies a month. Under the Welfare & Institutions Code, there are only two options for step-parent adoptions, the Probation Department and Department of Social Services. The Welfare & Institutions Code does not provide for the processing of step-parent adoption cases by private agencies. Aj, : The percentage of foster care children(after the assessment of adoptability) who were recommended to the Juvenile Court for adoption for the fiscal year ending in June 1992, was 8.46% and ranks fifteen (15) out of fifteen (15) comparable California counties. _: If the number of children recommended for adaption is compared with the number of children actually adopted: Centra Costa County ranks 6th among the 15 counties. Ninety-five percent of Contra Costa County's children recommended for adoption were actually .adopted ire FY 1991-92. (See "fable 6) • Of the "745 assessments completed, a large percentage of children were placed with relatives who declined to adopt (many for financial reasons) and a sizable percentage of children returned home. The raw data for the Grand Jury's allegation is derived from Table 6 in the Adoptio,ns in California annual statistical report. Percentages were developed by the Grand Jury. The figures in Table 6 are relatively meaningless because counties are reporting different administrative actions, e.g.: grange and San Diego Counties report a huge number of pending cases, while most counties show zero pending cases. Riverside.Ventura and Alameda report more come- leted ado2t_ than cases recommended for adoption. a statistical anomaly. Collaborative information gathered from other counties tells us that these statistics are reported differently by every county. 'There is not uniformity among counties on the proses. In the past six months (July - December 1993) 261 adaption assessments were completed in Contra Costa County with the following results (Ile: Some children were assessed twice; as the plan changed); 98 children returned home or were to return home within 90 days 49 children remained in longterm oare placedwith kin • 12 children remained in long-term foster care placed with licensed faster families - 14 - 40 children for whom guardianship by care giver is the plan • 62 children recamm.ended for adoption (includes old "Red lot Caws" scheduled for adoption but not included in state statistics under adoption. Shown as Long Term Foster Care) Maatbn 10: The Adoption Unit demonstrates a preference to place children in long- term foster care instead of adoption. In FY 1992-1993, ninety-three (93) children who were legally free for adoption—were assigned to the Adoption Unit; yet the Adoption Unit did not actively seek adoptive placements for twenty-three (23)freed children, of whom twenty (20) remained in long-tern foster care after action by the Juvenile Court. Numerous and reasonable attempts to obtain updated information from the Department of Social Services regarding the status of these children have not resulted in usable, consistent, or understandable evidence. Fac 'These 23 children represent a cumulative 18 years of attempts to place them for adoption. Many of these children have been placed several times for adoption and the placements have failed_ Some of the children are unable to bond with any family. Even taken at face value, the meaning of this figure is that our overall failure rate is slightly more than one child per year' 'three of the 23 children achieved permanency with guardianship by their care givers. Eight children remain in residential treatment facilities for serious psychological and behavioral disorders. • Contra Costa County prefers to place children in the best stable situation for the child. Many children in California remain in "foster care" because they are placed with kin. Many care giving relatives do not wish to adopt because of cultural and/or financial constraints, It does not make sense and is very risky to remove a child from a loving grandmother (3abeled "foster care"!who has cared for a child for several years to place in a stranger's home hast to achieve adoptive status. Aleaatlon 11: Seventy-eight(78) children placed by Contra Costa County in 1992 saved $479,340 in annual foster care payments during the first year of adoptive placement. Since the average adoptive placement is fourteen (14) years in duration, the projected savings is $8.7 million on these placements alone. Fact: The welfare of the child comes first in Contra Costa County, In some cases long-twm foster care is a better plan, for the child than adoption; as discussed above.. While a large amount of faster care money is saved when a dependent child is adopted, ether public funds are expended under the Aid to Adoption Program (.AAP), which offsets the foster care payment savings. A majority of the children adopted through Contra Costa County receive AAP because of their special needs. AAP consists of the basic AFDC-FC rate for the age of the child plus Difficulty of Care rate, if approved, which may be increased or decreased as circumstances change. Although Contra Costa County has had a conservative • approach to the granting of AAP, the increased number of adoptive placements of - 15 - children with special needs has increased these casts. In FY 1991-1992, • $126,812 was spent on AAP_ FY 1991-1992 AAP payments represented a 20% increase in AAP fund expenditures over FY 1990-1991, due to the increased number of AAP adaption cases, from 283 to 339. • - 16 - RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY CONCLUSIONS • Grand Jwy 29ffikMft1.- The County's Social Service D M artment's Services Bureau is poorly organized and lacks sufficient accountability to objectively assess children for adoption and to place these children in adoptive homes. Re-once: Contra Costa County Social Service Department is organized similarly to other Bay Area counties. (See Table 1.) Out of 15 counties with whom the Grand Jury compared Contra Costa County, all counties had program managers with multiple responsibilities except Los Angeles County, which because of its size had an Adoption Division Manager dedicated solely to their adoption program. In the past four years Contra Costa County Social Service Department has lost 43% of its administrative support due to budget cuts. Therefore, assistant directors and division managers must administer several different programs. Contra Costa County Social Service Department is accountable to the State Department of Social Services. The State Department of Social Services approves the county's adoption program plan annually. It is the Social Service Department's mission to provide safe, quality substitute care reflective of the child's cultural/ethnic identity in the least restrictive, most family-Glee setting when the child's safety cannot be ensured in his/her own home. • This goal may be achieved by returning children home after a relatively short stay in foster care, or by placing the child with relatives or licensed foster parents who may choose to adopt. Those few children who are without a long-terra, stable home with a relative or foster parent are placed in adoptive homes selected by adoption staff. In most cases it is not wise to disrupt placement with family members to achieve adoption. Long-term foster care or guardianship may be a better plan_ Grand M Concksion Z: Implementation of a more vigorous adoption program will increase the placement of children and save the County significant tax dollars currently being spent on long-term foster care. Ft+e�: Important as tax dollars are, children are more important. Contra Costa County's priority is to place dependent children with family members whenever an alternative family is required, if an appropriate family member is not available, licensed foster homes are used. Many relatives and foster parents elect to adopt children in their care. However, when a relative or a foster parent does not wish to adopt but their commitment to the child remains strong,the Department may wish to recommend guardianship or long-term foster care instead of adoption because it is in the best interests of the child. The Department does not believe it is ethical torem ss_ure_families to adopt. It is usually unwise to move a child to a new placement just to achieve adoption, although sometimes replacement is • required for other reasons- - 17 - As is discussed in the response to Allegation 11, in Fly 1991-92 $126,812 was • spent on .Aid to .Adoption to assist families adopting children with special needs. Contra Costa County Social Service Department has spent $246,656 of its FY 1992-93 budget (all county funds) to supplement the state's adoption budget allocation. (See Response to Allegation #1.) The county's supplement to state funds in FY 1993-94 is$305,918. Contra Costa County places a,high value on the welfare of each child and does not believe in inappropriate adoptions based solely on budgetary considerations. Qrand Jury Conclusion 3: Inflexible attitudes toward trans-racial adoptions are detrimental to the timely and successful placement of children. Rem: Contra Costa County policy, which is in compliance with state law, seeks to place dependent children for adoption in the follovAng order of priority: 1. With relatives 2. With licensed foster parents with whom the child has significant bonds 3. With adoptive families approved by our adoption workers or another adoption agency. • When aro alternative family is required, it is important that, whenever possible, the selected family reflect the child's ethnicicultural heritage:,particularly if that heritage is significant for the child. Contra Costa County prefers to place children in homes that are most likely to meet their creeds. Since many children are placed with relatives, ethnic/cultural snatching occurs as a ,matter of course. A flew foster parents do not match their child's ethnicicultural heritage. We have approved about thirty-four such adoptions in the past four years. Most children are placed for adoption in a timely fashion no matter what their ethnictcultural identity. Emotional problems or developmental delays may delay adoptive placement. Contra Costa County has an extremely low adoption disruption rate, u..e., few children in Contra Costa County are returned to the agency by their adoptive parents after adoptive placement. firand Jury Conclusion 4: Licensed non-profit adoption agencies are not adequately utilized for cooperative placements of children of special needs. Rem: Licensed nonprofit agencies, other county and state agencies are frequently utilized for cooperative placements of children of special needs. (About 25% of all adoptive placements are achieved by cooperative placements). The majority of our adopting families are relatives or foster parents who have had their child in placement for a significant period of time. We will continue to use licensed nonprofit agencies for Centra Costa County children even though they are all • located outside of Contra Costa County. - 18 - Grand Jury Conclusion 5: The County Social Service Department's Services Bureau's • lack of systematic evaluation of services and employees does not foster performance or program accountability. Response: The Service's Bureau regularly evaluates both the services it provides and the employees providing those services. In January 1994 a lengthy questionnaire was sent to all licensed foster parents and relative care givers to request their assistance in assessing the services provided by the Services Bureau. The data from the responses to this questionnaire are being analyzed by graduate students at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Social Welfare. As noted previously,employees receive annual performance evaluations. Of equal importance are on-agoing reviews of each worker's caseload by the supervisor. The Adoption Supervisor is always aware of the workers' production level and the details of each child's case history. All cases are reviewed individually. Also, cases are referred to the Division Manager for review as necessary. Grand Jury Conclusion 6: The absence of standards to assess the adoptability of children encourages inconsistent, subjective, and biased decisions that are often based on the limitations of the child welfare system, and not the best opportunities or interest of each child. Response: Contra Costa County's standard to assess the adoptability of dependent children places primary emphasis on the best interests of each child, considered individually. Standards to assess adoptability are found in the Department Manual_ They include: 1. All f=amily Reunification cases are presented to the Permanency Planning Review Team prier to court reviews at 12 months and 18 months. Z The Permanency Planning Review Team decides whether reunification, adoption, guardianship or long-term foster care is the best plan for the child. 3. All staff use Form DC 131, Foster Care Permanency Planning Review, to present cases to the Permanency Planning Review Team, ensuring that the same items are reviewed for each child. These items include identifying information for the parents and child, record of parental contacts with the child, identification of significant known relatives, court hearing dates, summary of services provided, recommendation for reunification with the parents, adoption, guardianship or long-term faster care and supporting reasons. The .Juvenile Court makes the final decision on adoptability in all cases. • - 19 - k. �t �. �'� `. `� . 1 The Future of Children Published by the Center for the future of Children,The Dovid and Lucile Pockord foundation Volume 3 • Number 1 - Spring 1993 Edmw Pear P.Budetb,MD_JD. Ngd Paneth,M.0.1LPH 77u Future of Children is Richard E_Behrman.M.D. Hirsh Profmor and Director. Director.Program in published quarterly by MaOaging Editor Center for Health Policy Research Epidemiology the Center for the Future Dona SL L^-Xa The George Washington Professor of Pediatrics of Children, The David Universiry College of Human Medicine and Lucile Packard Cries Lsque EcEw Michigan State Universin, Foundation, 300 Second Irving Schulman,M.D. Daid M.Eddy,MD.,PhD. - Professor ofHealth Potic% Ph.D. Street,Suite 102. Los Al- StaffEtfiuxs and Management Professor of%ledid?lnthropology tos, California 94022. Deanna S-Gomby,Ph.D. Duke University Director,Medica(Anthropology Fourth class postage paid Carol S-Larson-J.D. Lean Fiberg,M.D. h.D.Program at Los Altos, California Eugene St Ltuit.Ph.D. vers Uniity of California.Berkelev Patricia}i.Shiono,Ph.D. Presley Professor of and at additional mailing Social Medicine Alvin LScbotr,MSW_LH.D. offices. The Future of Rora:ch Asmdzte Harvard Unnersity Medici School Leonard W.Mayo Professor Children is a controlled- Linda Sa-,dhamQuinn.Ph.D. VkwRFutbsPh.D (Emeritus)ofFamihand circulation publication Research Aoahs .Henry Kaiser. r.Professor Child Wetfare J J Case WesternResereUniversin' disuibutedfreeofcharge. Don Horn Department of Economia Opinions expressed in Research LAcarians and Department of Health %tarshall S.Smith.PhD. The Future of Children by Michele Wider Research and Policy Dean.School of Education Susan vl':Kni Stanford UnnersiR Stanford U^nersity the editors or the writers are their own and are Design Production Editor Shnie<v.%L Httf xedler,LLB. Barbara Starfield.M.D-MD.FL not to be considered Bobbie�­rensen Panner.Hufstedler.Kaw,A ProfessorHealth Poli- those of The Packard Euinger TheJohn Hopkins Medical PtoducvmJPboto EditorInstitutionsFoundation. J Iv_+_' /• ulie lo Demmor E.Maccoby,PhD. 1 Professor(Emerita)of Michael S.Wald JD. AiAborization to photo- PubbnmonsAsa4ant Developmental Ps}chol(k Jackson Eli Reynolds cops-articles for personal Katheri Resr.olds Stanford University Professor of Law- use is granted by The Fu- Cop.Eciuw Mil W.Ne%ached4 Dr.r It Stanford U^.nersity ture of Children. Reprint- Sherri Y_ButterfieldProfessor of Health Police heather .Wei$EdD. ing is encouraged, with Insdtute for Health Polio S-.rdies Director.H_inard Famih_ the following attribution: Editorial Advisory Board Universiry of California. Research Project from The Future of Chil- Bwoct W.Brown h.PhD San Francisco Hanard U-_iyemr: dren,a publication of the Profess-7 and Chair.Department Jufth S.Palfiev.M.D. Daniel Mier,PhD. Center for the Future of of He-__h Re!e ch and Policy Chief.Division of General Pediat ics Professor of Medical Fducs Children,The David and SEa.fo ni.r-sia School of The Children's Hospital University of Medical Lucile Packard Founda- Sted e Harvard UniyersirY School tion. Correspondence should be addressed to Dr.Richard E.Behrman, Editor,77u Future of Chil- dren, Center for the Fu- The David and Lucile Packard Foundation ture of Children,300 Sec- ond Street-Suite 102,Los Board of Trustees Altos, California 54022. David Packard,Chairman Susan Packard Orr To be added to the mail- Ntancv Packard Burnett David W Packard ing list write to Circula- tion Department at the Robin Chandler Duke Julie E. Packard same address. Roberti.Glaser.M.D. Frank Robert Photographs that ap- Dean O.Morton Ed%in E.van Bronkhorst pear in The Future of Children were acquired independently of arti- cles and have no rela- tionship to material dis- The Future of Children (ISSN 1054-8289) 0 copyright 1993 by the cussed therein. Center for the Future of Children,The David and Lucile Packard Foundation, all rigLts reserved. Printed in the United States of America. Cover photo O Delaine Certo. ® Printed on recycled paper. ' M ,:. � �. ON 7 y 4 �r C � n 0 � a. .y � r n ti N m r y � O 'b ° � 4 0 � 4o r c, wd � roo C CA � nti� m no IT1 ° b � m ° aroIV o � N � � � �'i, v, g � C, O� a 0 'v o' ` AJ Z o. C :�r • CC . O a ' a c� IJ i R° y C7, CC n M CA z � t � o ' g � ooo � ° E� a xzy � � x � 0 � ^780 0 h :: Ucn Rmor, � ° l77 G70 CAf� Oz � � o yz CO) 07dG� �ninZ xz � v, ►d � � � zO �v "p �jn7dtriC0 o ql ° Cy ttri tyl Z tv pq i m 0 b z z � � yZ � a •� � �bcr ° footri d � o � � o � o .e ' z oya � � � N• fin zz � -� 000 � a ° � � �b � oa o �' o '° � ocxn ; � ' Of7d 'Croczi, ° 4mza � tri � c � xa ° ° trl 0. zo ,� � ION z � o .c �, dr 0 toll z. renm oxo ° o ° � oa 9 tpo b 44 o, 2 � a a G a � O a �► 0 N N w aNONOO ,. OM ggg � w N D N n g �b � ro avov � ° nn 0 0o y z � rom � � bo °zm aoo � o � MMbz0 rzzz� S° ymoy � m o ma _ My z �, > �+ a � w ° Qa ~ '� aro ° zM . ° ° off m ° ° 4 w * .4z F„ c� Eiy zrmz O M vz � ZO qq o � 7 � z > � ° r � � CA z � d � 00 y� G "Yl i d M e � q Fty O ✓ r N n1E N cn N y x Otri , no Ltf 0 d C K� c Nj 0 : Yj �, Y 0 °M "r' x ?'MxOd C Ov,t%j y 3' t� v �f1 p ni cl r,� Z� O�f, �y t77C� f� O ��� r 1 '2 � � O0 A;� + pM cn OAC G7 ✓ M ° u' %pD d � � O p � {a °% �� o M d o x rit:;s� ::) a, s %t9 d c�. o � _V � a 0 ti n .AGt � CIO) "a ° o o0 azv � . Mme zoo . C/) w � � a v, 00 m � a t o.° > � � M � � 99o a � yril :0 o ax - dre r � � aa . � z a a � < o � r my o ct' � a z � baQxo z (7) o . " 0 Dos zzz � � r p trivo �' z 0 -3O zb � rA r" tiyrn � °r � m ° r� rn b � N typo � � d 9 tv rn ? A 0 a N us O z x a a M � 00 �"'V" '� � M �. � tv tv (TI M t� z tz Z inaa � p7� MM � tM- Z G� M � j7aaoC "� y ►jto (Acn ... � °' 7� a z "CM y. "daOMMtrft7 * "� ,3 R° M .- T� nob © pp � Cy � � pxN �v � o 9M a 2)-04 M arc �v . b 0 o a o rE . o � © � ar * ,-z o � aC� tz ° Vp ZVI 0, w OE MOD; Ui pE00 M n � t�lM •-3Ma ""� � a i ro 'yr N q � W ry � 11, LA 0 v y1J .. 2 M• H 1 � 0 y � Os�M fxx °�on� aO Ob �V x .. �o tTl 0 70 tT, Ln ?�...: 0 0 M � � db br xo9p9 triO ,.� cn OZ .., dO v, � � v, pxc�ia O � .3 �� v, O �r� cn �� � �� 7� d I tf i 9 � rn � 04 w5. 90 n O ✓ Z �+' t � 5 ON p OO MxiO cl O O �� O z w o 0 tJ tp � "' vs0rod "A ✓ MM �.G "� p rA O C,�y� t'" �` �"d V,� M gj�1�d 9�M,� G� cn 3„ �" � '•� '' �, y '� .r.�' � �anis © r�.��O 4� '���° �' p�' Gy us �C� f � �,nC 00 �r " nvscn � x► bvs � `p�p �j? O '7d cx1 to (y cn �O ' � nO 9c9n M �° �Md Vi W N C) �,O 00 • fav x ads m x p En cn cn cn W r-' 'r cn n cn 7C A C in q m > > > > a p p a trr C-' tr1 z z n Z z cntr, 7 zy z z a rn p 9 o z c � z ►-3 � r � Cpr1 Z i p d � a p � d ° z cn y z o 0 LA P �p Cl �o O) J oc Q� -P6 aN ;7" O �C �D w � A " y cp cp N ` 1 {J ►c w � b� 6S bA b9 b9 69 bA bA (Do, 69 -be o o C> O O0o O\ \D (71% �O oo N 4:�- LA 0-- 41o �o rn �,o oc at O Q� w N O� J w ^ ►-+ �p cn 0 N s9 69 69 b9 69 6A b9 Jog� b9 609 b9 b9 b9 y Q 00 ro y � tom!► J J J LA 0 00 F o 6R H9 b9 bA 69 [� 6A bH 69 {/9 ff9 69 6A b9 h w O --• �N ILA J cin Oho O O A ,y N OW W �p �D A p� V► ? : W J � OOo (.AO �D �D ON p J p 6A b9 69 69 ER big f!9 b9 yq 6A69 � N W !+� Ao _ N � _ Y� w � -P6O N N Q� Oho �1 "9 n W N w U �-` ? TABLE 3 * COOPERATIVE PLACEMENTS FY 1991-92 Total No. Out of Rank of % of Completed Order County State Private County State Total Total Adoptions 1 San Francisco 5 43 11 17 76 51.70 147 2 San Joaquin 5 19 13 3 40 40.81 98 3 Kern 1 9 8 0 18 39.44 71 I 4 Santa Clara 11 7 31 1 50 30.86 162 5 Sacramento 1 19 7 8 35 26.51 132 6 Contra Costa 1 7 4 3 15 25.00 60 7 Orange 7 14 4 3 28 22.40 125 8 Fresno 0 2 7 0 9 21.95 41 9 San Mateo 1 6 1 0 8 18.60 43 10 San Bernardino 10 1 9 0 20 12.66 158 11 San Diego 36 15 19 2 72 1239 581 12 Los Angeles 36 56 24 0 116 10.75 1,079 13 Alameda 3 4 12 0 19 10.38 183 14 Riverside 5 5 2 0 12 8.88 135 15, Ventura 0 1 3 0 4 7.14 56 ' Statistics from Tables 4C and 7A, Adoptions in California July 1991-June 1992. Statistical Services Bureau TABLE 4 COOPERATIVE PLACEMENTS (ALL) No. of Total Rank % of Total No. of Cooperative Completed Order County Adoptions Placements Adoptions 1 San Francisco 51.70 76 147 2 San Joaquin 40.81 40 98 3 Kern 39A0 18 71 4 Santa Clara 30.86 50 162 5 Sacramento 26.51 35 132 6 Contra Costa 25.00 is 60 7 Orange 22.40 28 125 8 Fresno 21.95 9 41 9 San Mateo 18.60 8 43 10 San Bernardino 12.66 20 158 11 San Diego 1239 72 581 12 Los Angeles 10.75 116 1,079 13 Alameda 10.38 19 183 14 Riverside 8.88 12 135 15 Ventura 7.14 1 4 56 Statistics from Tables 4C and 7A,Adoptions in California July 1991-June 1992, Statistical Services Bureau TABLE 5 Findings of State Licensing Reports of Contra Costa County Adoption Program 1990-1993 Date of Visit Comments Recommendations/Corrections 7/15/90 Office facilities reviewed, client Per CCR, Title XXII 89221(a)(4) records and adoptive parent records Health Protection R1 and R2 are were reviewed. Personnel records to lacking documentation of immuni- be reviewed at another location. zation records...deficiency to be corrected by 8/15/90. 