HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03071995 - F-HS-01 T,� T BOARD OF SUPERVISORS F&HS-0.1
fitContra ll . l
FROM: FAMILY AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE f (SOS+a
C l
� . County
GATE:
February � ciui+`
13 1995
rra'� �
SUBJECT: REPORT REGARDING OUTCOME OF INITIAL ADOPTIONS PLANNING MEETING AND
STATUS OF DATA REGARDING CHILDREN IN FOSTER CARE
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)& BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1 . ACCEPT the attached report from the Acting Social Services
Director and APPROVE the general directions in which the
Department is proposing to move except as specifically
modified by this report. y
2 . DIRECT the County Administrator and Acting Social Services
Director to schedule a meeting of the Family and Human
Services Committee for an evening at a central location for
the purpose of conducting a question and answer session with
foster parents, adoptive parents, and other concerned parents
and individuals about the policies, procedures and practices
of the Social Services Department having to do with foster
care and adoptions. BROADCAST the question and answer session
as a live, call-in program on Contra Costa Television where
individuals can call to the CCTV studio either from home or
from the central location where most of the foster parents are
gathered and have a panel of experts answer questions or agree
to get back to a caller where a questions involves
confidential information or requires additional research.
a . DIRECT the Acting Social Services Director to encourage his
Social Services staff to undertake the administrative review
of placement cases which is outlined in the attached reporas
expeditiously as possible.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARDCOMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE S : A111 WZ9R
ACTION OF BOARD ON 28, 1995 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER X
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that recommendations 1, 2, and 3. are APPROVED as listed;
and recommendation 4 is AMENDED to REQUEST the Acting Social Services Director to
report to the Family and Human Service Committee on March 27, 1995, on information
relative to the State audit.
_ I
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
—X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
ATTESTED March 7 1995
Contact: PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
cc. County Administrator SUPER VI ORS AND COU TY ADMINISTRATOR
Acting Social Services Director
0
BY DEPUTY
F&HS-0 �
T �
-2-
REQUEST the Acting Social Services Director to report back to
the Family and Human Services Committee on March 27, 1995 on
the following matters :
❑ What consultants are capable of undertaking either a 100%
or more limited review of all foster care placements
where the child has been in placement for 12 months or
more to determine why the child remains in foster care,
whether adoption planning has been undertaken, if not,
why not, and whether adoption planning appears to be an
appropriate goal for the child and what the consultant
would charge to complete such a review in an expeditious
manner. [A more limited review would exclude teenage
children in placement who are not interested in being
adopted and children who are placed with relatives where
adoption is not a desired outcome] .
❑ The status of the administrative review being conducted
of all long-term foster care placements to determine:
• Is a permanent plan an appropriate goal?
• If adoption was ruled out, reason.
• Does the Children's Services Administrative Team
(CSAT) concur?
• Recommendation of CSAT
• Date for further review
❑ The Department' s response to the points raised by the
1994-95 Grand Jury in Mr. Fallis ' memo to our Committee
dated February 13, 1995 .
❑ The number of children in placement who are placed with
relatives as opposed to those who are placed with non-
relatives (by age of the child and length of time in
placement, if that information is reasonably available) .
❑ The cost and timeframe for designing and implementing a
computer system which would allow the Department to have
ready access to reports based on the same data now
transmitted by terminal to the State Department of Social
Services .
❑ The status and precise nature of the requests for a
training coordinator and a contract with the Child
Welfare Research Center for a study of the implementation
of the Grand Jury's recommendations, along with a system
for funding these requests .
❑ A description of the caseload and fulltime equivalent
staffing provided to adoptions programs in other
comparable counties in California.
BACKGROUND:
On December 20, 1994 , the Board of Supervisors adopted the
following recommendations from the 1994 Internal Operations
Committee and referred continuing follow-up on these
recommendations to our Committee:
1 . CONCUR with the process outlined in the attached
report from the Acting Social Services Director for
the review and implementation of the first five
recommendations contained in the report from the
Child Welfare Research Center, which is
incorporated by reference herein.
2 . REQUEST the Acting Social Services Director to
direct the preparation of a report for the 1995
Family and Human Services Committee which provides
the following information:
F&HS-0
-3-
♦ The number of children who have been in foster
care for 12, 18, and 24 or more months, broken
down further by the current age of the child.
♦ An estimate from the Child Welfare Research
Center (CWRG) of the cost to review each of
these cases and provide the 1995 Family and
Human Services Committee with a brief summary
of:
0 The reason each of these children is
still in foster care, categorized into a
few generalized categories.
0 Whether adoption planning appears to have
been considered or initiated for the
child.
0 Whether adoption planning appears to be
an appropriate goal for the child.
The goal of this study should be to produce an
objective, independent analysis of the extent to
which adoption has been appropriately considered a
reasonable goal for children as early in their stay
in foster care as is appropriate and to identify
the number of children for whom adoption planning
should be initiated where it has not been to date.
The report might take the form of a grid similar to
the following:
For each age group:
TIME IN FOSTER 12-18 Months 18-24 Months >24 Months
CARE -*
REASON IN NUMBER OF NUMBER OF NUMBER OF
FOSTER CARE CHILDREN CHILDREN ICHILDREN
Reason # 1
Reason # 2
Reason # 3
Then, for each reason where an extended stay in
foster care is considered not to be an appropriate
goal, a further analysis which might focus on the
number of children in that group for whom adoption
has been initiated, the number for whom adoption
has not been initiated and, of the number for whom
adoption has not been initiated, the number for
whom, in the opinion of the reviewer, adoption
should have been initiated or for whom adoption
should have been initiated at an earlier date than
it was and what recommendations the reviewer has
for future actions by the Department.
3 . DIRECT the Acting Social Services Director to
insure that all possible foster parents have been
contacted in writing and invited to attend or
otherwise participate in the work of the initial
planning meeting scheduled for January 18, 1995.
4 . DIRECT the Acting Social Services Director to
report back to the 1995 Family and Human Services
Committee at his earliest opportunity, but not
later than February 15, 1994 on the outcome of the
initial planning meeting, report on number of
children in foster care for various lengths of time
at various ages and the cost for CWRG to do a
review of these cases as is outlined above.
SOCIAL SERVICE DEPARTMENT Contra Costa County
TO Family and Human Services Committee DATE February 9, 1995
of the Board of Supervisors
FROM Bob Hofmann, Acting County Welfare Director cc Phil Batchelor
Judge Lois Haight
Clyde Parkhurst,
Foreman, Grand Jury
S U BJ FOLLOW UP TO THE REPORT TO THE FAMILY AND HUMAN SERVICES
COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE ADOPTION PROGRAM
Attached is the follow-up report to the December 12, 1994, initial report to the
Internal Operations Committee on the review of the adoption program in the
Social Service Department. On that day the Internal Operations Committee made
four recommendations to the full Board which were approved by the Board on
December 20, 1994.
With respect to recommendations one and three:
The Social Service Department submits the attached report from the Child Welfare
Services meeting held on January 18, 1995. (See Appendix A.) As the report
mentions, letters went out to all Contra Costa County licensed foster parents, a
random selection of adoptive parents and relative caregivers as well as to other
"stakeholders" such as the Public Defenders, County Counsel, Private Bar, Juvenile
Court, Court Appointed Special Representatives, Grand Jury, the Child Welfare
Research Center and others. There were 87 people in attendance. (See Appendix
B.) The Assistant Director, Services Bureau, has assigned lead responsibility to the
Children's Services Managers for implementation. Further work groups will be
formed to carry out the various tasks delineated on the final pages of the report.
