HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03051996 - D6 D. 6
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS F&HS-03 _ Contra
5E L
FROM: FAMILY AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE Costa
: s
o County
�..
DATE: February 26, 1996
SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT ON THE PLACEMENT OF AFRICAN-AMERICAN
CHILDREN IN FOSTER AND GROUP HOMES OWNED OR OPERATED BY
AFLCJQ -A W.W - -At-
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. DIRECT the Social Services Director to outline for the Family and Human Services
Committee how the 14 Rate Classification Levels (RCL's)for a licensed foster home
or group home are determined and what criteria are used to establish the level of
problems for which a facility is licensed to care.
2. DIRECT the Social Services Director to outline for the Family and Human Services
Committee the process by which a child is assigned a particular RCL (which
determines the type of facility in which the child can be cared for), what behaviors
or past incidents contribute to this decision, what other factors are used in making
this decision, and what approval process and supervisory review of this decision is
made.
3. DIRECT the Social Services Director to outline for the Family and Human Services
Committee the number and licensed capacity of each African-American owned or
operated group home in Contra Costa County (as defined by the Association for
Minority Adolescents in Residential Care Homes - AMARCH) which is licensed to
care for RCL 10 - 14 children.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD C MI TE
APPROVE OTHER
v
SIGNATURE(S): W IJCSAULNIER JEFF S H
ACTION OF BOARD ON March 5, 1996 f
APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
The following persons appeared to speak on this matter:
1. Virginia Fuller, 4853 Buckboard Way, E1 Sobrante, CA.
2. Faye Myrette-Crosley, 2919 Mullens Drive, Richmond, CA.
3. Rev. Curtis. A. Timmons, P.O. Box 8213, Pittsburg, CA.
4. Al Simmons, 2936�I'.Linden Ave. , Berkeley, CA.
Publitctomment on this matter was concludes: after all persons
desiring to speak were heard.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT Bishop ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: 1,4, 5, and 2 NOES: None AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: 3 ABSTAIN: None OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
County Administrator ATTESTED March 5, 1996
Contact: Social Service Director PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
cc: County Probation Officer ISORS AND COUNTY A ISTRAT
County Counsel
' PUTY
F&HS-03
4. DIRECT the Social Services Director to expand upon in more detail for the Family
and Human Services Committee the data contained in Attachment "E" to the
attached report from the Social Services Director on the number and percentage
of children at each RCL level by race so that the Committee can begin to draw
some conclusions about whether the number of African-American children at RCL
levels 10 and above appears to be disproportionate in relation to similar statistics
for Caucasian children.
5. DIRECT the Social Services Director to outline for the Family and Human Services
Committee the process by which a facility is determined to be qualified to care for
"Medically Fragile" children, what agency licenses these facilities, what specific
services the facility must be able to provide to a child to earn this designation, what
specific licensing categories are eligible to care for "Medically Fragile" children
(group homes as well as medical facilities).
6. RECOGNIZING that the Family and Human Services Committee does not currently
have any evidence to support the allegation that staff of the Social Services
Department are knowingly and intentionally increasing the RCL rating for African-
American children for the purpose of insuring that African-American children will not
be placed in group homes which are owned or operated by African-Americans,
DIRECT the Social Services Director to provide the Family and Human Services
Committee with a formal response to these allegations.
7. DIRECT the Social Services Director to summarize for the Family and Human
Services Committee the racial composition of the staff in the residential placement
unit compared with the overall racial composition of the social worker staff in the
Department and, to the extent that such information is available, similar statistics
for other counties in the Bay Area, PROVIDE the Family and Human Services
Committee with his conclusion as to whether this data suggests a problem in Contra
Costa County and, if it does, his recommendations for appropriately addressing the
problem.
8. DIRECT the Social Services Director to provide t6 AMARCH a copy of the Social
Service Department's Affirmative Action Report which details the racial distribution
of employees by classification.
9. REPORT this information to the Family and Human Services on a date to be
determined in consultation with the County Administrator's Office.
BACKGROUND:
On December 19, 1995, the Board of Supervisors referred to our Committee a letter dated
July 12, 1995 from the Association for Minority Adolescents in Residential Care Homes
which had been on referral to the 1995 Family and Human Services Committee but had
not been addressed as a separate issue prior to this date.
On February 26, 1996, our Committee met with representatives from the Association for
Minority Adolescents in Residential Care Homes, the Rev. Curtis Timmons and several
group home operators and other interested individuals.
