Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MINUTES - 07121994 - IO.2
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 5 :O.-2 T Contra FROM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Costa c'� s DATE: June 27 , 1994 County �. ��UN� sr•..._.... SUBJECT: REPORT ON FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS REGARDING THE COUNTY'S ADOPTIONS PROGRAM SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1 . APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Social Services Director to sign a contract with the Family Welfare Research Group of Berkeley in the amount of $23,000 for the period July 1, 1994 through October 31, 1994 for the purpose of achieving the objectives and carrying out the tasks outlined in Dr. Barth's attached letter to Perfecto Villarreal dated June 22, 1994 . 2 . REQUEST Dr. Barth and Mr. Simmons to make a status report to the Internal Operations Committee on August 23, 1994 regarding what progress they have made by that date, what remains to be accomplished and whether they remain on schedule to complete their work by the end of October, 1994 . 3 . REQUEST the County Administrator and Social Services Director to make available to the members of the Internal Operations Committee copies of all studies completed within the past several years which involve an evaluation or study of the Adoptions Unit, Foster Care Services, Child Welfare Services or which otherwise impact these operations . 4 . REQUEST the Social Services Director to report to the Internal Operations Committee August 23, 1994 on the status of the pamphlet on information regarding the adoptions process which was still in draft at the time of our June 27 , 1994 meeting. 5 . REQUEST the Social Services Director to provide to the Internal Operations Committee any response received from Mr. James Brown regarding the "red-dotting" process or other comments on the Adoptions operation in Contra Costa County. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY AI IST TOR R MMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTH R JEFF SMIT MARK DeSAULNIER SIGNATURE(S): 77 ACTION OF BOARD ON -111 3 Jr 39 3994 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS(ABSENT � ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. ATTESTED Contact: PHIL BATCH R,CL OF THE BOARD OF cc: County Administrator SUPERVISO AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Social Services Director Juvenile Court Judge Lois Haight BY DEPUTY j 2 I .O.-2 6 . REQUEST the Social Services Director to report to the Internal Operations Committee August 23, 1994 on the status of the conflict resolution procedure which was still in draft at the time of our June 27, 1994 meeting. BACKGROUND: On May 31, 1994 , the Board of Supervisors approved a report from our Committee following up on the Board' s formal response to the Grand Jury on Report ' 9402, on the Social Services Department' s Adoptions Program. In approving that report, the Board of Supervisors provided the following direction for further exploration of this subject: • Directed the Social Services Director to contact the Family Welfare Research Group at U.C. Berkeley and determine whether they would be available to do a customer satisfaction survey with adoptive parents and prospective adoptive parents who have applied for adoption through the County Social Services Department and whether they would be willing to do a review of and comment on the past practice of "red-dotting" cases where, in the case of workload and staffing problems, when it was understood that the foster parents caring for a child were interested in and would probably adopt the child a red dot would be placed on the case folder, meaning the home study would be delayed until more nearly adequate staffing was available. • Directed the Social Services Director to prepare a pamphlet on information regarding the adoptions process which could be provided to all prospective adoptive parents to assist them in understanding and following the process through to its conclusion. This pamphlet should include the general policies of the Department which govern the placement of children for adoption. • Directed the Social Services Director to provide the Internal Operations Committee in advance of the Committee' s June 27, 1994 meeting with a report which outlines in detail the "red- dotting" process . • Requested James Brown, Chief of the Adoptions Branch for the State Department of Social Services, to make any written comments he may wish to share with our Committee or the Board of Supervisors on the practice of "red-dotting" and its prevalence (or that of any similar practice under a different name) elsewhere in California. • Directed the Social Services Director to prepare a complaint procedure which can be used by any prospective adoptive parent or birth parent who is dissatisfied with the actions of the Social Services Department or any employee in the Department. • Directed the Social Services Director to report back to the Internal Operations Committee on Monday, June 27, 1994 at 9 : 00 A.M. on the status of all of the above Recommendations . On June 27 , 1994 , our Committee met with Mr. Villarreal and members of his staff, representatives from the Family Welfare Research Group at U.C. Berkeley (Dr. Richard Barth and Mr. Brian Simmons) , representatives from the 1993-94 Grand Jury, interested foster parents and adoptive parents and members of the general public. Mr. Villarreal and members of his staff reviewed the attached memorandum report on the above assignments and noted the attachments to that report, copies of which are also attached. Our Committee had the opportunity to discuss the process that would be used by Dr. Barth and Mr. Simmons in conducting the survey that has been requested. We are satisfied that the Family Welfare Research Group is capable of undertaking the work requested of them. We are, therefore, recommending that the Board approve a j 3 I .O.-2 contract with the Family Welfare Research Group as noted above. In order to insure that the Board of Supervisors is closely associated with this work and is aware of what is being done, we are asking Dr. Barth to make an interim report to our Committee approximately half way through the study. Our Committee reviewed the draft pamphlet on adoptions and the draft conflict resolution procedure. We believe these documents are moving in the right direction, but want to review the final product when they are completed. Mr. Villarreal has written to Mr. Brown and asked for his comments . No reply has been received to date from Mr. Brown and we are asking that we receive that response as soon as it is received. Ms . Sheila Trokey distributed copies of three documents (copies of which are attached for the Board' s information) : • An April 6, 1989 memo from Syng Park to Betty Allured and related materials on a proposed "grievance procedure proposal" . • A copy of a study on "Retention of Foster Parents in Contra Costa County" prepared for Supervisor Powers by the Family & Children' s Services Advisory Committee. • An announcement from the Social Services Department of the availability of foster care training and recruitment funds from State legislation (AB 2129) . Ms . Trokey quoted from these documents and raised several questions which were responded to by staff . Mr. John Badger from the 1993-94 Grand Jury commented from his personal perspective on the extent to which the Grand Jury' s investigation documented the conclusions and findings contained in the Grand Jury' s reports . Linda Waddington from the Social Services Department referenced a copy of a survey of foster parents which had just been completed by two graduate students at Sacramento State University as a part of their Masters ' thesis. Our Committee has asked for copies of all such studies, both current ones and historical ones like the ones shared with us by Ms . Trokey. Several other members of the audience spoke on various problems each had experienced with foster care and adoptions in the Social Services Department. While our Committee recognizes that we are policymakers, not administrators, we need to insure that policy, once determined, is followed. We are committed to seeing some policy changes made. We are also concerned about the possibility of reprisals against some of the foster parents or adoptive parents who may come forward with complaints . Mr. Villarreal has assured us that no reprisals will be tolerated and that any such allegations will be promptly and fully investigated and that appropriate actions will be taken. SOCIAL SERVICE DEPARTMENT Contra Costa.0�un TO Claude Van Marter, DATE June 23, 1994 Assistant County Administrator 4 FROM PeZrViCila��-� -� County Welfare Director SUBJ RESPONSE TO INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE ON GRAND JURY REPORT NO. 9402, -ADOPTION VS. LONG-TERM FOSTER CARIT, REF Follow Up on Internal Operations Committee Report of May 23, 1994 Enclosed are packets of material prepared by staff for advance distribution to the Internal Operations Committee. The material covers recommendations Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8 of the Internal Operations Committee Report of May 23, 1994. RECOMMENDATION 1: DIRECT the Social Service Director to contact the Family Welfare Research Group at U.C. Berkeley and determine whether they would be available to do: * A customer satisfaction survey with adoptive parents and prospective adoptive parents who have applied for adoption through the County Social Service Department. * A review of and comment on the past practice of"red dotting" cases where, in the case of workload and staffing problems, when it was understood that the foster parents caring for a child were interested in and would probably adopt the child, a red dot would be placed on the case folder, meaning the home study would be delayed until more nearly adequate staffing was available. RECOMMENDATION 2: If the Family Welfare Research Group at U.C. Berkeley would be available for these purposes, DIRECT the Social Service Director to determine the cost of such a survey and review, the approximate time frame for conducting the survey and review, the source of funds to pay for the survey and review and INVITE representatives from the Family Welfare Research Group at U.C. Berkeley to join the Internal Operations Committee for its meeting on Monday, June 27, 1994, at 9:00 am. to further consider this issue. Claude Van Marter, Assistant County Administrator June 23, 1994 Page 2 RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS 1 AND 2 The Family Welfare Research Group at U.C. Berkeley was contacted by the Social Service Director. Please see Attachment A which is a letter sent to Mr. Rick Bar&- at the Family Welfare Research Group. Mr. Barth and Mr. Brian Simmons of U.C. Berkeley will attend the June 27, 1994, meeting of the Internal Operations Committee and present their proposal (see Attachment B) for conducting a program review of the Adoptions Program operated by the Contra Costa County Social Service Department. RECOMMENDATION 3: DIRECT the Social Service Director to prepare a pamphlet on information regarding the adoptions process which could be provided to all prospective adoptive parents to assist them in understanding and following the process through to its conclusion. This pamphlet should include the general policies of the Department which govern the placement of children for adoption. RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION 3: Attachment C is a draft of a pamphlet providing information regarding the adoptions process in Contra Costa County. This pamphlet will be completed and then be distributed to all prospective adoptive parents to assist them in understanding the adoption process. RECOMMENDATION 6: DIRECT the Social Service Director to provide the Internal Operations Committee in advance of the Committee's June 27, 1994, meeting with a report which outlines in detail the "red dotting' process, including: • when "red dotting" was initiated; • why "red dotting" was used; • how cases were selected to be "red dotted"; • what the total number of cases is that were "red dotted"; • what the maximum and average delay was in completing the adoption as a result of having been "red dotted"; and, • when the last of the "red-dotted" cases was removed from that status. Claude Van Marter, Assistant County Administrator June 23, 1994 Page 3 RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION 6: Attachment D provides a history and overview of the Adoption Unit's "red dot° cases. RECOMMENDATION 7: REQUEST James Brown, Chief of Adoptions Branch for the State Department of Social Services, to make any written comments he may wish to share with our Committee or the Board of Supervisors on the practice of"red dotting" and its prevalence (or that of any similar practice under a different name) elsewhere in California. RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION 7: The Social Service Director sent a letter to Mr. James W. Brown on May 31, 1994, asking Mr. Brown to make any written comments on the practice of"red dotting" and its prevalence elsewhere in California. Attachment E is a copy of the letter sent to Mr. Brown. RECOMMENDATION 8: DIRECT the Social Service Director to prepare a complaint procedure which can be used by any prospective adoptive parent or birth parent who is dissatisfied with the actions of the Social Service Department or any employee in the Department, INCLUDE the complaint procedure in the pamphlet being prepared in response to Recommendation No. 3, and PROVIDE a copy of the complaint procedure to our Committee in advance of our June 27, 1994, meeting. RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION 8: The Social Service Department has formal grievance procedures which cover the Foster Care Program and Adoptions Program. These two grievance procedures conform to the requirement established by the California Department of Social Services. In addition, the Contra Costa County Social Service Department is developing a Conflict Resolution Review Procedure for Foster Parents and Foster Care Providers. The following attachments are provided for the Internal Operations Committee's review: Attachment F: Copy of California Department of Social Services' Grievance Procedures. Claude Van Marter, Assistant County Administrator June 23, 1994 Page 4 Attachment G: Contra Costa County Social Service Departments Grievance Procedure for the Foster Care Program. Attachment H: Copy of California Department of Social Services' Grievance Review for Agency Adoptions. Attachment 1: Copy of Contra Costa County Social Service Department's proposed Conflict Resolution Review Procedure for Foster Parents and Foster Care Providers. PV:ceb Attachments bioresp.cm o-disk 22 Attachment A Pleaspacial Service Department Contra 40Do glasDrreply i Perfecto V111wreal Costa 40 Martinez, C Drive Martinez,California94553-4068 Director County n: ,o. May 27, 1994 '. ° S�`9 Ct)t72t'� Mr. Rick Barth Family Welfare Research Group School of Social Welfare University of California at Berkeley Berkeley, CA 94720-7400 Dear Mr. Barth: It was a pleasure to talk to you this morning concerning the adoptions program related issues which have been raised in Contra Costa County by the County Grand Jury. I have enclosed the following material for you to review: 1. Grand Jury Report No. 9402 dated 2-9-94 2. Grand Jury Report No. 9405 dated 4-27-94 3. Grand Jury Statement dated 4-25-94 4. Social Service Department Response to Grand Jury Report No. 9402 5. Board of Supervisors Internal Operations Committee Report dated 4-25-94 6. Memo from Assistant County Administrator Claude Van Marter dated May 4, 1994 7. Board of Supervisors Internal Operations Committee Report dated May 23, 1994 8. Copies of newspaper articles After you have had an opportunity to review this material and to think about doing a thorough review of the Contra Costa County Adoptions Program, as outlined in the Board of Supervisors' Internal Operations Committee Report dated May 23, 1994 (Attachment #7), please give me a call at (510) 313-1578 to set up a meeting to discuss this review. As I also mentioned on the telephone, the Internal Operations Committee of the Board of Supervisors would like to meet with you at its meeting on Monday, June 27, 1994 at 9:00 am. to discuss this proposed audit of the Adoptions Program. The meeting will be held in Room 105 of the County Administration Building at 651 Pine Street in Martinez, California. 2 - Rick Barth May 27, 1994 re: Adoptions Program I look forward to hearing from you and to receiving a proposal from the Family Welfare Research Group that we can present to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration. Thank you for your help and cooperation in this important project. Sincerely, Perfecto Villarreal Director PV:vCp Enc. adoptinfoxcp (PV) FROM PHONE NO. POI Attachment B UNNUSM OF CALIFORM&BERKELEY ' DAVZ5 . MVM - UX ANGUAS • WVMMM SAWAPAWRAVA • SAWA(U112' Family WeftrP Research Group are Qowareh twd) Sebool of Social Welfare Xfl . 1950 Addison Street,Suits 104 Berkeley,California 94704 Tel:(510)642-1899 Pau.:(510)642-1995 TOO Perfecto villareal, Director Contra Costa County Department of Social Services FROM: Richard P. Earth and Brian Simmons U.C. Berkeley DATE: June 22, 1994 RE: Third Party Evaluation of Adoption Program objectives 1. To accurately doccribe the operations and outcomes of the Contra Cu5L& County Department of Social Services adoptions program. 2. To compare and contract the operations and outcorPs of the Contra Costa County Adoptions Program with other public adoptions programs In California. 3. To assess client satisfaction with the adoptions program. 4. To recommend procedures that are highly likely to improve the adoptions program. Work Plan The following is a proposed work plan and budget for the third party evaluation of Contra Costa County's adoption program. We understand that the Grand Jury is seeking a response within approximately 120 days. Our 120 day work period would be from July 1, 1094 to October 30, 1994. Information_Gathering Understanding the adoption program, and providing an impartial —,analysis of the Grand Jury Report (GJR) and the Contra Costa county's Response (CCCR) , would require gathering information from the following key informants: 1. The Adoptions staff, including the manager and suparvisor(a) FROM PHONE NO. P041) 2. other CWS staff, at a minimum some FR workers and supervisors 3. people who have successfully adopted in the last year as well as those with whom a child has been placed and who are waiting for finalization 4. people interested in adoption who a) inquired but did not apply b) those who applied but were counseled or who opted out before going into study (e.g. , If CCC does preliminary interviews) C) applied and accepted but did not finish their study d) finished their study but were not approved e) have had an approved study for 12-18 months but have no placement 5. Officers of the foster parent association (if any) and/or foster parents who volunteer on the foster parent help-line (or warm-line or whatever CCC calls it, if any) 6. auvenile court judge(s) and referee(s)/commissioner(s) 7. The private adoption agencies named in the GJR*with whom CCC has done cooperative placements 8. County Counsel attorneys responsible for dependency matters Methods Individugl Interview I. Adoptions Manager 2. Adoptions Supervisor(s) 3. Long-time adoption staff (to provide a sense of history) 4. Judge Lois Haight and other juvenile court judicial officers 5. County Counsel attorneys responsible for dependency matters 6- Key foster parents 7. Private adoption agency personnel Survey We will need to carefully maintain the confidentiality of adoption applicants and adopters. This is particularly true for families currently in the cue to become adoptive parents. We will do this by asking Contra Costa County to send out the SUrveys to the families (mo we will not have to know their names) and having the FROM PHONE NO. P03 Surveys returned to UC Berkeley (so GCC will not know their responses) . We will conduct a client-satisfaction survey with pe number sfor in adoption by mail. We will also provide a Peopl people to call if they prefer to do their survey over the phone or wish to add comments. Since there are roughlywosets Of wiZl have outcomes (i.e. , clients either did or did not adopt) , we two different sets of questions. C ecor Re 1. We will review a sample of oases of children who entered foster care since 1991 and reached their twelve-month hearing. 