In addition to the planning day, the Department held a public meeting on January
30, 1995, to allow those interested parties to review the results from the various
work groups that met to work on each recommendation. The Department put
notices in the West County Times, the Antioch Daily Ledger and the Contra Costa
Times. Additionally, the County Administrator's Office sent out the notice of the
meeting to individuals and organizations interested in the adoptions program.
An area that all the work groups seemed to independently agree upon was training.
Although the Department contracts with the University of California, Davis, for
training for child welfare staff, for example on Risk Assessment, etc., we do not
Family and Human Services Committee
of the Board of Supervisors
February 9, 1995
Page 2
have a Department child welfare trainer to ensure new worker training and to
develop training for all social workers on policies, procedures and practices specific
to the Department's functioning in Child Welfare. (As a result of budget cuts, this
position was eliminated three years ago.) Inconsistent practice and lack of
understanding of the many regulations and laws which impact Child Welfare
practice was seen by most groups as a serious flaw in our system and having led to
many of the problems which currently exist. The Department will be requesting
the reinstatement of a training position as a result of the recommendations from
the work groups.
With respect to recommendations two and four from the Internal,Operations
Committee, the Department obtained the attached information on children in
foster care placed for 12, 18, 24 months or more. (See Appendix C.)
The Child Welfare Research Center (CWRC) was contacted as per the Internal
Operations Committee's direction to discuss the possibility of their conducting a
review of these cases. In discussion with Brian Simmons, CWRC does not have the
resources to complete such a study and has indicated that they would best be used
to provide technical assistance and review of the Department's process as we take
responsibility for the review. As mentioned previously to the Internal Operations
Committee, all minors receive a judicial review every six (6) months as required by
law. However, the Department concurs that an administrative and casework review
of these minors should be developed to ensure that social workers receive the
support necessary to ensure minors do not stay in the foster care system longer
than appropriate.
The Department proposes reviewing each minor's case at their regular scheduled
judicial review. Staff will be notified that the report of the minor is to be sent to
their respective Division Manager. The Children's Services Administrative Team
(CSAT), attended by the Children's Services Division Managers and the Assistant
Director, meets weekly, and a portion of each meeting will be used to review the
permanent plan. If necessary, a case presentation will be requested of the social
worker. Where appropriate CSAT will direct the social worker to refer the minor
for an adoption assessment for further action. The review will consist of:
. Is a permanent plan an appropriate goal?
• If adoption was ruled out, reason.
• Does CSAT concur? Yes. No.
+ Recommendation of CSAT.
• Case presented.
• Referred to Adoptions.
• Other.
. Review again.. Date.
' n
Family and Human Services Committee
of the Board of Supervisors
February 9, 1995
Page 3
CWRC did submit a proposal for work requested earlier; technical assistance to the
Department and a review to be undertaken beginning February, 1996,
approximately a year after the Department will have begun implementation plans
from their report submitted to you in November, 1994, and the planning group
meeting in January, 1995. Attached is a copy of CWRC's proposal. (See Appendix
D.) The Assistant Director, Danna Fabella, will be working with CWRC to
develop a contract.
Associated additional costs are approximately $58,000 for the training coordinator
($16,000 County cost) and $35,000 for.technical assistance and the review by the
Child Welfare Research Center ($3,500 County cost).
RH:ceb
Attachments
b:adoprpt.hsc
f-disk 1
Appendix A
SUMMARY
CHILD WELFARE SERVICES
WORK GROUPS
JANUARY 18, 1995
In response to the Child Welfare Research Center (CWRC) review of the Contra Costa
County's adoption program, the Social Service Department proposed a large planning
committee be convened to develop an implementation plan for the recommendations made
by CWRC. The planning committee would include staff from the Social Service Department
and other "stakeholders" such as foster parents, relative caregivers, adoptive parents,
attorneys, court appointed special advocates, and members of the Grand Jury..
Staff, including line social workers and supervisors, representing all service areas
(Emergency Response, Family Maintenance, Family Reunification, Permanency Planning
and Adoption) were asked to participate. Letters were sent out to all Contra Costa licensed
foster parents, a random selection of adoptive parents and relative caregivers, the Foster
Parent Association, County Counsel, Public Defender,Alternate Defenders Office, Private
Bar, Youth Law Center, the presiding Judge of the Juvenile Court, Court Appointed Special
Advocates, Grand Jury, San Mateo County adoptions manager and the Child Welfare
Research Center. Five work groups would be created to focus on the five programmatic
recommendations. Invitees were asked to select their first and second choice work group.
Almost everyone was able to attend their first choice work group.
The meeting was planned for the entire day. Participants were asked to commit to the
.entire day. The decision as to further meetings would be delayed until the end of the day
or until all the implementation plan could be reviewed in its entirety and to determine the
staff and other. "experts" needed to complete the more detailed follow-up work. All
participants were encouraged to let their work group facilitators know of their continued
interest. In any case, all participants were informed they would get a summary report and
were invited to the follow-up Public Meeting that was scheduled eleven days later with the
purpose of allowing further input. This report is being prepared for the Family and Human
Services Committee of the Board of Supervisors.
Approximately 111 persons responded to the invitation; 52 were staff and the remaining
were from the "stakeholder" letters that were sent. There were 87 persons in attendance.
Each work group was well represented by a cross section from the various groups
represented.
The meeting began with Danna Fabella, Assistant County Welfare Director, providing an
overview of why this work group was formed and the task for this day. She began by asking
everyone to put their personal feelings aside and to work together with the common agenda
of developing a child welfare service delivery system that would produce - BETTER
OUTCOMES FOR CHILDREN.
1
SUMMARY
CHILD WELFARE SERVICES
WORK GROUPS
JANUARY 18, 1995
Next,Judy Maynard,Emergency Response Supervisor,gave a presentation highlighting that
it was both an exciting and challenging time to be working for Children's Services;
challenging because it seems our mission at times is overwhelming—too much to do with
limited resources; exciting because of the growing emphasis on family preservation to help
children grow up in families which value them. As we look at the present system, she
mentioned that almost everyone present has an idea of what it should look like; however,
rather than having the luxury of creating a new agency, we must'be content to have the
opportunity to remodel the current. The group responded with laughter when Judy
mentioned that those who have gone through remodeling their homes know what an
exciting, frustrating and humbling process remodeling can be. The end result is often
different than your original dream—sometimes better,sometimes not,and nearly always costs
more and takes more time than you anticipated. Judy stated that today, with many of the
Agency's constituents, we are gathered to draw a kind of blueprint for remodeling,the way
we do business. And with any blueprint we need to have common ground.to work within
so that we can conduct our business in a logical manner. She asked the group to develop
common ground rules in the work group. The following were agreed upon:
No idea is a bad idea.
Treat each other with respect.
No interrupting.
Disagree with grace.
No monopolizing.
Focus.
Use "I" statements, not 'you" statement.
Find solutions.
Brainstorm future ideas—'giparking lot".
Build on others' ideas.
Verbalize your ideas.
Focus on the children.
Leave personal grievances outside.
Respect confidentiality.
Finally, Sharon Bacon, Project Division Manager, Family Preservation Services, presented
a way for the work groups to reach decisions in the work group. She stated that there were
many options for, how groups could reach decisions; by allowing the person in charge to
decide, to take a majority vote, an authorized person decides, it reaches unanimous
agreement, or the group can"flip a coin". However,the preferred way in the various groups
that she has facilitated is through the group reaching consensus. In consensus building a
vote is NOT taken. That tends to lead to polarity, dividing people. Rather, consensus
requires discussion and presentations by the various members of a group of an idea without
judging or defending. The group members can either decide to "throw out" the idea or
adopt the idea. The rule to ask each member is "can you live with it?" If anyone cannot,
2
SUMMARY
CHILD WELFARE SERVICES
WORK GROUPS
JANUARY 18, 1995
then the group did not reach consensus on an idea. The idea may go forward but the
opposing idea must be included. After these ground rules and method for reaching
decisions in a group were presented, the large group broke off into work groups with each
work group having co-facilitators responsible for the task assigned to it.