The Social Services Director, John Cullen, presented the attached report to our Committee
and reviewed it in some detail. Despite the allegations of racial discrimination in out-of-
home care placement practices, the data reviewed by our Committee does not support
these allegations. Mr. Alfred Simmons, representing the Association for Minority
Adolescents in Residential Care Homes, accused the Department of increasing the level
of care required by African-American children so that the African-American homes that are
available would be unable to care for the children and the children would be sent to larger
facilities which are licensed to care for the more troubled children. This, it was alleged,
is done by increasing the Rate Classification Level (RCL) a child requires.
2
F&HS-03
Despite these allegations, our Committee notes that the percentage of African-American
children in group homes at RCL's 10 through 14 (72 out of 101 or 71.3%) is almost
identical to the percentage of Caucasian children in group homes at RCL's 10 through 14
(50 out of 71 or 70.4%). [See attachment E to Mr. Cullen's report].
Mr. Cullen emphasized that group homes generally take the older children and that only
21% of the African-American children in out-of-home care are teenagers. The proportion
of children in this County who are in group homes has remained almost constant at
between 8% and 9%for the past several years while the number of available group home
beds has increased.
Rev. Curtis Timmons expressed his dismay that 54 African-American children in group
homes were not in African-American group homes and suggested that the number of
African-American children in African-American group homes needed to be increased
above the 47 who were placed there in January, 1996.
Faye Crosley from AMARCH emphasized her belief that the use of RCL's is a way for the
Social Workers to send African-American children where they want them to go, rather than
placing them in African-American homes.
Virginia Fuller, who operates an intermediate care facility for developmentally delayed
children, claimed that she operates the only African-American owned home for medically
fragile children in the County and that people have purposely black-balled her.
There was further discussion about the number of Caucasian children placed in African-
American homes and the racial breakdown of the placement staff in the Social Service
Department. Carol Hatch, from Congressman Miller's Office, indicated that in her
experience the children we are dealing with have more and more severe problems. Rather
than talking about reducing the level of care we say children need, we should be improving
the level of care that can be provided by the existing group homes. Rev. Timmons
indicated that there are some group homes licensed to care for RCL 8 or 9 level problems
who are able to care for higher levels of problems. Taalia Hasan noted that there are also
children who need extensive psycho-therapy and that those-needs have to be met as well.
The above recommendations are intended to address many of the issues that have been
raised. With this additional information, we believe that we will be in a position to bring
this subject to a conclusion.
3
REPORT TO FAMILY AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE
FEBRUARY 26, 1996
DESCRIPTION OF OUT-OF-HOME CARE AND PURPOSE
Child Welfare Services consist of four major service components: Emergency Response; Family
Maintenance; Family Reunification; and Permanency Planning. If, during the emergency
response phase, it is determined that a child must be removed due to abuse or neglect, then a
minor is placed in out-of-home care while his/her parent is working toward family reunification.
During this phase, the social worker is responsible for locating a placement that meets the
specific needs of a child while at the same time developing a plan to work on reunification for
the parent(s). If a child cannot be returned home, the social worker must develop a plan that
meets the long-term care of the child.
Thus, the term "out-of-home care" might refer to a foster child in a relative home, county-
licensed foster home, private agency certified home, and group home.
DEFINITION OF A FOSTER HOME,PRIVATE AGENCY CERTIFIED FOSTER HOME
(FFA), AND GROUP HOME
A licensed foster home is a family home licensed by a County for one (1) to six (6) beds for
care of children between the ages of infants to eighteen (18). The AFDC-FC basic rate for a
foster child is set by the State of California and is based on age. The payment rates range from
$345 to $484 per child per month. It is possible to receive and additional "difficulty-of-care
rate" for a child who requires special care and supervision due to physical, emotional, or
behavior problems.
A Private Agency Certified Foster Home (FFA) is a home which has been certified by private
agencies (versus licensed by the State or County) to care for children placed with the private
agency by County Social Service departments. The Social Service Department places the child
with the private agency and reimburses the private agency directly. The private agency which
certifies foster homes is responsible for the training, supervision, and reimbursement of the
caretaker. Foster children placed in an FFA should have greater needs than those in a regular
county licensed home. The payment rates are set by the State of California and range from $345
to $1515 per child per month. Exceptions to these rates are possible with CDSS approval.
FFAs have more resources available than does regular foster care to serve children with greater
care requirements. However, in the continuum of out-of-home care, it is seen as a less
restrictive placement than a group home because it is a family and is not professionally staffed
around the clock.