8/20/90 Follow-up to check deficiency cited No deficiencies noted at this time 7/15/90. 6/27/91 Tour of agency conducted. Person- Agency appears to be in compliance nel and adoption records reviewed on this date. No Title 22 deficiencies and complete. The records are were observed at this timm appropriately stored as per regula- tion section 89182(c). 6/29/92 Agency offices were toured. All No Title 22 deficiencies were files stored in locked cabinets to observed at this time- ensure confidentiality. A sampling of adoptive parent/children records were reviewed and complete. Personnel records are stored at the administrative office located at 40 Douglas Dr., Martinez. They will be reviewed on this date. Files were reviewed and complete. 6/29/93 Agency offices were toured and in As a result of this agency evaluation, compliance. A sampling of adoptive no Title 22 deficiencies were noted parent and children records were reviewed and complete. Personnel files are stored at 40 Douglas Dr., Martinez, and a collateral visit will be made to that site to review records. All files are in locked cabinets. • ,O 00 '.1 Oh t!, .ta w N o op C3 �+ 0 o d g o $ 0 z � 0 � o =ss pp LAO O 0 rN+ O O W O e W o a Q p G CA O pNp o to j V% W � 0� ON w ..• �.1 w g0-4 th la N N V i-, 46 ul �y �l �-+ N J .0. 00 N C7 A ►-� -1 LA O. to `r �y O N w i-+ w ON Vo J w to (2N --4 to tp p� � � Q th t 00 00 00 W � o ,D r+ .4 N 00 N v N th O `O tD O H+ co m v, o o a O a O "^ 7d y O p N A ,-+ f. is w �+ 90 N N rta ,O � a �o ,�`'�, 00 �o Ch 0o v5 pwoQQo�� rn W J OON0 000 Vi N N W O t�Jt �1 'TGJ O Co z tA � 1 o 'ti V, 000 w N N w ~ -4 O IJ+ w Ch .a NG I N M� O O � p� W CAI, bo N 00 0�0 ►�' A ti, Cis tp til, W n9• a" �• O 00 CD th la c �' A �r � , �,�. f SOCIAL SERVICE DEPARTMENT V CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DATE: December 29, 1989 TO: CODE 25, ALL CHILDREN'S SERVICE WORKERS & THEIR RESPECTI SUPERVISORS. FROM: Rose Ma Chief, i s Services Bureau SUBJ: SB 243 - EE.FtMANENCY PLANNING/ADOPTION REVIEW TEAM References: State MPP 30-354.5 W&I Code § 366.21, § 366.22, 366.26 This memo describes the interim procedure for Permanency Planning (PP)- Team reviews. It also describes significant changes in Juvenile Court hearings because of SB 243. As of January 9, 1990,, the PP Review Team will replace Adoptability Reviews by the Adoptions Supervisor. Please use the PP Review Team Presentation procedure and the. revised DC 131 form as described on attached pages 4 through 6. The PP Review Team will make sure. that the Children's Bureau is making consistent, long term plans' by each child's tenth month in foster care. The SB 243 Task Force will review the PP Review Team procedure and make any necessary changes in February.. The specific changes relating to the Juvenile Court Hearings are described on pages 2 and 3. Briefly, the changes only apply to children adjudicated after January 1,1989. Therefore, we will have a dual system until all children who were adjudicated before 1/1/89 are out of- the Child Welfare system. SB 243 speeds up case planning by shortening the length of time for the termination of parental rights for children who became dependents after January 1, 1989. = Also, the termination process is now in W&I Code section 366.26 rather than Civil Code §232. Please call Linde Waddington, Stefanie Pfingstl, or Wilhelmina Johnson if you have questions about the new juvenile court hearing procedure or the PP Reveiv Team procedure. 1 • Gen 9c (New 3/86) w J OVERVIEW OF SB 243 CHANGES TO THE ` W&I CODE - HEARINGS 1. CHILDREN ADJUDGED DEPENDENTS BEFORE JANUARY 1, 1989 Children adjudged dependents before January 1, 1989 come under W&I §366.2 and §366.25. There is no change in procedure for this group of children. The 6 and 12 month hearing requirements are under §366.2. The PP hearing is covered in §366.25. The PP hearing must be held 12 months after the original dispositional hearing and in no case later than 18 months from the child's original placement. All children must be reviewed by the PP Review Team before the PP Hearing. If adoption is the permanent plan, then the department will proceed under Civil Code §232. 2. CHILDREN ADJUDGED DEPENDENTS AFTER JANUARY 1, 1989 The major change for children adjudged dependents after January 1, 1989 concerns the termination of parental rights. This now occurs in the _Juvenile Court through the hearing in §366.26. Civil Code` §232 does not apply to children adjudged dependents after January 1, 1989. . Children adjudged dependents' after January 1, 1989 come under W&Z §366 -21-,-_a"§366.22--and §366.26. The 6 and 12. month . hearing requirements are contained in §366.21. §366.22 includes: 4 §366.21(e) The review hearing 6 months after the initial dispositional hearing; 1366.21(f) The review hearing 12 months after the initial dispositional hearing; §366.21(g) if the child is not returned home at the 12 month hearing in (f) , then the court shall do one of the following: (1) Continue the case for up to 6 months for, another review hearing provided that. the hearing shall occur within 18 months• of the date the child was_ originally• taken from the physical custody of his or ,her parent or guardian. See §366.22. or 2 Overview of SB 243 Changes to W&I Code Searing Procedures- 366.21 (continued) • . (2) Order long term foster care, if minor is not adoptable and has no one willing to accept legal guardianship. or (3) Order a hearing be held in 120 days pursuant to 5366.26. If the court orders the .26 hearing, the Department will also be required to prepare the adoption/guardianship assessment. §366.22 This is the 18 month hearing which occurs when the case has been continued according to 6366.21 (g) (1) above. At this hearing the court could also order the .26 hearing in 120 days along with the adoption/guardianship assessment. §366.26 The .26 hearing includes some Permanency Planning language but mainly it replaces the Civil Code §232 proceedings. 6366.21 and 6366.22 also include permanency -planning type language. At the .26 hearing, the court has four options: a. Permanently sever parent's rights and order adoption. b. Without severing parent's rights, identify adoption as a goal. continue for 60 days for department to locate adoptive family. C. Without severing parent's rights, appoint legal guardi". d. Order long term foster care subject to regular court review. 3 PERNANENCY PLANNING REVIEW TEAM PROCEDURE 2. MBlIT WILL TSE PP REFIRE 'TEAM DO The PP Review team will evaluate each foster child's case and decide whether Reunification, Adoption, Guardianship, or Long Term Foster Care is the most reasonable recommendation for the next court review. The PP Review Team's decision will be based on the FR workers' recommendation and description on the attached DC 131, Foster Care Permanency Planning Review form: A. Reasonable services provided to date B. Parent's cooperation with FR service plan C. Extent and results of search efforts for the absent parents and other relatives D. Likelihood of reunification within 18 months. E. Probability of adoption, guardianship, or long term foster care if reunification is unsuccessful. 2. WHEN TO PRESENT CASES TO TSE PP REVIE1t TEAM The FR worker and supervisor will present the following cases to the PP'Review Team: A. Children adjudged dependents after January 1, 1989 who are awaiting their f_month review because of abandonment or other situations when PR services were not ordered. B. Children adjudged dependents after January 1, 1989 who are awaiting their 18th month review C. Children adjudged dependents after January 1, 1989 who are awaiting their 12th month review. D. Children adjudged dependents after January 1, 1989 who have been in foster care for at least 10 months (i.e. , 10 months after detention) . E. Children adjudged dependents after January 1, 1989 and FR services are not ordered. F. Any other children still awaiting their 18 month or adoptability Review. 4 Permanency Planning Review Team (continued) • 3. WHO 18 A KDOER OF THE PP R$VIEW 22M The PP Review Team is comprised of: A. The Muir Road Division Manager, who also chairs the meeting. B. The Adoptions Supervisor C. The FR worker for the case being reviewed. D. The 'FR worker's Supervisor E. The FR worker's Division Manager F. Others as necessary, i.e. , the Licensing worker and supervisor if the potential adoptive family is a licensed foster parent. 4. WHEN AND WHERE WILL TBE PP REVIEW TZRM XBZT A. The PP Review Team- will meet three times each month at the Muir Road Office in Clarence Jackson's Office. Due to Clarence Jackson's vacation, the first meeting will be held . in Richmond and chaired by Charles. Underwood. • B. Each District will have an assigned monthly day. C. The tentative schedule is: 1. JANUARY 91 1990 for RICHNOND DISTRICT at RICHMOND. 2. JANUARY 17, 1990, for MUIR DISTRICT at MUIR ROAD. 3. JANUARY 31, 1990 for ANTIOCH DISTRICT at MUIR ROAD. 5. HOW TO BIGN-IIP FOR PP REVIEW TEAM PRZBZNTATIONB A. District FR Supervisor is responsible for maintaining the sign-up sheet by Unit. In Districts with more than one FR Unit, FR Supervisors should coordinate the times so that each unit has a specific block of time. B. Review times will be at 15 minute intervals. C. If you cannot make the regularly scheduled date for your District, you can arrange to come on another District's day. This rewires both Districts' Division Manager's approval. 5 Permanency Planning Review Team (continued) 6. WHAT ARE THE FR WORKER AND PR UNIT SUPERVISOR'S • RESPONSIBILITIES A. Review the case the FR case at least one month before the PP Team Review is due and and decide if FR efforts are succeeding and if additional services are needed. B. Schedule the PP Review presentation. C. Complete the Form, DC-131(Rev. 12/89) as described in section 7 below. D. Bring 5 copies of the DC-131 to the PP Review meeting. E. Bring all volumes of the case record to the PP Review meeting 7. HOW THE FR WORKER COMPLETES FORM DC 131, FOSTER CARE PERMANENCY PLANNING -REVIEW Most of the items on the DC 131 are self-explanatory. Complete all relevant sections; pay particular attention to the following items on the form: A. Completes all section on page 1 of the DC 131, except the following: 1. The Unit Supervisor's signature 2. The PP team Approval Section B. Explain the rationale for your recommended long term plan by completing either the REUNIFICATION, ADOPTION, . or GUARDIANSHIP/LONG TERM FOSTER CARE sections on page 2. 8. WHAT THE PP REVEIW TEAM WILL DECIDE A. The PP Review is responsible for coming to a consensus on the court recommendation for the 12 and 18 month reviews. The plan should reflect the best interests of the child. If agreement ,cannot be reached by the two Division Managers, the ,case will be referred to the Children's Services Bureau Chief for resolution. B. The decision by the PP 'Review team is' then included in the court report .recommendation and adoptability assessment. C. If the recommended PP plan -is adoption, the PP Review Team will decide when the case should be transferred to the Adoptions Unit. a:\pp2team.mem • 6 Zontib Costa County Social Service Department FOSTER CARE/PERMANENCY PLANNING REVIEW ;-mE OF REVIEW ❑ No FR recommendation 0❑ 6 months ❑ 12 months ❑ 18 months ❑ No FR ordered CASE NAME CASE NUMBER DATE OF CASE REVIEW CHILD'S NAME DATE OF BIRTH COURT NUMBER MOTHER':NAME (and AKA's) ALLE41D FATHER (and AKA's) ❑ Regular contact with child ❑ Regular contact with child ❑ summaryof search ❑ summaryof search efforts attached efforts attached PRESUMED FATHER (and AKA's) OTHER ALLEGED FATHER(and AKA's) ❑ Regular contact with child ❑ Whereabouts unkown [] Regular contact with child ❑ Whereabouts unkown —%ummary of search ❑ summaryof search Offorts attached efforts attached 2THER RELATIVE(S) ❑ Regular contact with child ❑ summaryof search efforts attached DETENTION HEARING DATE: INITIAL DISPO DATE:(on this case) :IRST HEARING REVIEW DATE AND FINDING IF HELD ECOND HEARING REVIEW DATE AND FINDING IF HELD tECOMMENDED .ONG TERM PLAN ❑ REUNIFICATION BY (anticipated date) tOR THIS REVIEW ❑ ADOPTION ❑ GUARDIANSHIP ❑ LONG-TERM FOSTER CARE ❑ Relative ❑ Relative ❑ Relative (3 Non-Relative 13 Now Relative E3 Non-Relative 0 iMMARY OF REASONABLE SERVICES ATTACHED 2RKEw R�NAME/PCN SUPERVISOR'S SIGNATURE/APPROVAL APPROVED BY TEAM ❑ YES ate&Initials of ChildWelfare ❑ NO,REASON :I I I(Rev.12A9)P&Q*I 1 I ❑ REUNIFICATION p The POSITIVE FACTORS that.indicate that that reunification may occur are: 1 E3 BARRIERS to reunification are: ❑ ADOPTION p It is LIKELY that this child can or will be ADOPTED because: ❑ Relatives are interested in adoptive placement ❑ Present caretakers are approved for adoption and wish to adopt this child ❑ The child's age and behavior are such that approved adoptive families are available or can be recruited ❑ Present caretakers have expressed interest in adopting this child ❑ Otherr i p The following FURTHER EFFORTS are needed BEFORE ADOPTION planning p Further search efforts for parent or other relative p Provide additional FR services for months p Refer for thorough assessment of the child's likelihood of adoption prior to permanency planning recommendation. p Other 0 GUARDIANSHIP OR ❑ LONG TERM FOSTER CARE p Relative p Relative p Non-relative p Non-relative ❑ It is UNLIKELY that his child will be ADOPTED because ❑ The parents or guardians,have maintained regular visitation and contact with the minor and the minor would benefit from continuing this relationship. ❑ Minor is 10 years of age or older and objects to termination of parental rights ❑ The minor's foster parents bre unable to adopt the minor because of exceptional circumstances and the removal of .the minor from the physical custody of his or her foster parents would be seriously detrimental to the emotional well-being of the minor ❑ Guardianship or Lonp-term Foster care may be more appropriate because child has been in long-term placement w th reiativa cr poster parent ❑ Child has unusually significant developmental or emotional difficulties ❑ It is ALSO UNLIKELY that GUARDIANSHIP is the appropriate plan for this child because. ❑ Child is placed with a long-term,secure placement which is unlikely to result in guardianship. ❑ Other II��I��I� ���I���11��1��1 ■■ ■ � I�a�Y�-Irk VC 131(Rev.12184)Page 2 1�" a 30 - 400/1 A D M I N I S T R A T I V E B U L L E T I N LONG-TERN FOSTER GLARE FOR CHILDREN AWTUDICATED AFTER 1/1/89 DISTRIBUTION: A-1, All Department Manual Holders A-10, All Children's Services Handbook Holders I. SUMMARY A. This administrative bulletin describes policy and procedure for recommending long-term foster care. B. All FR cases will be presented to the Permanency Planning Review Team (PP Review Team) at least 10 months after disposition. The PP Review Team will decide if Reunification, Adoption, Guardianship, or Long-Term Foster Care is the best reasonable plan for the child. Omit. mention of "PP Review Team" in court reports. C. Long-term foster care will be recommended when the child is not adoptable-and no one is willing, to assume guardianship. 1. FR will transfer these cases_ to.the Permanent • -Placement worker :within 30 days after the court orders Long-Term Foster Care. 2. See section IV, - "Long-term Foster Care As the Permanent Plan", below. D. Long-term foster care will also be recommended at the 12- or 18-month review when the current caretaker relative or foster parent wants to adopt the. child. 1. FR staff will carry these cases and request the - 366.26 hearing when the adoption assessment on the caretaker is completed. 2. FR staff will present these cases to the PP Review Team .every three. months during the interim period between the Long-Term Foster Care order and the .26 Hearing. 3. . See below section V, "Long Term Foster Care • Pending Adoption By Current Caretaker"; and section VII, "Change From Long-term Foster Care Pending Adoption to Guardianship or Long-term Foster Care. Contra Costa County 1 Effective Date: 08-01-90 Social Service Dept. Issue Date: 10-10-90 . s . - 30 - 400/1 II. REFERENCES Welfare and Institutions Code § 366.21 Welfare and Institutions Code, $ 366.22 Welfare and Institutions Code` § 366.26 Welfare and Institutions Code S 166.3 III. BACKGROUND . A. Effective 1/1/901 §366.26 (.26) Hearings replaced W&I §366.25 and Civil Code 232 procedure for termination of parental rights. The .26 Hearings speed up adoption planning for children adjudicated after 1/1/89. B. The Court will order the following for most children, who are adjudicated after 1/1/89, and are not returned home: 1. Long-term foster care at the 12- or 18-month review, or 2. A 366.26 Hearing within 120 days of the 12- or 18- month review'. At the .26 Hearing, the Court will ; either: teridnatej parental. rights,"grant 60 more days to find an adoptive home; establish guardianship; or order long-term foster care. C. - The 366-:26--Heari.ng Assessment court report must include a preliminary. assessment of one or more potential adoptive parents or guardians. The court will order termination of parental rights at the 366.26 Hearing if it determines that the child will be adopted. D. Current caretakers are usually unable to complete the adoption home study process within the 120 days before the ,26 Hearing. Also, many caretakers need more than 120 days to consider the legal and the moral impact of adoption vs. guardianship or long-term foster care. E. In a .few instances §361.5(b) , S300(g) , and S300(e) the Court may order non-reunification and schedule the 366.26 hearing within 120 days after disposition or the 6-month review. Contra Costa County 2 Effective Date: 08-01-90 Social Service Dept. Issue Date: 10-10-90 30 - 400/1 • ti IV. PP REVIEW TEAM A. All FR cases will be presented to the Permanency Planning Review Team (PP Review Team) at least 10 months after disposition. B. FR staff will present Long-Term Foster Care Pending Adoption cases to the PP Review Team. every three months between the Long-Term Foster Care finding and the .26 Hearing. C. FR staff will use Form DC 131, Foster Care Permanency Planning Review to present cases to the PP Review Team. D. The PP Review Team will decide whether Reunification, Adoption, Guardianship, or Long-Term Foster Care is the best reasonable plan for the child. E. Omit references to "PP -Review Team" in court reports': F: The PP.Review Team will use the guidelines in this administrative bulletin to decide whether Long-Term Foster Care is in the best interest .of the child. + Contra Costa County 3 Effective Date: 08-01-90 • Social Service Dept. Issue Date: 10-10-90 30 400/1 V. LONG-TERM FOSTER CARE AS THE PERMANENT PLAN FR staff and the PP Review Team will use the guidelines listed below for Long-Terp Foster Care when no one is willing to adopt the child or assume legal guardianship. FR will transfer these-gases to the Permanent Placement- worker after Long-Term-Foster care is ordered. GUIDELINES FOR LONG-TERM FOSTER CARE A. Parents or guardians have maintained regular visitation and contact with the minor and the minor would benefit from continuing this relationship/. B. Minor is 10 years of age or older and objects to termination of parental rights C. Child has unusually significant developmental or emotional difficulties. D. The minor is placed in pL residential treatment facility, adoption is unlikely or undesirable,, and continuation of. parental rights will not prevent finding the child a:- -family placement if the parents cannot resume custody whenresidential care is no longer needed. E. The minor's foster parefits or relatives are unable to adopt the minor because of exceptional circumstances and the removal of the minor from the physical custody of his or her foster parents or relatives would be seriously detrimental to the emotional well-being of the minor. Examples: 1. The foster parents or relatives are hesitant to adopt the minor because of the uncertain prognosis . -of prenatal drug exposure. 2. The minor, the current caretakers,, and the natural parents,, have a stable relationship that would be endangered by adoption planning. 