WORK GROUP 1
Facilitators:
Linda Canan, Contra Costra County Social Service Department .
Charlotte Brintson-Brown, San Mateo Human Service Department
The group reached consensus on the following:
1 (a) The Department should develop a formalized formal fost-adopt program. The group
definition of a fost-adopt placement is "any placement of a child not legally freed in
a family that could potentially become a permanent family." Permanency should be
the Department's paramount concern with the first goal being permanence with
parent(s) or relatives and the fewest number of moves. Children should remain in
"shelter" placement until appropriate fort-adopt or long-term plans can be made.
Quality assessment versus finding a vacancy should be standard practice. Since foster
parents often become adoptive parents, the Department should develop a
"homefinding" unit similar to San Mateo and abolish our current arrangement of
separate licensing of adoptive parents. The group recommended that one worker be
assigned to track children in care and continually review possible adoptive
placements. The Department should meet with the Juvenile Court and attorneys in
the system to educate them around issues of permanence and get agreement that
fost-adopt placement is in the best interest of children and does not necessarily
compromise reunification efforts. The Department should review two to three
counties with strong fost-adopt programs.
1 (b) The Department needs a standard decision-making criteria for long-term foster care
versus adoption. Many in the group felt that any child, regardless of age, medical
condition or psychological problems, is adoptable and that the Department should
use specialized adoption agencies to assist with "difficult-to-adopt" children.
1 (c) & (d) The group ran out of time and was not able to spend much time on
improving the communication between adoption and family reunification or the
desktop manual recommendation. Out stationing workers,however,was not seen as
the best solution in San Mateo's experience. Foster parents and adoptive parents in
the group felt that there is a wide variety of knowledge between workers and that
3
.SUMMARY
CHILD WELFARE SERVICES
WORK GROUPS
JANUARY 18, 1995
they get different answers depending on who the workers is and feels a manual
.should be developed.
1 (a): Develop a formal fostladWtt pro,g;ram in Contra Costa County
Tasks:
• Review other fost/adopt programs and Homefinding units
• Meet with legal community to discuss fost/adopt ,
• Define minors' eligibility
• Outline dual process of reunification/adoption
• Reach agreement on criteria and dual process
• Review internal adoption units
• Review personnel needs for creation of fost/adopt program and home finding
units
• Review family reunification practice policies regarding fost/adopt
1(b): Create a standard decision makinp- criteria regarding family reunification and the
placement of children in long-term foster care or adoption
Tasks:
• Review other counties adoptability criteria
• Request CWRC provide adoptability criteria from research findings
• Identify private adoption agencies that place "difficult-to-adopt" children
1(c): Review the need to reorganize the Adoption Program to improve communication
between FR social workers
Tasks:
• Schedule meeting of FR and Adoptions
• Determine roles/responsibilities as related to adoptions
• Outline the flow from FR to adoptions
• Designate responsibility
• Define where gaps occur
• Find solutions including other configurations of adoption/FR
1(d): Create an onion worker's desktop manual
Tasks:
• Review existing Department manuals and identify gaps
• Collect other counties adoptive manuals
• Develop a manual which can be easily updated and kept current
4
SUMMARY
CHILD WELFARE SERVICES
WORK GROUPS
JANUARY 18, 1995
WORK GROUP 2
Facilitators:
Linda Waddington, Contra Costa County Social Service Department
Brian Simmons, Child Welfare Research Group
The group reached agreement as to their goal for the day: to bring foster parenting and
adoptive parenting more closely together by
• having similar standards
• one home study
• including kinship care
• considering the best interest of children
Additionally, their goal was to define the purpose of the home study which they agreed was
to protect children, meet child's special needs regarding adoption and to get to know the
family well enough to pick a child for them.
The group reached consensus on the definition of the 'best interest" of the child as "stable,
permanent home with commitment which can provide for the physical, emotional, social,
intellectual environment for the development of the child's total well being."
The group's definition of the purpose of the home study is to obtain relevant information
to assess the family's ability to meet a child's needs and to help a family to decide what is
best for them.
• questions regarding family's ability to deal with negative behavior
• finding a family's "niche" and ("stretch-ability")
• reality of parenting child who has been neglected/abused
• consider user of multiphasic inventory for adoptive/foster applicants
Social Service staff provided an overview of the current home study process for adoption
which consists of an intake/screening interview, individual interviews at the office, a home
visit to include the children in the home, three training groups. Staff also presented the new
Foster Adopt/Foster Pride Curriculum developed by Child Welfare League of America and
others and purchased by the California Department of Social Services to be used during the
screening/orientation process with prospective adoptive and license foster parents. This
curriculum has ten sessions, and the Department began its first use of this curriculum in
January but is subject to review and adoption.
5
SUMMARY
CHILD WELFARE SERVICES
WORK GROUPS
JANUARY 18, 1995
Staff gave an overview of the licensing process which requires an orientation and a home
study visit where the facility is licensing for care of children. The standard required by the
state is far less rigorous than the standard for adoption.
Staff presented some "rough" statistics to put adoption in perspective:
(Approximately,) of 100 children:
• 50% are placed with kin
• 50% in foster care
Children who are not reunified with parents:
• 65% are with relatives or foster parents who wish to adopt
. 35% are placed in adoptive homes or have guardianship plans
Children placed in foster homes that do not go home to their parents or placed with relative
are likely to be adopted by their foster parents. The Department has proposed a new
policy:
Children under the age of six (6) may be placed only in homes which have
been pre-approved for adoption. Although the caretakers might not become
adoptive parents, if they have already completed the home study process for
adoption, the child will not need to be moved if adoption becomes the plan.
The group discussed issues such as the number of moves for a child, possibly
loss of foster homes, and the problem of providing reunification services to a
family while placing a child in a fost-adopt home.
(2): Revise the Home Study Process
2 (a): Articulate the relationship between the proposed"10-session"training and the current
"4-session" home study process so that the home studies are streamlined.
Staff explained that there is no current four (4) session. The process for adoptions
has been to do approximately four (4) visits to complete the home study along with
three (3) groups. The "10-session" which recently was implemented is the Foster-
Pride/Foster-Adopt training curriculum given to the counties by the State
Department of Social Services.
After discussion,the group reached consensus that the Adoption/Foster Care Home
Study Process would include:
6
SUMMARY
CHILD WELFARE SERVICES
WORK GROUPS
JANUARY 18, 1995
The ten (10) sessions of Foster Pride/Foster Adopt training, the combined
application recently developed by the department, an intake/screening interview,
home visits, and individual interviews with all adults and older children in the home.
2 (b): Eliminate intrusive and irrelevant questions about sexual practices and infertility
from the standard home study.
The group thought the following issues should be on the home study:
• questions regarding motivation to adopt or foster parent
• why is fertility relevant to adoption (or not) as articulated by client as it pertains
to motivation to adopt
• history of sexual trauma on part of adoptive/foster parent and how they coped
with it
• questions regarding "how were you raised" (especially discipline)
• religious orientation
• income and how they make their living
• child care
• work history
• how other kids in family feel about adopting or fostering
• communication styles
• stability of marriage
• health
• ethnicity/culture in terms of child family wants to adopt
• attitude of extended family
• comfort with legal obligations of adoption
• home environment:
• safety and health hazards
• big enough?