2
A group home is a licensed facility, usually licensed for six (6) beds for minors and is staffed
twenty-four hours a day. Group Homes are licensed by the California Department of Social
Services and categorized according to a classification system that rates the group home on a
scale of one (1) to fourteen (14) which corresponds to the services it provides and its staffing
levels and qualifications. Likewise, the reimbursement to the group home through AFDC-FC,
is set by the State, and corresponds to the level of care. Payments range from $1,183 to $5,013
per child per month.
Child Welfare law requires that we place a child in the least restrictive, most family-like,
placement which will meet the child's needs. Regulation also requires that we make our
placement considerations in the following order: relative, foster home, then group home. A
group home can only be used if there is no foster home found to meet the child's treatment
needs and the group home has an appropriate program.
FOSTER CARE TRENDS IN THE STATE, BAY AREA, AND CONTRA COSTA
The Child Welfare Resource Center (CWRC) recently produced a,report using Foster Care
Information System (FCIS) to review State foster care trends. We have included an analyzes
by our department of these trends. Attachment A shows "Foster Care Caseload Trends (1988-
1994)" for children in care by placement type. It is important to note that while foster care
caseload size has increased. both statewide and in the Bay Area; the foster care caseload in
Contra Costa has decreased since 1992. The number of children in relative care (kinship) has
increased statewide, in the Bay Area, and in Contra Costa County. The proportion of children
in kinship, foster home, and in group home in Contra Costa County is similar to that of the
state. The CWRC report shows that, of all children in out-of-home care with Contra Costa
County, approximately 47% are in kinship care; 43% are in foster homes; 9% are in group
homes; and I% other.
During this period of time, there has been a marked increase in new group homes in the Bay
Area and in Contra Costa County, yet there has not been an increase in the percent of children
requiring placements into,group homes. A review of the group homes in the region reveals that
there are 266 group home beds, of which 193 meet the AMARCH definition of African-
American.
TRENDS BY AGE AND ETHNICITY
CWRC has also produced information, listed in Attachment B, that shows trends in out-of-home
care by Age and Ethnicity. Statewide, more African-American children were in care than any
other ethnic group. The proportion of African-American children in foster care in Contra Costa
County (58%) is similar to the region (55%) but greater than the State (39%). The proportion
of Caucasian children in foster care in Contra Costa County (33%) is similar to the State (35%)
but greater than the region (25%). In comparing ourselves to the Bay Area region, we have a
3
Report to Family & Human Services Committee (continued)
February 26, 1996
greater proportion of children who are Caucasian (33% versus 25%) and fewer Hispanics than
the region (7% versus 17%).
Like the state and the region, the proportions of Contra Costa County children in care by age
groups differed little by ethnicity. For example: African-American children in out-of-home care
under the age of one Statewide is 4.4%, the region is 4.3%, and Contra Costa County is 3.7%;
Caucasian children under the age of one Statewide is 5.2%, the region is 3.7%, and Contra
Costa County is 3.4%.
Children twelve (12) and under in any out-of-home care from Contra Costa County represent
approximately 80% of all African-American children in placement and approximately 76% of
Caucasian children in placement. This is almost identical to the state and similar to the region.
This is significant for group home operators since their programs primarily target teenagers who
represent the smallest proportion of children in foster care.
SUMMARY BY ETHNICITY AND PLACEMENT TYPE
California Department of Social Services (CDSS) produced a report for our department in the
middle of December 1995, based on the Foster Care Information System (FCIS) which
delineates our number of children in various types of placements and their ethnicity. These
numbers are displayed in Attachment C, Ethnicity by Placement Type. In summary, 624
children are in foster homes; 1008 in relative care; 136 with guardians; 212 in foster family
homes (FFA); 189 in group homes; 10 in small family homes (regional center homes); 1 in a
medical facility. In addressing the specific concerns from AMARCH, the report indicates that
there are 1201 African-American foster children in care with 617 placed with relatives; 85 with
guardians; 299 in foster homes; 98 in foster family homes (FFA); 5 in small family homes
(regional centers); 96 in group homes; and 1 in a medical facility. Overall, placement in group
homes represent approximately 9% of the out-of-home care need.
CONSIDERATION IN MAKING PLACEMENTS AND PROCESS FOR PLACEMENT OF
CHILDREN IN GROUP HOMES.