2. We will review a sample of cases of children assessed by the Permanency Planning Review Team. Note: Additional resources will be required for the case record reviews (see Project Budget below) . Focus Groups 1. Other adoption workers 2. FR workers 3. Foster parents Count -to- oun Com We will put CCUs performance into context by comparing it on a variety of measures to other counties. For example, we will compare the number of adoptions per FTE. We will also use FCTS to compare the likelihood of adoption vs remaining in long-term foster care vs. other permanent placements for children in kinship and nonkinship care, stratified by race and age at placement. Project Budget The original project budget was $19,000. Since reviewing the Department's response to the 1993-94 CCC (;JR number 9504, we estimate that an additional $5,000 will be required to complete the case record reviews, for a total of $23,000. Project-Staff Richard P. Barth, Ph-D. , will be the principal investigator on this study. Dr. Barth, Hutto Patterson Professor in U.C. T3erkeley'n School of social Welfare, serves as co-director of the School's Child welfare Research Center. He has conducted r+enearch in the adaptions field for over twelve years. Brian Simmons, M.S.W. , will be the project leader. Mr. Simmons has had extensive experience in public child welfare, .including three and one-half years as manager FROM PHONE N0. , PO4 of the adoption program in Kern County. He is presently the project director of the► Center's study on California's adoption "Yardstick" system. The "yardstick" serves as both a measure or adoption activity at the local level and as a guide for allocating state resoure" to county adoption agencies. The study will recommend to the California Department of Social Services a new yardstick structure tailored to reflect the changes in public adoption practice which have evolved since the last revision in 1979-80. Sandra Owens, M.S.W. , will serve as the lead research assistant. Ms. Owens, a second-year doctoral student in the School of Socia. Welfare., also has public child welfare practice experience. bttachment C ADOPTION Contra Costa Department of Social Services OVERVIEW Contra Costa County is a public agency in need of permanent homes.for children from 1-10 years of age, although the majority of children available are between 2-6 years old. These children, for a variety of reasons, cannot be raised by their birth parents. All adoption agencies in the State of California are licensed by the California State Department of Social Services. We are a county-administered, state-funded program, providing permanent homes for children, services to adoptive parents and services to birth parents. Children are our main clients and our purpose is to place them in permanent homes for adoption. Adoption provides a legal way for a child to become a family member in a permanent home. There are several types of adoption programs in the State of California, including agency relinquishment, independent, inter-country, step-parent, and adult adoptions. An agency relinquishment adoption is handled by a public or private adoption agency. An independent adoption is initiated and completed by a retained attorney. Inter-country and step-parents adoption services are provided by certain licensed agencies. There is no agency involvement needed for adult adoptions. In Contra costa County, step-parent adoptions are handled by our own agency. Our policy prevents us from working with applicants who are.currently pursuing independent adoption or working with another agency. WHO ARE ADOPTIVE PARENTS? They are: - single or have been married for at least two years - willing to make a permanent commitment to a child - stable, responsible, caring and able to provide a child with a loving home environment - in good health, as determined by a physical examination - have sufficient income to meet daily expenses and make reasonable provisions for the child's future - without a felony conviction for a violent criminal offense or an offense against children. Police records will be evaluated through required fingerprints. at least ten years older than a child placed with them. There is no defined age limit, however, it is our preference to place children with parents whose ages are reasonable for the age of the child. -1- COST OF ADOPTIONS The adoption fee required by our agency is $500. The fee may be reduced or waived, dependent upon the family's financial circumstances. In some cases, a monthly assistant grant may be available to families who adopt a special needs child. ADOPTION PROCESS There are three orientation meetings per month where an application is available. When the application designating your wish to adopt is completed and returned to our office, an adoption Home Study Worker will be assigned to begin a home study. This study includes: 1. Attendance at a series of 3-4 weekly group meetings where the adoption process and issues regarding adoption are explored and discussed. 2. Four or more interviews with the adoptive applicant(s). 3. Interview with any child in the family and any adult residing in the family home. 4. Physical examinations of all applicant(s). 5. Fingerprinting of all applicant(s) and all other adults residing in the family home. 6. All marriage, divorce, and employment verifications for the applicant(s). 7. Four character references from people not related to the applicant(s). Via the home study, we evaluate your preferences, capabilities, attitudes, personal relationships and your home environment. PROCESS FOR SELECTION OF A CHILD Once your home has been approved for adoptive placement, your Home Study Worker will consider your home on the basis of the child's needs. A Children's Worker seeking a home for a given child will work cooperatively with the Adoption Home Study Worker toward the best possible placement for the child. The child's personality, needs, and background will be discussed, so you can determine your interest in this particular child. Once your family has determined that you want to pursue adoption of a particular child, a series of preplacement visits between the child and your family will take place. If the child and your family make satisfactory adjustments, the placement will then be made. -2- TYPE OF CHILDREN AVAILABLE The majority of available children are between the ages of two and ten and are considered to be special needs children. Special needs means that in most cases the children come from backgrounds of physical abuse, neglect and sexual molest. In other cases, the children were abandoned by their birth parent or were born to mother who abused drugs during pregnancy and as such were suffering from drug withdrawal at birth. On occasion the children are part of a sibling group and will need to remain placed with the sibling(s). Because of their chaotic backgrounds, most of the children available for adoption have a variety of problems. The problems may be physical, emotional or educational in nature. Many of these children require special assistance in the form of therapy, tutoring, special education or ongoing medical attention. They may continue to need this assistance throughout their lives. By the time the child has been placed in an adoptive home he/she has often experienced multiple foster placements. For that reason, the child may be slow to trust or may have difficulty attaching to a new family. Families should allow at least two years for the child to make a solid adjustment in their home. The child may exhibit a number of difficult behaviors when placed in an adoptive home. These behaviors may include limit testing, sexual acting out, chronic bedwetting, tantrums, aggressiveness, destructiveness, lying, stealing, and oppositional behavior. Additionally, the child will undoubtedly need to grieve the loss of significant people in his/her life, be they birth parents, siblings, or previous caretakers. The families who seek to adopt these special needs children should be flexible, sensitive and patient. They must also be willing to make a permanent commitment despite the difficulties they will inevitably encounter along the way. HOW DO FOSTER HOMES DIFFER FROM ADOPTIVE HOMES? 1. Foster homes are temporary; adoption is permanent. 2. Children are placed in foster homes on a space-available basis. Adoptive placement is more carefully considered, attempting to match the needs and the resources of the child and the adoptive parents in a way that will lead to a permanent, positive attachment. 3. Foster parents are expected to work with birth parents to assist them in regaining custody of the child. This often includes taking the child for visits with the birth parents. Once the Juvenile Court orders adoption for the child, there is no longer this expectation of the foster parents. 4. Birth parents usually know where their child is placed in foster care; adoptive placements are usually confidential. -3- Often times prospective adoptive parents are asked to obtain a foster care license so that a child may be placed in their home before the child is free for adoption. When this is the case, and the birth parents rights are terminated, the expectation is the foster placement will become an adoptive placement. IS THERE A RISK THAT THE CHILD WILL BE RETURNED TO THE BIRTH PARENT(S) AFYER PLACEMENT IN MY HOME? Although the cases have been carefully screened, there is always some risk when a child has been placed prior to the termination of parental rights. There is a high likelihood that the birth parents' rights will be terminated, thereby freeing the child for adoption. SERVICES TO BIRTH PARENTS When a child has been made a Court Dependent for his or her protection, the birth parents are given reunification services by a Family Reunification Social Worker. At any point during the reunification process, adoption counseling services are available to birth parents who are considering signing relinquishment documents for adoption. If the parents fail in their reunification efforts or if they do not want their child returned and sign a Waiver of Reunification Services, the Juvenile Court may then order a hearing to determine a permanent plan for the child. If the parents sign a waiver of reunification services, they must be immediately considered for relinquishment counseling services. Counseling services are also available to birth parents who are not involved with the Juvenile Court System. In either situation a relinquishment may voluntarily be given by the parents. TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS In order for a child to be legally adopted, the rights of all parents must first be terminated. There are two ways in which this can occur: the parents can voluntarily relinquish their parental rights; or as is more frequently the case, the parental rights are terminated through a court action. In many cases, the whereabouts of the parents are unknown. Nevertheless, efforts must be made to locate the parents before the agency can proceed with the termination process. If these efforts fail to reveal their whereabouts, then the parental rights can be terminated. When parents' whereabouts are known, they must be notified of the upcoming court hearing. If the parents appear in court, an attorney will be appointed to represent them. They may choose to contest the termination of their rights. If they do, there will be a trial and the judge will render a decision. In the great majority of cases, parental rights are eventually severed, but the process can be a lengthy one. -4- CONFIDENTIALITY OF ADOPTION In the majority of cases, adoptions handled by Contra Costa County are confidential and remain so throughout the adoptee's childhood. However, it is common for adopted children to express an interest in learning more about their birth parents. At any time, the agency can provide the adoptive parents and the adoptee with non-identifying information about the family of origin. If identifying information is desired, it is _ necessary that the adoptee, the adoptive parents and the birth parent sign a Waiver of Confidentiality authorizing the department to release identifying information. Adoptees must be at least 18 years of age to sign a Waiver of confidentiality. Once the adoptee has reached 21 years of age, he/she may obtain identifying information without the consent of the adoptive parents, if permission has been given by the birth parents. RELATIVE ADOPTIONS When a child is placed in a relative home on a foster case basis, they may be receiving financial aid. When the parent's rights are terminated, the legal relationship no longer exists between the child and the relative. At that point the relative must sign the adoptive placement agreement after completing home study requirements or apply for a foster care license. WHAT IS THE NEXT STEP? If you are interested in adoption through our agency, please call (510) 313-7770. -5- Attachment D HISTORY OF ADOPTION UNIT "RED Dor CASES In 1989 the state legislature passed SB 243 which radically changed and accelerated the process of making permanent plans for children. The Social Service Department, faced with the inability to process the backlog of cases already in the system, elected to give priority to those children who did not have identified families. With the concurrence-of the Juvenile Court Judge, and after review at the monthly Permanency Planning Reviews, the Department banked, or red dotted, those cases where children were already living with the relatives or foster parents who wished to adopt them. The procedure for red dotting cases was devised in 1989 in response to SB 243, implemented in April, 1990, peaked in 1992 and was terminated in November, 1993. The practice of red dotting did not result in the loss of a family as the child was already living in the home of the caretaker who planned to adopt. Conversely, the limited Adoption staff was able to focus on recruiting homes for children who had no identified families. The red-dot cases were held in district offices, reviewed regularly at Permanency Planning Reviews and, as staffing permitted, were brought forward and processed. Between April, 1990, and November, 1993, the Adoption Unit, besides handling all pre- SB 243 cases, processed 319 post-SB 243 cases of which 71 were red-dot cases. By November, 1993, only 30 cases remained, and those are now assigned and being processed. The Social Service Department has discontinued the practice of red dotting cases, and with the addition of additional Adoption staff, anticipates that it will be able to meet the more expeditious time frames of SB 243 and the Juvenile Court. b:reddot.adp b-disk 2 ,f Attachment E Social Service Department Contra Please reply 40 Douglas Driri ve Perfecto VNlarreal Costa Martinez,California 94553-4068 Director County oi ::5 ST'4 COUT� May 31, 1994 James W. Brown, Chief Adoptions Branch California Department of Social Services 744 "P" Street, M/S 19-69 Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Mr. Brown: Attached is a copy of the Internal Operations Committee Report of the May 23, 1994 meeting which you attended in Contra Costa County. Please see item #7 on page 2. If you would like to make any written comments on the practice of"red-dotting" and its prevalence (or that of any similar practice under a different name) elsewhere in California, please send your written comments to me and I will forward them to the Internal Operations Committee of the Board of Supervisors. Thank you for your consideration of this request and for your continued help in these adoptions program issues in Contra Costa County. Sincerely, ONI 4;&"� Perfecto Villarreal Director PV:vcp Att. I00523.vcp (PV) 1'.'I I—GCJ-177'Y i..r•G 1 w.n - A INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE May 23, 1994 REPORT ON A MEETING WITH TIM CHIEF, ADOPTIONS BRANCH, STATE DBPARTMBHT OF SOCIAL SERYICES j COUNTY SOCIAL SBRVICSS DIRECTOR AND GRAND JURY ON FURTHER FOLLOW-UP CJI THE GRAND JURY'S REPORT 9402 RE ADOPTIONS R=OMMBNDATXCM t 1. DIRECT the Social Services Director to contact the Family Welfare Research group at U.C. Berkeley and determine whether they would be available to dot • A customer satisfaction survey with adoptive parents and prospective adoptive parents who have applied for adoption through the Country Social services Department. • A review of and comment on the past practice of "red-- dotting" cases where, in the case of workload and staffing problems, cases where it was understood that the foster parents caring for a child were interested in and would probably adopt the child would have a red dot placed on the case folder, meaning the home study would be delayed until more nearly adequate staffing was available. 2.. If the Family Welfare Research group at U.C. Berkeley would be available for these purposes, DIRECT the Social Services Director to determine the cost of such a survey and review, the approximate time frame for conducting the survey and review, the source of funds to pay for the survey and review and INVITE representatives from the Family welfare Research Group at U.C. Berkeley to join the Internal Operations Committee for its meeting on Monday, June 27, 1994 at 9;00 A.M. to further consider this issue. 3. DIRECT the Social Services Director to prepare a pamphlet on information regarding the adoptions process which could be provided to all prospective adoptive parents to assist them in understanding and following the process through to its conclusion. This pamphlet should include the general policies of the Department which govern the placement of children for adoption. 4. REQUEST the County Counsel to brief the Board of Supervisors in closed session on the personnel actions which were taken in regard to the allegations which were filed with our Committee and with the Board of Supervisors by Teri woods and Shiela Trokey, 5. REQUEST the Honorable Lois Haight, Judge of the Juvenile e Court, to make any comments regarding the handling of adoptions cases by the Social Services Department she may wish to share with the Board of Supervisors, including any recommendations she may have for ways in which the handling of adoptions cases could be improved from her perspective. 