3. ' The current caretakers are willing to care for the minor until adulthood, but cannot commit to parental involvement beyond that point. Contra Costa County 4 Effective Date: 08-01-90 Social Service Dept. Issue Date: 10-10-90 30 - 400/1 VI. LONG-TERM FOSTER CARE PENDING ADOPTION BY THE CURRENT CARETAKER FR staff will use the following procedure when the current caretaker (i.e. relative or foster parent) is interested in adopting the child and the PP Review Team has approved adoption as the case plan. FR staff will change the program I.D. to PP and carry these cases until the completion of the 366.26 hearing procedure. A. Explain to the current caretakers that their request to adopt the minor(s) has been referred to the Adoption unit. Also explain that it may take several months to begin and complete the adoption home study. B. Explain to the current caretakers that the Department will recommend Long-term Foster Care at the 12- or 18- month review. Explain that the 366.26 Hearing to terminate parental rights will be scheduled when current caretakers are approved for -adoption. C. Include the following information in- the "enhanced" 12- or 18- month review court report that will terminate reunification.servicos.. Write this information for each child in "The Children"-and "Current Family Functioning" sections: 4 1. Physical and mental health history 2. Race and ethnic group 3. Native American (Indian) heritage - state whether or not the child is a Native American, and describe the child's tribal affiliations 4. Placement history of minor and placement history of the parents if the parents were placed in foster care. : .. Contra Costa County 5 Effective Date: 08-01-90 Social Service Dept. Issue Date: 10-10-90 30 - 400/1 �Y VI. Long-term Foster Care Pending Adoption by the Current Caretaker (continued) D. Include the following statement just before the "Recommendations" section: "The Department is recommending bong-term foster care pending, the results-of an adoption home study of the current caretakers. The Department will ask the Court to set a 366.26 Hearing at a later date if it appears -likely that the current caretakers can be approved for adaption or guardianship of the minor. "Removal of the minor from the physical custody of his/her current(relative or foster parent) caretakers is seriously detrimental to the emotional well being of the minor. Proceeding to, the 366.26 Hearing at this time will adversely affgct the minor's current placement " (Note: Until we 'have a standard FR court report format, the above statement should be added to section just before. the "Recommendation" section of the court report. This next to last section is usually called the "Evaluation" or the "Child Welfare Services and Permanent Plan" sections) E. Decide the extent of parental visitation. Also verbally explain the reason for the visit recommendation in Court. Include who may .visit, who will arrange visits, and supervised vs. unsupervised visits in your verbal explanation. The Court will decide each case based on the parent's history and the best interests of the child, F. Send a copy of the above court report to the Adoptions Unit Supervisor at least 10 days before the 12- or IS-- month hearing. Contra Costa County 6 Effective Date: 08-01-90 Social Service Dept. Issue Date: 10-10-90 30 400/1 VI. Long-term Foster Care Pending Adoption by the Current Caretaker (continued) G. Change the case program I.D. from "FR" to "PP" after the Court approves the above Long-term Foster Care plan at the 12- and 18- month review. The FR worker will continue carrying the case until the current caretaker is either approved for adoption or the long-range plan changes to guardianship or long-term foster care. H. Present the case to the PP Review -Team every 3 months until the home study on the current 'caretaker is . completed or the current caretaker decides not to adopt the minor. I. When the current caretaker is approved for adoption,, recommend that a .26 hearing be scheduled at the next regular 6 month Court Review. Ask for an early review if the next Review is more than 3 months away. Use form DC 7D court report- outline to request a .26 hearing after Long-Term Poster Care vas-ordered at the 12- or 18-month Review. J. Follow the -366.26 Assessment Court Report procedures for the FR and Adoptions combined court report. 4 VII. CHANGE FROM "LONG-TERM FOSTER CARE PENDING ADOPTION" TO "LONG-TERM FOSTER CARE" OR. "GUARDIANSHIP" The FR worker will use the following procedure when the caretaker and the PP Team agree that guardianship or long- term foster care is now the best plan for the child. (For- example: Forexample: the child began to show more serious developmental -lags upon enrollment in elementary school and the caretaker feels s/he cannot adopt a child with serious learning disabilities) A. Continued Long-Term Foster Care 1. Explain in next 6-month Review Court Report why plan has changed from 'adoption to Long-Term Poster Care. 2. Transfer Case to PP worker for continued services within 30 days. Contra Costa County 7 Effective Date: 08-01-90 Social Service Dept. Issue Date: 10-10-90 30 - 400%1 VII. Change from "Long-term Foster Care Pending Adoption" to "Long-term Foster Care" or "Guardianship" B. Guardianship 1. Recommend that a .26 hearing be scheduled at the next regular 6 month Court Review. Ask for an early review if the next Review is more than 3 months away. Use the DC 7D court report outline form to request a .26 hearing after.the Long-Term Foster Care order at the 12-/or 18-month Review. 2. Follow the 366.26 Assessment Court Report procedures .for the Guardianship and dismissal of dependency. ` 3. Close case if'guardianship is granted to a relative as defined by AFDC-Foster Care (AFDC-FC) regulations or if iDon-relative guardian refuses x. AFDC-FC. . 4. Transfer case to FP if non-relative guardian is eligible to AFDd-FC payments. FILING INSTRUCTIONS File this administrative Bulletin in the Department Manual and the Children's Services Handbook. CONTACT PERSON: Second-line Supervisors and above may contact the Stanwell FR/PP Program Analyst with questions concerning- this Bulletin. Contra Costa County 8 Effective Date: 08-01-90 Social Service Dept. Issue Date; 10-10-90 l J JI 30-400/3 ADMINISTRATIVE BULLETI-N PERMANENCY PLANNING/ADOPTION REVIEW TEAM DISTRIBUTION: A-1,All Department Manual Holders A-10,All Children's Services Handbook Holders i I. ' REFERENCES Welfare and Institutions Code 5366.21,§3662.2, §366.26 MPP 30-354.5 II. GENERAL A Children have a right to a stable, permanent home in the least restrictive environment in which their needs may be met. B.- Ile Permanency Planning(PP)/Adoption Review Team will ensure the Department is making consistent,long-term plans for each child,to meet those needs. C. All children must be reviewed by the PP/Adoption Review Team in the 10th and 16th month before the Permanency Planning hearing. D. It is Department policy that the PP/Adoption Review Team decide the recommendation to be made at the PP hearing. If new facts are brought forward before or at the court hearing, a continuance is to be requested and a second PP Review must be scheduled. III. COMPOSITION/PROCEDURES OF PPIADOPTION REVIEW TEAM A The Review Team is comprised of: 1. The District Division Manager, 2. The Adoptions Supervisor, 3. The FR/PP worker for the case being reviewed, 4. The FR/PP worker's supervisor, Contra Costa County 1 Effective Date: 09-01-91 Social Service Dept. Issue Date: 12-23-91 c. S. Others as necessary, such as the Licensing worker and supervisor if the potential adoptive fanu"ly is a licensed foster parent. rr t B. The Review Team will meet monthly in each district: First Wednesday:West County Second Wednesday: East County Third Wednesday:Martinez C. Workers will sign up on a sheet posted by the Division Manager's office (West and East) or circulated around the unit(Central). D. Cases are to be reviewed at 10 months(and 16 months, for cases extended beyond the 12 month period) after disposition. E. The 12 (or 18) month reports should not be written until after the PP/Adoption Review. j F Cases in which the current caretaker relative or foster parent wishes to adopt the child shall be presented to the PP/Adoption Review Team every three months during the interim period between the Long-Term Foster Care order and the.26 hearing. W. FUNCTION OF THE PP/ADOPTION REVIEW TEAM A. Each foster child's case will be evaluated by the_Review.Team to decide whether Reunification, Adoption, Guardianship, Long Term Foster Care or referral to the Casey Family Foundation is the most reasonable recommendation for the next court review. B. Decisions will be based on information outlined on the DC 131 (Foster Care Permanency Planning Review_ form)and orally presented by the FR worker to the Team. Topics to be covered are: 1. Reasonable services to date, 2. Parent's cooperation with the:FR service plan, 3: Extent and results of search efforts for the absent parents and other-relatives, 4. Likelihood of reunification within 18 months, S. Probability of adoption,guardianship,or long term foster care if reunification is unsuccessful. C. If agreement concerning the service pian cannot be reached,the case will be referred to the Children's Services-Bureau Chief for resolution. Contra Costa County 2 Effective Date: 09-01-91 Social Service Dept. Issue Date: 12-23-91 D. The decision by the PP/Adoption Review Team is then included in the court report recommendation and adoptability assessment. This is a Department decision, and • may not be altered or re-negotiated with other parties before the court hearing. FILING INSTUCTIONS File this Administrative Bulletin in-the Department Manual and the Children's Services Handbook C'ONT'ACT PERSON: First-line Supervisors and above may contact the Program Analyst for FR/PP with any questions about this Bulletin Contra Costa County 3 Effective Date: 09-01-91 Social Service Dept. Issue Date: 12-23-91 Cama Costa County ` Social Service Department PL"MANENCY PLANNING TEAM Rt rIEW Check reason: [ 16 mos. [ 112 mos. [ ]18 mos. I ]36626 ( ]Re-review Date of PP Team Review: ]Contest [ ]Non-unification [ ]No FR services ordered [ ]Fost-Adopt Placement Child's Name Child's DOB Are there siblings who are dependents? [ ] yes I ) no Foster Care Provider's Name Relationship toEthnic Match? Interested In Child: I l yes Adoption I ) yes I ] no [ ] no Guardianship [ ] yes [ ] no Mother's Name Father Named on Birth Certificate Alleged/Presumed Father(s) [ ] Regular contact with child [ ] Regular contact with child [ ] Regular contact with child [ ] Whereabouts unknown [ ] Whereabouts unknown [ ] Whereabouts unknown Other relatives [ ] Regular contact with child ( ] Regular contact with child [ ] Regular contact with chili We of Detention Hearing: Date of Dispositiional Hearing: Date of Next Court Hearing: S BELOW TO BE COMPLETED AT PP TEAM REVIEW Recommended Long Tenn Plan for this Review: i [ l Reunification by (anticipated date) [ ] Re-review by (Month/year) [ ] Adoption Prospective Adoptive Home: [ l Guardianship [ ] Long-Term Foster Care [ ) Relative Name [ ) Relative I l Relative I ] Non-relative Address [ ] Non-relative [ ) Non-Relative Ethnic Match? Ethnic Match? Ethnic Match? I l yes Phone I l yes [ ] yes [ ] no I l no [ ] no Comments: Submitted by: Social Worker's Name `Woved by: Placement Supervisor's Signature Adoption Supervisor's Signature CWDM Initials Copy 1: Adoption Unit Supervisor Copy 2: SW case file OC t3' " 4,9M Copy 3: CWDM Contra Costa County Social Service Department DEPARTMENT MANUAL CHANGE LETTER NO. 94-18 TO: A-1, All Department Manual Holders A-10, All Children's Services Handbook Holders CONTACT PERSON: Gwen Easter, Foster Home Licensing and Adoption Program Analyst Re: 30-305.5, TRANSRACIAL/CULTURAL PLACEMENTS The only changes is this manual section are the clarification of the review process for unmatched emergency placements in section VI.,B,1 and the removal of the word immediately from section V.,B,2. Also, some of the sections were re-numbered. i FILING INSTRUCTIONS Remove and recycle DM 30-305.5 issued 08-01-92. File the revised section in the Department Manual. Update the Table of content with pen and ink changes. • •. TRANSRACIAL PLACEMENT REPLACES: SECTION: 30-505.5 TRANSRACIAL/CULTURAL SECTION: 30-505.5 PAGE NO.: 1 PLACEMENTS PAGE NO.: 1 ISSUED/REVISED: 08-01-92 ISSUED/REVISED:02-08-94 I. PHILOSOPHY Family ties and racial/cultural heritage are critically important to children. The need to honor that heritage must be reflected in our initial placement decisions as well as our long term planning for them. H. THE LAW Effective July 1, 1991, the California legislature enacted Civil Code §275. This statute mandates child welfare agencies to make diligent efforts to locate appropriate relatives • with whom to place children. The law further requires that if, after diligent effort, the agency cannot find an appropriate relative with whom to place the child or if a relative placement is not in the child's best interest, the agency shall place the child with foster parents of the same racial or ethnic identification as the child. If the child is of mixed race, placement shall be with a family of the racial or ethnic group with which the child has the more significant contacts. III. POLICY Children will be placed in homes of families which match tl-ieir ethnic and culiural heritage unless there is an exception approved, in writing, by the Division Manager. The child's needs are paramount. While rating extemely high in priority, race and culture are not.the only basis for placement decisions. The total spectrum of the child's needs must be evaluated and priority given to the most compelling need. For example, a child with medical needs that require the services of a registered nurse, the RN qualification would be paramount. (DMCL # 94-18) -)ntra Costa County Issued/Revised: 02-08-94 i9ocial Service Dept. Manual Distribution: A-1, A-10 TRANSRACIAL PLACEMENT REPLACES: • SECTION: 30-505.5 TRANSRACIAL/CULTURAL SECTION: 30-505.5 PAGE NO.: 2 PLACEMEN7TS PAGE NO.: 2 ISSUED/REVISED: 08-01-92 ISSUED/REVISED:02-08-94' To the maximum extent possible, parents of children should be involved in making decisions regarding their children's placements. W. DEFIl\'ITIONS A. Child's Race or Ethnicity is defined as the race of his parents. For children whose parents are of different racial/ethnic backgrounds, for purposes of placement, the child's race shall be considered to be that racial or ethnic group with which the child has more significant ties or contacts. B. Race or Ethnicity of Foster Home is defined as the race of the foster parents or foster parent (in single family households). The race of a deceased spouse is to be considered in determining the racial composition or ethnicity of a foster family if there are children of that marriage or significant relationships with the family of the deceased spouse that are ongoing. C. A Match exists when one foster parent is of the same racial or ethnic background as the child needing placement. Example One: An African American child is considered matched to a family where one or both foster parents is also African American. Example Two: A bi-racial child of Hispanic and Japanese background who was removed from his Hispanic mother and who has close relationships with his maternal relatives is considered to be Hispanic for purposes of placement and is "matched" with a family where one or both foster parents are Hispanic. The. ideal match would be where one parent was Hispanic and one Japanese, but any other combination with Hispanic is a match. V. PROCEDURES A. Emergency Placements 1. If placement must be done on an emergency basis and there are no available relatives and no licensed foster parents of the child's particular (DMCL t 94--18) Contra Costa County Issued/Revised: 02708-94 Social Service Dept. Manual Distribution: A-1, A-10 TRANSRACIAL PLACEMENT .ACES: SECTION: 30-505.5 TRANSRACIAL/CULTURAL SECTION: 30-505.5 PAGE NO.: 3 PLACEMENTS PAGE NO.: 3 ISSUED/REVISED: 08-01-92 ISSUED/REVISED:02-08-94' ethnic/cultural heritage, the child may be placed in an unmatched emergency placement without prior approval. 2. The Division Manager shall be notified by the next working business day. 3. When it appears there will be difficulty racially or ethnically matching the child to his/her placement, effort shall be made to locate the parent from whom the child was removed, to explain the placement options, and to solicit the parent's preference regarding the available options, B. After Hours Emergency Placements 1. On rare occasion, when After Hours staff must make a non-matching placement in a Contract emergency bed, the case must be reviewed the following working day with the Division Manager. • 2. A plan to move the child must be developed. 3. If the parent is available and involvement is realistic, see A. 3 above. C. Long Term Placements 1. Prior approval of the Division Manager is required for all long term placements where the proposed foster parents do not match the child's ethnic background. 2. Parents should always be involved in placement decisions regarding their, children to the maximum extent possible. This includes situations where a decision is necessary to select between available matching placements. 3. When it appears there will be difficulty racial or ethnically matching the child to his/her placement, the options should be explained to the parent and the parent's preference should be honored. 4. The issue of being placed in a family of the same or different race/ethnicity/culture should also be discussed with any child who is able to talk. (DMCL # 94-18) Contra Costa County Issued/Revised: 02-08-94 Social Service Dept. Manual Distribution: A-1, A-10 TRANSRACIAL PLACEMENT REPLACES: • SECTION: 30-505.5 TRANSRACIAL/CULTURAL SECTION: 30-505.5 PAGE NO.: 4 PLACEMENTS PAGE NO.: 4 ISSUED/REVISED: 08-01-92 ISSUED/REVISED:02-08-94 5. Out of county placement in neighboring counties should be considered to achieve a racial/ethnic match for a child. a. Parents should be consulted regarding their preference if a choice must be made of an out of county placement vs. an ethnic match. b. The issue of being placed in a family of their same race/ethnicity/culture vs being placed further from the community of origin should also be discussed with any child who is able to talk. Vt PLACEMENT REVIEW PROCESS A. Existing Unmatched Placements All existing unmatched placements shall be scheduled for review at the �. Disposition Review panel. B. Ongoing Review Process 1. When a Division Manager approves an unmatched ri✓ cpla € ._s> �<� 'p �zt- �-.�g�ttda£ore��p�s�tt�inal l�.ev�e�v Pap�1.-ate 2. To have an unmatched home approved as a permanent placement for a child, the Division Manager in the District must schedule the case for review before the Children's Services Administrative Team (CSAT). (DMCL # 94-18) • Contra Costa County Issued/Revised: 02-08-94 Social Service Dept. Manual Distribution: A-1, A-10 TRANSRACIAL PLACEMENT ' ACES: SECTION: 30-505.5 TRANSRACIAL/CULTURAL SECTION: 30-505.5 PAGE NO.: 5 PLACEMENTS PAGE NO.: 5 ISSUED/REVISED: 08-01-92 ISSUED/REVISED:02-08-94 )W4 LONG-TERM PLACEMENTS, INCLUDING ADOPTIONS AND GUARDIANSHIPS A. With the exception of a permanent plan of adoption, unmatched long-term placements plans, i.e., long term foster care and guardianship, shall be reviewed in the district through the Permanent Placement Review Teams. B. If the recommendation of the social worker and the unit supervisor is for adoption and the prospective adoptive parents do not reflect the child's ethnic and cultural ,heritage, the case must be reviewed by the Children's Services Administrative Team (CSAT). C. The secretary of the Services Assistant Director shall be called to have this item placed on CSAT's agenda. CSAT meets on the 2nd and 4th Tuesday of each • month. D. The Family Reunification or Permanent Placement Social Worker and Supervisor shall present the case to CSAT. The adoption worker and supervisor may be present at these reviews, if deemed appropriate. CONTACT PERSON: Foster Home Licensing and Adoption Program Analyst (DMCL # 94=18) Contra Costa County Issued/Revised: 02-08-94 Social Service Dept. Manual Distribution: A-1, A-10 1 '��, i 1 i 1 _ r;�� ,',� ��� t �� ��� ���� ��,; 1 'a a r, �� M •, ��. 1� k ! 2 � ! _! — k � © » i c 7 �} � } L) E00 ci § ! k ) f & \ 2 S } a � . 