• how family plans to address adoption/birth family issues
• history of criminal acts, drug/alcohol use, psychiatric history, child abuse
• education
• use sensitivity around attitudes regarding sexuality and fertility and provide
training in this area to workers
Tasks:
• Review existing home study guidelines
• Develop a standard protocol with suggestions of how to ask questions
• Train workers on the protocol so that there is a standard practice
• Study how to help adoptive parents deal with birth families who remain connected
to the child
7
SUMMARY
CHILD WELFARE SERVICES
WORK GROUPS
JANUARY 18, 1995
WORK GROUP 3
Facilitators:
Connie Rinne, Contra Costa County Social Service Department
Carol Shauffer, Youth Law Center
Increase the mutual understanding of social workers and persons'working in the juvenile
court (i.e.,judge, attorneys and County Counsel) regarding the effect of the judicial system
on children in foster care.
The group decided that 3 (a) was their first priority:
3 (a): Organize interdisciplinaly training for social workers and attorneys
Tasks:
• Develop a general plan
. Develop new staff training
• Develop continuing training for social workers
• Outreach to network with others in the process
• Develop training manual
• Foster parent access to court
• Develop training for relative caregivers/foster parents
• Formal trainings on new information
• Develop interdisciplinary training (Juvenile Section of the Bar)
• Social Services review problem cases and analyze why there are delays
• Social Service to review own process and streamline
. Explore possibility of a "mini" Beyond-the-Bench conference
• Review and catalog existing trainings (CASR, Foster Parent, Social Worker and
network training
• Review need for additional County Counsel
3 .(b): Develop an agreement with the Juvenile Court Judge regarding child specific
recruitment for adoptive homes even if the child is not freed for adoption
Tasks:
There was a consensus that the department should:
• Recruit and identify fost-adopt homes
• Include fost-adopt in emergency shelter care
• Update computer system
8
SUMMARY
CHILD WELFARE SERVICES
WORK GROUPS
JANUARY 18, 1995
• Training on documents for parent's statements
• Coordinate sibling cases
• Review staffing structure
• Change negative opinion of the Court regarding kinship, long-term care
• Consider statutory change which would encourage fost-adopt placements
• At the Public Meeting,CWRC,represented by Brian Simmons,requested that the
Department review the State of Michigan's process for recruiting for children who
are still in long-term foster care programs and urges the Department to work with
the court on this issue
3 (c): Create stricter guidelines for continuingfamily reunification services
Tasks:
• Standardized court report for parents' compliance with the reunification plan--
include information from Relative Caregiver
• Review child welfare staffing structure to decrease change for family & child
• At the Public Meeting, foster parents requested that the Department include
information from foster and relative caregivers and a form be given to them at
placement and that they be informed prior to the report being written so they may
have a right to submit their comments
3 (d): Strictly limit requests for continuances of Juvenile Court hearines
The group discussed that the process was becoming more rigid and that it was more
combative due to higher stakes. There are many delays, much confusion,
disillusionment with the system, and frustration. There needs to be more training to
improve understanding.
Tasks
• Develop a procedure for more pretrial conferencing
• Consider additional SW to decrease caseload size
• Obtain more computer PC's for SW's
• Consider doing more voluntary FM
• Encourage defense attorneys to attend training
• Ensure foster parents access to court
• Increase training for social workers
• Define "unadoptable"
• Improve CASR - advocate - SW communications
9
SUMMARY
CHILD WELFARE SERVICES
WORK GROUPS
JANUARY 18, 1995
WORK GROUP 4
Facilitators:
Cheryl Cook, Contra Costa County Social Service Department
Devon Brooks, Child Welfare Research Center
4: Improve relationship between foster parents and agengy social workers
Revise the general recommendation to include relative caregivers as well as foster
parents and social work staff.
4 (a): Develop a common conceptualization of the foster parent role within the contra
Costa County Social Service Department system
Revise recommendation to include the roles of relative caregivers and social work
staff as well as the role of foster parents.
Tasks:
• A committee be formed to develop guidelines standardize the roles and
relationship between caregivers and social work staff. (Time Frame: 90 days)
. Social Service Department (SSD) do a mass mailing to recruit interested parties
to attend an informational meeting
SSD develop a data base for relative caregivers
• A representative committee be formed with interested parties from the following
groups:
• Social Service staff
a) Management
b) Social Workers representing each program, including licensing
c) Eligibility
• Foster Parents
a) Foster Parent Association
b) Licensed Foster Parents
1) include special programs such as SPP, Emergency Homes, Fost/Adopt
homes, etc.
c) Relative caregivers
• Child Welfare Research Center representative
10
SUMMARY
CHILD WELFARE SERVICES
WORK GROUPS
JANUARY 18, 1995
Committee membership should reflect following mix:
1) New and experienced in their role
2) Cultural diversity
3) Area of residence in County
Committee members invite resource persons to meeting-as needed:
1) CASR, CASEY Foundation, FamiliesFirst, legal representative
Leadership of the committee to be determined by committee membership
Objectives of the committee be as follows:
1) Develop guidelines that standardize the role and practices of the caregiver
a) Licensed foster parent
b) Relative caregiver
2) Develop guidelines that standardize the role and practices of the social worker
3) Develop guidelines for the working relationship between caregiver and social
worker
4) Identify areas of mandated training needed as related to the roles and
relationship between caregiver and social work staff
a) Review SOC 156
b) Emphasize TEAM aspect of roles
Parking Lot Ideas:
1) Revise the Foster Parent Handbook to include relative caregivers.
a) Include a Juvenile Court flow chart
b) Include explanation of social worker role in each program
c) Put handbook on disc
2) Standardize resources for caregivers throughout the County
3) Explore possibility of Social Service staff attending 4 out of 10 Fost/Adopt
PRIDE sessions
it
SUMMARY
CHILD WELFARE SERVICES
WORK GROUPS
JANUARY 18, 1995
WORK GROUP 5
Facilitators:
Sharon Bacon, Contra Costa County Social Service Department
Sandra Owens, Child Welfare Research Group
5): Set up a continuing education curriculum and training for all Department Social
Workers
• Conduct in-service training to increase staffs general knowledge of how decisions
made in their unit affect the movement of a child through the child welfare system
• Clearly describe procedures for implementing the Moore bill
• Institute a formal, structured induction and training for workers newly assigned to
the Adoption Program
The group focused on plans and priorities for developing a comprehensive training
program since there was consensus that development of such a program would help
us in achieving all three goals.
The group agreed that there were several important components to having a
comprehensive training program: a comprehensive training manual' and a
coordinator responsible for integrating training with Department practice and
ensuring relevancy, and a comprehensive training manual pertinent to the
Department. There are expectations of management as well as workers. The group
reached consensus on the following:
Training Coordinator (needs to have child welfare background) whose role is:
Ensure quality and relevance of training
• Ensure that trainers are competent, trained, and are willing to be flexible to meet
needs of staff and the Department
• Track attendance of staff
• Keep an open line of communication with staff and management to determine
what the training needs are
• Maintain contact with other counties to share and elicit information
• Remember that training,fin and should improve morale
• Encourage multi-disciplinary, interagency training
• Think about and consider incentives for staff to participate in training
• Send training notices out in a timely manner
Training Manual *must have* (not just policy and regulations):
• Overview of all programs and how they interact, inter-connect
• Chapters on each program with specific details, examples
• Updates when needed due to policy change
12
i
SUMMARY
CHILD WELFARE SERVICES
WORK GROUPS
JANUARY 18, 1995
• Supplements (e.g., resource directories, desk guides)
• Requirements on Manual:
1) Be "user friendly" with ZgQd index
2) Examples of "how to"
3) Be in open-ringed notebook for easy additions/deletions
4) Be widely distributed
a) Supervisor has entire manual
b) Workers have the overview section and chapter specific to their unit
5) Be kept up-to-date with a person designated this responsibility
6) Needs to be thorough and done the right way (don't reinvent the wheel--use
what's out there to build on but don't issue shoddy product in the interest of
time)
7) New legislation
Training Program:
• New workers receive pre-service training prior to being given a caseload
1) Overview of children's services, programs, how they inter-relate
2) Module specific to the program(s) to which they will be assigned
• Bring existing staff up to speed
• Review and reorient them with overview training;if a worker is changing units,
they must be trained in the module of the unit to where they are going--no
matter how long they have worked for the Department
• On-going training updates
1) County Counsel--at least one time a year will train for every worker on new
legislation, case law
2) Confidentiality updates
3) Understanding of roles of other caseworkers and collaterals (foster parents,
CASRs, attorneys, etc.)