6. DIRECT the Social Services Director to provide the Internal Operations Committee in advance of the Committee's June 27, 1994 meeting with a report which outlines in detail the "red- dotting" process, including: • When "red-dotting" was initiated, • Why "red-dotting" was used, • Now cases were selected to be "red-dotted", • What the total number of cases is that were "red-dotted", +� What the maximum and average delay was in completing the adoption as a result of having been "red-dotted", and • When the last of the "red-dotted" cases were removed from that status. 7. REQUEST James Brown, Chief of the Adoptions Branch for the State .Department of. Social:. Services, to ,make . any. ..written comments he any wish to hare with"'our Committee or..the;_ rdr , Of Supervisors on the practice of "red-dotting" and ite prevalence (or*that of any similar practice under a different name) elsewhere in California. S. DIRECT the Social Services Director to prepare a complaint procedure which can be used by any prospective adoptive parent or birth parent who is dissatisfied with the actions of the Social Service$ Department or any employee in the Department, INCLUDE the compliant procedure in the pamphlet being prepared An response to Recommendation f 31 and PROVIDE a copy of the complaint procedure to our Committee in advance of our June 271F 1994 meetiiag. 9. DIRECT the Social Services Director to report back to the Internal Operations Committee on Monday, June 27, 1994 at 9:00 A.M. on the status of all of the above Recommendations. BACKGROUND s 2 Attachment F CHILD WELFARE SERVICES PROGRAM 31-015 (Cont.) GENERAL REQUIREMENTS Reaulations 31-015 TELEPHONE ACCESS FOR EMERGENCY RESPONSE SERVICES 31-015 (Continued) .14 All calls shall be referred to an emergency response -social worker unless the person answering the telephone is trained in screening incoming calls regarding child welfare services. .2 The emergency response telephone number shall be publicized by all of—the following means: .21 Telephone book and community resources directory listings. .211 The county shall request that the emergency response telephone number be listed in the crisis line section or emergency pages of the local telephone directory. .22 Distribution to schools, physicians, hospitals, and other entities likely to observe abused, neglected, and exploited children. .23 Ongoing public awareness activities which encourage self-referrals. NOTE: Authority Cited: Sections 10553 and 10554, welfare and Institutions Code. Reference: Section 16504, Welfare and Institutions Code. 31-020 GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES 31-020 .1 . Grievance procedures shall be developed to review complaints from foster parents, legal parents, guardians, and children concerning the placement or removal of a child from a foster home- All issues shall be resolved in the best interest of the child. .2 Grievance reviews shall not be granted for the following issues: .21 Removal of a child under any of the circumstances specified in Sections 31-440.21 through .25. .22 Removal of a child or modification of services resulting from an administrative review panel determination. .23 Removal of a child for direct placement into an adoptive home. .24 Any complaint regarding only the validity of a law or of a statewide regulation. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CWS MANUAL LETTER No. CWS-93-01 Issued 7/1/93 Page 22 CHILD WELFARE SERVICES PROGRAM Regulations GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 31-020 (Cont.) 31-020 GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES 31-020 (Continued) .25 Any complaint regarding an issue for which a state hearing is available as specified in Welfare and Institutions Code Sections 10950 through 10965. .3 Review request procedures shall include the following: .31 The county shall explain the right to a review, and shall provide a copy of the grievance procedure regulations to the following parties: .311 A legal parent/guardian at the time the child is placed. .312 A foster parent at the time of licensing. .313 Any complainant at the time a complaint is filed. .32 A review request shall be filed in the form of a written * statement signed by the complainant. .33 The review request shall set forth the facts which the interested person believes provide a basis for reversal of the county action. .34 The complainant shall file the review request within ten calendar days after becoming aware of the action under complaint. .341 In cases of removal not exempted from review as specified in Sections 31-020.21 through .25 and in Sections 31-440.21 through .25, the complainant shall submit the review request to the county not less than two calendar days prior to the intended date of removal. .35 The county shall assist in preparation of the complaint if assistance is requested or necessary. .4 The review shall be held within ten working days from the date the written complaint is received by the agency. .41 Notice of the date, time and place for the review shall be received by all parties not less than five calendar days prior to the hearing. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CWS MANUAL LETTER NO. CWS-93-01 Issued 7/1/93 Paqe 23 CHILD WELFARE SERVICES PROGRAM 31-020 _(Cont.) GENERAL REQUIREKE14TS Regulations 31-020 GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES 31-020 (Continued) .5 The review shall be conducted as follows: .51 The review agent shall be: .511 A staff or other person not involved in the complaint. .512 Neither a co-worker nor a person directly in the chain of supervision of any of the persons involved in the complaint unless the agent is the director or chief deputy of the county. .513 Knowledgeable of the field and capable of objectively reviewing the complaint. .52 The review agent shall, to the extent possible, conduct all reviews in a nonadversarial atmosphere. .53 All parties and representatives shall be permitted to examine all documents and physical evidence introduced by parties to the hearing. .54 The parties and their representatives, and witnesses while testifying, shall be the only authorized persons present during the review unless all parties and the review agent consent to the presence of other persons. .55 All testimony shall be given under oath or affirmation. .56 The review agent shall have the authority to continue to review for a period not to exceed ten calendar days if additional evidence or witnesses are necessary for determination of the issue. .6 Review decisions shall be rendered as follows: .61 The review agent shall render a written recommended decision, and the county director shall issue a final written decision, within five calendar days after review completion. .62 The decision shall be based upon the evidence presented at the hearing. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CWS MANUAL LETTER NO. CWS-93-01 Issued 7/1/93 Page 24 CHILD WELFARE SERVICES PROGRAM Regulations GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 31-020 31-020 GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES 31-020 (Continued) .63 The county director's decision shall contain a summary statement of the facts, the issues involved, findings, and the basis for the decision. .64 A Copy of the decision shall be sent to the following: .641 Each party to the review. .642 Every representative of each party. .643 The California Department of Social Services. .7 Unless the child is in immediate danger, he/she shall remain with the foster parent(s) , pending decision of the county director, when removal is the basis for a complaint. .8 The review record shall be retained for one year from the decision date, and shall include all documents, copies of documents, and physical evidence accepted as review evidence. NOTE: Authority Cited: Sections 10553 and 10554, Welfare and Institutions Code. Reference: Section 16503, Welfare and Institutions Code. CALIFORNIA-DSS MANUAL-CWS MANUAL LETTER NO. CWS-93-01 Issued 7/1/93 Page 25 + H4 t.ctC11IitC11C (i REPLACEMENT OR REMOVAL OF A FOSTER CHILD REPLACES SECTIUN: 22-200 SECTION: 22-200 PAGE NO. I PAGE NO. 1 ISSUED/REVISED: 10-10-7dGrievance Procedures EFFECTIVE DATE: 0 - References I. GENERAL This section establishes policy and procedures for the Conduct of Evidentiary Hearings in the Foster Care Program. An Evidentiary _ Hearing is a form of administrative hearing whereby a dissatisfied claimant may obtain an impartial review of an agency action. The Director has assigned to the Appeals Unit the responsibility for establishing these hearing rpocedures and for the conducting of each hearing. II. REFERENCES MPP 10-116 - Notice of Action MPP 10-117 - Hearings MPP 22-000 - State Hearings & Request for Review MPP 30-300 - Family Reunification MPP 30-348 - Notification of Intent to Move Child MPP 30-378 - Grievance Procedures ,- Welfare & Administrative Code 601 & 602 - Dependent Children of the Court Welfare & Institutions Code: 727 - Order for care, supervision; custody, maintenance & support of ward of court; placement; counseling - 16501.2 - Family Reunification Program III. POLICY & PROCEDURE . A. . Advance Notice Requirement 1. A written Notice of Action containing information about the right to request a hearing shall be provided to a foster parent at least seven days in advance upon the intended removal of a child from foster home placement. The notice must specify the intended date of removal, the reasons for the removal, and the .specific State regulations supporting such action. The notice shall be prepared on Notice of Action Plan to Remove Child, form A/FC 239. Contra Costa County (DMCL f86-18) Issued/Revised: 03-11-86 Social Service Dept. Manual Distribution: A-1,A-10,B- REPLAC£M£NI UK KtMUrw. ur n rw#Ln REPLACES SECTION: 22-200 SECTION: 22-200 PAGE NO. 2 PAGE . ISSUED/REVISED: ilO--rF7d Grievance Procedures EFFECTIVE DATE': 0 - - References III. POLICY & PROCEDURE (cont'd) 2. Exceptions to the Advance Notice Requirement Timely notice is not required in the following instances: a. Where the child is in imminent danger. b. Where the court has ordered the child's removal. c. Where the written placement agreement with the foster _.. parent includes a waiver of notice requirement. The waiver shall not exceed six months from the care of placement. Waivers shall be considered exceptions used solely to meet unusual� individual exigencies. d. Adverse licensing or certification actions have occurred which prohibit the foster parent from continuing to pro- vide services. e. Removal of a voluntarily placed child is made or .requested in writing by the child's parent or guardian. 3. Unless the child is in imminent danger, s/he shall remain with the foster parents, pending decision of the Director, when removal is the basis of a request for an Evidentiary Nearing. B. Right to Request An Evidentiary Hearing 1. The Social Casework Specialist and/or Social Worker shall explain the right to a review and shall provide a copy of the grievance review procedure regulations (MPP 30-378) to the following parties: a. A legal parent or guardian at the time a child is placed. b. A foster parent at the time of licensing. c. Any complainant at the time a complaint is filed. 2. Who May Request a Hearing Foster parents, legal parents, guardians and children if they have a complaint regarding the placement, care or removal of a child from a foster home. All issues shall be resolved in the best interest of the child. Contra Costa County (DMCL #86-18) Issued/Revised: 03-11-86 Social Service Dept. Manual Distribution: A-1,A-10,B-24 REPLACEMENT OR REMOVAL OF A FOSTER CHILD `—"— REPLACES SECTION: SECTION: 22-200 PAGE NO. 3 PAGE NO. 3 ISSUED/REVISED:' Grievance Procedures EFFECTIVE DATE: 04-;;-;j References III. POLICY & PROCEDURE (cont'd) 3. A request for Evidentiary Hearing must be in writing signed by the complainant. 4. The hearing request shall set forth the facts which the interested person believes provide a basis for reversal of the agency action. S. The complainant shall file a hearing request with the Department's Appeals Coordinator, 500 Court Street, Martinez within ten (10) calendar days after becoming aware of the action under complaint. The complainant shall submit the hearing request tcf:the agency not less than two (2) calendar days prior to the intended date of removal. 6. The Department shall assist in preparation of the complaint if assistance is requested or necessary. 7. Evidentiary Hearings shall not be granted for the following issues: a. Revoval of a child under any of the circumstances not requiring.advance notice as specified in III.A.2 of this section. b. Removal of a child or modification of services resulting from an administrative review panel determination (MPP 30-491 - 492). c. Removal of a child for direct placement into an adoptive home. d. Any complaint regarding only the validity of a taw or a statewide regulation. e. Any complaint regarding an issue for which a State fair hearing is available as specified in W&I Code 510950 & §10965. 8. Upon receipt of a request for Evidentiary Hearing the assigned Appeals Officer will determine whether the request is a valid request for hearing. In making this determina- tion, the Appeals Officer shall assure that the complainant meets the conditions set forth above in III.B.1 through 4. The Appeals Officer shall then: Contra Costa County (DMCL #86-18) Issued/Revised: 03-11-86 Social Service Dept. Manual Distribution: A-1,A-10,B,21 REPLACEMEN! UK KLMUVAL Ur H rva#cn nli_u REPLACES ' SECTION: 22-200 SECTION: 22-200 I AGE NO. —4 PAGE NOO -4 - Eb71 '.'vISED: 10- Grievance Procedures VATS: - III. POLICY & PROCEDURE (cont'd) References a. Advise the complainant of the reasons that his/her hearing request does not entitle him/her to an Evidentiary Nearing and of other administrative remedies that may be available to him/her. or b. Nofify the involved Services staff of the request for hearing. Set a time for an administrative hearing within ten working days from the date the written complaint is received .by the Department. 1) Time, place and notice of hearing The assigned Appeals Officer shall arrange a date, time and place for the hearing. Notice of the time and place for the hearing shall be mailed to all par- ties at least five days prior to the hearing. The involved Services staff shall be sent a copy of the hearing request. 2) Postponements may be granted at the request of the. complainant. C. Authorized Representative The complainant may authorize a representative to represent him/ her. at the hearing by signing a written statement to that effect or by stating at the hearing that the person is so authorized. The authorized representative shall be furnished a copy of all notices, correspondence and decisions concerning the hearing which are provided to the complainant. D. Examination of Records 1. Upon request, the Services staff shall allow the complainant to examine the case record during regular working hours. If portions of the case record are privileged under the provi- sions of MPP 19-000, the complainant shall be entitled to inspect such material only if the complainant is the holder of the privilege. 2. The complainant shall have the right prior to hearing, as well as during the hearing, to examine nonprivileged infor- mation. which the County has used in making its decision to remove the child(ren) at issue. Contra Costa County (DMCL #86-18) Issued/Revised: 03-11-86 Social Service Dept. Manual Distribution: A-1,A-10,B-24 REPLACEMENT OR REMOVAL OF A FOSTER CHILD REPLACES SECTION:— 22-200 SECTION: 22-200 AGE N5 -5 ISSUED/REViSED: 10-10-74 Grievance Procedures EFFEUTTEMM O4-U47_§" References III. POLICY & PROCEDURE (cont'd) E. Services' Responsibility Prior to the Hearing 1. Preparation for the Hearing r Prior to the hearing, the Social Work Supervisor of the unit that is proposing the removal of the child shall review the basis for the removal. After the review, the Supervisor shall determine the appropriateness of the action. If the Supervisor determines that the removal is incorrect, s/he shall reverse the proposed removal and shall contact all par- ties to advise them of the resolution of the complaint. If the Supervisor finds the removal to be correct, s/he shall prepare a hearing position summarizing all the facts of the case and the regulatory justification for the removal. The position shall be in writing and shall include copies of documentary evidence and a list of witnesses which the Department intends to use during the hearing. The Social Work Supervisor shall present the.Department position�at the eFi aring The Social Worker who proposed the removal action shall, wherever possible, be a witness at the hearing. F. Conduct of the Hearing 1. The Impartial Decision-Maker The Appeals Coordinator will assign an Appeals Officer to serve as hearing officer at the Evidentiary Hearing. The _ Appeals Officer shall be responsible for asuring that the hearing is conducted in an impartial manner. All testimony at the hearing shall be submitted under oath, affirmation or penalty of perjury. 2. Record of Hearing The proceedings at the hearing shall be recorded by tape recorder. The record of the hearing shall be retained for one year following the date of the decision. 3. The issue at the hearing shall be limited to those issues which are reasonably related to the request for hearing or other issues identified by either the County or complainant which they have jointly agreed prior to or at the hearing to discuss. Contra Costa County (DMCL #86-18) Issued/Revised: 03-11-86 Social Service Dept. Manual Distribution: A-1,A-10,B-2• REPLACEMENT OR RLMUVAL ut A ruamm tniw REPLACES SECTION: 22=200 � SECTION: 2-200 PAGE NO. 6 PAGE O. 6— - ISSUED/REVISED: - Grievance Procedures EFFECTIYE DTE:04- References III. POLICY & PROCEDURE (cont'd) 4. The rights of the complainant and the Services staff shall include: a. the right to examine parties and witnesses. _ b. the right to conduct such cross-examination as may be required. c. the right to introduce exhibits. d. the right to bring witnesses. e. the right to examinQ all documents prior to and during the hearing. t f. the right to question opposing witnesses and parties on any matter relevant to the issues even though the matter was not covered in direct examination. g. the right to make oral or written agrument. h. the right to rebut the evidence. S. All documents submitted by either the claimant or the Services staff must be made available to both parties. Copies of all such documents must be provided to the claimant free of charge. 6. Merits of a pending Evidentiary Nearing shall not be dis- cussed between the Appeals Officer and a party outside the presence of the other party. G. Nearing Decision 1. The Appeals Officer shall render to the Director a written recommended decision; the Department Director shall issue a final written decision withing five (5) calendar days after receipt of the decision. The decision of the Director is final. 2. The decision shall be based upon the evidence presented at the hearing. 3. The decision shall contain a summary statement of the facts, the issues involved, findings, and the basis for the deci- sion. Contra Costa County (DMCL #86-18) Issued/Revised: 03-11-86 Social Service Dept. Manual Distribution: A-1,A-10,8-24 ; REPLACEMENT OR REMOVAL OF A FOSTEK l:ntLu REPLACES SECTION:-21 200 SECTION—:22-200 PAGE NO. 7 AGE'S.