440, i � � k 2 044 \ 2E _ 41 us ƒ AL O k kk — | # � � � \ � � � � � � �� § � ■ � � '85 _[� _�' ƒ ) � 2 ■ � � - § . F . � � » � / � © f | � � 3E ! < =040 \ § } � • 2 � � ! of IE � � 22 ` B $ � � �f � ( � & � ! � — ■ oqj f \ E k � H� Z'� MISSION STATEMENT CHILDREN'S SERVICES BUREAU The mission of the Children's Bureau is to protect and promote the welfare and safety of children in Contra Costa County who, according to legal mandates, are in jeopardy of further emotional, physical and/or sexual abuse. Our mission will be accomplished by: ♦ empowering the family to improve parenting skills to meet minimum standards so the child may remain at home; ♦ providing safe, quality substitute care reflective of the child's cultural/ethnic identity in the least restrictive, most family-like setting when the child's safety • cannot be ensured in their own home; ♦ providing consistent, effective, ethical service by actively involving families in their own casework, respecting the integrity of their heritage and community; and, ♦ developing community resources, educating the public and advocating for children and families. These services will be provided in a humane, empathic and professional manner. To accomplish this we shall establish and maintain a work environment which promotes mutual respect, open communication and team work. MOTTO: PROTECT AND PROMOTE THE WELFARE OF CHILDREN AND THEIR FAMILIES • BASIC BELIEFS ♦ Every child deserves to grow up in a home, free from abuse or neglect. ♦ Cultivating strengths in families is a more powerful approach to helping than focusing on negative behavior. ♦ A nurturing, supportive family is a life-long need. Weakening of the unique bond between parent and child poses harm to the . child. Parents and family are a resource to children through adulthood. When it is necessary to separate children from families, the staff of the Children's Bureau is committed to reunite families as soon as the child's safety is assured. ♦ Family and heritage are extremely important to a child. Relatives can often help in ways that no one else can. ♦ Families are entitled to careful consideration of indications of danger to their child. They are entitled to hear how we believe they are endangering their child and what they need to do to correct the problem(s) . Family strengths and weaknesses and the long-term importance of family bonds will be considered at all times in making evaluations of and recommendations to the family. ♦ Children have the right to safe care outside their own home when it is necessary to place them. The Children's Bureau has the responsibility for assuring safe care. ♦ Foster parents are valued members of the Foster Care System of the Children's Bureau and will be treated with respect, courtesy and dignity. ♦ Children have a right to quickly gain a permanent and - nurturing alternative family when their own proves unsafe for every day is confusing and frightening to a child. ♦ When an alternative family is required, it is important that, whenever possible, the selected family reflect the child's ethnic heritage. ♦ The people that form the Children's Bureau are the greatest strength of the Bureau. The excellence of service provided our clients is dependent: on an exceptional staff, enthusiastic leadership and teamwork. We expect every staff member to be client oriented, empathetic and professional; to maintain a high standard of integrity, honesty and open communication; to be flexible, mature and respectful in the delivery of service. a:bscbeIfs.cw m-disk 35 LV t �, �1 t' S ro b�, ��,: 1 t _._�.,? Contra Costa County Social Service Department PERMANENCY PLANNING TEAM REVIEW Check reason: [ ]6 mos. [ ]12 mos. [ ]18 mos. [ ]366.26 [ ]Re-review Date of PP Team Review: [ ]Contest [ ]Non-unification [ ]No FR services ordered [ ]Fost-Adopt Placement Child's Name Child's DOB Are there siblings who are dependents? [ ] yes [ ] no Foster Care Provider's Name Relationship to Ethnic Match? Interested In Child: ( ] yes Adoption [ ] yes [ ] no [ ] no Guardianship [ ] yes [ ] no Mother's Name Father Named on Birth Certificate Alleged/Presumed Father(s) [ ] Regular contact with child [ ] Regular contact with child [ ] Regular contact with child [ ] Whereabouts unknown [ ] Whereabouts unknown [ ] Whereabouts unknown Other relatives [ ] Regular contact with child [ ] Regular contact with child [ J Regular contact with child Date of Detention Hearing: Date of Dispositional Hearing: Date of Next Court Hearing: ITEMS BELOW TO BE COMPLETED AT PP TEAM REVIEW Recommended Long Term Plan for this Review: [ ] Reunification by (anticipated date) [ ] Re-review by (Month/year) [ ] Adoption Prospective Adoptive Home: [ ] Guardianship [ ] Long-Term Foster Care [ ] Relative Name [ ] Relative [ ] Relative [ ] . Non-relative Address [ ] Non-relative [ ] Non-Relative Ethnic Match? Ethnic Match? Ethnic Match? [ ] yes Phone [ ] yes [ ] yes [ ] no [ ] no [ ] no Comments: Submitted by: Social Worker's Name 4pproved by: Placement Supervisor's Signature Adoption Supervisor's Signature CWDM Initials • • Copy 1: Adoption Unit Supervisor Copy 2: SW case file OC 131 (Rev. 4/93) Copy 3: CWDM 2 \ . . \ �� \ . \a \ � \ } �\ \ �\ y \ - \ � �& , . 4 \ \ � aa STATE OF CALIFORNIA-HEALTH AND WELFARE AGENCY ' DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 7411 P Street , Sacramento, CA 95814 ' February 13, 1992 ALL COUNTY LETTER No. 92-23 TO: ALL COUNTY WELFARE DIRECTORS ALL PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ADOPTION AGENCIES ALL SDSS ADOPTIONS DISTRICT OFFICES SUBJECT: ASSEMBLY BILL 548 (CHAPTER 1581 , STATUTES OF 1990) AND APPLICATION OF PLACEMENT PRIORITIES FOR FOSTER CARE AND ADOPTION TO DEPENDENT CHILDREN OF THE COURT Assembly Bill 548 (Chapter 1581 , Statutes of 1990) amended laws affecting priorities for selecting foster care and adoptive placements. - Because these placement priorities regarding dependent children of the court have been- inserted in the Civil • Code (CC) rather than the Welfare and Institutions (W&I) Code, the Department would like to advise agencies of the applicability of these new provisions to children who have been adjudged dependents of the court on or after January 1 , 1989. (The new provisions in AB 548 do not present procedural issues regarding the adoptive placement selection process for children adjudged dependents of the court prior to January 1 , 1989. ) This letter also sets forth guidelines for implementing the adoptive placement priorities and reconciling them with W&I Code Sections 366.21 , 366.22 and 366.26, Adoptions Program regulations, and long-standing adoption practices. FOSTER CARE PLACEMENT REQUIREMENTS: Pursuant to AB 548, CC Section 275 establishes a specific order of preference for the placement of a child in foster care. The child welfare services agency is required to consider the proximity of the birth parents to the proposed foster care placement in order to facilitate visitation and family reunification. In addition, unless it is not in the child's best interests, the foster care placement selection must be made using specified racial or ethnic background criteria . The child welfare services agency is required first to make a diligent effort to locate an appropriate relative with whom to place the child in foster care. Before any child may be placed in long-term foster care, each relative who has been identified 2 • as a possible caretaker must be evaluated by the child welfare services agency to determine the appropriateness of the placement . If , after 30 days from the time the child comes under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court , the child welfare services agency cannot find an appropriate relative with whom to place the child or if a relative placement i.s not in the child 's best interest, the child welfare services agency shall place the child with foster parents of the same racial or ethnic identification as the child. If the child has a mixed racial or ethnic background, placement shall be with a family of the racial or ethnic group with which the child has the more significant contacts . Placement with foster parents having a different racial background or ethnic identification cannot be made until application of the above criteria has failed to identify an appropriate placement. If the child is to be placed in a foster home of a different racial background or ethnic identification, there must be evidence in the home of sensitivity to the child's race, ethnicity, and culture. The child's religious background must also be considered in determining an appropriate placement. The child welfare services agency is permitted to search for an appropriate relative at the same time it searches for an appropriate foster family. The child is also permitted to remain in his or her current. placement site while the search for an appropriate relative or foster fam}ly is being conducted. The decision of the child welfare services agency not to follow these criteria must be based on one or more of the following considerations: the request of the parent(s) ; the extraordinary physical or emotional needs of the child; or the unavailability of suitable foster parents for placement after a diligent search for -foster parents who meet those criteria has been conducted. The Department is currently in the process of revising Division 30 of its Manual of Policies and Procedures to reflect the requirements of AB 548. ADOPTIVE PLACEMENT REQUIREMENTS: Pursuant to AB 548, CC Section 222. 35 (former CC Section 276) establishes a specific order of placement preference whenever a child is considered for adoptive placement. For 90 days from the time- a child is relinquished for adoption or has been declared -free from parental custody or control , the agency must search for a family that has the same racial background or ethnic identification as the child 'before considering placement with a family of a different racial background or ethnic identification. If the child has a mixed racial or ethnic background, placement shall be with a family of the racial or ethnic group with which • 3 the child has the more significant contacts. Civil Code Section 222. 36 establishes what is good cause not to follow the placement priorities. During the 90-day period , the agency must conduct a diligent search for a family that matches the child ' s racial background or ethnic identification. For purposes of conducting a diligent search, CC Section 222-37 directs agencies to use all appropriate resources , as necessary, in an effort to recruit a family through (a) use of all appropriate intra-agency and interagency, state, regional, and national exchanges and listing books ; (b) child-specific recruitment in electronic and printed media coverage; and .(c) use of agency contacts with parent groups to advocate for specific waiting children. Placement with a family of a different racial or ethnic background or identification cannot occur unless there is documentation that a diligent search was conducted. Current Adoptions regulations at Title 22 California Code of Regulations Sections 35011 and 35015, require agencies to recruit families that reflect the identified racial, ethnic, cultural or religious background of the child whore the agency is placing for adoption. However, prior to AB 548 the regulations provided that agencies must search for an - adoptive family of the same race or ethnicity as the child for 6 months .before considering prospective adoptive families of a. -different race or ethnicity. The pre-AB -548 regulations basically listed and required all but one of the activities cited in CC tection 222-37 as processes which constitute a diligent -search. The activity not included in the former regulations was the requirement for contacting parent groups regarding specific children. In .addition, CC Section 222-37 slightly expands the requirement for presenting . information on the. child at exchange meetings of agencies to include state, regional and national exchanges. Consequently , the Department revised the regulations, effective August 2, 1991 , to include this additional mandated activity and to shorten the mandated With these recent changes , andated search period to 90 days. Wil. t, current Adoptions Program regulations and practice are now consistent with statutory requirements. Attached is a list and description of various processes and resources currently mandated or available to agencies to enable them to comply with AB 548 requirements. 71"he processes and resources* include information on photo-listing children. The Department has found that the mandatory photo-listing is extremely under-utilized by agencies. Therefore, agencies are reminded that Section 35015(a) (4) of Title 22 California Code of Regulations requires agencies. to photo-list children as appropriate. Section 35017 requires the . a3encY to photo-list each child who has been freed for adoption and whose case plan goal is adoption. Section 35017(c) specifies the process to photo-list the child who is not yet freed for adoption. 4 • APPLICATION OF AB 5118 PROVISILMS TO DEPENDENCY PROCEEDINGS: In juvenile court proceedings, when the court orders a hearing pursuant to W&I Code Section 366.26 for children adjudged dependents of the court- on or after January 1 , 1989, an assessment of the child is also ordered. The assessment includes a preliminary assessment of the eligibility and commitment of any- identified prospective adoptive parent. At the "366.26" hearing, parental rights will be terminated only if the court determines by clear and convincing evidence it is likely that the minor will be adopted. A major factor which allows the. court to make such a finding is the identification o£ a prospective adoptive family. When this determination is made, the parental rights of the .child's birth parents will be terminated and the child will be referred for adoptive placement. For the child adjudged a dependent of the court prior to January 1 , 1989, the parental rights can be terminated before the identification of a prospective adoptive family. Under AB 548, however, the 90-day search requirement for an adoptive family of the same race/ethnic - identification as the child must be conducted after the relinquishment or the termination of .parental rights has occurred. While the 90-day search requirement after relinquishment or termination of parental rights does not affect the court process for the child who was adjudged a dependent of the court prior -to January 1 ,- 1939, it does conflict with the count .process for -the child adjudged a dependent of the court on or after January 1 , 1989. _- Furthermore, 989. -Furthermore, W&I Code Section 366.26(j) gives the relative caretaker or foster parent preference with respect to the dependent child over all other applications for adoptive placement. The preference would occur if the child has substantial emotional ties to the relative caretaker or .foster parent and removal Would be seriously detrimental to the child's well-being. "Preference" is defined in this statute as the application, of the foster parent shall be processed and, ;if satisfactory, the family study shall be completed before the processing of any other person's application for the adoptive placement of the child. AB 548, however, does not incorporate . the placement priority given to foster parents. Agencies mush continue to satisfy the requirements regarding the adoptive placement preference afforded to relative caretakers and foster parents by W&I Code Section 366.26(j) . Since W&I Code Section 366.26(j) is specific in its application to dependent children, 'the Department has interpreted this provision to take- precedence over adoptive placement priorities in the CC. As stated above, AB 548 also established comparable placement priority criteria for court dependent children placed in foster • • 5 care. Therefore, few problems in reconciling the caretaker preference provisions of W&I Code Section 366.26(j) with CC Sections 222. 35, 222. 36 and 222.37 adoptive placement criteria should be encountered by agencies for children entering the court dependency system subsequent of AB 548 implementation. In instances where the child is not going to be adopted by a relative caretaker or foster parent, efforts must be made to harmonize AB 548 with the requirements of W&I Code Sections 366. 21 , 366.22 and 366.26. Specifically, agencies must comply with the mandates of CC Sections 222. 35, 222.36, and 222. 37 to seek an adoptive family with the same racial background or ethnic identification as the child for the first 90 days of the 120 days allotted to complete the assessment required by W&I Code Sections 366. 21 (i ) and 366.22(b) . If a family of the same race or ethnicity as the child cannot be located within the 90-day period, the agency is then free to consider other adoption placement options during the 30 days remaining prior to the "366. 26" hearing. AB 548 does not include a specific funding appropriation to meet the costs of any increased activities above and beyond those • currently employed and refers counties to the State Commission on Mandates for purposes of recovering unfunded mandated expenditures. Therefore, the Department has interpreted the search requirement in the context of limitations on existing resources . Because the statute reduces to 90 days the mandatory 6-month search period specified in current regulations , additional costs associated with more intense or expanded searches are assumed to be offset by the shorter period of activity required . Questions on the above should be .addressed to the Adoptions Policy Bureau at the above address or at (916) 322-4228 (ATSS) 492-4228. LOREN D. SUTER Deputy Director Adult and Family Services Division Enclosure CC : CWDA ATTACHMENT • THE NATIONAL ADOPTION EXCHA`1GE The national Adoption Exchange (NAE) is a nationwide adoption resource and referral agency. 14AE maintains a computerized data base of families searching for children and children in need of adoptive placement. Even though their service is available to all families, individuals and children, on the child end, their focus is primarily special needs children. Through membership with NAE, clients, nationwide, register their respective clientele with the exchange and in turn the exchange conducts nationwide searches for such clients.; If an agency is not registered with NAE, that agency is not included in the search process. The bulk of NAE' s matching activities is performed electronically. . Any agency can obtain access to NAE's data base information by becoming a member of the organization -and by registering their families, individuals or children. Registration can be done manually (sending family/child information in printed form) , but the preference is electronic registration. To electronically register children, individuals or families, an agency should acquire (buy or lease) an IBM compatible computer with a modem. Once established with NAE, direct access to its data base is achieved and any agency can electronically • search for families and children, nationwide. Agencies can register clients .by completing the -attached NAE form and sending the information, along with a $35.00 fee for each registration to: The National Adoption Exchange , 121$ Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107 (Telephone: (215) 925-0200) . r PHOTO-LISTING SERVICE The children 's photo-listing service is a mandated (Title 22 California Code of Regulations Section 35017) recruitment tool designer: to give the public a visual sampling of the kinds of children available for adoption statewide. Adoption agencies, mainly public agencies, can register any child with a case plan goal of adoption by submitting an AD 909 form (attached) to the Department ' s Adoptions Branch, M. S. 19-31 , and include a recent photograph. These listings are made available to all adoption agencies (statewide and nationwide) , adoption support groups and any state, regional or national photo- listing, services , upon request to the Adoptions Branch, M. S. 19-31 , and at 7o cost the requesting agency . All the above mentioned agencies/organizations automatically receive inserts as trey become available via a mailing lis•`. • established specifically for the service by the Adoptions Branch. 2 ADOPTION EXCHANGE ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM (AEEP-AKA MINORITY EXCHANGE) The AEEP is designed to link the existing adoption exchange organizations by providing them with a more productive means of communicating, networking and identifying potential placements statewide. The Exchange - is currently administered by Family Builders By Adoption , 1230 - 2nd Avenue, Oakland, CA 94606, ' (415) 272-0204. Under the direction of a Program Director, the Exchange Coordinator attends all adoption exchange meetings, compiles a listing of all minority children, families and individuals presented at each exchange meeting and disseminates these listings to all adoption caseworkers and recruiters, statewide at meetings and through the mail. From the compiled listings, the Exchange Coordinator identifies potential matches and defers these matches to the respective adoption worker. A family, individual or child becomes a part of the compiled listings only through the representation of an adoption worker. This is done either . .at one of the exchange meetings or via phone or written correspondence requesting that their child, individual or family be listed. If a family or individual is not in the assessment process for an adoptive placement, they will not appear in the compiled listings. PARENT GROUPS Parent Groups can obtain access to NAE's data base -via membership. They do not receive copies of the Minority Exchange compiled listings, due to the issue of confidentiality of the contents. NA T IONAL A DOPTION CENTER ZL] 218 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia,�PA 19107 -�(2 1 5) 925-420 FAMILY REGISZTIONFORM I. IN THIS SECTION, PLEASE TELL US ABOUT YOUR FAMILY. Female'Applicant: Male Applicant: Name Name tAST FIRST LAST FIRST Date of Birth Date of Birth Work Phone (AREA CODE Work Phone(AREA CODE Occupation/ Occupation/ Sours: ol Incorne Source of Income Religion Reli R2cdEthnic Background (Please specify) R2oe/Ethnk Background(Please specify) Language(s) spoken (check all that apply) Lannne(s)spoken (check all that apply) English English— Spanish Spanish— Other Other Please specify Please specify Marital Status (check one) Single,never married—Separated Divorced Widowed Married Date of Marriage Home Address STRUT OR BOX NUN03ER CITY STATE ZIP CODE Home Telephone (AREA CODE How many children have you raised or are now raising? If there are children now living with you, please use the space below to tell us about them. Race/Ethnic Date of Boy or If a�opted, date Child's Name Background Birth Girl of placement 11. STATEMENT BY FAMILY. Please attach a brief statement about your family. You can include your,special interests, work experiences, community involvements, hobbies, the kinds of things you do together,your home and neighborhood. Be sure to note any skills, knowledge or experience with special needs children and with disabilities_ For Office Use Only I I i l l III. IN THIS SECTION,PLEASE TELL US ABOUT THE KINDS OF CHILDREN YOU WOULD CONSIDER ADOPTING. Preferred sex of child Male Female Either • How many children would you consider adopting at this time? I 2 3 4 5 _or more Please write in the youngest and oldest ages of a child you would consider adopting. Youngest Oldest Some children.have one or more disabilities that require medication, special equipment and/or care. Please check below any disabilities you would be willing to consider. PHYSICAL DISABILITIES: None Mild Moderate Severe EMOTIONAL PROBLEMS: None Mild Moderate Severe MENTAL RETARDATION: None Mild Moderate Severe LEARNING DISABILITIES: None Mild Moderate Severe Please describe any special disabilities, physical characteristics and/or behavior you would be willing to consider such as a child on crutches or in a wheel chair, a child who is blind or deaf, a child with Down syndrome or cerebral palsy, a child who has been sexually active or has used drugs, etc. Describe any conditions, physical characteristics and/or behavior you cannot accept. i a IV. IN THIS SECTION, PLEASE TELL US ABOUT YOUR AGENCY. Have you completed a home study and been approved for adoption? Yes No Or are you in study now? Yes No Expected date study will be finished Name of Social Worker Name of Agency Address of Agency sTK_=r.r ok aox NuMar_: CITY- ,>i ATF ZIP cope Agency Telephone Number( } Are you registered with any other adoption exchanges? Yes No Don't Know If yes, please specify which one(s) V. CONSENT FOR NATIONAL ADOPTION CENTER TO MAKE REFERRALS. I (we) consent to the National Adoption Center making referrals to adoption agencies and other sources on my (our) behalf. I (we) understand that these recerrals may include, but are not limited to the National Adoption Center giving my (our) name and information about my (our) family to adoption agencies and exchanges. SIGKATURE OF FE/:-LE APPUC MT DATE W114ATURE OF MAL.F.M ,_r_A.YT • f1ATE We Wing Special peo0e together 3/90 PHOTO LISTING DATA SHEET INSTRUCTION. PLEASE TYPE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER*VR OSS WE OW0 Akl-- #,ST) (FAST) 04ODLE INMAU SUTECASE NUMBER DATE OF BIRTH 0 MALE 0 FEMALE PMX.AOUS PREFEFIENCE —TS—ft—Ws HOW MAW 0 YES 0 ETHNIC OFOGIN1140 fatale(,}_ Females(,} ❑ WHITE El BLACK ❑ HISPANIC ❑ NATIVE AMERICAN ❑ ASIA WAC4FIC ISLANDER ❑ MIXED BACKGROUND(S ) LEGAL SIATUSEME 0 TOTALLY FREE 0 PARTIALLY FREE ❑ NOT FREE 171MYES El NO AGENCY NAME DATE I&OWK DAY,AM WAM ADOPTIONS CASEMRKER DESCRIFT10N OF CHILD(DO NOT FOLD} INSTRUCTIONS: AGENCY ADDRESS, CASEWORKER'S Complete the top portion NAME AND for each child being TELEPHONE NUMBER photo-fisted. Type the agency's name, the caseworker's name and the telephone number in ft space provided. DESCRIPTION OF CHILD: Type the narrative description of each child being photo-fisted within the preprinted brackets.If additional space is needed, continue the description on the reverse side within the preprinted brackets. 