4) Training on effective communication and interaction with everyone we deal
with
Expectations of Management:
• Find the money to implement
• Listen to ideas from staff and providers
• Elicit ideas from staff and providers
• Encourage and support interagency, multidisciplinary training
• Develop incentives for staff (what are consequences for not attending)
• Clarify, lay out expectations, and explain rationale and laws the drive policy
Expectation of Case Workers:
• To attend number of hours (CEU's) per year
13
SUMMARY
CHILD WELFARE SERVICES
WORK GROUPS
JANUARY 18, 1995
• Read training manual
• Have input into development of training manual
• Have input into development of training program
• Participate in training program--be open to new ideas
• Make Management listen
• Develop,with the supervisor,individual, specific training schedule/needs for each
year
• Understand the "why" as well as "what"
The Moore Bill
• Make sure the ethnic, cultural identity of the child, foster parent is known to all
and the information should be in the court report
• Inform staff of updates (Metzenbaum Bill)
• Train the caseworkers as to the why's--what it's meant to accomplish
Tasks:
• Have a training coordinator specific to child welfare in place
• Establish a comprehensive training program
• Develop a complete training manual
• Inform staff and train on Moore Bill and other legislation which impact child
welfare
"Parking Lot":
• Personnel issues/temporaryworkers/investment in training/allocation of resources.
• Staffing
• Court issues
• Think ahead,e.g., computerization-prepare -begin by putting computers in units
so workers can familiarize themselves
• Make "networking" easy:
1) Have an on-line data base for resources throughout the County
2) Have on-line foster care match that works (remind workers to consider
relatives first)
• Communications—look at circulation codes so that staff get only information that
they need
• Management to consider giving supervisors an agenda of information of what
needs to be passed on to staff
• Foster home recruitment--more diversity
The group focused on plans and priorities for developing a comprehensive training
program since there was consensus that development of such a program would help
us in achieving all three goals.
14
i
SUMMARY
CHILD WELFARE SERVICES
WORK GROUPS
JANUARY 18, 1995
Priori
For the Department to establish that training is essential and is valued.
To do that:
a) Have a training coordinator specific to child welfare in place
b) Establish a comprehensive training program
c) Develop a complete training manual and a process for ensuring that staff receive
training on new information
At the Public Hearing meeting, foster parents felt that it was important to list
worker's knowledge:
d) Develop a way to measure worker's knowledge and understanding of training
which they receive
STUDY JTRAINING ISSUES
1) How do we help adoptive families deal with birth families who remain connected to the
children?
2) Obtain relevant information in order to assess the family's ability to meet a child's needs
and to help a family decide the best plan for them. Group definition of home study--
one of the purposes.
• Questions regarding family's ability to deal with negative behavior
• Finding a.family's "niche" and ("stretch-ability")
• Reality of parenting child who has been neglected/abused
• Consider user of multiphasic inventory for adoptive/foster applicants
Group 2 (b) agreed that these issues should be on the homestudy:
• Questions regarding motivation to adopt or foster parent
• Why is fertility relevant to adoption (or not) as articulated by client as it pertains to
motivation to adopt
• History of sexual trauma on part of adoption/foster parent and how they coped with
it
• Questions regarding "How were you raised" (especially discipline)
• Religious orientation
• Income and how they make their living
• Child care
• Work history
• How other kids in family feel about adopting or fostering
• Communication styles
15
SUMMARY
CHILD WELFARE SERVICES
WORK GROUPS
JANUARY 18, 1995
• Stability of marriage
• Health
• Ethnicity/culture in terms of child family wants to adopt
• Attitude of extended family
• Comfort with legal obligations of adoption.
• Home environment: safety and health hazards; big enough?
• How family plans to address adoption/birth family issues
• History of criminal acts, drug/alcohol use, psychiatric history, child abuse
• Education
• Use sensitivity around attitudes regarding sexuality and fertility and provide training
in this area to workers
Parldn2 Lot Ideas:
• Standardize Adoption and Licensing standards
• Need for foster/adoptive parent support groups
• Include help with fighting educational bureaucracy
• Fertility issues
• Inter-County transfers
:ceb
b:wrkgrps.sum
f-"k 1
16
A
e� o0 0 0 0O
e� y
cn a rr <
z
S � xJ �
r
O d
A ��yy-
O
r�
co f1 w A
A
N
A A A
� t9
G
A d
tv O
S. S.
!C A
N
b
co co co Cy
a c�
o
m
c� c
c�
r+
00
CD o p ►C
••• O O 'b d Cs' O �++ �.+
f� 0.
n
d
. cy
.� G
O
0
00
O
e�
c�
A A
eD
a
co Oc
c� a
fD
fD O
O
fD
a �
c�
a
0
a
b
ac
c� �
^ A
O
•'1
(9 M
�D
, J
w
O
c� O p O (o A O
b
O a fii O r► v�
C O `:
p O
p A
O
d (D
H
C
H
ry
O C O
A r. �. 0'Q
O cn
A
C \
S.
H b
a�
0
a
,. G: O d
S
m
o a
G
o
fD
a A
C o
c�
a •+� .-.
y
0 0o c�
'o
O O w
a
p
�, ►O V1
a o
PC
rA
b
R
b C
O
O
a
�1 \ a• Q.
m O n d d O
m G
O �-• b
3 CM
�. e3 a r-
o y �► �' b m
ma
co .°� oc d
a
0
m "'r1 vc
a
PC
en G C "D
!T H
O
D
V V V = V V
V 1 V V w
t i
. .....:.
I
V V
:...:::..........
l
.
P
«.
..
N
m Wd • • • n • • • • Gx
d 7d
0
�. z
a
e�
0
e�
e�
A
Dn d O
d r!
.S
eD
D
a �
'Cs co
Ir H
r.
O
! C
A
O►,
f- r•a. m
H
ee�� oq
c9 D a `Os m ►d D Or N ►�
D
R
H
H
O
O
r+
r
Er
m co
A
M
r� 6
y
s?'
O 'O
H
O
O
a
r
D m
D'
A
w
b
O
� co
r► � � 'C O p � O O
D �
a
eb
p a p. e9 �p eD � cp �
O O
b m d
b
..
�. C �. ,• yC' C O
m
w
w: a
A `G
P► fC
dQ
A
5
e
a
A R
a
Or
o e� '
O
�e
o a
R O
O oo 'o 'v o A o o «, r► �
r.
o �o
a
r.
O
r•
O
0
u7•
OQ �D
ti
1
tai
w
a
y .. y c c� o o c y
Rn
e-� y O O 1"'► � � Q� bq �D �
O !� _ b A• m O ^ d
o0a �• A � o �, D � a `� a O 'v
•ti O � b m a .. d Oq p "0 C.
qq ti r.