__'_'7'___ ISSUED/REVISED: 10-10-71 Grievance Procedures EFFECTIVE DATE: References III. POLICY & PROCEDURE (cont'd) 4. A copy of the decision shall be sent to: a. Each party to the hearing. b. Every representative of each party. c. The State Department of Social Services. H. Compliance with Decision Upon receipt of a copy of the Director's decision, the District Services staff shall immediately comply with that decision. Compliance with the decision shall be reported by memorandum to the Appeals Coordinator with a copy to the Assistant Director of Central Operations and Policy. CONTACT PERSON: Appeals Coordinator Contra Costa County (DMCL #86-18) Issued/Revised: 03-11-86 Social Service Dept. Manual Distribution: A-1,A-1O,B-2 Attachment H ADOPTIONS PROGRAM REGULATIONS Regulations PROCEDURES FOR AGENCY ADOPTIONS 35233 (cont.) SUBCHAPTER 5 PROCEDURES FOR AGENCY ADOPTIONS Article 9 Grievance Review 35233 WRITTEN REQUEST FOR GRIEVANCE REVIEW 35233 (a) -Upon written request from an applicant or a prospective adoptive parent, the agency shall provide for a grievance review hearing on any action taken by the agency before a petition for adoption is filed. (1) The agency shall advise applicants or prospective adoptive parents that the request for a grievance review hearing shall: (A) Be signed by the applicant or prospective adoptive parent or his/her authorized representative (B) State specifically the facts surrounding the action complained of (C) Be submitted to the agency within thirty days of the agency action which is the subject of the complaint`:.>.-..'v b HANDBOOK BEGINS HER ...... ......... ..............4..p _t-t at .". .... .. ........ ............ twra ....... gra MO. ............. 44M HANDBOOK ENDS HIM (2) No request for a grievance review hearing shall be granted if the request for a grievance review hearing is based solely on any of the following: (A) Any action of the agency in compliance with a court order (B) A question regarding the validity of a statute or a regulation (C) Any issue for which a state hearing is available under. Welfare and Institutions Code Section 10950, CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-AD XANUAL LETTER NO. AD-89-02 Effective 8/27/89 Page 285 ADOPTIONS PROGRAM REGULATIONS 352a3 (Cont.) PROCEDURES FOR- AGENCY-ADOPTIONS - Regulations 35233 WRITTEN REQUEST FOR GRIEVANCE REVIEW (Continued) 35233 HANDBOOK BEGINS HERE (D) Welfare and Institutions Code Section 10950 reads in part: "Welfare and Institutions Code Section 10950: If any applicant for or recipient of public social services is dissatisfied with_any action of the county department relating to his application for or receipt of public social services, if his application is not acted upon with reasonable promptness, or if any person who desires to apply for public social services is refused the opportunity to submit a signed application therefot; and is dissatisfied with such refusal, he shall, in person or through an authorized representative, without the necessity of filing a claim with the board of supervisors, upon filing a request with the State Department of Social Services or the State Department of Health Services, whichever department administers the public social service, be accorded an opportunity for a fair hearing. . . . HANDBOOK ENDS HERE - NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 10553 and 10554, Welfare and Institutions Code.-'-- and Section 1530, Health and Safety 2Reference: Section 2240, 11.,. Civil' Code. 35235 SCHEDULING AND NOTICE OF GRIEVANCE REVIEW HEARING35235 (a) The agency shall schedule the grievance review hearing to be' held within 10 working days from the date the written request for the grievance review hearing is received by the agency. (1) The agency shall give notice to all parties to the grievance review hearing of the time, date, and place scheduled for the grievance review hearing. (A) The agency shall send the notice not. less than five working days prior to the scheduled grievance review hearing. NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 10553 and 10554, welfare and Institutions Code and Section 1530, Health and Safety Code. Reference: Sections 10553(e) and 10950, welfare and Institutions Code. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-AD MANUAL LETTER NO. AD-91-01 Effective 8/2/91 Page 286 ADOPTIONS PROGRAM REGULATIONS Regulat:Lons- --- PROCEDURES FOR AGENCY ADOPTIONS 35237 35237 CONDUCTING THE GRIEVANCE REVIEW HEARING 35237 (a) . The grievance review hearing shall be conducted by a grievance review agent in a nonadv6rsary atmosphere insofar as possible. (1) The agency shall provide for the recording of the grievance review hearing. (2) The parties to the grievance review hearing, their authorized representatives, if any, and witnesses while testifying shall be the only persons authorized to be present during the grievance review hearing unless: (A) All parties and the grievance review agent agree to the presence of other persons. (3) If the grievance review agent determines that additional evidence or witnesses are necessary in order to make a recommendation to the agency director, the grievance review agent shall continue the grievance review hearing for a period not to exceed 10 working days. NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 10553 and 10554, welfare and Institutions Code and Section 1530, Health and Safety Code. Reference: Section 10553 (e) , Welfare and Institutions Code. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-AD MANUAL LETTER NO. AD-87-01 Effective 10/1/87 Page 287 ADOPTIONS PROGRAM REGUIATIONS 35239 PROCEDURES FOR AGENCY ADOPTIONS -,Regulations 35239 WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION OF.GRIEVANCE REVIEW AGENT 35239 AND DECISION OF DIRECTOR (a) The grievance- review agent shall make a written recommendation to the agency director regarding resolution of the grievance within five working days after completion of the grievance review hearing. (1) The agency director shall make a written decision within five working days of the receipt of the recommendations of the grievance review agent, based upon the evidence presented at the grievance review hearing. (A) The written decision shall: 1. Summarize the facts and issues involved 2. Make specific findings regarding the issues 3. Be sent to: (i) Each party to the grievance (ii) Each authorized representative of each party, if any . (iii) The department. NOTE: Authority cited: Section 10553, welfare and Institutions Code and Section 1530, Health and Safety Code. Reference: Section 10553 (e) , Welfare and Institutions Code. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-AD MANUAL LETTER NO. AD-87-01 Effective 10/1/87 Page 288 Attachment I D"F-T CONFLICT RESOLUTION REVIEW PROCEDURE FOR FOSTER PARENTS & FOSTER CARE PROVIDERS Replaces: SECTION: SECTION: PAGE NO.: PAGE NO.: I ISSUED/REVISED: EFFECTIVE DATE: I. REFERENCE Manual of Policy & Procedures, Division 31, Child Welfare Services Program, 31-020, Grievance Procedures Manual of Policy & Procedures, Division 22, State Hearing and Request for Review Department Manual Section, 22-200, Grievance Procedure: Replacement or Removal of a Foster Child H. GENERAL This manual section describes the policy and procedure for the resolution of conflicts with active foster parents and foster care providers who have currently or who have had a child placed with them for whom the Department is responsible. This procedure is an informal hearing that the foster parents and foster care providers may chose to use prior to or rather than filing a request for a formal grievance review. This procedure does not effect the foster parent's and foster care provider's right to request a Grievance Review if he or she is not satisfied with the results of the Conflict Resolution Review. NOTE: This informal review does not defer the required 10 calendar day filing limitation indicated in the Formal Grievance Procedure. (DMCL # 00-00) County Costa County Issued/Revised: 04-01-94 Social Service Dept. Manual Distribution: DRAFT CONFLICT RESOLUTION REVIEW PROCEDURE FOR FOSTER PARENTS & FOSTER CARE PROVIDERS Replaces: SECTION: SECTION: PAGE NO.: PAGE NO.: 2 ISSUED/REVISED: EFFECTIVE DATE: III. POLICY It is the position of the Department that the Department and foster parents and foster care providers are members of a team whose goal is to protect and nurture children so that the best possible plans can be made for them. It is the Department's and, ultimately, in the children's interest for the Department to promote positive relations with foster parents and foster care providers. It is recognized that foster parents and foster care providers have important and specialized knowledge of the child placed with them and may, on occasion, have viewpoints which differ from those of the Department staff assigned to give service to the child. The Department desires to resolve all conflicts between the Department and foster parents and foster care providers as early and as positively as is possible. The Department expects that the majority of conflicts will be resolved in discussions between the foster parents and foster care providers and the Department line staff, e.g., Social Worker, Social Worker Supervisor, Division Manager. When this process is unsatisfactory, the foster parents and foster care providers may invoke this Conflict Resolution procedure. The Department expects that discussions and resolutions developed through the Conflict Resolution procedure will focus on the best interests of the child and will be consistent with the authority limits and obligations of the Department. (DMCL # 00.00) County Costa County Issued/Revised: 04-01-94 Social Service Dept. Manual Distribution: DRAFT CONFLICT RESOLUTION REVIEW PROCEDURE FOR FOSTER PARENTS & FOSTER CARE PROVIDERS Replaces: SECTION: SECTION: PAGE NO.: PAGE NO.: 3 ISSUED/REVISED: EFFECTIVE DATE: IV. CONFLICT DEFINED A conflict is an expression of dissatisfaction with the specific action(s) taken by the Department regarding a child in placement. V. CONFLICT RESOLUTION REVIEW PANEL COMPOSITION AND DUTIES The Department's Assistant Director for Children's Services or designee will be responsible for convening and chairing the Conflict Resolution Review Panel. The panel will consist of the following: 0 Children's Services Assistant Director or designee (Chair) 0 One Children's Services Division Manager or Social Work Supervisor (at the discretion of the Assistant Director) from a district office not involved in the complaint. 0 One foster parent or foster care provider from a list submitted by the President of the Foster Parent Association. The association member of the panel will be chosen from the list at random. The member sitting on the panel should have at least two years of foster parenting experience and should not otherwise be involved in the case at issue (e.g., should not be a foster parent or foster care provider of the (DMCL # 00-00) County Costa County Issued/Revised: 04-01-94 Social Service Dept. Manual Distribution: DRAFT CONFLICT RESOLUTION REVIEW PROCEDURE FOR FOSTER PARENTS & FOSTER CARE PROVIDERS Replaces: SECTION: SECTION: PAGE NO.: PAGE NO.: 4 ISSUED/REVISED: EFFECTIVE DATE: child; should not be a relative of the complainant foster parent, foster care provider or the child; should not have personal knowledge or be personally acquainted to the complainant foster parent, foster care provider or child). The foster parent or foster care provider making the complaint and the Department may request a statement or input from any persons inside or outside the Department who have information which bears on the complaint. Foster parents and foster care providers may be accompanied by a friend or relative for moral support but such persons would not be expected to make a statement. Should the complaint be serious enough to require the presence of an attorney, the complainant would have to be referred to the Grievance procedure as outline in the County Department Manual. The panel will be convened by the Assistant Director or designee for Children's Services as needed. The complaint must be submitted by the foster parent and foster care provider in writing. Following receipt, the Assistant Director or designee will review the complaint and make a decision to dismiss or pursue the conflict resolution. If the request is not to be pursued, the Assistant Director or designee will advise the complainant foster parent or foster care provider, in writing with reasons within 5 working days. (DMCL # 00-00) County Costa County Issued/Revised: 04-01-94 Social Service Dept. Manual Distribution: DRAFT CONFLICT RESOLUTION REVIEW PROCEDURE FOR FOSTER PARENTS & FOSTER CARE PROVIDERS Replaces: SECTION: SECTION: PAGE NO.: PAGE NO.: 5 ISSUED/REVISED: EFFECTIVE DATE: If the Conflict Resolution review request is accepted, the Assistant Director or designee will mail an appointment date & time of the review to the foster parent or foster care provider within 10 working days of receipt of the complaint. The review will be held within thirty days of receipt of the written request. The Assistant Director or designee, at his/her discretion, may delay an action contemplated by the Department until the panel has made it review and decision. An authorization for the release of confidential information must be signed by the complainant. If the authorization is not signed, the Conflict Resolution review panel will be made up of only Social Service Department personnel. Following the proceedings of the Conflict Resolution review panel, a written decision will be sent to the complainant within ten days. V1. PROCEDURE A foster parent or foster care provider must try to resolve the conflict with the Social Worker, the Social Worker's Supervisor or the Division Manager. Only if the conflict cannot be resolved to the foster parent's or foster care provider's, satisfaction and it is not one of the exceptions described in section VII., will a request for a Conflict Resolution review be accepted. (DMCL # 00-00) County Costa County Issued/Revised: 04-01-94 Social Service Dept. Manual Distribution: DRAFT CONFLICT RESOLUTION REVIEW PROCEDURE FOR FOSTER PARENTS & FOSTER CARE PROVIDERS Replaces: SECTION: SECTION: PAGE NO.: PAGE NO.: 6 ISSUED/REVISED: EFFECTIVE DATE: A. The foster parent or foster care provider must make the request in writing, signed and dated to the following: Children's Services Assistant Director Contra Costa County Social Services 40 Douglas Drive Martinez, California 94553 The foster parent or foster care provider should include a brief description of the names of line staff and the dates they were contacted in attempts to resolve the problem. B. Notification of scheduling of the Conflict Resolution review or denial of the request must be mailed to the foster parent or foster care provider within ten working days of receipt of the request. If accepted by the Assistant Director or designee, a Conflict Resolution review date must be offered which is within thirty days of the receipt of the request. C. The foster parent or foster care provider may bring to the Conflict Resolution review conference persons who supply support. Such persons will need to sign an agreement to keep confidential all information which is discussed before the review panel. (DMCL # 00-00) County Costa County Issued/Revised: 04-01-94 Social Service Dept. Manual Distribution: DRAFT CONFLICT RESOLUTION REVIEW PROCEDURE FOR FOSTER PARENTS & FOSTER CARE PROVIDERS Replaces: SECTION: SECTION: PAGE NO.: PAGE NO.: 7 ISSUED/REVISED: EFFECTIVE DATE: D. The foster parent or foster care provider may bring to the Conflict Resolution review conference persons who have information which is material to solving the problem. Because of confidentiality considerations, such persons will not be admitted to the full review but will be admitted for the purpose of giving information and answering questions of the panel members. E. The Department may have any Department staff, including its technical staff, give information at the review. F. During the Conflict Resolution review conference the Department representatives will present the Department's case verbally after the complainant has had an opportunity to present his or her case. G. The entire proceeding is to be informal and non-adversarial in nature. H. The Conflict Resolution Panel will be responsible to conduct a fair and impartial review hearing for each party and ensure that appropriate confidentiality is maintained at all times. I. The Assistant Director or designee will make a decision if no resolution is agreed upon at the review. A letter from the Assistant Director or designee describing the decision will be sent to the complainant foster parent or foster care provider. A copy of the decision will be filed in the child's case folder and the foster home licensing record. (DMCL # 00-00) County Costa County Issued/Revised: 04-01-94 Social Service Dept. Manual Distribution: DRAFT CONFLICT RESOLUTION REVIEW PROCEDURE FOR FOSTER PARENTS & FOSTER CARE PROVIDERS Replaces: SECTION: SECTION: PAGE NO.: PAGE NO.: 8 ISSUED/REVISED: EFFECTIVE DATE: VII. EXCEPTIONS No review under this procedure shall be granted for the following issues: A. Any order made by the Court. B. A complaint involving only a question regarding the validity of a law or a general statewide policy. C. The foster parent has been referred to State Licensing for revocation or denial of renewal -of the license for serious licensing infractions. D. The removal of a voluntarily placed child is requested by the child's parent or guardian. E. The removal of a child for direct placement in an adoptive home. F. Any payment of aid issue for which a fair hearing is available pursuant to Welfare & Institutions Code Section 10950 through 10965. G. The child is in imminent danger as determined by the Department. H. A signed Waiver of Ten-Day Notice has been obtained from the foster parent, relative caretaker or guardian. (DMCL # 00-00) County Costa County Issued/Revised: 04-01-94 Social Service Dept. Manual Distribution: DRAFT CONFLICT RESOLUTION REVIEW PROCEDURE FOR FOSTER PARENTS & FOSTER CARE PROVIDERS Replaces: SECTION: SECTION- PAGE NO.: PAGE NO.: 9 ISSUED/REVISED: EFFECTIVE DATE: I. The removal of a child or modification of service resulting from an administrative review panel decision. J. The investigation of a foster parent, relative caretaker or guardian because of allegations of abuse and neglect. K. The removal of the child for the purpose of reunification with a natural parent or guardian. CONTACT PERSON: Questions regarding this manual section may be directed to the Program Analyst for Foster Home Licensing. (DMCL # 00-00) County Costa County Issued/Revised: 04-01-94 Social Service Dept. Manual Distribution: E;OCIAL SERVICE DEPARTMENT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY TO: Betty Allured, Child Welfare Division DATE: April 6 , 1989 Manager, East County FROM: Syng Park, SWS II _ C CC: Rose Manning Licensing Project Linda Canan Clarence Jackson SUBJ: Jan McDonald' s Memo On "Grievance Linda Waddington Procedure Proposal" Edward Mann Peter Koster Jan McDonald -- Nancy cDonald -Nancy Carey I strongly recommend that Child Welfare Division Managers and our Department as a whole quickly establish and implement a grievance procedure for foster parents. The need for such a grievance procedure has been urgently pointed out by Kathy Armstrong' s "Foster Care Recruitment Study. " I recommend that our Social' Service adopt the Orange County' s three step process on grievance as outlined in Jan' s memo. SP/kh (a:Grievanc.Mem #12-89 ) r Gen 9c (New 3/86) SOCIAL SERVICE DEPARTMENT' CONTRA COSTA COUNTY TO: Syng Park, SWS II ` DATE: April 5, 1989 FROM: Jan McDonald, SCS II CC: . Licensing Project SUBJ: Grievance Procedure Proposal I am proposing that Social Service develop a written grievance procedure policy for foster parents to utilize when they are having conflicts with the agency. In my role as liaison to the Foster Parents Association I have learned of the high priority foster parents place on the need for a grievance procedure. Last year the Foster Care Action Council, organized as an advocacy group by foster parents, met several times to formulate a proposal to Social Service. The group reached an impasse as to how to proceed. The issue came up again at the January, 1989 Foster Parent Association meeting and a committee was formed to develop ideas to be proposed at an April 14th meeting. Many foster parents are highly reluctant, sometimes fearful, of "making waves" out of fear of being labeled as troublesome or being blackballed. By the same token, not all staff members acknowledge the right of foster parents to be heard. Implementation of a written grievance procedure policy would by itself make a statement to both foster parents and staff that the Agency supports foster parents rights to have their griev- ances heard. I have spoken with foster care liaison workers in several counties and reviewed grievance policies included in numerous Foster Parent Handbooks. - Many counties basically make the statement of foster parents ' rights to go up the chain of command. - San Diego County has a volunteer liaison, accountable to the Board of Supervisors, who is available to foster parents having conflicts with the agency. 