0 AD wetam (CONTINUED ON REVERSE) PHOTO LISTING DATA SHEET(Continued) 1 L f—Arsecy NAME,cAsewowcERs wim AND TEtIDMONE No--] Callfomla's Walling Chlldren STATE OF CALIFORNIA L STATE Of CALW0Q 11A—+tEAITH AND WELFARE AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 44 P Street, Sacram--nto, CA 95814 October 15, 1992 REA" FOR 111IS TRANSMI'rrAL � I ALL-caury Lgrmt No. 92-92 I ( 1 State Law Change I I I 1 Federal Law or Regulation TO: ALL COLWrY WELFARE DIRECTORS I Change 1 ALL PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ADOPTION I I 1 Court Order or Sett l event � AGENCIES I Agreement I . AIL SDSS ADOPTIONS DISTRICT OFFICES I I I Clarification Requested by I One or More Counties I I X 1 Ini ti.at ed by SDSS I SUBJECT: ADDENDUM TO AU.-(-X J TTY LETTER NO. 92-23; EUSTER CARE AND ADOPTIVE PIACEMENr PRIORITIES The Department recently received a letter from Assembly Mm er Gen Moore expressing concerns about the manner in which some agencies have implemented the provisions of legislation she authored, AB 548 (Chapter 1581, Statutes of 1990), which established foster care and adoptive placement priorities. Assembly Member of Moore's concerns stem from complaints she has received indicating some ccxinties and agencies are not following child placement policies and guidelines set forth in Department regulations and All-County Letter (ACL) No. 92-23. Assembly tlernber Moore concurs that the stated policies and guidelines accurately reflect legislative intent. The purpose of this Letter is to supplement ACL No. 92-23 to provide counties and agencies with policy direction and guidelines for implementing AB 548. This . Letter will re-en[hasize key placement priority provisions of AB 548 as they apply to dependent children of the court in the public foster care system. This restatement of requirements rements is intended to dispel any possible rnisundecst:and iny of foster care and adoptive placement preference criteria in the law and to entire that inappropriate and incorrect agency placement practices cease. The foster care and adoptive placement priorities in AB 548 were intended to serve as a gide in initial placements and whenever a planned change in a child's placement is required. In the priority placement scheme, the overriding _principle is the best interests of the child. The priorities must be utilized in that spirit. Statutes governing court and public agency planning decisions for dependent children of the court clearly establish adoption as the priority permanent plan for those children who are unable to be reunified with the parents or caretakers from whom they were rermved. (See Welfare and Inst-itutions Code (W&TC1 Section 366.25(d) (1) and Section 366.26(b)(1) . ) Further, MIC Section 366.25(8) and Section 366.26(j) establish that. preferential consideration mist- lie giveft to. the 2 adoption application of foster parents who wish to adopt their foster child and with wham the child has developed emotional ties. . Given these statutory directives, there is no justification for agencies to remove a child from the home of foster parents where mutual emtional ties have developed, and the family wishes to adopt_, solely for purposes of placing the child in a same race home. The primary purpose of placement preference in AB 548 is to ecapel agencies to place children with family members or a same race family at the time of initial . out-of-home placement or upon subsequent change in placement required as part of the court-approved case plan for the child. As previously stated, the.overriding principle in child welfare service and adoption law and practice is to act in the best interests of the child. If the agency has placed a child in a stable, supportive different race hare after unsuccessfully atte pting to place the child with a family menber or same race family in the time frame specified by law, it is not in the child's best interests to disrupt the placement solely to satisfy racial matching criteria. It is also in a foster child's best interests to be adopted whenever feasible rather than remsin in long-term foster care. After an agency has, for the period specified in law, unsuccessfully sought a family member or same race adoptive. hcue for an otherwise adoptable child whose foster parents do not wish tA) exercise any E statutorily guaranteed prerogatives to retain the child, there is rx, justification for placing the child in long-term foster care in lieu of seeking other adoption alternatives. Pursuant to this reiteration of statutory requirements and State policy governing foster care and adoptive placement preferences, please review the manner in which your agency is implementing the provisions of law and regulation to ensure that . the intent of the law is fulfilled. Questions regarding this subject should be -addressed to the Adoptions Policy Bureau at the above address or at (916) 324-4228 or (ATSS) 492-4228. DISI Deputy Director Adult and Family Services cc: CWDA r�� '� '^:. �;, '� r`1 :, ��;`l- "� ; .jiN`H�, Y .t,�`� ,� �1 'j } __---,`♦ �`s �= �-�'" / JAN 2 9 1980 STATE OF CALIFORNIA-HEALTH AND WELFARE AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 4 P Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 JAN 2 5 1990 TO: ALL PUBLIC ADOPTION AGENCIES COUNTY WELFARE DIRECTORS SUBJECT: ADOPTION WORKLOAD ESTIMATES FY 1990-91 In order to project program needs, we are requesting that you provide us with your estimated FY 1990-91 adoption workload based on current operations. As you know, we do this annually to prepare for the adoption allocation process which is conducted after the passage of the State budget. The Adoptions Branch utilizes caseload movement graphs and linear regression workload trend projections, based on data reported by the counties over the past several years. Detailed justification or explanation by the county is required for any workload item which substantially exceeds prior performance or trend projections. If there are statistics which do not provide a complete picture of a situation in your county, please provide an explanation. .For example, if you are planning to do special recruitment or are planning to add more homestudy workers, that information will be helpful. It is anticipated that the same limits applied in prior years will be imposed on some workload items when the ratio of that item to projected placements appears excessive, or far above average. As in prior fiscal years, the workload items to be restricted in their ratio to placements are: Limits Applied in Past Years 1 . Request Not Accepted .8 2. Freed 1 . 1 3. Services Terminated 1 .0 6. Applicant Requests 8.0 7a. Homes Approved 1 . 3 7b. Applications Disposed 1 .8 9. Post Adoptive Services Completed 5. 0 10. Foster Care Cases Reviewed and Not Accepted 5. 0 2 The Governor's Budget has provided Adoptions Program funding for FY 1990-91 in the amount of $26,996,000. The budgeted amount includes the additional funding authorized in the past two years for enhanced relinquishment adoption performance. Enclosed is a copy of each of the "Adoption Agency Budget Worksheet" and the "Explanation of Yardstick Items" for preparing your estimates. Please complete these forms and forward two copies no later than March 19, 1990 to: Department of Social Services Adoptions Policy Bureau 744 P Street, M.S. 19-67 Sacramento, CA 95814 Attn: Barbara Mason . If you have any questions, please call Mrs. Barbara Mason, Policy Consultant, at (916) 324-6961 or (ATSS) 454-6961 . YOREN D. SUTER Deputy Director Enclosures cc: CWDA County Adoption Supervisors Mir -1403 DISTRIBUTION OF ACTIVITIES INCLUDED IN EACH YARDSTICK VALUE Yardstick Count Activity A. NATURAL PARENT & CHILDREN SERVICES 1. Request to Arrange Adoptive Placement — Natural Parent Services — Not Accepted for Study Not Accepted 2. Child Freed 14 Natural Parent Services — Accepted for Study Natural Parent Planning Locating Natural Parents Court Work Children Services 3. Services Terminated 1 ! Natural Parent Services — Accepted for Study Natural Parent Planning Locating Natural Parents Court Work Children Services For Freed Children Who are Never Placed: — Counseling and Follow—up — Child Preplacement SERVICES TO CHILDREN 4. Child Placed Counseling and Follow—up Child Preplacement Sustaining Relationship with Approved Applicant Applicant Preplacement Post—Placement Supervision 5. Child Placed from Other Agericles Sustaining Relationship with Approved Applicant Applicant Preplacement Post—Placement Supervision SERVICES TO APPLICANTS 6. Request for Services Request for Services 7. Applications Disposed: a. Home Studies Approved Applicant Services Home Studies b. Other Dispositions Applicant Services Home Studies OTHER 7. Services to Other Agencies: a. One—time Requests — Completed One—time Requests b. Post—Placement Supervision Post—Placement Supervision 9. Post—Adoptive Services Post—Adoptive Services 10. Foster Care Reviews — Not Accepted for Not Covered by Time Ladders Study 11. Recruitment and Educative Services Recruitment B: INDEPENDENT ADOPTIONS 12. =Court Reports Completed Independent Adoptions (including reopened cases) Set Asides C: TRAVEL All travel codes 1:/ Foster Care case reviews accepted for study are also counted in this item: So i cial;-Service Department Contra Please reply to: 2401 Stanwell Drive.#200 James A.Rydingsword P.O.Box 5488 w DirecCosta Concorcl,California 94524 0 County February 28, 1990 Department of Social Services State of California 744 IIPII Street, MS 19-67 Sacramento,* CA 95814 Attention Barbara Mason Dear Ms. Mason: Re: Adoption Workload Estimates Fiscal Year 1990-91 Per your letter dated January 25, 1990, here are our Adoption Workload Estimates for Fiscal Year 1990-91. S ly James A. Rydi gswo Pd,. Director Department of Social service JAR:cw(A:ADOPT.DISC. 36) Enclosure bcc: Ro-ze IManniniz Bi---_ Reid Clarence Jackson bind a Waddington Ma:Se Harmon Ruth Vaughn Joe Epperson 0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND WELFARE AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES INSTRUCTIONS: Complete 4 copies. Send 3 copies It ADOPTION AGENCY BUDGET WORKSHEET Adoptions Branch c State Department of Social Services aseworker Staff Requirements for Fuca! Year 744 P Street, U.S.19-31 Sacramento, California 95814 SEE REVERSE FOR DISTRIBUTION OF COUNTY FISCAL YEAR ACTIVITIES CONTRA COSTA 1990-91 PLEASE DO NOT STAFF-MONTHS REQUIRED ANNUAL WORKLOADto IN THIS FOR BUDGET YEAR comments Allowed COLUMN ftatt-flAo+tths Estimated By No. WORKLOAD UNITS Actual For Estimated Indicate Prior Budget FOR STATE USE Per Stolt-Mouths upportinj Current 9 workload Required Year Year ONLY Justit Year unit Budget Year cation A. RELINQUISHMENT ADOPTIONS NATURAL PARENT&CHILDREN SERVICES 881-89. 8V 9-0 901'91 Request to arrange adoptive placement- accepted for Study(AD 56C. Item 4a) 117 1:00 150 xxxxxx xxxxxx 1.-Request to arrange adoptive placement- not accepted(AD 56C. Item 4b) 16 20 10 0.031 .31 Children under study.July 1 (AD 56C. item 6) - _ - XXXXXX XXXXXX 2. Child freed for adaption (AD 56C, item 10) 51 50 66 0.540 35.64 3. Services terminated prior to adoptive 29 ' 35 37 6.364 placement(AD 56C. Item 12) 0.172 SERVICES TO CHILDREN 4. Placed in adoptive home(AD56C,Item11) 48 55 55 0.635 34.925 5. Placed from other agencies - (AD 56C. Item 15, Cal.2) 8 3 4 0.386 1.544 Children understudy*or care. E_O.Y. - XXXXXX XXXXXX SERVICES TO APPLICANTS 6. Requests received(AD 56A, item 1) 317 250 250 0.006 1.5 7. Application dispositions: a: Home studies approved 37 45 45 10.98 (AD 56A.Item SA) 0.244 b-. Applications otherwise disposed of (Item 5b) 65 60 60 0.070 .42 OTHER 8. Services to other agencies completed a: One time requests(AD 56E, Item A4) 8 9 6 0.032 b: Post-Placement .16 Col.3) supervision (AD 56E. item A4 Col.2) - 0 3 3 0-2t8 .654 9. Post-adoptive services completed AD 56E, item K Col.1) 232 180 180 0.049 8.82 10. Foster care cases reviewed and not accepted for study(AD 56C.item 23b) 498 300 700 0.004 2.8 SUBTOTAL RELINQUISHMENT ADOPTIONS XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXx .Op fixed rate 11. Recruitment and Educative Services XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX 182i moain sub- B. INDEPENDENT ADOPTIONS btal) 12. Court reports completed (AD56D. Item 4A. Col.1 minus Col.3) 1 0.156 104.117 SUBTOTAL RELINQUISHMENT AND INDEPENDENT ADOPTIONS XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX xxxxxx - C. TRAVEL-VARIABLE ADD-ON 13. Medium travel counties XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX 4.2% 14. High travel counties XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX 9.090 GRAND TOTALS XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX A2 We expect a small increase in children freed as a result of the AB243 (366.26) hearings. We are not estimating a large increase . because the "system" will be new. There may be continuances and/or appeals. We have no prior experience with such hearings and therefore cannot anticipate the workload that will be given to an already crowded judicial system. There are still a significant number of children who must be freed under the CC232 system. As mentioned in prior years., many of these cases take time to move through the court system because of continuances (for various reasons - no courtrooms, appointments of several attorneys for a case which necessitates the meshing of a number of schedules, etc. ) . Further, we continue to serve many drug addicted children who may or may not benefit from adoption. Making a determination of adoptability consumes time which may or may not lead to the freeing of the child. This service may not accumulate yardstick points, but is nevertheless work done toward achieving a permanent plan for children. The "justification" mentioned in last year' s request is still relevant. Caretakers (whether they are relatives or non-relatives) generally move very slowly in completing the adoptive home study. Many children are being adopted by caretakers. The number of placements is not as high as it might .be otherwise with families whose -motivation for completion might be greater. In addition, there are several children living with caretakers in ,other (often -distant) counties. Those counties, - also short staffed, cannot quickly complete studies of the families and as we cannot travel hundreds of miles, we must wait until the other agencies have staff time to do the study. There are several children who should beplacedwith out-of-state relatives. The necessity for the ICPC acceptance delays those placements. All these factors combined help to reduce number of placements. See A4. It is still true (as it was last year) that many of the applicants continue to search for children elsewhere - even as we are working with them. our time is used, but the families 'Often find a child independently or via intercounty while we are working with them - or after approval. Thus work done cannot be counted in this category. Ruth Vaughn February 27, 1990 LB#1:RV Social-Service Department Contra F'easere* to. Douglas°Drive vVI�Director Moria -�Costa County RECEIVED ra coon MAY 0 41991 May 3, 1993 SOIAI.SERVICE MARTINEI.61 Department of Social Services State of California 744 "P" Street, MS 19-67 Sacramento, CA 95814 ATTN Joseph Magruder Dear Sir RE Adoption Workload Estimates Fiscal Year 1993-94 Per your letter dated March 25, 1993, here are our Adoption Workload Estimates for Fiscal Year 1993-94. Sincerely Perfecto Villarreal County Welfare Director RM/dc Encl .aopwMet Di*G bcc: Yvonne Bullock Ralph McGee Linda Waddington Casey Dixon Jim-Morphy Don Cruze Gwen Easter STA-E OF CALIFORNIA-HEAkTH AND WELFARE AGENCY OEPART&WNT OF SOCIAL SERVICES INSTRUCTIONS: Complete 4 copies.Send I copy to: ADOPTION AGENCY BUDGET WORKSHEET AdoptionsBrapu* State Departnimt ofSacial S Caseworker Staff Requirements for Fiscal Year 744 P Stred,M.S.19-67 ervices Sacramento,Cafffornia 95814 *EVERSE FOR DISTRIBUTION OF F(WN—w FISCAL YEAR *VERSE CONTRA COSTA 1993-94 ANNUAL WORKLOAD PLEASE DO NOT STAFF-MONTHS REQUIRED Rlhmnm so WRITE IN THIS FOR BUDGET YEAR commenis WORKLOAD UNITS Actual Allowed Edlinated COLUMN stmi-months Estimated ByNk I'dor For &AW FOR STATE USE per Staff4onths kWxAf Year cumd Year Workload Required &"N&q Year ONLY UnitBudget Year JUSU& inial A. RELINOUISHMENTADOPTIONS 91/92 92/93 93/94 NATURAL PARENT&CHILDREN SERVICES Request to airrange adoptive placement XX)O= XX)O= accepted for study(AD 56C.Item 4a) 49 132 60 1. Request to arrange adoptive placement— accepted for study(AD=.Item 4b) 31 26 14 0.031 0.434 Children under study.July I (AD 56C.Item 6) 165 124 XX)O= xxxxxx 2- Child freed for adoption (AD 56C.Item 10) 70 50 68 0.540 36.720 3. Services terminated prior to adoptive placement(AD 56C.Item 12) 7 44 12 0.172 2.064 SERVICES 70 CHILDREN 4. Placed in adoptive home(AD 56C.kern 11) 75 45 78 0.635 49.530 5. PLaced from other agencies (AD 56C.Item 15,Col.2) 4 4 0 0.386 —0— dren under study or care.E.O.Y. 134 XX)D= xxxxxx NWRVICES TO APPLICANTS 6. Requests received(AD 56A,Item 1} 366 360 306 0.006 1.836 7. Application dispositions: - 0.244 a. Home studies approved 63' 44 70 17.080 (AD 56A.Item SA) b. Applications otherwise disposed of 0-070 (Item 5b) 55 60 92 6.440 OTHER 8. Services to other agencies completed a. One time requests(AD 56E.Item A4. 15 8 6 0.032 0.192 Col.3) b. Post-Placement supervision (AD 56E.Item A4.Col.2) 0 1 0 0.218 —0- 9. Post-adcptive services completed (AD 56E.ham B1,COL 1) 194 142 146 0.049 7.154 10 Fostercat cases-reviewed and not accepted for study(AD 56C.kern 23b} 682 270 390 0.004 1.560 UBMTAL RELINQUISHMENT ADOPTIONS XX)O= xxxxxx XX)O= XXX)= 123.010 XX)O= 11. Recruitment and EducativeServices r.04 fixed role+ )000= xxxxxx XXX)= (0.0104 x each dM 2.319 fm In sub tato INDEPENDENT ADOPTIONS - 12. Court reports completed(AD 56D, 0.156 Item 4A,Col,I minus Col.3) SUBTOTAL REUNOU ISHMENT AND INDEPENDENT ADOPTIONS XX)O= xxxxxx )000= XX)=X 125.329 EL VARIABLE ADD-ON mtravel counties XX)O= XXX)= )000= 4.2% 14. High Travel Counties XX)O= XX)D= XX)O= 9.0% SAND TOTALS xxxxxx )000= )000= X== DISTRIBUTION OF ACTIVITIES INCLUDED IN EACH YARDSTICK VALUE Yardstick Count Activity A. NATURAL PARENT&CHILDREN SERVICES 1. Request to Arrange Adoptive Placement- Natural Parent Services-Not Accepted for Study Not Accepted 2. Child Freed 1/ Natural Parent Services-Accepted for Study Natural Parent Planning Locating Natural Parents Court work Children Services 3. Services Terminated 1/ Natural Parent Services-Accepted for Study . Natural Parent Planning Locating Natural Parents Court Work Children Services For Freed Ctuldren Who are Never Placed: -Counseling and Follow-up -Child Preplacement SERVICES TO CHILDREN 4. Child Placed Counseling and Follow-up Child Preplacement Sustairft Relationship with Approved Applicant Applicant Preplacement Post-Placement Supervision 5. Child Placed from Other Agencies Sustaining Relationship with Approved Applicant Applicant Preplacement Post-Placement Supervision SERVICES TO APPLICANTS 6. Request for Services Request for Services 7. Applications Disposed: a. Home Studies Approved Applicant Services Home Studies b. Other Dispositions Applicant Services Home Studies OTHER 8. Services to Other Agencies: a. One-time Requests-Completed One-time Requests b. Post-Placement Supervision Post-Placement Supervision ; 9. Post-Adoptive Services Post-Adoptive Services 10. Foster Care Reviews-Not Accepted for Not Covered by Time Ladders Study 11. Recruitment and Educative Services Recruitment B. INDEPENDENT ADOPTIONS 12. Court Reports Completed Independent Adoptions(including reopened cases) Set Asides C. TRAVEL All travel codes 1/ Foster Care case reviews accepted for study are also counted in this item. w-j N O-IT In N Cl 00 O .o C)to 11,3 r-1 r- 00 ;11 10;" V)"0 %000%T V F_ -400-1 Lq C>to r- 00 14 0% If 0111 W=LL L) O 00 W) -I f� oo In t- cli Co cz N C-0 in f") 11 M t1 KX Z F-N C)-4 O r-C) C)KI M C)d in in It r-it V)m It It 11 It LLA 11 I.: C)C=I Q Ld�q LLJ�x I---j h-CD LLJ 0 CD�tn%T r- %D _4 SIM to Co Ln 00 Ii II It -It UJ-i--j L) . . . . oN W 0 V-0-N, (='IT C*j 10 12, te')C"*)cli II II oN u r:4 W'Z*,T -IT %r te)� W) ST 00 If tl a:=C)C.