O
T.
CD
C.
1vg y D
H OQ r '�' R C "� 1•r1
� m y
0 D
ti
PA
fb
_ ! V V V N
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
V i
= v v
s s ..........
s s
s
1
{
s =
1
i o
1 ;
� , V
V 1 Q
1 r
r
1
V r
r
N
N
r5 � ✓
O „,,• rr'.. �A-. a S• � � A H O tris' A 00 C C A� I� V
A \
� O
r•
CD
a
H
r.�
a
r•
CA
a
CA � O O fD .•+ ►C "�
co
O
y
w r+
00
G
Ki' p
p !�
b
CD
O
C: N .-► to
a
0
a
ti rA
h
D 'b
co
..0
r.
O
b a
C b �O
p� Oo Q� p Cp
e�
�D
e-r
(D A
a
b b
r.
d
H
O
ry to M O CD i%ii• (P Q
CD LA
dQ at '(y tiJ
fD �y
N
►'1
yy
Q �"1
� H
/r
►, m �
.,,
b
r• tD D
0
O H
H .��► M.�
�--• \ to •-1
H
O
c� � A
0
A � o q o �: � r► � t�
a
�p 0
QQ .-► O O r. 0 � w corA
dQ a
A "0 A Q� A �D ,A� C• `7 r. `G r�
a
A to C• A AO
Vi ^ co
9 r-► O
C �• O � "D � �' wry ~ O
CD CCD CD ►�• ee~' A• F'n RCD
(JQ•
D (D a
OQ• CO ",�• C "C7 r �,
• •� O
O < Ar+ a
C ti n co co C O
H C C C
M
QrQ co
W H
�G O.
a
V v w
: El
i .. ...... ..
� a
s v
s
P
V
N
n
A to ►o CA 8 a R ; l?y O n > C r
0 0 � coa o G
CD r•
O
b � A
A
r1� O ti
fD
O
M
r•
00 o
r•
F—
O
1'7
N ° App C c� a s ►t 7d
c� cn cn c� - co �. �,, o c� c� p ►C
►,
y
n (D N �. A
CD p O F
°•'•
N
P+ /-►
O
N (D
°
� v
. a
r•►
h
�co
LA
' � o C° o
CD
(D
A
A
a�
t9
O
S
1-► N fD
p
A
`C
CL
N
co co
CD
a a o P co ,.1,q3. cP oil Co
91 0
Co
OQ
c�
IQ
rA
(D �' N „' A C a OG• N
O
O n C y co
►'1 N
g• a �.
co H "
C • 0 Mr
.� a• ; "1 O
O y cr
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1
N
1 �
1
_ ..y
v
Q
N
' � •• • • • • Q • • • • Cir = � � x
f Q
� 1•y
Mrl � R • • • • • 1"h /�1
a
�7
O CDF'aCD � ap� 1.... � d
.» `J �' O < b �O!1 VO1 «.. O t/1 to co
C C C C
N
ti
d A
O
O
fD t9
ac�
CT' � b
AA h
O
OQQ
A
(D
(P
1.•. Vl
►•n
(D (0
A
O
(P
A� 00
O OD Cy
0
c�
LID, a
c� ac� PC
cD Q 14
O �L.
a
o ...
o O R.
o
ty
C C
G'.
pi
c� eD O
Cr
O
t�
p� A
(D
A
p� O
�YtoCD
dQ
b �
,. uo
CA
c c �' '° o a
0 ~ Hp
C. fo n p
co
0 co
� .
CA w ►1 11 `/OGGO) A� �'►
Co
v"si 0Q. b rte',
<10
s 0 0
�• b �' y
9, ~.
0 QQ
A A
• / 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ylj
1 1 1 1 V 1 1 v 1 v
1 1 1 i i i 1
1 1 1 1 i
i 1 1
./+. .
t1 1 1 /r1
i i i i i i
i
1 1 1 1 Q
V V V V ..
N
cx
a cn0 CD
rA
(D
rA
c. ° o°
o ° � 7�
a � �
0
- A
C
9 OM
N
C M
0 0 �• CD
"C `t ° y
x
CDco
0 tz
H �
co
H
i i i i i
V N
Z
1 i
i o N
i Q
N.
Appendix B
.�x
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
SOCIAL SERVICES
CHILDREN'S SERVICES PLANNING RETREAT
JANUARY 18, 1995
LIST OF ACTUAL ATTENDEES
NAME AFFILIATION GROUP
1 . FAYE AL-SALAHUDDIN CCCSS 2
2. STEPHANIE AUSBAN CCCSS
3. SHARON BACON CCCSS 5
4. YVONNE BANGHAM FOSTER PARENT 4
S. MAE BRAGEN CCCSS 5
b. MINNIE BROWN FOSTER PARENT 1
7. CHARLOTTE BROWN SAN MATEO COUNTY 1
8. DEVON BROOKS UC BERKELEY 4
9. JEAN BURGER CCCSS 2
10. DARLENE BURLEIGH RELATIVE CAREGIVER 4
11. ANN CAMPBELL CCCSS 1
12. LINDA CANAN CCCSS 1
13. NANCY CAREY CCCSS 2
14. KATHLEEN CARRIER CCCSS 1
15. CHERYL COOK CCCSS 4
16. NANCY DeWEESE FOSTER PARENT 8'C CASR 3
17. CASEY DIXON CCCSS 1
'18. GWEN EASTER CCCSS
19. MYRA EMANUEL CCCSS 4
20. DANNA FABELLA CCCSS
21 . JIM FALLIS GRAND JURY 4
22. MICHAEL FARR CCC COUNTY COUNSEL 3
23. MARY GIANNO CCCSS 2
24. MILLIE GILSON CASR 3
25. HALLIE GLOVER F03 ER U ADOPTIVE PARENT 1
Official LIST OF ATTENDEES,children services workshop retreat
1/18/95, san damiano
- disk x/18, revised January 31, 1995,a.ATTENDEES.LST
NAME AFFILIATION GROUP
26. MARTHA GREENE FOSTER PARENT 2
27. PETER HARRIS CCCSS 3
28. PAT HAYDEN CCCSS 4
29. DOROTHY HAYNES FOSTER PARENT 4
30. BEATRICE HILL CCCSS 4
31. JOANNE HUDDLESTON FOSTER PARENT l
32. LOUISE HULL CCCSS 3
33. CURLIE JACKSON FOSTER PARENT 2
34. PENNY JAMES CCCSS 5
35 MARY JENSEN CCCSS 1
36. BOB KEISER GRAND JURY 1
37. MICHELLE LASKY CCCSS 1
38. MARY LOU LAUBSCHER GRAND JURY 2
39. FANNIE LAWSON FOSTER PARENT
40. JOANN MALLOY FOSTER PARENT 5
41. JEWEL MANSAPIT RELATIVE CAREGIVER 2
42. JUDITH MAYNARD CCCSS 3
43. PAT McDONALD CCCSS 1
44 MARY ELLEN McFADDEN CCCSS 4
45. SALLY McGREDY FOSTER PARENT 1
46. LOVIE McINTOSH FOSTER PARENT 5
47. PHYLLIS McKAY FOSTER PARENT 3
48. SAVANNAH McKENZIE CCCSS 3
49. KATHY METHFESSEL CCCSS 2
50. SARA MONSER FOSTER PARENT $t FOSTER
CARE EDUCATION, D-%,"%..