1 Gen 9c (New 3/86) ipril 5; 1989 'KE: Grievance Procedure Proposal Page 2 Shasta County implemented an "Issues Committee" last year, consisting of 8 social workers and 8 foster parents. Foster parents can call committee members who then address their issues, on a general basis, in the committee. Orange County has a three step grievance procedure. In% addition,- there->is' 'A'`Foster'� Care Review Board;` consisting-°of-a persons- outside-•of,.the...agency;,,, c<This-'latter 'process- wase initiated��by;;:foster,:parents-`and has never been utilized in practice, reportedly due to the success of the three step grievance process. Obviously there are many options available. I am outlining Orange County' s three step process as it provides for a straightforward policy which appears to meet the needs which foster parents have expressed: 1. Conference with foster parent, social worker . and supervisor. 2. Administrative conference with above parties Alus Program Manager. 3. Formal Grievance Review. This is a taped hearing with a Review Agent who is not directly involved in the grievance or line of command (with the exception of the Director) . This review is available without going through steps #1 and #2. Foster parents or Social Service may have representatives present. *Exceptions to Grievance Review listed at end of memo. Foster parents are apprised of this procedure at orientation, when licenses are issued, and at renewal. A liaison worker is available to explain and assist foster parents with grievance procedures and otherwise function as an information resource person. I would like to be able to advise the Foster Parent Association that a grievance procedure is under consideration by manage- ment/administration. It is possible that the Foster Parent Association will be presenting its proposals in the near future. Hopefully foster parents would be involved at some point in the Agency's policy planning process. Note: Foster parents are frequently speaking of grievancesas they relate to their response to complaints made against them. There is, in conjunction with a grievance process, a need for a reasonably clear cut complaint procedure which foster parents are informed about. Grievance reviews shall not be granted for the following: 1. Removal of a child in imminent danger. e •-April 5, 1989 RE: Grievance Procedure Proposal Page 3 2. When a signed waiver of notice has been obtained from the foster parent(s) in accordance with Social Service Manual Section 30-348.11. 3. A court has ordered the child' s removal. 4. Adverse licensing or certification actions have occurred /,-, which prohibit the foster parent(s) from continuing to ; provide services. 5. Removal of a voluntarily placed child is made or requested by the child' s parent(s)/guardian(s) . 6. Removal of a child or modification of services resulting from an administrative review panel determination (admin- istrative review in accordance with Social Service Manual , Section 30490) . 7. Removal of a child for direct placement into an adoptive home. 8. Any complaint regarding only the validity of a law or of z statewide regulation. 9. Any complaint regarding an issue for which a fair (state) hearing is available as specified in Welfare and Institu- tions Code Sections 10950 through 10965. JMcD/kh (a:FPGriev.Mem #12-89) RETENTION OF FOSTER PARENTS IN 1 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 1 000000 A Report to the Supervisor Tom Powers prepared by FACSAC The Family And Children's Services Advisory Committee District I Representatives Mildred Davis Dorothy Grace Josephine Oliver Marilynn Zito ! Gary M. Namie, Ph.D. FACSAC Chairman April, 1990 ' 1990 Foster Parents Report FACSAC Acknowledgements The Family and Children's Services Advisory Committee is grateful to the Administration of the Contra Costa County Social Service Department (James Rydingsword, SSD Director and Rose Manning, Assistant Director, Children's Bureau ) for preserving our objectivity without interference and for mailing the survey to all foster parents on the County list. Barbara Chase, Executive Assistant, tirelessly researched past studies and made available background materials for our report while Veronica Paschall faithfully transcribed and made readable the testimony and questioning from the FACSAC meetings at which information was gathered. The anonymous Foster Parents who returned their surveys in time for inclusion in the report are lauded for their candor and specific suggestions. In addition, six individuals appeared in person at FACSAC meetings to share their concerns and to offer constructive suggestions. Because they took time out ` from their busy schedules, and the Foster Parents had"to find child care, we sincerely thank: Sharyn Obrigewitsch Nancy Carey Sara Monser Bev Olagues Marion Collins Anice Nolen Without them, there would be no heart in our report. Gary Namie, Ph.D. Chair, FACSAC 1990 Foster Parents Report FACSAC Table o,f Contents Page About FACSAC's Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 ExecutiveSummary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Purposeof the Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Previous Foster Care Studies in Contra Costa County The 1986 Armstrong Study. . . . . . . . . ' . • • + • + 6 The1988 Canan Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Information Sources . . . . ... . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 The FACSAC Foster Parent Survey/Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Finding s: The Survey Results Foster Parent Repondents Profile . . . . . 12 Evaluation of SSD Orientation&Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Correlational Relationships . . . . . . . . . . e • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Trends in the Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 FosterParent Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Suggested Improvements Towards Better Serving the Interests of Foster Children . . . . 26 Technical/Administrative Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Information Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 28 Support for Foster Parents' Mental Health and Civil Rights . 30 Respect for Foster Parents as Professional Partners . . . . . . . . 31 Strengths of the Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Learning From Others , San Francisco County (FISCP. 'Baby Moms") . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Out of Region Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 �. FACSAC's Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 A Model for Foster Esteem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 -Appendix A (Survey Question Categories) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Appendix B (Notes) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Appendix C (A Primer on Statistical Correlations) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Appendix D (The Complete Correlation Matrix) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 FACSAC Memberhip Roster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 1990 Foster Parent Report FACSAC About FACSAC The Family And Children's Services Advisory Committee is a group of volunteers appointed by the County Board of Supervisors to advise the Board and the Social Service Department (SSD) on the effect of current and proposed social welfare programs, welfarelegislation, and the problems of the low-income community. Established by a 1972 Resolution of the Supervisors, FACSAC is comprised of 15 regular members and 5 alternates. ' Over the years, the Committee has defined its three principal functions as: 1) Advisory, as outlined by the founding resolution above, 2) Community Liaison, doing outreach and seeking input, 3) Advocacy for concerns of welfare clients, the staff& management of the SSD, & the disadvantaged community The enclosed report satisfies all three of the committee's reasons for being. It is the first in-depth special topic report of the series planned for 1990. FACSAC's Role as Reporter The information contained in these pages is from the Foster Parents themselves. To do justice to the eloquence and passion expressed about their concerns with, and suggestions for, the SSD, we have quoted partici- pants whenever possible. The information was paraphrased. collated & categorized only to make it succinct and readable and to preserve confidentiality. FACSAC is content to report the Foster Parents' concerns and suggestions rather than to interpret them; our editorial comments appear in the Conclusions section. 2 1990 Foster Parent Report FACSAC Executive Su The Board-appointed Family and Childreii's Services Advisory Committee (FACSAC), in its role as advisor to the Social Service Department (SSD) and liaison with the community, assessed the quality of Treatment of Foster Parents by the SSD from the perspective of Foster Parents themselves. It was decided to focus on Treatment alone because it was believed to impact the retention and recruitment of parents to meet the County's burgeoning need for placements while the roster of parents shrinks. In turn, as the quality of the Interaction between the Social Worker and Foster Parent suffers, the ability of the foster care system to serve the "best interests of foster children" is weakened. At the first three monthly FACSAC meetings in 1990, expert guests provided to the committee information about the low Foster Parent reten tion rate experienced by SSD. In addition, a 2-page questionnaire was written and distributed to County Foster Parents. It solicited their confidential opinions on various aspects of their treatment by SSD staff. The opinion data were analyzed and integrated with the anecdotal testi- mony. The reported concerns of Foster Parents about their treatment were characterized as being related to one of the following categories: + Lack of Respect for Foster Parents Frequently insensitive or denigrating workers * Too Little Support From Staff -Inexpertise of staff -Withholding or distortion of information -Limited accessibility * Policies &Attitudes That Fail to Serve the Children Suggestions for improvement were provided by survey respondents and FACSAC members. Most suggestions involve management solutions to the problem of unacceptable performance by some staff and accomplishing a major shift in attitudes toward Foster Parents. Most suggestions create no fiscal burden. 3 1990 Foster Parent Report FACSAC Purpose of the Report . We offer this report to the Contra Costa County community--Foster Families, Social Workers, the Children's Bureau of the Social Service Department, the SSD Director, the Board of Supervisors, and elected officials representing us in the State and Federal governments--for one reason. That is, we want to ensure that the 'best interests of children in foster care' are served. We'll support and encourage any people, policies and programs that share that mission. According to the Department's self-declared mission for the foster care program (see Note 1), it, too, puts children first. It is our belief that these children shall be given every possible option to grow and develop into well-adjusted, healthy and pnadzx fw adults. With this in mind. the importance of identifying problems, describing r the needs of Foster Parents, and the myriad of constraints imposed on, and by, the overburdened system all pale in comparison to serving the needs of the children. All politics, economics and system-sustaining arguments must be put aside while we search for solutions to problems that directly impact the childrenl The Foster Parent is compelled to make demands of the system via the Social Worker in order to satisfy the child's needs. The interdependence Of Child, Parent &Social Worker is simply illustrated as follows: CHILD'S NEED r::> PARENTS REQUEST r:�, (for clothes or medicine) (can be patient or demanding) WORKER RESPONSE PARENTS PERCEFT ION OF TREATMENT (avoidance or denial or compliance) (satisfaction or exasperation or disgust) The child's experience while in foster care. and the chance of successfully surviving the system, depend, in large part, on positive treatment of the Foster Parent. 4 M X XI 1990 Foster Parent Report FACSAC The county's retention of capable Foster Parents also affects the children. When parents flee the county system to quit fostering completely or to jump to another public or private program, this leads to the squeezing of more children into a constantly shrinking number of homes. Placement becomes more difficult for the worker who lets positive treatment of the parent slip. Treatment clearly affects retention and foster parents' flight and thus, the children. One respondent said to us: I hope you are able to help effect some changes so that those of us who are very good, skated families dorft have to leave the county and go to other private agencies with better support systems. With fewer homes in which to place children and growing levels of desperation on the workers' part, the strain on workers is inevitable. Does the strain necessarily guarantee poor treatment? We think it need not. How does the strain impact the children? Let this parent deliver the ultimate warning. The claim of(social workers) being too overworked does not breathe life bac* into a child beaten, or starved or neglected to death. FACSAC shares the department's pride in the Family Preservation Program. We're also hopeful that that program's success could prevent out-of-home placement for up to 40% of the children now in the foster care system. Since this is not yet a reality, we advocate strengthening the current system.as much as possible. The focus of this report is on the treatment of Foster Parents as seen from their perspective because the quality of the interaction with Social Workers, in turn. either facilitates or impairs the satisfaction of the "best interests" of the child. 1990 Foster Parent Report FACSAC Previous Foster Care Studies in Contra Costa Countu The 1986 Armstrong Study Dr. Kathryn Armstrong completed a seminal study for the Youth Services Board and SSD. The scope of her analysis was broader and the focus somewhat different than ours. She critiqued the then current deficiencies in foster parent recruitment However, similarities between our findings abound in that many of the 13 critical, often inseparable, problem areas impacting recruitment identified in her study also surfaced in our research four years later. Armstrong's Issue #5, "HOW FOSTER PARENTS ARE 11ZEATED BY SOCIAL WORKERS AND HOW THEY ARE ■ INCLUDED IN DECISION MAKING", is the most relevant to this FACSAC report It should be stated that FACSAC isolated the topic of treatment for study independent of the previous studies. In 1986, the problems with treatment can be illustrated with the following statements from participants (Note 3). (Armstrong admitted paraphrasing the individuals she interviewed; so here we quote her report) A worker's opinion: Many (foster parents)don't want to cooperate with our authority and would sabotage visits with natural parents, so we have to con l itont them on these unpleasant areas....dwti job is to provide the daily care for the child, but only we have the authority to decide what . . should happen with the child. 7 hey don't understand that The foster parent can never replace the natural parent Parents' comments: Three diB`erent workers willfollow three different approaches with the same child, ... Every social worker is an independent entity. Tfiey make decisions, based upon their own criteria and personality. We have no defense against the individual personalities of workers. In this system there is no one who is for the foster parents. The adversarial nature of the relationship came through clearly. The principal thrust of the Armstrong study was to improve the county's Foster 6 1990 Foster Parent Report FACSAC Parent recruitment program. Dr. Armstrong acknowledged the relationship between treatment and recruitment success. The 1988 Canan report The second piece of relevant study of the foster care system was done within the SSD by Linda Canan in January, 1988. The resonsibility for implementing changes suggested by the Armstrong report fell on Rose Manning and Linda Canan, then Service Division Supervisor. The "Foster Care Licensing Project Report", or the Canan report as we'll refer to It summarized the activities completed between 1986 and the end of 1987. The report's emphasis was also recruitment and activities that would ultimately support it A Danville consulting firm had been contracted to orchestrate the campaign. It's worth mentioning that the consultants understood retention to also be one of their objectives (Note 4). The visible outcomes of the contract were the "800" number.recruitment line, ad campaign and preparation and distribution of foster parenting brochures, literature and revised licensing forms. The Canan report included departmental responses to the Armstrong study, issue by issue. The report on actions taken on Issue # 5. bettering the treatment of Foster Parents, can be summarized here (Note 5).. • The licensing project staff felt confident that they had been communicating to foster parents their value to the agency' but that the direct communication of this message to Children's Services staff remained a goal for the coming year (1988). Thus there was a hint of intradepartmental lack of clarity and consensus about the value of Foster Parents inhouse. • The first full-time Developer-Trainer for foster parents was appointed to have foster parents "come to believe that the Dept. values them ... (by having) a staff member available to meet with them at their request to discuss their concerns and to mediate differences..." She was also certified as a MAPP trainer (the Model 1990 Foster Parent Report FACSAC Approach to Partners in Parenting program developed in Massachusetts) for use in the preservice orientation for new Foster Parents. Other responses included developing a newsletter and promoting a retreat and training for Foster Parents through the local community colleges. For this 1990 report, Foster Parents stated that their involvement in the department's orientation program was dropped after the Developer- Trainer was appointed. it is ironic that the partnership in MAPP refers to the joint participation of Social Workers and Foster Parents. All three studies--Armstrong, Canan &FACSAC--address the issue of treatment of Foster Parents. This FACSAC report is not going to scrutinize each issue and claim made in previous studies. The reader is invited to evaluate the evolution of the quality of treatment from 1986 to the present and to draw his or her own conclusions. The earlier works focused on recruitment, we are primarily concerned with current concerns over treatment in that they negatively impact the quality of care for the children. The FACSAC report is also different because its recommendations are not designed to increase "efficiency." Instead, it's about a group of extra- ordinary people, contemporary society's altruists. Because of FACSAC's Community Liaison mandate, we prefer to seek community input, the community being Foster Parents In this case. 8 1990 Foster Parent Report FACSAC Infonmtion Source We collected information directly from Foster Parents in two ways. First, representatives from the Foster Parent Association, Foster Care Action Coalition, Foster Care Education Program at Diablo Valley College, and San Francisco County's Fragile Infant Special Care Program (FISCP-"Baby Moms") addressed FACSAC members at regular meetings of the committee in January, February & March, 1990. Their direct quotes and paraphrased comments appear in the Findings and Suggested Improvements sections. The second source of direct information was through responses to a 2-page Foster Parent Survey. IVs described in detail in the section that follows (pages 10-11). FACSAC wrote the survey and provided the SSD with 550 sealed envelopes ready for labeling and mailing to Foster Parents on the county's list. The surveys were distributed during the first week of April, with an indicated due date of April 18. Respondents were instructed to mail completed forms directly to the FACSAC chair at his residence to guarantee anonymity and freedom from reprisals by department staff for any negative comments made. Forty-four surveys (see Note 2) were returned in time to be analyzed and included in this report. Both quantitative and anecdotal data were.collected and analyzed. Comments and statistical information given by surveyed parents are integrated with the findings and suggestions given at FACSAC meetings. Additional information was gleaned from previous studies done within and for the SSD on.the topic of foster care system reform. Findings from those studies which pertain to the topic of Foster Parent Treatment were reviewed in the section beginning on page 6. Finally, information was included from the 1989 Federal General Accounting Office (GAO) report on Foster Parents: Recruiting and Preservice Training Practices Need Evaluation. 