-.1 1-4 ti 14 LLI so m u 0 II It It It V)u CL C)LL) If u UA C.)0 uj U It U-=Z(n It II HZ 0<:3It It z" =1-4 ix #1 11 set 0 0 F-0 W It It NUZ CL Ct U-Z it a0 w 0 W<a A CL F- L) cx (A It U F-CD Ir It If It =*_4 w=W = It if C) it It Oc),Uj = UJ F-t1l U- :T V)1- C, It it 0 F-uj-4 Nr cli cli N r�cli In 1, *0 d N 01, it .11 -J 1-4-J -4 C%J (14 N it)cm In -1 11 it r.4 in if 11 If => 11 If 0 C3=>LI-I If It If 11 in 11 11 I.-In LU N %I,(Z%T CD W %0 d 40 N00%T4= 00 %T C3 C%j 11 cl,I,- Z LLI>--j W)N%0 MW in co CD a,6 In�a r- N d to 11 tj it 0 1- 0 %T r�oin d00 C)-�o 1.4 w)r-t In %T W) CD 00 it 0011 Euj F-u . . . . . . . . . OZ* =%ON 0%C3 rq r-ul W.4 r-14 to) cli Co to t! tt1 t1 U.I=UJ M r-I N cli if cli U-=1w-.1 r-4 It r-I 11 11 II 11 it In < N Irl,,o %T C, cli 00 CT NT It it LL= CD W)%T r- M00 CD%T r� M.-4Q= _In It of LL F-w-.1 In r-i 'D CD N CD C),N CD <=w F- Se . . . . S a- dao ce m 40 C1�C;; W, C; 0 11 11 it 11 It If LU Il 91 1; 0 F- C� 4m NT 00N 000 "o Cno t0-,c .D C> It It -j 1-4 w UJ< %0 r-4 10-4 r- o I,C-0 ON �z(.5 W LUM rtM II it w It It C) == 11 1 It II L) if It t1 I1 it H o4l N 4 CO cn It It .9Z cc LOU . ,; . •fr I iCl 'N (D uj 11: I'll >-r3' Ic--?r U. L) 'IT%x --; - 1-4 L) It ;I <<Mu 1-- 1-4 < CL It is U-U. > � + -tits r_ :;- %a, 0 11 11 C)C) W L) U)10 w w Lu in C) Ix 1 11 If ce W -%0 -(-) its -4 C:%in %oo%D n c:I LU I=k < if 11 0= (n v) In—.o =C:k in o - Ck in in u)wX Cz (f) -4 it U ujz = Q ci cD In w<CZ f,--< < A A A v In I.- If It CA w in uj F- V) z%T< p Q: %0 LLI im CL if 11 LU ce z z LU I=s <In= vvvA Z > Q W Z It 11 u O ui W —y (,)I=LLI U- J LU LLI 1-1 ao A 0 It It Ck =,o Ab P-4w= 1-4<.'>0 in CL M z H z 1 11 -.1 it >uj Ho -i in W In A =Z UJ -J-0 1--wmo- = if It ce 0 Ll. = Q F-Q UJ L)00 0 a- w 9:3 entijow V) f, CL &M 11 hU V)in LLJ P LL be 0 <CL-rE I.- =< 0-Ck 0-Ul Ul 1:1-L)0 => y=d L) uv W vQ 0 <LLJ a.in =>:D L) cz '. I, ce of $0 1-1 u Z F-w ><C) Or in:::-< cy uj V)U (Y Uj It It WW I-- CL ou>--L)A 1-4 CL W 0 1-q a_ Up! Ix z z z -.1 it CA it a C, in 0 0 cz<L!j Z (t)0= F-UJ>-(A iwwwl-- 1-4 *?3 0 cri FI cm it =it == =9:1 Q A y= Uj ce LLJ Ck I-- U=" L)in C) -j 11 <u => L)O= w 0<0 V)UJ=M W-4 Z LU of ce 11 Q"< 4x Zcnow}- " 1.1i cr-I-- E-j H cc z CLO w ce I (n I-- >ZZ u ou 1-4 CL a-V) W C�(L < 1: 0:1. ZW=w 0-0 t-.4 0 "V)W" �- I C�W > 11 11 <0 w Ill 0: 1.- -j F-Ay(n AA U-0�- . 11 O 1-4 O-U-0wo in CZ U. wlcn M:0- In-:r< it It ..JJ z UJ Cl w w lwoo- =0 4 0 => w If If HH => y JA=J> uCJ o:D=< . oil-l- C3 wW- 0 > #1 it 1-4 <WCr"W << cr in Q 1.- 0 w= <- it If la-.j -,> wi--W=W .,JJ Uj 1 w 00 1 cc 11 11 Ew< a =O-WUO 0.a. W<= dAttU at tY z 0 Gi j-- if If w 0 z �-w w t-4 a y is 11 uj <0:Y -j zlu,-4 N tol %a,In %0 O.d -4 WN in if It 0-<W LU < -4 -4 it It 0 W=Cs It It =a= If 11 « . \ \ Ilk \ � �\ \ � \ < \ t � \ ��� Contra Costa County Social Service Department REPORT OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FOR SOCIAL CASEWORKER SPECIALIST • EMPLOYEE: CLASSIFICATION: DATE DUE IN CENTRAL: PURPOSE Initial Final Salary Annual Termination OF REVIEW: Probation ElFinal ❑Review Review, or Transfer Special RATE EACH STANDARD COMMENTS: For each factor rated below standard,substan- FACTOR: BELOW STANDARD tiate the rating and give suggestions or plans for improved per- formance. Also comment on strengths and work well done. SOCIAL CASEWORK KNOWLEDGE. SKILLS AND ACTIVITIES 1. Demonstrates advanced knowledge of casework principles and techniques related to human growth and development;parent-child relationships,familyl dynamics and ethno-cultural differences. ( ) ( ) 2. Establishes and maintains effective relationships with clients. ( 1 ( 1 3. Utilizes Social Work skills`and techniques in as- sessing personality and character structure under- lying individual behavior. ( ) ( ► 4. Is sensitive to individual human needs. (' ) ( ► 5. Exercises maturity of judgment in decision making. ( 1 ( 1 6. Reaches out and responds quickly and effectively to crises- ( ) 1 1 7. Demonstrates knowledge and use of authority'in Social Work'. ( 1 ( ) PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION AND SERVICE • 1. Obtains and analyzes necessary information and defines the problem. ( ) ( ) 2..Develops a service plan with.specific objectives designed to solve the problem. ( 1 ( 1 3. Implements the service plan addressing the objec- tives and revises the plan as changes occur or addi- tional information is obtained. ( 1 ( ► 4. Terminates the plan when the problem is resolved or the maximum service has been provided. COURT-RELATED ACTIVITIES 1. Demonstrates knowledge of laws governing the respective functions,. such as Child Protective, Services, Adoption,Conservatorship,Out-of-Home Placement and Conciliation Services. ( ) ( ) 2. Works within the legally imposed time frame. ( ) ( 1 3. Prepares required coUrt documents incisively and completely. ( 1 ( ) 4. Works within the court structure and establishes professional relationships vv;; h the Judge, court representative, county --ounsel, juvenile court referee,other attorneys and principals. ( 1 ( ) WORK ORGANIZATION/RECORD KEEPING 1. Sets realistic priorities and is flexible to change. ( ) ( ) 2. Promptly records and reports service activities to open, update, close and transfer cases. ( ) ( 1 • 3. Uses consultation and supervision effectively. ( ) ( ► 4. Manages time to meet constraints of caseload. ( ) ( ) 5. Writes relevant, concise and complete reports, narratives, memos, letters,etc. ( ) ( ► AGENCY AND COMMUNITY RELATIONSHIPS. Ci Continued on attachment. 1. Works within the framework of the agency's RATER'S SIGNATURE: DATE: guidelines, policies and procedures. ( 1 ( ) 2. Interprets agency policy effectively to the commu- This report has'been discussed with me. nity. ( 1 ( 1 3. Works cooperatively..with agency staff and repre- ❑I wish to discuss with the reviewer. Written statement to sentatives of other professional disciplines. ( ) ( ' ) follow within 5 days. CHECK BOXES AS APPROPRIATE: EMPLOYEE'S SIGNATURE: DATE: OVERALL RATING 0 BELOW STANDARD ❑STANDARD As requested, I discussed report with employee. FINAL APPOINTMENT 111 do recommend ❑I do not recommend on (date) and my report is attached. MERIT SALARY INCREMENT REVIEWER'SSIGNATURE DATE: ❑I do recommend ❑I do not recommend Copy I-. Central Personnel Unit Copy 2: Employee PER 6 SCS (New 6/79) Copy 3: Supervisor INFORMATION ON PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FOR SOCIAL CASEWORK SPECIALISTS i The purpose of a performance evaluation for an employee is to measure the employee's performance against the job specifications and performance requirements of the position that the incumbent is filling. It answers the ques- tions of how well an employee is doing in meeting the department's performance standards for this job. It satisfies a basic requirement for the employee to know where she/he stands with the organization in regard to her/his per- formance. It delineates areas of strengths and weaknesses.Where performance is below standard, it suggests possible ways of making improvement. During the probationary period,the performance evaluation is used as the last phase of an individual's examination process. Probationary employees receive a preliminary evaluation at the end of three months, and a final evaluation after their fifth month of probation. An overall rating,of STANDARD must be received on the final probationary evaluation in order for the employee to achieve permanent status. Once an employee achieves permanent status, the employee's performance is evaluated at least once a year. Ad- ditional evaluations may be made between these required evaluations as necessary. Evaluations will also be made when an employee or supervisor terminates, or when an employee or supervisor is reassigned to another unit and more than three months have elapsed since the last written evaluation. In the event a permanent employee receives an overall rating of BELOW STANDARD, such employee must be reevalutated within three months following the date of the report. If the employee shows no significant improve- ment at the end of this period,a recommendation for demotion or dismissal will be made. However, if at the end of three months there has been improvement but the employee's performance is still not at STANDARD level, the employee may be given two additional three-month periods to meet the standards if the supervisor agrees those standards will be reached during this period. The work performance of each Social Casework Specialist is to be rated on all of the factors listed on the front of this form. Each of these factors has been found to be of critical importance in determining successful job per- formance for Social Casework Specialists. Individual rating factors and overall ratings of BELOW STANDARD must be substantiated in the Comments section, as well as suggestions or plans for improved performance in those areas. If some significant aspect of performance is above the level indicated by the factor rating,this may be pointed out by a statement in the Comments section to the employee. The Rater will discuss the report with the employee and provide the employee with a copy at that time if the em- ployee wishes to discuss the report with the Reviewer. In signing the report,the employee is merely acknowledging having seen the report; it does not indicate agreement. DEFINITIONS OF RATINGS A factor rating of STARDA913 means that this part of the employee's work performance is consistently up to the level expected of a comp-tent worker in the position. A factor rating of BELOW STANDARD means that this part of the employee's work performance is frequently below the level of a competent worker in the position and that effort should be made to improve. An overall rating of BELOW STANDARD means the employee's work performance is inadequate and may result in the loss or delay of the salary increment,demotion,dismissal or rejection on probation. i APPEAL PROCEDURE If an employee believes her/his rating is improper, she/he should discuss it with the Rater. If still not satisfied,the employee should sign the report and place an "X" in the space provided by her/his signature to indicate she/he wishes to discuss the report with the Reviewer (normally the Rater's immediate supervisor). Within five calendar days after being given a copy of the Report of Performance Evaluation, an employee who wishes consideration in addition to the Rater's evaluation should prepare a written statement to the Reviewer as follows: 1) Identify the report by stating the date of the report, the name of the Rater, and the date the report was received; 2) Specify the ratings or comments which she/he believes are incorrect and should be changed; 3) Give facts substantiating the requested changes to these ratings or comments; 4) Keep a copy of the written statement,the Reviewer will have five calendar days to meet with the employee to consider the employee's comments and to respond in writing. The Reviewer's response shall be given to the employee. A copy of the Reviewer's response along with the em- ployee's written statement shall be attached to the Report of Performance Evaluation. PER 6 SCS (Reverse) STATE OF;CALIFORNIA--HEALTH AND WELFARE AGENCY DEPARTUENT OF SOCIAL SERVICtS • COMMUNrTY CARE LICENSING C G. LICENSING REPORT REFER TO: See other side for explanation of form. / DIRECTOR 7 �lIWE /j I FK�IiY �tL U—�- FACIL7 i xr z'—' c E r (c c�wAary cENsus 011 7 -r'5— �J TYPE OF VISIT: 0 OFFICE fa'RENEWAL O COMPLAINT O MANAGEMENT I §d ANNOUNCED TMAE vrsrr BEGAN %�c.: 0 PREUCENSING O EVALUATION O FOLLOW-UP CI OTHER ❑ UNANNOUNCED MECOYPLETED DEFICIENCY INFORMATION: CML PENALTY INFORMATION: 13 No Deficiency Cfted O Deficiency Cleared O Penalty Assessed 0 Penalty Notice Given 0 Deficiency Cited ❑Penalty Cleared Q Not Applicable COMMENTS / DEFICIENCIES RECOMMENDATIONS / CORRECTIONS A /ff'?/ rSt f' 1.2't t � .fY') 1 !!'',/lif• Y!:` 7J .t Js .L— `�� �'' I .��A ?r (_ / ^r�'V'i v jf�•i£,.: - i' �A ;I+?F, I ! Y t �J''=�t/�tr t > '' f 9!'.(' �C+ ' l r��i'f / 1� 1 . �� ,•� � fr+ ui�1�i Ll /. j�/ Y \ `` / Y4/_/: ,i/�- j�f . L oa 4A IL 6f 7-f— c 4 - • • �Cf '-' •� 1�—�/�r+'1.�../j r ...�` � J�:1:t Y 1%l-Y I,.'/1�✓ L'�:�� + • • r - i • 1.i • LICENSING EVALUA,.IOR SIGNATURE -- TELEPHONE DATE {�; ) -7 _ _ _r r t understand my 1censmV appeal rights_ N OF SUPERVISOR _ TELEPHONE FACILITY RESENTATIVE S1GNA, DATE E LIC 809(sae)(PUBLIC) Page of page FACILITY COPY • -.c-Y DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES COMMUNITY CARE LICENSING - ,k--PORT ` _ REFER TO: sTATE aF oe for explanation of form. �. n r DIRECTOR . FACILITY NUMBER t FACILITY E. J ! / CAPACITY CENSUS DATE TYP OF VISIT. ❑OFFICE ❑RENEWAL ❑tbMPLAINT ❑MANAGEMENT I ❑ANNOUNCED TRAE VISrr BEGAN ❑PREUCENSING ❑EVALUATION FOLLOW-UP ❑OTHER ❑ UNANNOUNCED TWCOMPLETED DEFICIENCY INFORMATION: CML PENALTY INFORMATION: ❑No Deficiency Cited deficiency Cleared ❑Penalty Assessed ❑Penalty Notice Given ❑Deficiency Cited ❑Penalty Cleared ❑Not Applicable COMMENTS / DEFICIENCIES RECOMMENDATIONS / CORWECTIONS I/1 I '- rv� /,f 4,! ��L ;_lam - �� - r - 0�-1" J1:eJ,;� ISG cam- ✓�.GL • • • • Z� Z 7 1 �1 • • • _ ANG EVAL °1R SIGNATURE r__ � SHONE _ I understand my licensing cppeal rights. JAWRE QF St1PE8}pS6R— _ ; TELEPHONE FACILITY REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE DATE W9 Pss)rPUBLIC) Page ofp ages FACILITY COPY �F ARE C ES STATE OF CALIFORNLA-4£ALTH ANO WELFARE AGENCY C01dAAUPQTY Ct OEPART4ENT OF ARE LICENSwG SERVSC 1� LICENSING REPORT REFER TO: other side for explanation of form �p ,. -..I=F � FACIUiY TYPE /1 TYPE OF VISIT. O OFRCE /<P%ENEIVAL O COMPLAINT O MANAGEMENT rIgINNOUNCED T*AE V9S1T BEGAN O PREUCENSING C EVALUATION ❑FOLLOW UP O OTHER O UNANNOUNCED nmECOUKETEO DEFICIENCY INFORMATION: CIVIL PENALTY INFORMATION: ,?[�PNo Deficiency Cited O Deficiency Cleared O Penalty Assessed O Penalty Notice Given O Deficiency Cited O Penalty Cleared Ai§Mot Applicable COMMENTS / DEFICIENCIES RECOMMENDATIONS / CORRECTIONS 'okIf AL - --.rte -� _� ��%r�.�.�' �-n � /,l t�J �%' •t,et� •�i�':�' :,C- - f Y Ci!4/., l rl�f''JP„Zi f[.t,�.�{/ �j�',:!6�S�tiC..;,, ✓yt/ Z� tZ �/yny • • • • - - • • • • • • - • i L I Ev Lu1T'QR TURE HONE DATE 4 , . t ) 7 ( , I understand my licensing nppe2l rights. NIWE O VISOR TEtFPHONE I REPRESENTATIVE SISiNATURE 7/91 r- / — i� --� 41 LIC$09(SSM(PUBLq Page of / pages FACILrry COPY 9 —,LTH AND WELFARE AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF SOCU11%RYKA-s COMMUN"CARE LICENSNG LICENSING REPORT REFM TO: See other side for explanation of form. Eli FACL Y NUMBER. FACILITY TYPE / i CAPA(xiY CENSUS DATE /1 TYPE OF VISIT- O OFRC RENEWAL ❑COMPLAINT ❑MANAGEMENT ANNOUNCED TIME VISIT BEGAN ❑PRE LICENSING r EVALUATION 0 FOLLOW-UP ❑OTHER O UNANNOUNCED TTMECOMPLETED DEFICIENCY INFORMAMON: CML PENALTY WFORMATiON: /E'No Deficiency Cited O Deficiency Cleared O Penalty Assessed 0 Penalty Notice Given O Deficiency Cited ©Penalty Cleared Not Applicable COMMENTS ! DEFICIENCIES RECOMMENDATIONS ! CORRECTIONS p l j � • Al - iL 1;1 r_ r y e ■ s • ■ EVALUATOR SKINATURE NE DATE t f I understand my licensing appeal rights. SUPERVISOR _ :' TE HONE F#C&"flEPRESEMTw TURE DATE uc am le"IPUeLP Page Z of page` FACILITY COPY STATE OF tALIFORNLA-HEALTH AND WELFARE AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL.SERVICES COMMUNtTY CARE LICENSNG LICENSING REPORT REFER TO: See other side for ex lavation of form. NAME _ a _ FAC&M M.1MBER FAC&ITY —ssfL4Z SS. TEIEROW 0"CITY CENSUS DATE , 44 �1 t ft TYPE OF ViSiT ❑OFFICE - O COMPLAINT ❑MMW-,-,EMFNI �NNOUNCED TIME VIStT BEGAN D PREIICENSiN6�LUATION ❑FOLLOW-UP f! O UNANNOUNCED PmECOMMETM DEFICIENCY INFORMATION: CML PENALTY INFORMATION: �S+No Deficiency Cited O Defidiency Cleared 0 Penalty Assessed ❑ Penalty Notice Given Q Deficiency Cited 0 Penalty Cleared of Applicable COMMENTS ! DEFICIENCIES - RECOMMENDATIONS / CORRECTIONS 1 fry' i /1tc h6k 5, to ,41-77 • V 77 • t ! k a„r1 e.1._u • • • • a • • • i • • • • 10ENSNG EVALUATOR SIGNATU TE _ DAvc r y�„ r 77 -x r �� 1 understand my licensing appeal rights. NAME PF SU RVISOR TELEPHONE =_ I FACU Y -TIVE SIGNATURE t� '” LIC SM(588)(PUBLIC) - ...� Page--/—of Page _ FACILITY COPY STATE OF CALIFOFOZA4-HEALTH AND WELFARE AGENCY { _ DEPARMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES COwMUWM CARE USING LICENSING REPORT REFER TO: Sq&other side for a nation of form_ AME 1 i1 /QIRECTOR , Fr NUMBER MIL"TYPE TES _ CAPACI CENSU$'1,_ DATE V _ - X3 TYPE OF VISIT 0 OFFICE COMPLAINT O MANAGEMENT /*9:30.NNOUNCED TIME VGT BEGAIII O PRELICENSING O EVALUA 0 FOLLOW-UP 0 OTHER I 0 UNANNOUNCED TwEca1PL lm DEFICIENCY INFORMATION: CML PENALTY INFORMATION: )Z;NNo Deficiency Cited 0 Deficiency Cleared 0 Penalty Assessed 0 Penalty Notice GKw 0 Deficiency Cited 0 Penalty Cleared ?19 Not Applicable COMMENTS / DEFICIENCIES RECOMMENDATIONS / CORRECTIONS 4 : : L EVALUATOR SoATURE HONE BATE • ,;. ( 7 �� , T understand my licensing appeal f gp t - f Tr NAME OF Sr�RYISOR _ REPRESENTATN�SI6NATU Page��—�- LIC eoa(s�ae)cP'�upages g cl FACILITY COPY k . \ a � / / ! � � \ � � . « � . �\ 9093383677 DDPS 339 P02 MAR 04 194 08:59 RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES Social Service Worker Date A. Child's Name D.O.B. Sex Ethnicity School Grade PART 1. DATA ON CHILD 1. Primary Reason Child is a Dependent: Parent/Parents Relinquished . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . f ) Parent(s) deceased .. . .. ... . . . .. . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . [ ] Child abused . . . . . .... . . .. . . . .. . . a . . . . . . . . .. . . [ ) Child neglected . . ... . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . ( ] Childabandoned . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ] Parent(s) unable to parent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [ ) Other(specify) [ 7 1A. Did the child have a health condition at time of placement or based on the. child's background could the child develop a health problem? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . Yes[ ] No[ ] HEALTH CONDITION 1B. If YES, "XII all conditions applicable: Present Severe (1) Emotional problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [ ) ( 7 (2) Mental retardation . . . . . . . [ ) { ] (3) Behavioral problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( ] [ ] (4) Physical disability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • (5) Medical condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [ ) ( ] (b) Adverse parental background . ( ) [ ) (7) Developmental delay . . . . . . . ( ] [ ] (8) Language developmental delay { [ ) (9) Positive drug toxic screen at birth ( ) [ ] (10) Drug exposed during pregnancy. . . . [ 7 [ ) (11) Other(specify) [ ) [ ) 2. Has the child been a recipient of AFDC-FC or SSIJSSP? (A) Neither . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( ] (B) Yes, both ( 7 (C) Yes, AFDC-FC•only j ] (D) Yes, SSI?SSP only . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [ 7 3. Was the child subject to the Indian Child Welfare Act? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yes[ ] Na[ 7 3A. If YES, name of tribe 4. Does this minor have siblings? . . . . .. . . . . . Yes[ ] No[ ] If YES, number of siblings Should the permanent plan for this minor include consideration for placement as a sibling set?. . . . . . . . . . . Yes[ 7 No[ ] Names and ages of sibling(s) to be considered. . . . . . . . . . . Name age Name age • CPS$ 1678 (REV 7193) ADOPTIONS REVJEW REFERRAL - PERMAMANCT PLANNING ASSESSMENT 9093583677 DDPS 339 P03 MAR 04 194 08:59 5. Psychological History of Minor- check any that apply: [ ] Special ED/IEP [ ] Ongoing Psy Treatment ( ] Day Treatment Required ( J Meds Required • 6. Child's Behavior- Check any that apply: [ j Sexually acting out [ ) Withdrawn [ ] Aggressive tvds adults [ ] Aggressive twds children [ ] Assaultive/Combative [ ] Rating Disorder [ ] Bed Wetting [ ] Runs away [ ] Defiant/Disobedient ( ] Excessive Crying/Whining [ ] Non-Med Somatic Complaints [ ] school Phobic [ ] Special Education [ j Good School Adjustment [ ] Poor School Adjustment 7. Child's Current Medical History- check any that apply: [ ] No known medical condition j ] Special diet [ ] Daily Medications [ ] Ongoing Med Treatment ( ] Asthma/Allergies [ ] Respirator [ ] Apnea Monitor ( ] CPR Knowledge Required [ ] Prosthesis/Wheelchair [ ] Visually Impaired ( ] Hearing Impaired [ ] Other Condition(describe) PART II. DATA ON CURRENT CARETAKERS 1. Is either caretaker related to child by blood or marriage? . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yes( ] No[ } IA. If YES, specify: (1) Grandparent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [ ] • (2) Aunt/uncle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C ] (3) Cousin . . . [ ] (4) Sibling . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [ ] (5) Other(specify) [ ] 2. Marital status of caretakers: Mother her 2A. Married. . . . { ] [ } 25. Not married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( ) [ ] 2C. Separated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C ] C ] Month Day Year 3. Birthdates of caretakers: A. Mother. . . . B. Father. . . . ' 1 ' ' 4. Number of minor children in family of caretakers: 4A. This child ( ] 4B. Other children: Birth siblings of this child . . . . . . . . . . . [ ] 4C. Previously adopted children. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [ J 4D. Natural children of either parent . . . . . . . . . . . [ ] 4E. Foster children . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [ ] 4F. Wards (guardianship cases) [ ) 4G. Other children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [ ] 4H. TOTAL MINOR CHILDREN IN FAMILY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( J • GPSS 1678 (REV 7/93) ADOPTIONS REVIEW REFERRAL - PERMANANCY PLANNING ASSESSNENT 9093� 7? DDPS 339 PO4 mAR 04 194 09,00 5. Number of adults living in caretakers home: A. Caretakers • . . . [ 3 B. Adult children of caretakers (over 18yrs) [ ] • C. Mother and/or father.of.dependent. . : . . . . . [ ] D. other relatives . . [ ] E. Unrelated adults • [ ] G. TOTAL ADULTS LIVING IN CARETAKERS HOME 6. Employment status of caretakers: Mother Father A. Employed full time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [ ] [ } B. Employed part-time(less than 25 hrs. per week) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [ ] [ } C. Not employed [ l [ 3 7. Annual gross income: WHOLE DOLLARS A. Of,caretakers (earned & unearned) . . B. Of minor children (unearned, e.g:` . AFDC-FC, AAP, SSI/SSP) . . . . . . . . . . . PART _Il: SOCIAL WORKER'S RECOMMENDATION FOR TYPE OF PERMANENT PLAN. 1. Adoption: A. Caretakers eligible and committed. Yes[ ] No [ ) B. Appropriate adoptive parents available. Yes[ ] No ( J C. Minor age 10+ agrees to adoption. Yes[ ] No [ ] • 2. Guardianship: A. caretakers eligible and committed. Yes[ ] No [ 3 B. Appropriate guardian available. ' Yes[ ] No [ ] C. Minor age 10+ agrees to 4uardianship. Yes[ ] No [ ] 3. Long Term Foster Care: There is no identified family willing to adopt or become guardian: Over 10 years of age Institutionalized Severely physically disabled. Specify: Severely emotionally disabled_ Specify: Child age 10+ will not consent to own adoption or guardianship. • OPSS 1678 (REV 7M) ADOPTIORS REVIE. REFERRA1 - PERMANANCY PLANNINF ASSESSMENT SC393593G77 DDPS 339 P05 MAR 04 '94 09:01 Plan is to reunite w/parent in next 6 months (for 6 & 12 no. t 18 mos.) Relative caretaker cannot afford reduction in • grant from AFDC-FC to AFDC-FG. Current (AFDC-FC) grant $ Projected (AFDC-FG) grant $ older age sib group needing placement Relative who does not wish to sever parental ties but is willing to provide long term care. PART IV: RECOMMENDATION OF PERNANENCY PLANNING COMMITTEE: I. Permanency plan of adoption with current caretaker. 2. Refer child to adoptions via child available format. 3. Long term foster care option appropriate. 4. Guardianship option appropriate. comments: CWS Supervisor Date CWS Supervisor Date OFSS 1678 (REV 7A31 AMPTIONS REVIEW REFERRAL - AERM NANCY OLAWNIN6 ASSESSMENT COUNTY OF VU"RA PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY CHILDREN'S SERVICES DIVISION PERMANENCY PLANNING SCREENING REFERRAL ro�q�dns�a pacm1anant ptar► a bbss r7uW out chW W"oor whorn��armt plank c nWemc QeroQ. kia�an!s the proferred plan t+rr errorychtld who o�a�ay be red. ft"A P for a PeMe.W Y MWvft SoteeNrg at lead Eddy days before#*1VIS month mvim 10=4 tMnWW&q rt �In WP�vt OM set at 8#at#ssm ts, MASS Y'OW+Velvlsor of the Weerdng date afld;ubMR gm packet" The Packet you sutXM VM provhte a ftnW*rk tot dsmoviom Se pr pAmd to ctieousa: 1. The amnW drwmstevfces of parents Wd spedticW�y,Brett Nstory of pAHotrt>SnCe on to service plan. 2. The quarry and quality of par" *W oomact. I Any=.de=adk*patemly.4. nett'.+d pro0ross and airy ktvntitled apacW needs. Itft indudos the chtki's am000rA behavkWA WdA dma tonal ami & Ce�rvWmrs gquanryyof wn+ePuente,inc *n M'im vw*Wtfegm d�s m When Ow Flsk Assessment form k"able,MO mat roaent assessment w9l be a required attadwnW4 e a sib&(;k beim esWmad to the home. CtiYd'a name: St�eetilnp date: DOS: Ethnicity: Worker: PmvkotW ttcreenkrlg date: Last Court Mpnrt: C3 Attached Curren!Hearing Q 12 mmth d 18 month ❑FW Thick CI Post PP L MOTHER: . A. Whereabouts: ❑Known 0 Unkaiown(If ung attach search form#55-12-94} M Search form attached B. Dates of Service PIM(s): t3 Copses attached C Marttad statin ❑Mauled (4 V&IW) E3 Dh+ xd(13 VmV4 O Separatted (3 SWo D. Frequency of vlsltawn: D Regular 13 Wreqlrerit ti Sporaft[3 NoneJtoken IL PATERNITY: 1. raw& j 2. aae+.ry�tewc A Husband Is father? 13 Yes 13 No ❑N/A S. Odw mart named as biologlc al parent?E3 Yes 13 No a Who Is an birth cerftste?(Spec D. PaWnItY estabilshed by: 0 Marriage 0 SM Ce MORte 13 Court Order 13 Open Acknowledgement Ir For all possbie fathers(use mdra Wxxd as needed). Name: I- Whembouts:C3 Known d Udmown(tt unk vwr,attach search toren d,g-12-asN Q Seerch form attached 2. Dates of Service Plan(s): 17 Caples alt d)od 3. FregveticY of vtsttatlan: C3 Regular a Itdregtrett Q Sporadic C3 None/token �6 12-? (7/W U 'd 061 V999SIl8 'ON XH d S3 -1 n83S S,N3Kl I N0/HSSd S I:5 t fifli V6-£ -M, 111. CURRENT CARETAKER: ❑Foster U Relative Name: ' Address: CW-- State: Zip Code: A Number of months child placed with caretaker: S. Wig makes long-term c orninkrnert? Q Yes ❑No ' 1. if yes, preferred pian: ❑Adoption ❑Gumdlanshlp ❑ LTFC 11 Unknown Z. V not adoption,why not? C. Is Caretaker a retative? ❑Yes Q No 1. tf yes: & A home evaluation has been done? 4 Yes O No b. A CLETS check has been done? L?Yes 13 No 2. If= a. is there an adoption resource within the famW 13 Yes ❑No 0. On a scale of 1 to 10 tate caretaker's willingness,abitky and perfonmce In attender to the cWs: 1. Basic needs: 131020a134I35❑8137❑8090to 2. SpecWneeds: 01 ❑2133134 60e137❑808010 3. f aadon$hip with parent(s): ❑ 1 ❑2 Q 3❑4116❑8❑7❑8❑9 0310 E Child is in need of placement Charge? O Yes_ ❑No 1. W3 this require court action? ❑Yes Q No R social workees terdawe recommendation ❑Adopdm O Guertilatm* ❑LTFC D Undedded M. CHILD: A. Check ninny category in which child has known or suspected problem C Emotional 0 Behavioral ❑SoC ❑Medkcil ❑Educational S. Child has had a psychologW evaluation? 13 Yes(1#year aftch o" p Copy&ached 13 No a Chad I=sWtticent attachment t4: ❑Parent d SWbVs 13 Rela%*s) 17 Caretaker G Others D. If child Is 12 or older. elabOrate On arty factors whk;h pnecM de adoption plamMg. blorwra Npnanw Ow �p�Mwh YW+y+++ Dir 60 'd 061V999S08 'ON S OIAMS SMAGIIHO/USSd 6I:SI t1H1. V6-E -fl' • COUNTY OF VENTURA PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY CHIWREN'S SERVICES DIVISION PERMANENCY PLANNING SCREENING RESULTS Child's name: Screening date: PARTICIPANTS Worker: ongoing Supervisor: Adoptions SupenAsor: Other: A. Mother: B. Father#1: ❑Presumed CI Alleged 1. Search: 1. Search: ❑ N/A ❑Complete ❑Incomplete ❑ N/A 0 Cornpfete C7 inoompleta z Services offered: 2-. Services offered: ❑Adequate 13invAclent - ❑Adequate 17 ImAcient 3. Service Flan complianc0: 3. Service Plan c=01ance: ❑Good ❑ insufficient ❑ Good ❑lnsuf ldent 4. Benefit from seMoes: 4. eensfit from servfoes: • ❑ Good ❑ Insufficient ❑Good ❑InvAldent C. Father#2: ❑ Presumed 0 Alleged D. Parent-MId Relationship: 1. Search: 1. Moder- _(3 N/A ❑Complete ❑Incomplete ❑Substantial ❑ insubstantiat ❑ Benefits chid ❑ Does not benefa child z Services offered: ❑Adequate ❑ Insufficient ❑Subsmrlial 13 Insubstantial a Smice Plan compliance: ❑8=ft child ❑ Does not benefit Wd ❑Good ❑Insufficient 3. Father#2: 4. Benefit from setvim: ❑Substantial ❑ Irisin ❑ Good 13 Insuffident ❑ Benefas ctdd ❑ Does not benefa d9d E. is paternity established? i;. Pather's: a Yes 4 Legal presumed ❑ Iegal/bioiogicat ❑No ❑Alleged 1201 11:11:1,11t ;fns ' A. Commitment: B. i4!<ay be able io establish standing? ❑ Adopt ❑ Guardianship O LTFC ❑Yes Q Uncertain ❑ Unknown ❑No C. Background Information regarding caretaker D. ChIlTs,needs have been: is: E3 Met a unmet • 4 Sufficient ❑ Insufficlent 56-12- 783 G0 'd 061 b999S08 'ON XH S301AMS S,NTd0l IH0/KSSd 91:91 nHi tib-£ -db7: rr•+w.•..•+ter: sem^-;,,e• .m -o.... ,�- *».t^. 1 ..ar+�. ..•• z•t�^,,,, ?�`,w.•�,�•..a^�"N•+,^..ae^> .7'3.3 '""'._.r �!�^,H'-'" ���'���r✓ ♦ K. � J'��a'^!�Y' �"' „"�„ y K5. Ja +RG 3�ott *n. 'nr.�e r;,,,,.,u- a -i :.✓` '�XM-.. �� "'u''aA�l -'" •rw'.. r ri�' .,..,I, i '�%,�`e`3.,�`ti �e i N"' ;^.'�,�'`.':•�k t �,r :,. .n t :ar^ �,,,.: ,.yy2`,3 I� 5-A: L.-...-.-e�:.a.r,•. .. l.....� i.. ,..v w_s.,.e, ;•-,...c...%,._,,,i"1>•:•..✓rct`s'.r ,^...r. i• "%�._..:•, ...'Cr`'"s ts...,: , I I r .r « . .. « . ► .• i ■ PERMANENCY PLANNING SCREENING RECOMMENDATIONS I x � t ii• F it i t•: - :.. ter. • i •..�{.. ■ • a { ■ i am MIX M F {• ! •:.. I -ml O It would be detrimental to remove child from caretaker and caretaker Is unable to adopt 0 State reason: ❑ Caretaker wMkV to be guardtan E3 If not, reason: 0 Caretaker wM only nuko commbient to LTFC 11NADOPTABLE CHILD: 0 Ch9d Is not adoptable because of U Age 13 Adolescent 0 Over 10 and wM not consent El Extraordinary special needs 13 Parentaf relationship 13 Group home/RTC 0 Other 0 Chad Is not currently adoptable (as above) however, adoption ptannIng for the future Is feasible. 0 Caretaker Is: 0 Is E3 to not coma*W to guardk=h1p if not.state mason: 0 Caretaker wM keep oNd In LTFG 0 ApMpdaW Permanent Plan W. 13 Guardianship by caretaker 0 LTFC; ACCEPTED FOR ADOPTION SERVICES: 0 Adoption worker to be assigned fiDn U Assess wkabillty d mstaker 0 26 Assessment Cl As""miopabifty of chid 0 Counsel parent 13 Assist In arranging FwAdopt*oewiev, 0 Counsei Caretaker 0 Prepare child for adoption perusing A**G—04—lk- Oak OWN&00**t caw io 'd 061VS 99SOB *ON XV4 SDIM3S S,K38G11H0/VSSd 91:S1 RHI V6-E ADUP110K RIEVIEW CHECKTTST The following items arc helpful in the case folder when a minor is prcocntcd for an Adoption Review: Birth Certificate of Minor apd Parents Marriage Certificatee and Divorce Papers of Parents Current addressed Clearly stated kith notation of date of addre4c for all involved parties Search information for "whereabouts unknown parents." nocumentation on visits: Frequency Who was present? / Quality Minor's reaction to visit Clearance checks on relative caretakers and other household mcmbcrc. Arrest Record Check GPS Check Would there be obstacles to licensing the caretakers? Financial situation of "caretakers Rtparta and/or aaaesaments of therapist, FST presenters, counselors, school officials, etc. Copies of drug and alcohol testa Court-Orders Extended family* contacts, id e:ty contacts with siblings, grandparents, etc. Documentation of discussionn regarding, legal guardianship and adoption with Caretaker. Comments of the minor in regard to their wishes for future planning. Khat has been done to explore relative placement if a relative has requested this be done. Identifiable health, emotional, behavior or learning problems of minor_ ESA information Adoption Rcviewa arc at 8 A.M. on Thursday-n. Plcaae bring eases to be reviewed to tate Adoption Unit on the Monday prior to the review date. XERN COiWTY DEPARTbtM OF WW SERVICES ADOPTION CASs: REVIEW (CHILD AOJUDICAIED BEFORE 1-1-83) FCC 232 / LEGAL MUDIA1i51iIP REY(EK Name 008 Case a Court Date: type: Review P/P Ct Nkr i G/LD SSW & CAS Adoption Reviewer: Date of Review Adcations: Assessment Reassessment Ct Reviewer Data Accepted in Adoption unit: RECCNMtt3tOATIORS [ J 1. Child not appropriate for adoption planning at chis tlmes [ J a. Inappropriate due to lack of legal grounds: • Kottwr / Presumed Fa / Alleged Fa have potential for return. J [ j b. Child is placed with a parent or legal guardian who does not wish to adopt. Rerefer if appropriate tater. ( j c. Child's unique characteristics sake finding an adaptive how highly unlikely due to: _ age — behavioral problems i erctional problems " other Ito REttEfERRAL NECESU U. Raftfer only if situation changes significantly_ j J 1. .child 'likely to be adopted' ( J a. Adoptiais will accept transfer when court ordered to Adoptions. ( ) b. Transfer case to Adooc:ons immediately. ( ] c. Open Adoptions study: do not transfer ease until =wt orders to Adoption*. ( j d. Adoptability preliminary assessment Caretakers eligible and committed Appropriate adoative parents available _ Search for adoptive parents for 'hard-to-place' child ( ) 3. Child 'Not likely to be Adopted' per MIC 366.25(d)(1) No rereferrs I necessary. ( j a. tatenu or guardians have maintained regular visitation and contact with the minor, who will benefit from continuing this. ( j b. Minor is 10 years or older and objects to termination of parental rights. ( j c. Moor is in residential treatment facility and adoption is unlikely or undesirable. ( j d. Foster parents or relative caretakers are unable or unwilling to adopt due to exceptional circumstances. but art willing and capable of providing the minor with astable and persanent environment, and removal would be striae: detrimental to the emotional well-being of the minor. Refer to Legal Guardianship.. ( J A. Visitation recommendations if case is court ordered to Adoptions: Visits with to occur for every ltd VISIT Supervised by: ONS Facilitated Unsupervised ( J 5. Refer to LTFC. Clearly not appropriate for adoption ore guardianship. t 1 6. No d ange from previous review. MOTS: Ct tilt. 0MC 4,04. Ado= Cierk ( w ON COM OEPARfl W W F6bf11t S=Crs Appy; rgWlANSHIP CASE nM (CMid Adjudic: ) after 1/1/19) ASSESDW 9E: MIC 31;.26 Child's Mase 008 I Case I Ct Date Type: oispo / 6 No / 12 110 / 11 10 / Other CT Wkr is CAI SU t CAS Adaption Rariswer Oat* of Re+►taw Adoptions: —Assessomat t Ct Rwiewr P,E'ESENr Xo,a �EEY/EW We Aaoepted in Adoption Unit: TI0NS ( ] 1. Child not appropriate for adoption plon" [ ) a. Reunification appears likely. 1f reunification doer act ocaa•. refer can for VWte by _ Reunification efforts adequou end well dDOOM d. _ Set attached recommendations rog"ag reunification efforts. b. Child is placed with a parent or legal quardian who does an wish to adapt. Rerafer only it situation dtaages significantly. ( ] c. Child's unique cheractsristics asks finding an adoptive home/ highly unlikely at this ties due to: —ape _behavioral problems omotioaal problem* o � ther 00 RERAL XEMS= (See cononts below for any elaboration_) 2. Child 'likely to be adopted' I j a. Open Adoptions case for study. Transfer case to Adoptions when 366.26 having is ordered. transfer case to 1P.P. .26 worker' when 366.26 bearing is ordered. ( 3 b. Adoptability "Iiafuary assessment _Cgretakers eligible and committed. —Appropriate adoptive parents available. Search for adeptiLre parents for •!wd-ta Iaee• child. i ] 3. child 'K= likely to be adopted' per NIC 316.25(d)(1) [ ] a. Pererlis or guardians have maintained repular visitatipa and contact with the minor, who will benefit from wintair contact. Gate of last contact with Nobly: fad; ( ] b. Minor 10 years or older objects to termination of parental rights. ( ] c- Minor is M residential treatment facility and ad wft is unlikely or WKWiMble. f ] d• Foss' pmts or relative caretakers are vaeblehemrillinq to adopt due to exceptional circus mwes. but are vii; and capable of providinq the minor with a stable and pw•msaent envirarwnt. and nwvai would be detrimental to ci emotional veli-being of da minor. .Refer child to Court Raaevel for WardisomMa assessment. _transfer ease to 'P.P. .n waim ohm 316.21 ft" is ordered. �%no case in present eeseloed pending autcame of 716.21 haring. f ) f. risitation rs ;tians during rim 786.21 1" process: 'Visits with to occur for � every No Y13iT3. Supe*+ sed by _UG faeilitftW _*=pervised. i I S. Child referred to tTFC. Clearly not appropriate for adostion and eo one willing to assume Legal Guardianship. (361.22 r ) 6. so change from previous review. �avlexts: Cibutim: Ct :ile, OW file. Adopt Clerk '%K UA :_lM0 FT-% /1 w.. DSS CSB RUFFIN TEL : 619-495-5454 Mar 3.94 15:21 No .02e P.02 k-1 V County of SanDscv Assessment Referral Dept.of Soda]seMces Date Referred Children to be assessed: To: Permanent Placement Pre-Planning/Assessment Supervisor From: Social Worker Phone~ "Stop: Mr. Natrie Date of Birth Dependency For 232(red)Case.(Deccmber31, 1988 and before) Declared: Permanent Planning Hearing Date Dace For 243(purple)Case. (after January 1, 1989) Review Hearing Date Q 6 ma ((12 ma a IS tna Q other Parent Search _ Needed for. (D @ Required Attachments for Assessment Q Updated Face Sheet. * Q Social Study(omit if re-referral)with Court (3 Psychological Evaluations and Officer's Summary(04-7). Developmental Assessments. ❑Most recent court report with Court Officer's Summary(04-7). Required Attachments for Parent Search a ❑ Child's birth certificate. Q Previous Search Information (Send Original n All Court Officers Summaries(04-7). Search Packet). If the following items are missing from your case;Tease initiate requests as they wW be required to Iegally free the child for adoption or to establish guardianship: Q Indian tribal rights established. _ a girth certificate for Child. Q Death certificate for parent. Q Marriage and divorce verification. Brief Summary: *Fssential Do not send the case at this time 04-133 DSS (Retiised 4192) L-6 (3/93) DSS CSB PUFFIN TEL : 619-495-5454 Mar 3,94 15:21 NO .uzr r .uo ASSESSMENT REFERRAL Use this form when adoption or guardianship will probably not be a possibility, due to criteria listed on form. 1. Do not sent the 04-133. 2. Do not send copies of any case material unless requested. 3. Send original to Assessment Supervisor and keep copy for your records. TO: Permanent Placement Children to be assessed: Assessment Supervisor Date of.Hearing 12/mo. le/mo. other Name DOB Ethnicity ADOPTION: There is no identified family willing to adopt and the child is: Over 10 years of age Institutionalized Severely physically disabled. Specify. Severely emotionally disabled. Specify. OR: Child age 10+ will not consent to own adoption Plan is to reunite w/pairent in next .6 months (for 18 month hearing only) Family only wants guardianship; not adoption. Reason Length of placement Relative or PH? GUARDIANSHIP.- No identified family willing to become guardian Child age 10+ will not consent to guardianship Plan is to reunjt6 w/parent in next 6 months (for 6 & 12 month hearings only) Relative caretaker cannot afford reduction in grant from AFDC-PC to AFDC-PC current (AF1>C-PC) grant Projected (AFDC-FG) grant other: Give reason why you think adoption or guardianship is not a possibility (e.g. older age sib group needing placement together) . Social Worker Supervisor Signature Phone No Mail Stop Date 04-133A (3/93) DSS CSE RUFFIN TEL : 619 Contra C46U County Social Swvioe Department PERMANENCY PLANNING TEAM REVIEW Check reason: 1 16 mos. 1 112 mos. 1 118 mos. [ ]366.26 ( )Re-review Date of PP Team Review. )Contest [ ]Non-unification )No FR services ordered f )Fost-Adopt Placement I Child's Name Child's DOB I Are there siblings who are dependents? I I yes I ) no Foster Care Provider's Name Relationship to Ethnic Match? Interested In Child: yes Adoption- f! I yes I I no no Guardianship yes no Mother's Name Father Named on Birth Certificate Alleged/Presumed Father(s) Regular contact with child Regular contact with child Regular contact with child Whereabouts unknown f I Whereabouts unMown f I Whereabouts unknown Other relatives Regular contact with child - Regular contact with child f I Regular contact with child Date of Detention Hearing: Date of Dispositional Hearing: Date of Next Court Hearing: ALIS BELOW TO BE COMPLETED AT PP TEAM REVIEW Ucommended Long Term Plan for this Review. Reunification by (anticipated date) Re-review by (Month/year) Adoption Prospective Adoptive Home: Guardianship Long-Term Foster Care Relative Name f j Relative Relative Non-relative Address Non-relative Non-Relative ihnic Match? Ethnic Match? Ethnic Match? yes Phone I I yes I I yes no C Ino f Ino omments: tbrrutted by. Social Worker's Name )proved by: Placement Supervisor's Signature Adoption Supervisor's Signature CWDM Initials Copy 1: Adoption Unit Supervisor Copy 2: SW case file M %%-.493) Copy 3: CWDM SOCIAL SERVICE DEPARTMENT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ry REFERRAL TO ADOPTION FOR A SCHEDULED 366.26 HEARING (Send within 3 days of court hearing setting the . 26) To: Adoption Supervisor Date From: Phone Social Worker Approved by Phone Supervisor Child(ren) A 366.26 hearing was set , and the departmental recom- mendation is termination of parental rights. The current caretakers are not interested in adopting the child. The case is being referred to your unit for a search for an adoptive home . or The current caretaker(s) have been approved as adoptive parent(s) . Date of last permanancy planning team review Date for 366.26 hearing ATTACHMENTS: Previously Attached Sent Copy of birth certificate . All court reports, addendums and memos. Most recent court order. Soc 153, Placement History. Medical and psychological reports on child(ren) . All PP Review forms (DC 131 ) . Photo of child ( include date of photo) , if child is in need of placement . Other Copy : To case record JMB 2/92 Gen 9c(New 3!86) SOCIAL SERVICE DEPARTMENT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REFEERRAL TO ADOPTION FOR LONG TERM F)STER CARE, PENDING ADOPTION (Send within 11 week after court hearing) To: Adoption Supervisor Date From: Phone Social Worker Approved by Phone Supervisor Child(ren) A long term foster care finding, pending adoption , was made on this case. The case is being referred to your unit for an adoptive home stucy. Date of hearing ending reunification Next scheduled court date CARETAKER, WHO WISHES TO ADOPT, IS: Relative; describe relationship Foster parent Racially, ethnically matched: YES / NO If not , attach written administrative approval . OTHER RELATIVES DESIRING A HOME STUDY: Name Address Phone Relationship ATTACHMENTS: — Copy of birth certificate. — All court reports, addendums and memos. — Soc 153, Placement History. Medical and psychological reports on chi ld(ren) . All Permanancy Planning Review forms (DC 131 ) . Other COPY: To case record Gen 9c(New 3/86) JMB: 2/92 FROM .DSS-FV*ZRTSOr.