5
51.. DIANA MU RDOCH CCCSS 3
52!. AMINA NASSARDEEN CCCSS 2
53. OTIE NICHOLSON CCCSS 4
54. SANDRA OWENS LIC BERKELEY
55. CLYDE PARKHURST GRAND JURY 5
56. STEVE PEAVLER CCCSS 3
57. KATHLEEN PERKINS JUVENILE BAR, ATTORNEY 1
58. PATRICIA PERKINS CCCSS 5
59. JANET POTTIER CCCSS I
Official LIST OF ATTEN DEES,chodren services wakshop reveac
1/18/95,san damiano
disk#18,revised)anuary 31, 1995,xATTENDEESIST
I-
3
NAME AFFILIATION GROUP
60. DOROTHY POWELL CCCSS 1
61. CHARLEEN RAINES CCCSS 3
62, BARBARA RAINIS CCCSS 1
63. MEDA READ CCCSS 3
64. CONNIE RINNE CCCSS 3
65. DEVON RUBEN CCCSS 2
66. ROSADA RUSSELL FOSTER PARENT 1
67. RUBEN SANTIAGO CCCSS 3
68. CAROL SHAUFFER YOUTH LAW CENTER 3
69. BRIAN SIMMONS UC BERKELEY 2
70. JUDIE TAYLOR CCCSS 5
71 , SHEILA TROKEY FOSTER PARENT 1
72. MARY TROVING GRAND JURY 3
73. GRACE UNDERWOOD CCCSS 5
74. JUANITA VAUGHN CCCSS 4
75. LINDA WADDINGTON CCCSS 2
76, CAROL WALSH CCCSS 1
77. SHERYL WALTON CCCSS 4
78. STEVE WARGA FOSTER PARENT ASSOCIATION 4
79, THERESE WARNE FOSTER PARENT 3
80. MARTHA WEISS CCCSS 3
81 . MARY WILLIAMS FOSTER PARENT 1
82. MARY WILLIAMS-IZETT PRIVATE JUVENILE BAR 2
83. WILLIAM WILLIAMS FOSTE° PARENT 1
84. BARBARA WILLIAMS CCCSS 4
85. TERI WOODS ADOPTIVE PARENT- - 5
86. MRS. CHARLES WOODS PROSPECTIVE ADOPTIVE PARENT 8�
GRAND JURY 5
87. DIANE ZINK-ROBERTS FOSTER/ADOPTIVE PARENT 2
Official LIST OF ATTENDEES, children services workshop retreat
1118195, san damiano
disk#18, revised January 31, 199S,a:A1TEh1QE IST
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
SOCIAL SERVICES
CHILDREN'S SERVICES PLANNING RETREAT
JANUARY 18, 1995
NO-SHOW LIST
NAME AFFILIATION GROUP #
1 . LILLIAN ABRAMS FOSTER PARENT 2
2. MARY ANTONELLI FOSTER PARENT 4
3. ROBERT.ANTONELLI FOSTER PARENT 4
4. RAMIRO AROSEMENA GRAND JURY 3
5. RUBY BROWN FOSTER PARENT 1
6. CORA BURCH FOSTER PARENT 4
7. SHARON DAUGHERTY FOSTER PARENT 1
8. DORSH DEVOE CCCSS 5
9. VALORIE MARTIN-ELLER PRESIDENT, FOSTER PARENT
ASSOCIATION 4
10. BETTY ELLISON FOSTER PARENT 4
11. SHERI FERGUSON CCCSS
12. DIANE GIBBON CCCSS 2
13. KELLY HARGREAVES CRSS 1
14. JEAN HAWKINS CCCSS 2
15. GORDON KIRSTEIN FOSTER PARENT 4
16. EILEEN LYNCH GRAND JURY
17. BETTY MILLER FOSTER PARENT 3
18. KATHLEEN M!TCFIELL FOSTER PARENT 1
A9. RUTH NAVARRO FOSTER PARENT 4
20. BONNIE PANNELL CCCSS 2
21 . SYNG PARK CCCSS 4
22. PATRICIA PITRE FOSTER PARENT 1
23. VICKIE ROBINSON ADOPTIVE PARENT 2
24. GERTRUDE SCHWARTZ FOSTER PARENT 4
25 IRENE SEMPER FOSTE-R PARENT 4
26. BOBBIE SPIESS FOSTER PARENT 5-
27. JAMI ZAPPIA FOSTER PARENT 1
OFFICIAL LIST OF NO-SHOW REGISTRANTS
CHILDREN'S SERVICES WORKSHOP RETREAT
1/18/95, SAN DAMIANO
DISK#18, REVISED January 31, 1995,A:NOSHOW.LST
Appendix C
CONTRA COSTA
DEPENDENT FOSTER CARE CHILDREN
(Based on data from FCIS Nos. 95-115A, 95-115B, 95-115C)
Length of Time m ost�r Card
Age of
Child_ 1218
wonths 18 24 months x:24 months
1 37 33 0
2 11 11 59
3 9 10 84
4 7 11 111
5 6 9 121
6 13 12 108
7 4 11 88
8 5 5 104
9 9 3 104
10 6 3 84
11 5 6 94
12 10 4 96
13 10 0 95
14 6 3 84
15 5 3 66
16 5 4 63
17 3 4 67
18 0 2 20
TOTAL 151 134 1448
:ceb
• blctime.tb!
f-disk 1
Appendix D
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,BERKELEY
BERKELEY DAVIS • IRVINE LOS ANGELES RIVERSIDE SAN DIEGO SAN FRANCISCOf - SANTA BARBARA SANTA CRUZ
i
Family Welfare Research Group
PTA School of Social Welfare
Child Welfare Research Center 1950 Addison Street, Suite 104
Berkeley, California 94704
Tel: (510)643-7020
Fax: (510)643-7019
DRAFT
Objectives
1. To provide technical assistance to the Contra Costa County Social Service Department
(SSD) with its planning for the implementation of recommendations to improve its adoptions
program operations.
2. To assess planning and recommend modifications or additional efforts needed to
implement the recommended changes in the adoptions program operations.
3. To conduct an outcome study to determine success of implementation efforts.
Overview
We propose to complete this work between the date the contract is signed (approximately
February, 1995) and June 30, 1996. Initial efforts will focus on assisting the planning
process with ad hoc technical assistance as requested by the SSD. A formal review of the
planning efforts to date will begin in July, 1995 with a formal report presented to the SSD by
August 31, 1995. Technical assistance will continue to be provided after this date as
requested by the SSD. We propose to begin a formal, intensive review of the Department's
actual implementation of the recommendations in late February, 1996, with a formal report
provided to SSD and the Board of Supervisors by June 30, 1996.
1. Technical Assistance
The Child Welfare Research Center (CWRC) will attend meetings in a support function,
review and comment on proposals and other documents, and otherwise assist the SSD as
requested during the planning and implementation phases. CWRC will not prepare any of the
actual planning and/or implementing designs.
2. Review of the Plannini; Process
Beginning in July 1995, CWRC will:
■ review of internal planning_ documents
■ review of formal reports to IOC/FHSC
■ meet with key personnel in charge of implementation
■ meet with key players outside of SSD
■ prepare formal report of planning process, present to IOC/FHSC and SSD
3. Review of Implementation Success
Process
Beginning in February, 1996, CWRC will conduct a review of the SSD's Adoptions program
and operations to ascertain the degree of implementation with the recommendations of
CWRC's report dated November 1994.
Specifically, this will include:
■ an operational review of the system, if any, the SSD has implemented to ensure
each child has had a timely permanency planning review; that reasons for the*planning
decision are clearly delineated; and that reasons reflect a commitment,to pursuing
options other than long-term foster care;
■ a review of the homestudy process and questions, to ensure relevance and
flexibility;
■ a review of efforts toward making the juvenile court and its processes more
supportive of timely permanency planning decisions;
■ a review of the status of agency-foster parent relations
■ a review of staff development curricula for child welfare staff; and
■ a review of adoption unit automation.