9 1990 Foster Parent Report FACSAC The FACSAC Foster Parent Surueu Page I of the Sumey (instructions to respondents assured them of anonymity and importance for the report.) THE"CARE OF FOSTER PARENTS"SURVEY Dear Foster Parent: FACSAC(Family And Children's Services) is an Independent advisory committee made up of volunteers, Including three foster parents. For our first In-depth report of 1990,we're focusing on the treatment of foster parents by the County.FACSAC Is ja the Social Service DepL; we will share our report With the SSD &the Board of Supervisors describing the current status of the Initial treatment&training of foster parents. By completing the attached,anonymous questionnaire,you help FACSAC better understand your experience. You area valuable resource,often unrecognized for the work you do,and we want to examine the system of recruiting and retaining foster parents. The quality of our report depends on your input. AD responses are anonymous and will be reviewed g*by FACSAC members. Give no names of SSD staff. You may answer as a couple. K your opinions of the system for handling foster parents differ.please complete one form per person so that your voice is heard. Tbarkyou. Gary Narde,Chair FACSAC Feel free to use the back of the sheet if brief answers won't do. How did you learn about the opportunity to become foster parents? , Another foster parent —Newspaper ad —Other,please tell how Briefly,why did you f*=get involved? For how many years have you been a foster parent? Why are you still? How many foster children are in your home now?_How many over the years? Number of natural children you have(or had)_ Approximately how many placements has(have)the foster child(ren)had?(write in numbers) Are you an emergency placement home? —Yes No If yes,have the regulations regarding length of stay or number of children in the home ever been violated? —Yes No If yes,how so? For the next set gtcues dons.place a C&C&Mrk Qa the line that best reflects your QRinLQn How SATISFIED are you that the "best interests of the child(ren)"are being served by the system? Not at all satisfied Very satisfied About the orientation,training &support for foster parents from the County: How USEFUL is the initial orientation program offered by the Social Services Department(SSD)for new parents? Very useful Completely useless How REALISTIC is that orientation and preservice instruction? Very realistic Not at all realistic 10 1990 Foster Parent Report FAC.SAC Have you attended any training after the initial orientation for parents? Yes —No How IMPORTANT is it to include veteran foster parents in the SSD orientation for new parents? Very important — — — — Not at all important Would you volunteer to participate in the orientation?' Yes No How USEFUL are the Foster Care Education Program courses offered through DVC? Very useful — — — Completely useless 0 Haven't taken any courses Should foster parents be REQUIRED to attend training? _,.._Yes _No How COOPERATIVE is the SSD with,U groups working on behalf of foster parents and children? Not at all cooperative_ _. — — Very cooperative Page 2 of the Swvey begins here How ADEQUATE is the level of support given to you by the staff at SSD? Complete&appropriate _ Not at all adequate How VALUABLE do the SSD staff&policies male you feel as foster parents? Very valuable,indispensable_ Valueless,dispensable How USEFUL to you would be mandated support groups for foster parents? Very usefirl — — __ Completely useless Rate the stag,NO NAMES(i,f there is more than one caseworker,give those ratings on the back): A. Technically skilled __ _ _ — A bungler,incompetent¬ knowledgeable gives correct answers B. Always a source of social .._ Never a source of social&emotional support &emotional support as a foster parent C. Never available— — __ _ Always accessible&available D. The frequency of your personal contact with the SSD caseworker is. Too much Just right Too little Have you ever had a foster child who is(was)drug exposed? Yes No If yes,comment on the adequacy of the medical,economic&social support for you. What agency,person,course,program or any source of advice prepared you best for foster parenting? What does the Social Service Department do RIGHT for foster parents? Be specific. What should the Department do DIFFERENTLY in its treatment of foster parents? Be specific. Please mail, in complete confidence, BY APRIL 18 to G. Natnie- ------------ Concord Ph. --- - ----------- (Additional space was provided for open-ended questions on the copy-of the survey actually distributed.) ll ' 1990 Foster Parent Report FACSAC E dings . Me Survey Results Understanding the Data Forty-four completed FACSAC Foster Parent Surveys were received in time for inclusion in the following analyses. The survey instrument itself asked questions in three ways which dictated the method of reporting the 1 results. There were: • Open-ended, unstructured questions e.g., Why did you fust get involved with foster care? Responses were categorized and the percentages reported Verbatim quotes from participants appear in italics. • Questions of choice(nominal scalinal e.g.. Are you an emergency placement home? Yes/No Percentages of responses reported • Opinion scales requiring the parent to rate, on a graded scale, characteristics of an activity or interaction with the SSD e.g., How realistic is the orientation and preservice instruction? Response choices: Not at all realisticL- __ Very realistic rResponses on this type of scale, withl l items analyzed this way, were the most informative because they yielded the results: -A Cmup average score (arithmetic mean) by assigning the values rof"0" to the "Not at all..." end.and "4" to the high, "Very..." end A percentage of the maximum score using the ratio of group average over maximum score. e.g.,Avg.= 3.75 out of a 4.00 ' maximum yields a 93.8% score. It can be interpreted as a measure of success. The percentage of responses in each of the five opinion categories defined by the scale (0, 1. 2. 3, 4) -Correlations among all 5 and 3 point scaled items (including Yes/No responses. coded as 0.1) to explore relationships, both positive and negative. among the activities and perceptions of staff The Profile of Foster Parent Respondents . . . MCharacteristic Average Range Years of service 8.18 yrs. 7 mos to 26 yrs 75%had 13 or less years of service 13.5%had 20 or more years of service Number of natural children 2.52 children -- 12 , 1990 Foster Parent Report FACSAC Number of foster children in home now: 1.56 children 1 to 6 Number of foster children 34.43 children 1 to placed in home over the years Percentage of parents with drug-exposed children 86.1% Percentage of emergency homes 30% Of the emergency homes, the percentage who 25% reported any violations of emergency home regulations. How parents learned about the gWorW=to foster parent Through the media (ads, TV. radio) 36 % From other agencies (courts, CASR) 23 % Another Foster Parent 21 % Personal foster family experience 13 % Church 7 % Mft parents initially became involved Love of children 46.3 % to help a girl attend our.fine school systirn...to give teenagers a place to relax without pressure ..we enjoy having babies around To repay a social or moral debt 17.1% to make a dyTerence...to add meaning to my own existence... to help the neighborhood Direct or vicarious foster care exp. 17.1 % to give respite to regularfoster parents To exercise parenting skills 14.6 % to use my gift-tofeel needed ..to offer a nuLuring environment Church-sponsored program 5 % Total exceeds 100%due to rounding error 13 / 1990 Foster Parent Report ' FACSAC Notice that money is not listed as a motivator for Foster Parents, contrary to the popular myth and stereotype. Here are two parent's views: Too much emphasis is placed on money. My worker's comment that my monthly check is=W high made me feel cheap. Face it, most cannot afford to care for these kids, but we do it anyway, with or without SSD. 1 Sources of the best preparation for foster parenting Experience, OJT, trial & error 27.5 % Continuing education (incl. SSD trg) 25.5 Networking with other Foster Parents 21.5 % Own parents / own children 9.8 % Support agencies (CASK, church) 9.8 % SSD worker (licensing or other) 5.9 % ' More than one factor was listed by several parents: all responses were included. Evaluation of Orientation. Training and SSD Support Most opinion scales, except where noted, were constructed like the sample below. Foster parents were to place a check on the line most closely matching their opinion. Not at all ......... i _�/ Very ...... 0 1 2 3 4 1 The ...... is substituted for the characteristic of interest. Let's say we're asking how USEFUL is the department's orientation for Foster Parents. A score of"0" meant the person thought it "Not at all useful." A "2" is the middle score meaning the person thought it equally useless and useful. By giving a "4" rating, the foster parent thought the orientation was very useful. A score of"4" on any scale is always the highest, positive value possible. The reader may refer to the survey itself(pages 10& 11) to see the actual wording of the questions and items upon which the following analyses are based. 14 r 1990 Foster Parent Report FACSAC Summaa of Orientation &Training Evaluations]by Parents %Max Percentage of Each Rating Characteristic Average Score n Q 1 2 3 .4 USEFULNESS of the SSD orientation 2.55 63.8% 4o 12.5 12.5 20 17.5 37.5 REALISM of orientation 2.44 61 % 39 12.8 10.3 25.6 23.1 28.2 EMPORTANCE of using Foster Parents to train 3.75 93.8% 44 2.3 0 2.3 11.4 84.1 USEFULNESS of FCEP 3.07 76.8% 30 3.33 33.3 16.7 0 46.7' (Foster Care Educ. Program) courses Percentage of parents who attended any training after the initial orientation: 71 % Percentage of parents who had attended FCEP � courses at the community college: 30.2% Percentage of parents who would volunteer ' to serve as trainers at the orientation: 71.1% Percentage of parents disapproving mandatory training for Foster Parents: 52.5% Parents' Evaluation of Treatment by Workers . . . . %Max Percentage of Each Rating Characteristic Average Score n Q 1 2 3 4 ADEQUACY of support by SSD staff 2.00 50 % 42 16.7 21.4 23.8 21.4 16.7 VALUE of FP as result of SSD staff/policies 1.85 46.3% 41 19.5 22 26.8 17.1 14.6 TECHNICAL SHILL of worker 2.07 51.8% 41 22 7.3 29.3 26.5 14.6 15 1 1990 Foster Parent Report FACSAC 90 Max Paumtage of Each Rating Characteristic Average Score:,.. R 0 1 2 3- FREQUENCY FREQUENCY OF SUPPORT (social/ emotional) SW to FP 1.92 48 % 41 26.8 14.6 22 14.6 22 AVAI L ABE=of worker 2.25 56.3% 42 14.3 14.331 14.3 26.2 SATISFACTION VVTM . (Note:this scale has only three values: 0.1.2) FREQUENCY OF CONTACT by worker 0.59. 29.5% 43 44.2 53.5 2.33 (Where"0"= too little contact: "I"=the right amount of contact :17=too much contact) On the Meeting the 'Best Interests of the Child" . %Max. Pamentage of Each Rating Characteristic Average Score D Q 1 2 4 SATISFACTION that the system serves the "best interests" of the child 1.55 38.8% 42 35.7 21.4 12 14.3 16.7 1 Key Correlational Relationships . . . A Primer on Correlations If you.unfamiliar with the correlation tables and interpretations that follow, or want a refresher course, please consult Appendix C. 16 1990 Foster Parent Report FACSAC Correlations from FACSAC Survey The complete set of correlation results combines variables in a matrix is 21 X 21. , The entire matrix appears in Appendix D. Only correlations r 2.- .40 and with potential meaning were isolated for inclusion below Any r > .47 is statistically significant (p < .05). Refer to the original wording of the survey for drawing conclusions. Only shorthand labels appear below. VALUE as FP felt from staff&policies at SSD ADEQUACY OF SUPPORT from SSD .87 Workers TECHNICAL SHILL .90 Worker's AVAII.ABILITY , .80 FREQUENCY of worker SUPPORT .83 VALUE of Foster Parent .80 Worker's AVAILABILITY .82 COOPERATIVENESS of SSD .69 FREQUENCY of Worker CONTACT .78. Worker's TECHNICAL SHILL .72 Soc/Emo SUPPORT from SSD :40 No. of previous placements System serving CHILD'S BEST INTERESTS .74 COOPERATIVENESS of SSD IMPORTANCE to INCLUDE .63 REALISM of orientation Foster Parents in orientation .61 ADEQUACY OF SUPPORT from SSD - .45 ADEQUACY OF SUPPORT .61 Worker's TECHNICAL SHILL - .41 Worker's TECHNICAL SHILL .59 VALUE of Foster Parent .40 VALUE of Foster Parent .56 Soc/Emo SUPPORT from SSD .49 USEFULNESS of orientation .47 USEFULNESS of FCEP courses REQUIRE Foster Parent 'Training .50 Soc/Emo SUPPORT from SSD.. SSD COOPERATIVENESS with all groups - .44 DRUG-EXPOSED CHILD .83 AVAILABILITY of Worker .82 ADEQUACY OF SUPPORT .76 VALUE of Foster Parent .75 Worker's TECHNICAL SHILL .74 CHILD'S BEST INTERESTS .65 Soc/Emo SUPPORT from SSD .64 FREQUENCY of Worker CONTACT .62 USEFULNESS of orientation 17 1990 Foster Parent Report FACSAC Trends in the Data ♦ Foster Parents believe the system is failing to serve the children, to Y accomplish its mission (Average 1.55 out of 4.00; 69.1% of them reported being moderately to completely unsatisfied; the "approval rating' (% Max. score) was 38.8%. second lowest of all the scales) ♦ The emphasis on media recruitment efforts has made them the most popular method (360/6) . ♦ Foster Parents get involved for prosocial reasons--either for love of children or to do something for society (63.4%)--not for money. Churches are underutilized. ♦ The onus of learning to foster parent successfully falls on other Foster Parents and trial & error (490/6), while only 1/4 of the respondents credit training, the department's or FCEP. This lengthens the time to mastering situations with a population of difficult children. Parents and children suffer from lag time. ♦ FCEP is positively received, 76.80/6 approval rating, and the SSD can take some credit for its success since it is still partly directed by SSD. In comparison, the SSD's solo efforts to prepare & inform parents, the orientation is rated lower (63.8% useful & 61% realistic). Note the parents rating of importance to include them in the orienta- tion (3.75 out of 4.00) and 71% of them willing to participate. ♦ Revealing is the juxtaposition of Foster Parents not wanting mandatory training (52.50/6) and the low average scores of worker technical skill (2.07 out of 4.00) and.adequacy of support from the worker (either 2.00 or 1.92, depending on the measure chosen). The parents seem to be saying it is the worker who needs more skill. 18 , 1990 Foster Parent Report FACSAC ♦ The average scores on all dimensions of worker contact, availability, skill and support reveal genuine concern by Foster Parents. The department is scoring at or below the median on many dimensions. From pg. 17 ♦ The VALUE correlation cluster serves as a list of how the department can make Foster Parents feel valued in their role. All correlations are high & positive (.87, .80, .80, .69), therefore VALUE means having skilled, available, in-contact and supportive (on emotional level, too) workers. Since the Foster Parents feel generally unvalued (1.85 out of 4.00), the averages on the scales evaluating the worker must be low also, and they are. The optimistic news is that VALUE will increase when the worker dimension scores also increase. ♦ The IlVIPORTANCE to INCLUDE FPs in orientation correlation cluster is interesting. The negative correlations with VALUE, ADEQUACY OF SUPPORT&Worker's TECEMCAL SHILL imply that inclusion can overcome deficiencies in those areas. Remember it may only be perceived as overcoming the problems. Simply put, the exclusion of veteran Foster Parents accounts, in part, for the perceived inadequacy of support provided by the SSD staff. i ♦ The child's interests are best served by showing.Foster Parents.that the department is cooperating with all groups involved with foster care, that the orientation and FCEP courses are made both realistic and useful, that the Social Workers are skilled and supportive, and that the Foster Parent is made to feel valuable. (This was our hypothesis: quality treatment of Foster Parents ultimately serves the children.) 19 1990 Foster Parent Report FACSAC Concerns of Foster Parents Foster parents are worn out by ajob that is 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, year after year without respite, support, help or kindness. -from the Armstrong study,Note 6 All.concerns were expressed by parents themselves. Quotes are in italics. Lack of Respect for Foster Parents • It's a thankless, negative role, to be a Foster Parent We aren't the"bad"guys. We are helping give a home to children who have a bad home Ufe. Don't treat us We"Well you're only the foster parent • In the most recent handbook for parents, the Foster Parent Assoc. was not listed as a resource. • Reason enough for Foster Parent flight from.the county Most leave because of the ineptness, the lack of logical reality, the lack of input, and the zero respect use deal with for what we do. i/i Natural parents get treated better Treat us with as much,.if not more, respect than natural parents. Realize that foster parents know by experience what things will be harmful or disturbing to the children. 