-SECOND-FL TO 510 313 1575 1994.03-07 1g:18 #.888 P.01 Date: 75 �- �- From:! 1�:.�I -'�'a �11 C 0 Subject o Copies To_ =-j T offal Gages including corer: �. fA- COi?`17ne72is,: L i -x Q PTI 7985 f I- v_ (415) sss-•263? __ - 3 FROM :DSS-FC4�rSON-SECOND-FL TO - S10 313 1S7S 1994.03-07 10:19 #+888 P.02 Rjf=to PM 93- An adoMlb� y jU=ent Tnl=be comgjdcsL A. Prior to a PARC presentation when the worker is recommending fost/opt placemeat or within two. weeks afmr PARC recommends Fostlopt. 8. At sir iacnibs timed by the DSR report prior to the PPH and, C. At Twelve months,prior to the PPH, D.When recommending a change of plan from a pit vious adoptability assessrneuL i M At least 90 days prior to a PPH recommending adoption The assessment is initiated by Ming out the top section of the Adoptability Assessment and forward- ing it to the adoptions supervisor for assignment. The case is assigned to an adoptions worker and a joint meeting.to complete the assessment is arranged by the adopdans worker. Additional consultants may be addled as r eed,ed aW in cases where the-pprupdateness of adoption plamrtng for a child is unclear.No more than three assessments should be attempted at any one setting to preserve and intuit appropriate attention to the activity. The adoptionxs worker and"the child welfare wod=review the elements of the case to determine the appropriate case plan and the adoption worker completes the adoptability assessment document. Both parties sign tine assessmem. The document is submitted to tie adoptions=pervisor for in view and signa- ture. ignorturn. The original'is then rexwmd to the child's case8e and a copy is maintained is a file in adoptions for statistical and truting purposes. W&I code section 36626 states in part;"Tbe court shall terminate parental rights only if it deter- mines by clear and convincing evidence that it is likely that the minor will be adopted.If the court so determines,the findings pursuant to subdivision(b)of Seal Imam 3615 runt mmification services sball not be offered,or the findings pun;uant to subdivision(e)-of Section 36621 that the wbereaibouts of a parermt are vunk3own for six mouths or @tat the Pam=has railed to visit cr contact the child for six moths or that the parent has beta convicted of a felony indicating parental tm6tness,or parsuant to Section 366.21 or Section 366.22 that a minor cannot or should not be mooed to bis or her parent or guardian,shall thea constitute a su fficxent basis for teummmon of parentd tights unites the court finds d=temunation of parcuW rights would be detimetttal to the minor due to one cf time following eitcumstanc= (A)The or guardians bave maintained regular visizatim and contact with the minor and the minor would benefit from continuing the re adonshipz (B)A minor 10 years of age or older objects to tennuLW=of parental rights. (C) I"be child is placed in a residential treatment fatclity._adoption is unh-kely or undesirable,and condnaaam of parental rights will not prevent finding the child a pe rami family placement if the parents truant resume custody when residential care is no Ioggrx needed (D)The minor is diving with a relative or£cera patient who is unable or unwIMIng to adopt the minor because of exceptional circumstances,which do not iriclti&an unwMuigiem-to accept legal tesponsihhrliry for the minor,but:who is willing amid,capable of providing tine minor with a stable and pemma=at envir on- tent and the removal of the minor from the physical custody of his orher relative or foster pareac would be detritewd to the emotional well-being of the minor F� :DSS-F44�1SON-SECOND-FL TO 510 313 1575 1994.03-07 10:19 #989 P.03 F 33 ADGIEPTABILUTY AET . DATE of REQUEST Worker# CHILD'S NAME: DOB Case # COURT # Status: i' l pre -disco FA PRH j 1 Rust P.PH reassosment JOINT ADOPTAEILITY ASSESSHCUT;(to'tie eompleted its conjonction with adoption worker) 1. Child's potential for sdopdoW is bigh based on the following: [I P'ax==wish to relinquish and no other family resmoes arE available. (I The cid has bow abmb e d and the wbazabouts and kicarity of relatives am unknown. (I The child has good physic:al and mental health. [I The child expresses a wish to be adopted. [7 Adopti,,v ane aysiiable or can be r=uiwi [I PteM MMa b=or other adgtts have expressed a lopavt;interest in this child. L The Chad hat a probabMtp of adoption bat will have special needs: (I There is no identified potendal a lopdw parenr, [l The mh3or is a member of a mbling groV, [I There is a diagnosed media L physical or cmotioW problem. [] The minor is age seven or older. [7 No appropriatt ethnic match is available. [7 Positive for drag toxicity at birth. [I other. 3. Termination of pamtel rigbts wotdd be detritneutal due to one or more of the following: [I The pa=ts have rewaased involved with the child (I The child is pbced with a relative or foster parrot who is unable or unwillir„g to adopt due to exceptional which do not iadttda tm vMiugu=to at0epc legal responmbtlity. [7 Tle pateat(s)is in a treamtent PV8mM with a good jowatW for success. l [I The child docs not wish to be adopted. . [I M«e infoammion is needed to completed the assessment_ [3 Otho_ Cotnrneuts: ASSESSAMW DATE ADOMON 7S: ktFMIANM"MfiD NOT RECOMMMED More t'nformation is needed in order to maks'this determination Signatures: ChUd Welfare Worker. Adoption Woxk= Adoption Supervi.s . Form� Seetiart� FROM :DSS-1Pf25RISON-SECOhID-FL TO 510 313 IS7S 1994.03-07 10:20 #888 P.04 &-m Frm3cism Departs M-of SocW S ft-vices Fos4er Care/�Iomefmdin8 CHM D'S BIOGRAPHIC.4 DATA -- SV.MMARY OF FAMMYAM CSS MSPORT Names Date of BiY� Srac RPAw,N FOB DEPENDENCY B� P1iye'ed Abu= Sesuel Abase Abcad6omicm Farwt(s) Ott PLACFMIEN-T HISTORY From To Trp-of PSa---tpr--,:crer,G--t esc) Rc:sm ForRcmov4 OVERALL DESCREPTT0N OF C8 CLD S HISTORY P PLACENffivT CND's BipTM fEeMRY: (Cbmk aU rbat apoy)., Are firth R=ctiss c6 Fsk wi&DBS? (if yca. FuU Trent Bad Pza n==Birth( } Nomai Bimbw4kfwe4w - _Low Bir&Wagac ( APGAR.S. btNomd Rzop(vaeff7)' _Bckw Normal R-W (sPocoyY - _Butte Diffx2kim _ Pbsitive Taddry zE Bixt bx DtaWAkoirzl(apecifyr . _.. Drag/A]c+ohol Fxpossc- iaiJtc:v(md"rc�soe if F1l.S.) - - _ Seveftyofwkbdmv/4(deacn�x) s FROM :DSS-j- BISON-SECOND-FL TO 510 313 1575 1994.03-07 10:20 #see P•05 Sam FranCcsco nVwbm=A of Social Serves= Fogg Care�Homefmdb CHILD'S BIOGRAPMCAL DATA summAx r of Fear Arco Cm-os Hwroay CHELDIS MWICAL HISTORYILN"RMATION `UpLtod=aQbm=MWZR6= Lest visit toPedisz=mn ReasaafiocP�t onmescxdm M I y _..Respi w y DM=ky _Asthma (Severe Moderato Milo) Ap mMoaimr Pneumonia _.D4esfiwcProblems rya AIIalics tY) _. Hospita�Oons sad/ar sut�ries�asr�) - _ W=kTmmnrje Systeat xeurdopad Ptobiems(specEr.attach moan.tt etG) No&=abclx=yi � Sieg'Mmabgae _ Sc-we — Modmm _ D-ay _ NziocFio (opacify) Dahl Pxb;ms Inst visit to Dentist . CECELD'S PSYCHOLOGICAIISOCIAL MORrIATiON - Ew cbtld eves bad aprytbok)gi=I evabza6m? of w auach) R Hwchildbeen in (specii r wbm ad for whatreason) Kaawu - Descxiptwoa of Cbw3 Fa�maliay D=mWm of C[sWs nd 6=Wpc withixxss Dcscrip�aa orf Clads x hips with oda m QBd latcooft aodT-'-^k EDUCATIOWDAYCABE DM01 MOTION Ctaxeat Hae:cbtUd ever had awM" (If$0,atm S�yaf e�iractza sdsoaiJdi9r�+e 2 FROM :DSS-H=FnISON-SEC0ND-FC TO S10 313 1S7S 1994.03-07 10=21 #898 P_06 Sm F=cisw Dqmrtmeut of Social Sorvi= Foster Cw4U=e6ndmg CHMD'S I31(HrR" ICAL DA,rA SUMXAAYCW FA11ff.YAM CMX1'a MnMY MVEL.OPMENMAL FnS ORY Ras CS�i evcr had a dcvbb�trsslgi us�� (If so. )_Rt�awa dcvelopolentsl delays{spe�afy) .—K:pwn apeec bAftpge Sys Kaa+�amrnssl (a�aeh�gJsapasts) SPECIAL MEW DESIGNATION D=m$p=A aeedc of Ctn�d OTHER DWORXATIO. B$GA.RDING CBMD SI IMMS SM4�boaa mod= TypcafPj+aaxoc row,u Fa�Zaaee orfatba'z&Wifl:*W& eg Age faesQ poopzefiko&Z D-pU-d AvW1xbk-ferAdrdihowlM+oea�em BIOLOGICAL-PARENTS FHSI'ORY: Mother Father Races and Ethsac Bm�omd a<petaxls . Age of F:ra+ts si$nc4t of chid . .Refig'i^�o�Cutzza'si IdatiScacion Eye c*kwuair Coaor f ftbcst Efton amd Lend maned fiatr�JHcit�laes Mactr of atbb2--=-bn a(spx mbsts c sod kngh of rims) EimqoE Tm fior scc iwsc(w M=7'of maw"l=w{- - stmtxtL) n907(-*aicy) . Geo�cxnq mt�medie�. Fiissnyof t�aivity ,rions Hnsv tang put=bm&ed.vnihDSS 3 . FROM :DSS-1-2ISON-SEC0ND-FL TO S10 313 IS7S 1994.03-07 10:21 #889 P.07 Fr S �"4'�`",em ' ae ancisco of Social Swrices :ornefin4mg CrnLD'S BIOGRAPMCAL DATA SUXW RY OP FAMIX AM C=Vt EMMORY IMX01�1ti' �CEiES Grandparc=Bismsy of 2dco-I Ilhiess . om#xe=Msmay of Idedial Problems t'�csadpsmeat:l;�ey of S�bcmaoe Abase ---- Vnitadw with oad motes of visits) fiuended fxrm9ly v�arion eaii&child�.fr+agamcya�f visits) _._'.. _ Odderpatinment bad�o®d iafatsostioa oa�y a£ +�+*+ -. R XOItI'S ATtACMM/DATE OF REPORT TfPE OF REPORT NOT OBTAH%MWREASON Additsottal 1. 7Eb,-- )epasancwaot dsiete menet and the child a4the ac000e mendawd m any v poarpecr so valor a file iafoat mwj x. In view c f the bedWcmd it=uaca about flit ckK we y umtmmd yon reel[the advice of amoSol or nbacW?rani,tet :: si of yo4r CbOiobfor tmthccvaicadoc�dlbri�oe_ I have teed the alrsoe�m the t'.a�d end faomZq of ecgin aad sen mteatsCdia t�8 plso�of ztris e�7d.I also aclm�3ed�teerip[of floe doa�t. PRMT-NAME S"tgna of Pzogm&e Foster Pmem Dza S4paod PREP NAME Signatoaa of Prospective Foster Parsec Date Sigtsed I t oiffy the the k&mmaticm hicladed in this reportrepmse=thawostmp400- a mt7able k&m2ndm on file nguding this Chad. Wodorr Isamc (frits') WkL# WoEigm Sipagm Date cons"B& • 4 - FEES II0 CTy • CASE NAME: SW Name: CASE NUMBER: SWS NAMES DATE: DATE OF DEPENDENCY: TYPE OF HEARING: CHILDRENO'S NAME AND AGE ETHNICITY 1. Reason for court dependency 2. Are the parents Whereabouts known? A. When vas the last parent search completed? B. What attempts have been made to locate the parents? (contact with relatives, letters sent, etc.) 3. what did the court order the parents to do? Date of order order i Compliance 2. 2. 2. 3. 3. 3. 4. 4. 4• 5. 5. 5• 6. 6. 6. 7. 7. 7. A. What services are needed or being provided for the child? B. Do any of the children have special needs? • ZC+ _ T 0 : G T NQ W b6 - L - 4 . Are the parents visiting? A. How are visits arranged? B. Where are visits held? C. who supervises visits? D. Has the social worker observed at least one visit a month? E. 'What did the social worker observe during the visit between parent and child? F. If an extended visit or overnight visits are being recommended, has the parent's home been evaluated? G. Since the last court hearing, how many visits have there been? S. where is the child placed? A. Now long has the child been in his/her current placement? B. Is the placement an ethnic match? C. What is the relationship/attachment between the careprovider and the child? D. Would the care provider be willing and able to provide a pezzanent home for the child (care provider*z age, ethnicity, status of health to be considered)? E. If the careprovider is a relative, was a home evaluation and records check completed prior to placement? F. Has suitability of relative placement been considered? 6. What does the case tanager foresee to be the recommendations to the court at the next .21 or .22 hearing? 0 44 t• S - • A. Could Long Term Foster Care be recommanded as a permanent plan at the next .21 or .22 hearing? ' 7. Has paternity been established for the child? A. Are the parents married, divorced, remarried? 8. Is case narrative current? A. Is a current Assessment and Service Plan on file? SWS REC )DOWDATIONS: • b0 Z6 = 0 T N0W t- C- — >J W APR-05-1994 14:50 FROM H MAN SERVICES TO 915103131575 P.02 �'!� � P�-� 'ART I: FOR REVIEW BY ADOPTABILITY OWD F 1`v=;4v ♦ UN'T %RT It: TO BE COKPLETED BY RttMIXG WOMIt 7 Z. ADOPTION ASSSSSMBIrT'T su"amn Y:WG- 4Pild's Name: Sex: Race: 1).0.B. : Date: Aother's Name: FR/PP Worker; supervisor: A. I. Case plan is reunification. This child will be returning home within the next 6 months. 2. case plan is reunification. Should reunification fail to oreur, the permanent plan for this child; is adoption (refer to Fost-Adapt unit) . Complete Post-Adopt Referral below. is not adoption because is questionable; plan to be deterii.ned upon further review. B. child's case reviewed by Adoptability Board on _ Next Review: Reviewed at: PR 6 mos. FR 12 mos. FR 18 mos. Subsequent PPH Adoption Supervisor Homefinding supervisor CaMk1.ENTS: II. POST-ADOPT REFERRAL A. Plan for child is adoption: 1. by current caretedcer 2. : by relative 3. by Placement in Post-adapt home B. Checklist - provide the following with this Fost-Adopt referral: I. copy of detention order 2. copy of %T/D report 3. copy of most recent court report 4. psychological evaluations Child- Parent: 5. Copy of Birth- Certificate (required) 6. Medical Reports 7. Name of current caretaker: Address: Phone: Type of placement: 8. Social worker name: (out of county placement) 9. Marital history of mother: 10. Name of alleged father(s) : 11. Date of next hearing: 12. Type of hearing: o:\manform\CS-119.bp (Rev. 5/92) TOTAL P.02 FROM: TIORS TO: 510 313 1575 rM 3, 1994 3:54PM P.01 rax (ransmnma(Memo 7672 10 o1°d"` [� �'d"' `+,}-47 • fiz� k�K i Fez I brpdrw s Da�ti ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY MCUM, A B AS PEPJAANENT P1AC04atT ASSESSM&IT H I O PEASE I SPEC.NDS: S A DX HOPE Part 6: Completed by adoption reviewer Child's Masse DOB Disposition ( ) Adoption is probable and the termination of parental rights would not be detrimental to the minor. ( ) Caretaker will be assessed as an adoptive resource. { } Appropriate adoptive placement will be sought. Current caretaker is not seeking to adopt the minor, and recoval of the minor from the caretaker will not be detrimental to the emotional well-being of the minor. ( ) The minor may be difficult to place for adoption.due to membership in a sibling set, age 7 or above, or diagnosed medical, physical, or :mental handicap and there is no identified or available prospective adoptive parent. Ter ination of parental rights would be detrimental to minor due to one of the fol-,owing circumstances: ( ; The parents or guardians have maintained regular visitation and contact with the minor and the minor would benefit from coctinuing this relationship. ( } The minor, 10 years of age or older, objects to termination of parental rights. ( ) The child is placed in a residential treatment facility, adoption is unlikely or undesirable, and Continuation of parental rights will not prevent finding the child a permanent family placement if the parents cannot resume custody when residential care is no longer needed. ( } The minor is living with a relative or foster parent who is unable or unwilling to adopt the minor because of exceptional circumstances which do not include an unwillingness to accept legal responsibility for the minor, but who is willing and capable of providing the minor with a stable and permanent environment and the removal of the minor from the physical custody of his or her relative or foster parent would be detrimental to the emotional well-being of the minor. ( Leval Guardianship: ( ) Caretaker will be assessed as a potential legal guardian. ( ) Other appropriate person will be assessed as a potential legal guardian, ( } Long-term foster Care. Adoption is not appropriate and there is no suitable potential legal guardian available. ( ) Reunification appears likely. MOTE: Should ramification efforts fail. contact the adoption program for reassessment. ( } Other: Adoption. SSw Assigned: • Reviewed by:� Date: rJ922-1S-2L2A (7/89) Filing: Placement Acco FROM:SSAiA.DOPTIONS TO: 518 313 1575 MAR ' 3, 1994 3:55PM P.02 ORANGE CWNTT SOCIAL SERVICES AGENC. PERMANENT PLACENEKT ASSESSMENT • DATE OF NEXT HEARING! TYPE ❑ Dispo C] 6 Mo. ❑ 12 NO. ❑ 18th Mo. ❑ MIkU'S NAME: DW: J- Race/Ethnicity: Indian? p Yes ❑ No SEX O Male"Q Female Current Placewnt: Date placed Location Type of Placement: ❑ Foster Nome ❑ Group Home ❑ Relative Home/Relationship? NIXOR'S STATUS: (Check if yes and explain below) ❑ Perinatal Drug/Alcohol Exposure ❑ Prematurity ❑ Chronic Medical Problems ❑ DDC Referral Pending ❑ DDC Eligible ❑ Developmentally Deleyed/Not DDC Eligible ❑ Receiving Special Education ❑ Emotional/Behavioral Problems ❑ Receiving Counseling ❑ On Medication [].Last Psychological Eval Done Mirror's adjustment to current placement and, if age 10 or above, attitude toward termination of parental rights. PAREKT'S STATUS: Amount of. and nature of. contact with child since time of placement;- Status of search efforts for. ❑ Mother 0 Father ❑ Father #2 ❑ Father 03 SIBLINGS: (List names, ages, location in and out of placement) CARETAKER STATUS: Interested in Q Foster care until a pennant placement is located ❑ Long-term foster care until minor is grown ❑ Legal guardianship or Adoption ❑ Uncertain at this the OTHER INTERESTED PARTIEWCOM MMS: Prepared by Phone Date • FD912-18-242(41190) Filing: Placement R•-co FROM:SS ,-r-DOPTIaNS TO: 510 313 1575 MAR 3. 19194 3:56PM P.03 ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY REFERRAL FOR ADOPTION REVIEW M A: lobe completed by referring Social Worker: ,_{ Mandated Review +_, Referral 1_1 Dependency Minors name: Date of Birth: Sex; 1_1 )Male {_{ Female Date of next hearing Type of hearing: 1_1 SMR 1_1 PP 1_1 Periodic : Evaluation of the minor's medical. developmental. scMlastic. mental and emotional status; attitude and adfust*ent to Placement'. Length of time in current placement: Iotal tiae.in_ foster care: Mount and nature of contact with parents} since placement: Current search efforts for the absent parent(s): If minor is over 10 years of age, attitude toward placement and termination of parental rights: The minor is'placed with: a. {_relative Caretaker(s). b. I_Ifoster parent(s), c. J_{ group home. Are a. or b., if checked. interested in being included in the permanency plans for fhe minor? 1_1 Adoption {_{ Legal Guardian Foster Care Results of assessaent of eligibility and commitment of prospective adoptive parent: Completed by:___ Social Worker's Rase Date Telephone e ER {_( FR PP Building Af Date of last review QT 6; be cocfrleted by Adoption Staff: IT IS LIKELY THE MIMDR (CAN) (WILL) BE ADOPTED. IT IS MDT LIKELY THE MJN% (CAN) (KILL) BE ADOPTED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS(S): a. {_� The minor requires hospitalization and/or institutional care for severe medical/psychological problems. b. {_� It has been determined it is not likely the minor (can) (will) be adopted at this time because: 18-}}3(R5l88} Page } of,2 . FRO!1:SSA.'Pt?OPTIONS TO: 510 313 15?5 MAR 3, 1994 3:5?PM P.04 Minor's nan,4: 3. (_J IT IS LIKELY THE MINOQ CAN 8E ADOPTED, HOWEVER. THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S) EXISTS WHICH THE COURT MAY WISH TO CONSIDER IN DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT TO ORDER INITIATION OF AN ACTION TO TERMINATE PARENTAL RIGHTS: The parent(s) or guardian(&) have maintained regular visitation and contact with the minor and the minor would benefit from continuing this relationship. b. {_+ The minor is over 10 years of age: _ objects to termination of parents rights. _ attitude toward placement (describe) The minor's foster parents are unable to adopt the minor because of exceptional circumstances which do not include ad unwillingness to accept legal responsibility for the minor. but are willing and capable of providing the minor with a stable and permaneot.envirormaent and the removal of the minor from physical custody of his or her foster parents would be seriously detrimental to the emotional well-being of tho minor. d. J=J An independent petition for adoption has been filed. The State Department of Adoption has jurisdiction preventing adoption planning for the minor by Orange County Adoptions. In the event the petition is rejected. Orange County Adoptions will reevaluate the minor for adoptability. An irdependent 232 C.C. action has been initiated, therefore. Orange County Adoptions is prevented,frca filing a request for a 232 L.C. action. In the event the independent 232 C.0 action is rejected, Orange County Adoptions will reevaluate the minor for adoptability. f. i_j Other/comments 4. {_� 11 IS LIK._LY THE MI`A (CAN) (WILL) BE ADOPTED, BUT A CONDITION(S) EXISTS WHICH MAY INTERFERE WITH AN ACTION TO TERY.INATE Pt.RENTA! R1,.44-3S AND/OR FUTURE ADOPTIVE PLACEMENT: a. Statutory Basis for 232 C.C. Action PROBLEMS 1. 1_1 4bandonne:�c -_.— .__.. 2. �_! Cruelty or nerlect 3. J_# Drug or aicchol disability—_,.-- _ Convictio.. of a ,felony Adjudicated .ental illness or developmental disability Mental illness or mental deficiency 7. Inadequate parental relation____„_ �. {_{ Reabuse/SeYere abuse/Parent caused death of anott.er child Indian Child Welfart Act may apply. e. J_{ If parental rights are terminated, the minor may be hard-to-place for adoption for the following reason(s): 5. Disposition: l_� Perediry Referral �_� Not Appropriate Coatiaents and/or Recomrerdationis)- Mandated Joint Review: JiJ Yes �_) No Adoption Social Service Supervisor 11 or designee Date p FART C, _ Order: J_J 232 Action {_J Legal Guardian 1_} Long Term Care {_y Family Reunification Date of Order: 40912-18-i13A (RS/86) Page 2 of 2 Placement Acco 17L/02 d4-21-38) TRANSMISSION CONFIRMATION REPORT No.=002841 DATEXTIME MAR 3, 1994 3:54PM SSA/ADOPTIONS • TRANSMITTER ?14 ?04 8202 (FROM) RECEIVER ------ (TO) 510 313 15?5 PAGES XMITTED 04 PAGES ERRORED RESULT OK COMM. MODE G3 RISOUH I ON NORMAL ` ?00?002313 s a