Outcomes
■ a review to ensure the timeliness of permanency planning activities.
Methods
Individual Interviews
1. Adoptions Manager
2. Adoptions Supervisor(s)
3. Long-time adoption staff
4. Judge Lois Haight
5, County Counsel attorneys responsible for dependency matters
6. Key foster parents
7. Private adoption agency personnel
Case Record Reviews
1. We will review a sample of cases of young children who entered foster care since
February 1995 and who have been incare for at least ten-months.
2. We will review a sample of cases of children assessed by the Permanency Planning
Review Team.
Focus Groups
1. Other adoption workers
2. FR workers
3. Foster parents
Approximate Budget
Salary and Fringe
Richard P. Barth, PI (5%) $2,916
Brian Simmons, Project Leader (average 30%) $7500
Graduate Student Assistants (GSRs) $6622
Secretarial (15%) $3500
Supplies, Copying $750
Telephone $150
Travel $100
TOTAL DIRECT COST
Indirect Cost (26%) $13,462
TOTAL COST $35,000
FER 1 0 1995
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,BERKELEY
BERKELEY DAVIS • IRVINE L65 ANGELES • RIVERSIDE • SAN DIEGO • SANFRANCLSCol
SANTA BARBARA • SANTA CRUZ
r1ATnFamily Welfare Research Group
Qchild Weffore Reseorch Center School of Social Welfare
1950 Addison Street,Suite 104
Berkeley,California 94704
Tel: (510)642-1899
February 4, 1995 Fax: (510)642-1895
Ms. Danna Fabela, Assistant Director
Contra Costa County Social Service Department
40 Douglas Drive
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Ms, Fabela:
Thank you for reviewing the Child Welfare Research Center's
(CWRC) proposed work plan the contract to provide technical
assistance to and evaluation of the Department of Social
Service's activities to implement the recommendations we made in
our report on the operation of the adoption program. With no
modifications, that will be our formal proposal.
At your request, we have reviewed the Internal Operations
Committee's directive to read the case of each child whu has been
in Contra Costa's child welfare system longer than twelve months.
You asked specifically if CWRC would be willing to undertake this
assignment on behalf of the Department. For the reasons outlined
below, we respectfully decline this request.
Using the UC Berkeley Foster Care Data Base, we estimate
conservatively that Contra Costa has 1400 children who have been
in care longer than twelve months. Determining whether adoption
planning was appropriate for' each child and whether such planning
actually occurred (the primary questions raised by the Committee)
will require a fairly thorough case reading. Assuming
conservatively that each case could be reviewed in an hour (we
took longer than that to review each case in our earlier -
reading) , a team of six people will require approximately six
weeks of full-time reading to complete the task. CWRC simply
does not have the resources to commit to that kind of
undertaking.
Secondly, we have reservationsabouthow well served the
Committee will be with the information derived from such a case
review. For example, like most jurisdictions, Contra Costa hat
placed a significant number of children in the homes of
relatives. While some relatives do adopt and in some situations
adoption by kin is an appropriate plan, for the most part kinship
care providers do not adopt. Neither do most counties pressure
related caretakers to adopt, since they and the children already
have an established familial relationship. We therefor: see
little point in reading the cases of children in kinship care. A
similar argument can be made for the cases of teenagers.
Relatively few want to be adopted (state law requires that these
children consent to their own adoption) and very few are placed
for adoption. Reading these cases will also not provide much
useful information.
Finally, as part of our evaluation of .the Department's efforts to
implement CWRC's previous recommendations, we will be reading a
sample of cases of children age six and under who were not placed
with relatives and who have been in care at least one year. We
plan to begin this reading in February, 1996. This should
provide the Department ample time to implement the procedural
changes needed to ensure that appropriate case planning takes
place for this group of children who are most likely to be
adopted. An earlier reading will undoubtedly re-confirm the
existence of already identified problems, but it will not provide
sufficient time to reveal the effects of any implemented changes
in practice.
With these considerations in mind, we will be unable to
participate in the reading proposed by the Committee. We
appreciate the opportunity to provide technical assistance to the
Department over the next year, and to evaluate the results of the
Department's implementation efforts next year.
Sincerely y urs,
Brian Simmons, MSW
Project Leader
February 13 , 1995
To: Family and Human Services Committee of the Board of
Supervisors
From: Jim Fallis, Chairperson, Child Welfare Committee,
1994-95 Contra Costa County Grand Jury
Comments to the committee on the Social Services
Department report; Adoptions Programs In Contra Costa County.
This report being public knowledge.
I commend Danna Fabella, and her staff for the preparation
of this report.
Letter from Bob Hofmann, Acting County Welfare Director,
first page, middle of second paragraph. There were 87 people
in attendance. On page 2 of the DRAFT SUMMARY, last
paragraph, there were 96 persons in attendance. Why the
discrepancy of a 9 person difference between this report and
the draft summary?
Same page, reference, (See Appendix B. ) , No - Show list.
Name #4, Ramiro Arosemena, was replaced by another member of
the grand jury, Mary Troving, name #72 , page 3 of the list of
actual attendees.
Same page, paragraph 3 , Department held a public meeting
on January 30, 1995. This meeting had 28 people in
attendance. I was one of those people. The department did not
do a mass mailing, as there was for the Planning Workshop
held January 18 , 1995. They did place notices in local
newspapers. The Legal Notice section.
Same letter, page 2 , second paragraph, Department obtained
the attached information on children in foster care placed
for 12 , 18 , 24 months or more. (See Appendix C. ) One can see
that of 1733 Dependent Foster Care Children, 1448 (83%) have
been in Foster care over 24 months.
Mr. Hofmann goes on to say, the Child Welfare Research
Center (CWRC) does not have the resources to complete a study
to review these cases.
I would like to bring to the attention of the Family and
Human Services Committee, a company, "O'Brien - Rreitzburg"
has been used for "project scheduling" , by Contra Costa
County and Advisory Commissions in the past.
This company could be considered to provide a "project
scheduling" of these cases. They should be able to complete
a study within 30 days of a contract date.
Upon the completion of that study, the Social Services
Department should implement their recommendations to resolve
50% of those Foster care children over 24 months, within one
year or less, from the date of the study.
Family and Human Services Committee
of the Board of Supervisors
2/13/95 Page 2
Appendix A, Summary, page 6, middle of page, Children
under the age of six (6) may be placed only in homes which
have been pre-approved for adoption.
Being that all children should be adoptable, permanent
placement, if not reunification, why was the "age of six (6) "
arrived at?
Page 11, Parking Lot Ideas: Item 3) Social Service staff
attending 4 out of 10 Fost/Adopt Pride sessions.
It should required Social Service staff, currently
employed, and newly hired to attend all 10 sessions within a
10 month period of time. This came out of the work group 4,
which I was a part of.
Page T-2, Tasks - Timelines, Item section 5; "Create an
Adoption worker's desktop manual. " This shouldn ' t take a year.
Page T-5, Tasks - Timelines, Item section 2; "Set up a
continuing education curriculum and training for all
Department social workers. " , "Establish a comprehensive
training program. ,, , "Develop a complete training manual. "
This shouldn 't take a year.
Page T-6, Tasks - Timelines, Item section 1 ; "Develop
tidining manual . ' This shouldn' t take a year.
It would appear that all three of these tasks are similar
to each other. One would think they should, be a priority,
and in place within six (6) months.
I appreciate this time to present these comments and bring
them to your attention. Thank you. .