20 i 1990 Foster Parent Report FACSAC 0 Insensitive to Parents' needs or discounting of Parents' input on decisions affecting child, but false allegations are investigated promptly This new Social Worker called a woman who has been afoster parent for years and asked her to take a baby. She said she couldWt because she had been seriously ill, and the worker said 110h, don't give me that garbage." When you place a child you have all these hopes and dreams. Then find out the child is very disturbed or has been in residential treat- ment and you caWt cope with it. Once you've made the connection, to call up and say you want him removed is a very hard thing. I don't feel the county is sensitive to that because they haven't any place to put the kids. When you report an extremely disturbing situation for the child ajber a visitation, Social Services acts like you are lying about it. Lack of Adequate upport f S or Child & Parents • Caseloads overextend workers and strain Intradepartmental communi- cation hindering the delivery of quality service. Most of the Social Workers I dealt with were caring, intelligent people,just too busy to give concrete help Cuts in the licensing stafffor 4 112 reduces the buffer we had between us and the department They were liaisons for us. Now we have to go to the supervisor. The Specialized Program was initially a good program. It was designed for 2 kids. But now homes have 4 to 6 kids. 21s 1990 Foster Parent Report FACSAC • The Department's commifinent (both in attitude and formal programs) to post-recruitment retention and develolSment of Foster Parents is either unknown. misunderstood or invisible to parents. Success in foster care depends too much on the individual Social Worker. Let the parents themselves decide who should tell the Foster 1 Parent's side at orientation. Keep out the Dept-picked "smoothies" Only one person is responsible for the"development"of about 600 Foster Parents. Having a person try to be both recruiter and complaints investigator places the person in an impossible position. The two hats don't fit. NO ONE has any straight answersl You are constantly referred to someone else! • Lack of Social Worker expertise in the development, of either "normal" or abused/abandoned children; should not override professionals; lack of knowledge about Difficulty of Care ...have no conception of the norm They see every problem as psychiatric and a crisis. They've long forgotten(or never knew) what was normal with their own(childrerd. 77mugh therapy, a child was able to say she didn't want to see her abusing mother again. CASR& the therapist agreed. The Social Worker disagreed and pulled the (child) out of therapy because she wanted to and felt the (child) deserved to be out • Foster Parents and their families are placed at risk of physical harm by some workers The birth mother and sister demanded to have the baby held up atthe window to my house for them to see whenever they wanted. 22 , 1990 Foster Parent Report ' FACSAC I was told to do so by the social worker. For the next year I had to walls my own kids to school and meet them because those two sat on the street corner and watched my house; they threatened to hurt my natural children! The social worker helped this happen. • Medical coverage is inadequate, service is demoralizing, and scheduling of appointments is made at the convenience of the i Social Worker or service, not the foster family's schedule. Often out the area. Emergency placement children have to wait 4 howl or more at County hospital Children don't wait patiently. Medi-Cal means the ugliest glasses--they won't pay for braces—and denials. A plastic surgeon denied treatment to a girl whose leg had been badly burned with hot water and deformed. He didn't think she needed plastic surgery, butjust to look at her he didn't want to take Medi-Cal. That's sad. Best Interests of the Child Not Tom Priority • Dishonesty of placement worker with Foster Parent A brand new parent was talked into taking a 4-yr old who has failed three foster homes by the SW. The whole family is set up for failure because the My is not capable of handling this girl who wipes her feces on the wall. The SW didn't tell the foster parent It uxas stated at the orientation that the child would fust come for a visit~ but that was not true at all. The child was dropped off clothes and all. Telling Foster Parents they get"paid". They get reimbursed, not even enough to cover expenses. 23 s 1990 Foster Parent Report FACSAC • Inequity of status natural vs. foster children within families supported by policies and attitude of many social workers .f I you b .for the children on an equal basis with your own, you are y � o,f len accused of"spoiling"the child&creating an atmosphere of alienation towards the nahoW parents. • Internal politics, workers' need to control and individual attitudes of Social Workers override the welfare of the child wou and a worker dkigrm you have no opportunity to ask for a new ker. Under no cir amistan es can you ask. The child is moved before they'll change a workerl Caseworkers want to prove their degree in psychology. We have had a revolving door of overaged hippies/social workers condemning us for having comfortable surroundings. If you don't fit the mold of middle or lower middle class, you are not taken seriously as a parent Once DSS discovers that there are "Ward&June Cleavers" in the system, some kids will get a chance at a better life. • Department staff seems to "go by the book" only to deny services or access to resources; but regulations aren't always honored SSD needs to read and practice what statutes state: including notifying us of hearings, providing summaries of reports and in- forming us that we can attend hearings and submit our own reports. Drug test parents when ordered by the court Parents aren't allowed to take their children on visits. Honor your agree- ment with us: updates monthly on case, medical inforrnation and returning phone calls. 24 f i r 1990 Foster Parent Report FACSAC . r Federal GAO Report's Fundings About Foster Parents i In 1989. the General Accounting Office published the report to Congress Foster Parents: Requiting and Preservice?raining Practices Need , Evaluation. The focus of the report is in the title. The GAO also addressed the reasons for the critical shortage of Foster Parents. An abbreviated version of that list is given so that the reader and Departmental personnel know that many of the concerns listed in this section are national in scope and not unique to Contra Costa nor directed at individuals who work in the system. Reasons for Shortage of Foster Parents • failure of some social service agencies to treat foster parents with respect and to establish working partnerships • lack of support and positive recognition r • low foster parent reimbursement rates • little respite i • inaccessible social service agency case workers • poor public image of foster parenting !� i r I 25 1990 Foster Parent Report FACSAC Suggested Improvements The three major categories of suggestions parallel the categories of concerns. In all there are five subsections that follow: A Towards Better Serving the Interests of Foster Children ' R Support the Foster Parent -Technical/Administrative - Information - Mental&Civil Rights C Respect Foster Parents as Professional Partners The suggestions were drawn from the survey responses, information shared at FACSAC meetings, and from FACSAC, the Committee as it met to . condense the information for this report As before, quotes are in italics. A. Towards Better Serving the Interests of Foster Children 1. Create a Permanency Plan on schedule; the child deserves it. Delinquent natural parents should not be allowed to interfere with PP. Hold natural parents accountable for change before reunification. • Natural parents should complete rehabilitation. They should not have more than 18 months to change without forfeit. ' •They should demonstrate changed parenting skills. • Don't have in-home visits by natural parents. (FP is then "bad guy.") One mother,from day 1 knew that she needed to go to parenting classes, drug testing&counseling, needed to be in residential treat- ment. Six months went by, she made no effort. In court, she says she's interested again, she got an extension. She makes no effort. 71wo months before the year is up, she goes into a program. Back to court and gets another six month extension"to prove myself." She slips and slides along, misses drug tests and doesn't go back to the program Nothing but excuses, excuses. light for what is best for the child not just what is supposed to help the " amil ." So often the child goes "home"only to be put back intofoster care after they are so damaged it is hopeless. 26 1990 Foster Parent Report FACSAC 2. Formally review alternative foster child placement systems that prevent warehousing. Consider contracting the service out to a nonprofit provider. 3. Drop the constraints on placement regarding race and ethnicity as it perpetuates the shortage of Foster Parents and denies County realities. The need is (to try) to reach these birth parents and try to instill a need and desire to be productive citizens, be it whatever ethnic background they came from. We are only one race, and that is the human race. B. Increase Support for the Foster Parent .Technical/Administrative Support 1. Perform the regulated professional duties as required by law. Have the Bureau honor its mission to serve the children. Have workers make regular (at least monthly) visits. Comply with federal, state &county regulations Hold workers accountable via explicit performance standards for the correctness & completeness of information given to Foster Parents 2. Require the documentation of completed training or education by all foster care workers in the areas of Child Development AND Development Patterns.& Psychopathology of Special Population-Children (those who fit the profile of foster children—abused, abandoned, neglected. addicted) The study of child development is not standard preparation for a social worker. Decisions made with limited knowledge of developmental needs risk further damaging the child, often unnecessarily. (Note 7) 3. Adjust pay scales to more closely approximate actual costs to Foster Parents and to attenuate the loss of parents to competitors. Conduct a study to identify actual costs 27 1990 Foster Parent Report FACSAC Enable Foster Parents to directly inquire about payment status The 'payment'dept. is consistently nide when afoster parent calls them in case of error.. (they) will only accept calls from the social worker who frequently is very docult to readi. 4. Assist Foster Parents with clothing&diaper expenses that often strain a family's budget while waiting for the first month's check. * Send child with a clothing voucher * Provide starter set of diapers for infants at time of placement o Create a used-clothes exchange service (store) for the foster care community. Volunteers could help with sorting and running the operation. Clothes could be free with exchange or low cost. 5. After foster care program's needs are identified and prioritized, seek specific volunteer help to accomplish many of the suggestions contained in this-report. Tap the resources in the community for help. Information Support 1. Actively seek and incorporate child-related information from Foster Parents. Make them partners in planning and verify that they perceive themselves to be valuable. Establish &preserve a two-way line of communication between Foster Parents and the SSD. * Create a system that routinely solicits information regarding the child's progress, as reported by the parent who has daily contact (ANSWER&RETURN CALLS when information is sought) 9 LISTEN WMIOUT DEFENSIVENESS when Foster Parent reports on the interaction between natural parents and child e Provide parents with case updates: court dates, progress of natural parents' treatinent, status of permanent placement * Periodically measure Foster Parent satisfaction with their worth e Re-introduce veteran Foster Parent participation in SSD orientation 28 1990 Foster Parent Report FACSAC Should listen more to us about the child, natural parents, everything. After all, use see more of this than social workers do. the workers were impossible to deal with, it was disruptive to our home. & the children came out losers. They were returned to bad skuations. No one would listen! 71teyjust shut their eyes to reality for the kids. 3. Upgrade the completeness and accuracy of information available to new Foster Parents. * Re-introduce veteran Foster Parent participation In SSD orientation * Assemble a videotape lending library for parents on topics dealing with difficult kids or anything that would help the child by educating the parent. * Update &distribute list of Foster Parents in the new parent's area to promote networking and sharing of ideas 9 As training courses continue to be developed for Foster Parents, employ a process of tailoring the offerings to meet the evolving needs of parents. That is, entry-level courses aren't attractive to veteran parents, but special medical procedures and handling for special needs children might be. Create a system to monitor parents' changing needs. (Use situational leadership as a model.) 9 Design. promote &provide incentives to encourage attendance at Team Development sessions (ft-aining, retreats or regular planning meetings) with both'Foster Parents & Social Workers participating. Introduce a partnership philbsophy in joint meetings. * Provide a part-time conflict mediator who is independent of the foster care units to serve as ombudsman. Maybe recruit a non-staff volunteer. 4. Update the list of resources and services available to foster families periodically. specifically attempting to equalize the distribution of providers across regions in the County. •Advocate changes in Medi-Cal coverage that would make care for foster children comparable to non-foster children (orthodontia, etc.) • Mend& more school & psychological services 29 1990 Foster Parent Report ' FACSAC • Develop recreation programs for 3-6 yr. olds akin to camperships for 7-14 yr. olds. 5. Create a history ("rap") sheet on each foster child, relying on Foster Parents for updates. Give that record to the parent at each new place- ment. Don't withhold information. The short-term "success" of finding ' a home is more than offset by the long-term consequences of the lost trust of the parent. History could include medical, psychological, ' behavioral & anecdotes sharing parenting wisdom about that child. Mental Health& Civil Rights Sunk 1. RESPITE to protect sanity of Foster Parents and-ensure quality care for the child. Have departmental staff understand that respite is NOT a luxury benefit it is as necessary as health and dental insurance. • Have 2 kinds: (1) Mental Health break--have someone to care for the children during vacation or weekend periods. and (2) Emergency care in the home for the family--while parent is with child at the hospital for long-term treatment. • Inquire at the State Dept. of Education Child Care Vendor Program about possible funding. 2. In collaboration with Foster Parents, plan & sponsor events that bring several foster families together, e.g., picnics, to reduce the isolation families experience and to promote networking. r 3. Explore ways to fund ongoing support groups for Foster Parents. Expenses would include child care. Private foundations (Zellerbach) once funded groups. Consider an RFP to identify private providers of group facilitation/counseling services. 1 4. Protect Foster Parents rights by not disclosing the placement address or i phone number to natural parents immediately after removal of the child by CPS. The natural parents may be armed or under the influence. 30 1990 Foster Parent Report FACSAC C. Respect Foster Parents as Professional Partners 1. Compel Social Workers to interact with Foster Parents in a way that leads those parents to report feeling that they are valued members of a professional team. Why do this? Based on FACSAC's research, LACK OF RESPECT BY TBE SSD STAFF is clearly damaging Foster Parent reten- tion. If left unchecked, the service to the foster children of Contra. Costa County will reach a crisis stage. Initial, explicit steps toward improvement may include: • Management at the Bureau &Division level holding staff accountable for acceptable treatment of Foster Parents using a performance standard whose score is based entirely(or partly) on the anonymous opinions of Foster Parents in the worker's caseload. In this way, performance is assessed, not the worker's attitude. •Assign a person not affiliated with the foster care unit (outside the department would be best) to document complaints & compliments from Foster Parents about treatment, noting specific information and worker involved. Information should be used at merit or perfor- mance review time. • Expose Social Workers to Client Relations training that is based on a customer relations model. Foster Parents are valuable customers! ... without us, they have nothing • Identify workers who made Foster Parents feel like teammates. Create standards of acceptable treatment based on those people. 2. Create a Master Foster Parent, or Support Specialist, role to employ a veteran parent to assist with the orientation, resolve problems, keep the department informed about Foster Parent concerns, and to be "on call" for helping peers. This is done in Illinois and mentioned in the next-section of the report. 3. Brainstorm ways to meet both the parents' , . _ p encs' NEED TO BE LIS TO and the conflicting workers' need to PLACE TOO MANY CHILDREN !!!!! a 31 1990 Foster Parent Report FACSAC Strengths of the Department Quotes from the Foster Parents all begin with 'The Social Service Department..:' 'i has some workers who wonderfully and quietly put the rights and needs of children on a realistic level... even if it means bending the rules ' tries to get us special help for special children with terrific medical care shows concernfor children's behavior and their interaction with others is prompt in coming to the home to charge child's behavior or to encourage the child in its social growth gives helpful and workable suggestions ... (re:FiCEP) my methods of dealing with children changed, I gained more understanding most know us personally, are concerned even a,f ter the children left is beginning to give us compliments (the worker) trusts my judgment as far as needed and backs me up has a great newsletter... sends info on upcoming classes makes sure checks and medical stickers are alwaus prompt has always been therefor emotional support for the kids and us took the time to talk, to answer questions makes me feel we are a team for the good of the child 32 1990 Foster Parent Report ' FACSAC Learning From Others , San Francisco's "Baby Moms" Program The real name of the program is FISCP, Fragile Infant Special Care Program. Over its 3 year history, approximately 80 critically-ill newborns ' have been given foster care. There are many differences between this special program, such as population served, and the general county foster placement programs, but much can be learned from it about the treatment of Foster Parents. Here are some key characteristics: ♦ Team Approach is genuine. Mandatory monthly meetings attended by Foster Parents, Case Workers. Psychologist, Nurse, &Neonatologist. , Meeting agendas include technical/medical training and support groupg for emotional sharing and wisdom sharing facilitated by ' professionals. (Natural parents receive the same medical training.) ♦ Social Workers are accessible via home telephone &beepers to Foster Parents (though the cases are intensive, the caseloads are small) ' ♦ Careful screening of Child Welfare Workers for the unit, selected for: -Ability to function collaboratively, as part of a TEAM -Case organization skills & technical/medical background , ♦ Program has built-in respite: child care provided when taking other ' children to appointments ♦ Foster Parent keeps child until permanent placement. ♦ Parents are LISTENED TO. They contribute to the assessment of the child's readiness to exit the program. They receive regular pats on the back from workers. Thus, Foster Parents know they are valued ' members of the team and report being very satisfied with treatment. 33 ' n 1990 Foster Parent Report FACSAC Out o Re ion Models ' The U.S. GAO report described exemplar programs aimed at increasing retention and bolstering recruitment of Foster Parents. Many of the report's findings parallel our local study. Since the problems are similar nationwide, the lessons should be applicable in Contra Costa. Highlights are listed below, but readers are referred to the report to get a more complete story. ♦ Illinois professionalizes foster parenting by employing Foster Parents part-time on contract as support specialists who participate in parent recruiting, training& support (maintaining face-to-face contact with peers, problem resolution, trouble shooting for new parents). ♦ In Massachusetts, parents contribute to the development of a plan for services for children. The department gives background information on children to help parents deal with emotional &behavior problems. ♦ In New Jersey, the state-financed foster parent association runs the statewide recruitment and public education campaign. The partner- ship between agency and parents includes having the association help select new foster parents for the system. ♦ The recruitment of minority parents is accomplished in Michigan by targeting churches. The social service agency contracts with One Church, One Child, Inc. to recruit black foster homes. The point of the program is that if every church would be responsible for getting one home from within the congregation, the need for care will be fulfilled. A feature common to these innovative programs is the reliance upon the community at large and the Foster Parents, in particular, as PARTNERS on the team attempting to improve the foster care system. 34 1990 Foster Parent Report , FACSAC FACSAC's Conclusions ' FACSAC echoes Kathryn Armstrong's belief that "putting a lot of effort into recruitment and licensing (parts of a larger system) without making changes in the foster care program (the system itself)...would be similar to pouring money into a leaking bucket." (Note 8) . The SSD has focused on foster parent recruitment and has been reasonably successful. However, the low rate of retention has undermined ' that success, as warned. We believe that the hole in the bucket to be fixed is the often shoddy, fi-equently authoritative and mostly insensitive Treatment , of Foster Parents. By attacking the problem, and the evidence presented in this report indicates it is an undeniable problem, two benefits will obtain. 1) Children will be served better by parents and the system; the Mission of the foster care system will be satisfied, & , 2) Retention will increase. Word will get out about the positive treat- ment and sense of value that accompanies foster parenting. its , image will be boosted, and this, in turn, will bolster recruitment. The department's goals will be accomplished simply by bettering the treatment of Foster Parents through more support and , demanding that its staff demonstrate RESPECT. ' Everyone wins. On page 36, we share our model for a successful system. Few, if any, of the suggestions in the previous sections cavy a fiscal burden to the department. Civilized treatment, shifts in employee attitudes , and adoption of a new view of the relationship between Social Worker and Foster.Parent cost nothing. In fact. in.the long run..rude-treatment-costs ' the department more in terms of staff time spent recruiting new parents because the veterans left in disgust. Please heal the wounded relationship ' with the County's most valuable resource--Foster Parents. The Department has to decide what next step to take. FACSAC offers to help in any way it can. For instance, FACSAC could help recruit volunteers from the communit%r to assist foster care workers in ways suggested earlier. ' We are proud of the report and the process used. We hope the Department uses the information. Remember, we all want the best for the children! , 35 ort 1990 Faster Pare FACSAC O = � oU � Q U o oN co N w� 4A-4 �0W - � o vu?- Oo W r. _ Ccd d O a . w v Ov Nz .wa � w z� }. a w 0 aQip "W + aaEx''� WWOp�, A lozz t. GLt� %2,W 1 0- 0 Cxj WDA q� .�E4 )0 © d0W C-1�w O �F, � 36 1990 Foster Parent Report FACSAC References Armstrong, Kadnyn Foster Care Study, Dec. 12, 1986 Canan. Linda Foster Care Licensing Project Report, Jan. 8, 1988 Tbster Parents: Rea cdting and pre-service training practices need euaix wtion. U. S. General Accounting Ofce Report, August 1989, GAO/B[RD-89-86 "Foster Parent-Social Worker TYaining" in Foster Parent Training News, Spring 1987,Vol. 2, Issue 3 37 ' 1990 Foster Parent Report FACSAC ' Appendix A Survey _Question Categories Parent motivation ' Why they got involved How they learned about the opportunity ' Length & type of FP experience ' Years of service Number of natural &foster children, now and ever Emergency home status Drug-exposed children Evaluation of training Initial orientation FCEP classes ' Evaluation of treatment by SSD Support: Technical &emotional Worker skill level Worker accessibility ' Strengths of the SSD Specific suggestions for change Extent of satisfaction that the "best interests" of the child are served ' In all. there were 25 questions (variables) coded for quantitative analyses. The answers to three open-ended questions were categorized (content analyzed). ' The ideas about what the department does right (strengths), what it should differently (concerns) and suggestions for change were recorded and appear as quotes throughout the Findings, Concerns and Suggested Improvements sections of the report. 38 1990 Foster Parent Report FACSAC Appendix B Notes 1 1988 Canan Report. Appendix 2. Mission Statement 2 In all. 50 completed surveys were received (90/6). The statistical analyses were done using 44 sets of data before the six arrived late. The usable proportion was only 8%. This was disappointing because the survey was described as completely anonymous and independent of the department The respondents had to provide their own postage &envelope, but that shouldn't have been so discouraging. Clos6 to the due date, the committee chair received two calls from concerned parents. The callers were suspicious of the FACSAC's assurances. They reporte-d-helptng- with "some study aboy� L3 years qo" for iv'Mcli ffi�ey openly ft-spondi&hl§6,iAth the&i_a—ran17eii__of confidentiality from the interviewer. They said that after that report case workers began to feed back the parents'verbatim quotes/complaints during subsequent contacts. The FACSAC chairman then had to carefully outline the independent role of the committee and the process of assembling the report by committee. The parents warned that n n r arents who were around in 1686 would never complete w or a 's E m :1e f_ reprisal �e 0 ridicule ear re n �o p 0 r f s appears, must rs, was genuine an=imust b led a ea L e respected. t �Sy their form or e o repris and efore. The paranoia.. . rthTeii -p as incre s pDp� s ence, e non-respondents support the data at 'illustrate the generally disrespectful nature of the Social Worker/Foster Parent relationship. 3 1986 Armstrong Study, quotes from A-4, A-5, A-9 &A-14 4 Letter from The Professional Resource Group to Linda Canan dated 8/26/87 restating the goals of the consulting contract. Included as Appendix 3 in the 1988 Canan report. . 1 5 Pages 5 & 6, Action of Issue #5 (Armstrong's issues), Can' an report 6 Page 15, Armstrong study 7 From Foster Parent-Social Worker Training. Foster Parent Training News, 1987, VoL 2 (3), pages 1 & 4. 8 Page 15, Armstrong study 39 ' 1990 Foster Parent Report FACSAC Appendix C A Primer on Statistical Co,i, lations ' Cautionary Notes ICorrelations and all the interpretations of meaning are derived from relationships among the numbers, solely from the data inputted. In turn, ' the numbers are only meaningful when the respondents understand what is being asked of them. When correlations are interpreted, as they are in the examples below, we must remember to couch the phrases in the language of the questions. Though conclusions sound more tentative this way, it's not permissible to extrapolate beyond the information tapped by the survey. The cautionary lesson in this--the analyses are only as good as the numbers. The second caution is that correlations do not mean that one factor caused the other. i Size of the correlation ' Correlations (the symbol is r) are simply numerical expressions of the strength or weakness of a relationship between pairs of factors. The values range from 0 to 1.00. Values near zero indicate that the factors are unrelated; they are independent. If s=O, the factors are not related and from our survey results m .01 between years as a foster parent&technical skill of worker. It is meaningless to see any relationship between the two. The largest possible value, 1.00. and values close to it indicate that having information about one factor tells you something about the other. The r-- .90 =.90 between worker availability and adequacy of support given by staff allows-you to conclude with near certainty you see-how one actually defines the other. Research has shown that correlations as low as r= .30 can be ' meaningful when the factors measured are subjective or personality-based, as many of our survey items are. tDirection of the Correlation ' Correlational relationships are characteristically either: positive (increases or decreases in ratings of one factor are paralleled by respective ' increases or decreases in ratings of the other factor), negative (an inverse 40 1990 Foster Parent Report FACSAC relationship, trends in ratings of one factor predict an opposite trend in the other, as one goes up, the other goes down) or absent (changes in ratings for one factor have no meaning in changes in the other). Positive correlations carry an implied plus sign in front Negative correlations are identified with a preceding minus sign. In the absence of a minus sign, the correlation is assumed to be positive. .Interpretation An example of a negative correlation and its meaning is the r .45 between the parents'ratings of the importance of including veteran foster ■ parents in the orientation and the perceived adequacy of support from ■ staff. This means that the group of raters tended to give either: 1) high ratings to the importance of foster parent participation and low ratings to the adequacy of support OR 2) low importance of inclusion ratings and high ratings of support. If you had only the correlation and no other information. you couldn't tell which of the two hypothetical scenarios was true. Fortunately, the correlation Is easy to interpret because the average importance of inclusion score was 3.75 out of 4.00, while the average adequacy of support score was 2.00 out of 4.00. Piecing it together, and going beyond the numbers. you are led to the interpretation drawn earlier in the Findings section of the report-- The exclusion of veteran Foster Parents accounts. in part, for the perceived Inadequacy of support provided by the SSD staff Correlations &Prediction A quick way to estimate how much knowledge is gained (uncertainty reduced or variance accounted for) by knowing the correlation, simply square the r value. When r= .90 between worker availability and adequacy of support, r 2 = .81. Thus 81% of the ratings of adequacy are derived from, or accounted for by, the worker's availability. The rest. 19%, is explainable by other factors. With correlations, there are no certainties only a reduction in the uncertainty of a chaotic, random world. 41 1 1990 Foster Parent Report FACSAC Appendix D Complete Correlation Matrix ; vE v9 v10 V11 ''4 .1� v3 v4 _ ._ v:.: v , 1 ✓i . +---------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------r------------------------------ v: ! 1.00 -.19 -.52 -.y~ -•i� -..1 -•2c -.-6 -.12 -.2i -.31 -.4 % _.Ci4 -.03 V2 1 1r'. 1 .���1 .{JG i� .i_% '.�.`. .`jC r.r ii.�. 21 ..]1 .1� .(i5 V3 1 .82 V6 I .00 .2i .2 . - .25 .15 .16 .01 - .1= -.19 .:;c .08 ' v4 1 -.29 _.28 .2'1 1 .00 .1_ -•3s - .-4 _.33 -.01 .05= .G1 _.36 .18 -.21 v5 1 .1G .07 .24 .11 i .0 23 25 24 .27 .{6 .41 2G .34 .3 v8 I -.i1 -.13 -.25 .34 -.23 1 .00 .49 .63 -.18 -:28 -.02 .47 .23 .74 V? 1 .25 -.09 .1` .24 -.r25, .49 1 .00 .80 --02 -.11 -.0-5 .71 .13 -6j' ' V10 1 .26 -.2S .1-2 .33 -.24 .63 ._.: .:� .li -.77 .29 .58 - V11 i .12 - .04 .01 .01 .2 - - 9 .18 .02 .07 1.00 .44 .11 .05 .39 .02 v12 I -.27 -.24 -.12 .05 .36 -.28 -.11 .13 .44 1.00 .62 -.17 .29 -.27 v13 l -.31 -.22 -.19 .01 .41 -.02 -.03 .11 .11 .62 1.00 -.17 .46 .03 20 .47 .71 .77 -.05 -.17 -.17 1 .00 .05 .32 v14 I .40 -.37 .32 .36 -. v16 1 -.04 -.12 .08 .18 .34 .23 .13 .29 .39 .29 .46 .05 1.00 .35 v17 1 -.03 .09 -.27 .21 -.30 .74 .62 .58 .02 -.27 .03 .32 .35 1.00 V18 I .05 .17 -.21 .17 -.40 .61 .48 .39 .23 -.45 -.35 .35 .21 .B2 V19, 1 -.01 .14 -.11 .11 -.09 .59 .37 .35 .15 -.40 .01 .34 .50 .76 v21 1 .01 .21 -.08 .17 -.32 .61 .36 .40 .09 -.41 -.02 .34 .37 .75F v22 ! .J3 .01 -.20 .32 _.33 .56 .47 .60 .14 _.28 _.O5 .56. 50 .65 v23 1 .06 .10 21 .06 .39 .44 .48 .44 .23 .29 .13 28 .25 .83 v24 1 -.01 -.04 0.00 .27 .06 .:6 .42 .58 -.18 -.14 .25 .42 .41 .64 ' V25 1 .10 .18 .22 .33 .15 -.07 -.31 -.26 -.17 -.13 -.20 -.32 -.44 -.28 ' v18--v19--V21- v22- Y23- V24- V25 ; Variable Code List 1 1 .05 -.01 .01 .33 .06 -.01 .10 1 Years of service as FP ' v2 I -.17 -.14 -.2'1 .01 -.10 - .C:4 .18 2 #of foster children now 13 i 21 -.11 .08 2G 21 0.00 .22 3 #of foster children ever A 1 .17 .1 l .17 .32 .06 .'27 .3N 4 #of natural children VS 1 -.40 -.09 -.32 -.33 -.39 .i 6 .15 5 Avg. #prev. placements for child(ren) v8 I .61 .59 .61 .56 .44 .76 -.07 8 Satisfied system serves BEST INTERES'IS,'of child r9 ' 48 .37 ,3E =7 =8 "? .31 9 USEFULNESS of orientation V10 1 .39 .35 .:0 .60 -41 .56 -.26 10 REALISM of orientation VII l .";: .15 .t:fi .14 .=3 -.'8 -.17 11 Attended subsequent training(1�es) ✓I 1 -.45 - .4G -. -.2'8 -.2: - .:4 -.1.21- 12 IMPORTANCE to INCLUDE FP in orientation _ 13 Willing to volunteer to participate(1=yes) .,,i, ;14 t ^� :3e ,__ .__ ,?�; .__ _.�� 14 USEFULNESS of FCEP courses ' . = ._ ._ . -. 16 Require training for FP (1=yes) ✓'•6 1 2' `'-' `' 4= �� 17 COOPERATIVENESS of SSD with all groups _ .-115 .33 .14 -.28 18 ADEQUACY of SUPPORT by SSD -•23 19 VALUE as FP felt from SSD staff&policies -;c .__ ._- •__ :_'' •__ _.3 3, 21 Worker's TECHNICAL SKILL 22 Soc/Emo SUPPORT from SSD 23 AVAILABILITY of Worker -` •_ •_ --. __ -_ • ._- _,_- 24 FREQUENCY of Worker CONTACT 25 Experience with DRUG-EXPOSED (l ryes) 42 i 1990 Foster Parent Report FACSAC FACSAC Membership Roster (1989-1990) District I Representatives Marilynn Zito Dorothy Grace Mildred Davis * Josephine Oliver District II Representatives Lynda Kilday,Vice Chair Leanne Schlegel '` Laing Casillas , District III Representatives Eugene Wolfe * ' Richard Frankel Calla Klein * Victoria Lucido Therese Kattan Vanette Hickey District N Representatives 1 Gloria Tays Nola Ashford Alice Ponta Gary Namie. Chair District V Representatives Shawn Guinn * Sharyn Obrigewitsch Catherine Anderson * member was specially involved with this project 43 Foster Care Training/Recruitment Contra Costa County Social Services Department has been allocated special funding through Assembly Bill 2129 to: (1) recruit and train new foster families of various cultures, (2) to recruit and train new foster families to care for teens, sibling groups and medically fragile children, and (3) to preserve and support the current group of licensed foster families by offering an expanded training program. The department's plan to utilize the revenue is as follows: 1. The department will hire a trainer/recruiter. 2. The department has prescribed a new policy of mandated training for all prospective foster parents. Additionally, prospective adoptive parents, caretaker relatives and legal guardians of dependent children in permanency planning will be offered and encouraged to attend this training. We are currently developing this training curriculum. 3. The AB-2129 funds will be used for targeted recruitment of minority families, particularly African American families so that children may be placed within their own culture. Foster families willing to accept sibling groups, teens and medically fragile children will also be recruited. 4. The department has committed $25,000.00 to "Brian's Kids" program. This program, launched on KPIX-TV in April 1990, is directed at recruiting foster and adoptive families (and particularly minority families) through the media. Six Bay Area counties (Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisoc, San Clara and San Mateo) and the California Department of Social Services are participating with the Community Task Force On Homes For Children to support the continuance of this program. page 1 r r " • W In addition, there is The Heritage Project which is a component of Contra Costa County's "Options for Recovery Program." The program's goal is to break the intergenerational cycle of substance abuse of mothers who want to stop using drugs and/or alcohol. This program provides the following: 1. Recruitment of Foster Homes and Relative Homes 2. Placement of Drug exposed Children, 0-3 3. Training in the Care of Special Needs Children 4. Respite and Support Services The AB-2129 funding will allow the department to expand the required number of hours for pre-service training of new licensees to a minimum of 20 hours. Some of the subjects covered will include the Juvenile Court.System, types of foster homes, Medi-Cal, AFDC/Foster Care payments, the roles of foster parents and biological parents, the different types of children we care for, abuse issues, appropriate behavior and discipline, how to help children manage their feelings, accurate expectations, helping child dealing with grief & loss, medically fragile infants and health issues. This training will also aid our department in having more qualified foster parents with specialized skills to care for our children with special needs. Every 20 hours of training a foster care provider receives entitles him or her to receive a higher level of the Difficulty of Care rate, when appropriate. Combined with the Community College Foster Care Education Program, the Independent Living Skills Training and the Heritage Project, the goal of the department is to expand and enhance the training opportunities for all of the caregivers of our dependent children. costa parent training/rmuiUnent S/20/% disk 116.gae page 2