The selection of an appropriate placement begins with a solid assessment of the child and
his/her family situation. Relatives are considered prior to other types of placement. Every
effort is made to "match" the child's needs with a foster home or facility whose program can
address those needs. Statistics provided show that we are successful in utilizing the least
restrictive care with higher use of relatives and lower use of facilities.
The need for group home placement is generally identified in one of two ways.
The most common is when a child has been in a family-type placement and can no longer safely
be maintained in the home due to behaviors that are disruptive such as: assaulting, sexually
acting out and/or sexually victimizing other children; firesetting; suicidal gestures; little impulse
controls; frequent runaways; school truancies and defiance of any person on a "parent role or
4
Report to Family & Human Services Committee (continued)
February 26, 1996
authority role". The second way is when a child is referred from a mental health professional
or a parent who is unwilling to continue to care for their child because of the child's emotional
problems. These children often are referred during a psychiatric hospitalization and the discharge
plan recommends a group home placement.
In our county, children's cases are handled in one of the three district offices by placement staff
when out-of-home care utilizes a foster home or relatives. When district staff's assessment is
that the child may need group home care, a referral is made to our Children's Residential
Placement Unit which is located in Martinez. This unit, with supervisory review, and often with
the consultation of the Division Manager, makes a further assessment of the child's needs to
determine if group care is really-necessary and, if so, what a group home program would need
to offer to address the needs of the child. A single Placement Coordinator is assigned
responsibility for keeping abreast of the group home resources available for our consideration.
A wide variety of factors are taken into consideration when determining which group home
program would meet the needs of a particular child. Examples include:
The child's therapeutic needs. We would assess whether-a child needed primarily
behavior management or intensive therapy with medication management and "on-
grounds" schools.
The child's relationship with the parent. If the parent is actively involved in
reunification efforts, we will attempt to place in a program that has a strong family
counseling program that is easy for the parent to access. On the other hand, if there is
a "no contact" order we might look for a placement away from the parent's community.
Other relationships important to the child. If important relationships to the child live
in another geographic area (other relatives) and are accessible for visits and potentially
for placement, we will place near that relative.
However, generally a child's primary relationships are in his/her community of origin
and we try to place as close to the community of origin as possible.
Ethnicity/cultural heritage. Children are generally more responsive to building
relationships with adults and other children they perceive as being like them. Common
culture, language, food, etc. facilitate relationship building. Ethnicity/culture has been
seen by our department as significant to the child and we do have a history of placing
children in facilities with an ethnic identification similar to that of the child. When an
ethnically-identified program is not able to meet the child's identified therapeutic needs,
we look for a program where there are a number of the residents and staff in visible,
responsible positions in the facility with similar ethnic/cultural background to the child.
However, the primary consideration will always be whether the facility can meet the
child's therapeutic needs.
5
1Y
Report to Family & Human Services Committee (continued)
February 26, 1996
MULTI-ETHNIC PLACEMENT ACT (MEPA)
MEPA also known as the Matzenbaumn bill became Federal law in 1995. California was
required to implement this law by January 1, 1996, in order to receive Federal funds for our
adoption and child welfare programs. In summary, MEPA abolishes AB548 (Moore), codified
as Civil Code 275, and has completely reversed ethnic matching practices in California. AB548
did require ethnic matching as a priority when making a foster care placement. The worker was
required to document efforts made to find an ethnically matched placement prior to placing
transracially. MEPA now prohibits generic ethnic matching policies as a priority consideration,
and instead requires child-specific assessments. An adoptions agency can utilize ethnicity as one
of many factors in finding an appropriate placement. A worker is now required to now
document why the child requires an ethnically-matched placements above everything else. All
California Adoption departments were directed by CDSS to eliminate all our practices and
procedures which were put into place under AB 548 and now comply with MEPA.
PLACEMENT OF CHILDREN IN FOSTER HOMES BY ETHNIC MATCHING
In order to determine the extent to which our department followed AB548 (Moore), and now
abolished by the Matzenbaumn Bill, we asked the state to run an ad hoc random sample of
African-American children in foster care. The Child Welfare Resource Center suggested 10%
as a representative sample. We have since reviewed these randomly selected placements of
African-American children placed to determine whether they were ethnically matched.
Attachment D indicates the sample drawn and the ethnicity of the placement. Out of the sample
of thirty (30) children placed, 28 or 93% of these children were in placements with caregivers
of the same ethnicity, and only two (2) were in non-ethnicity-matched placements. The two
"non-matched" placements were considered medically fragile, and placed in a foster home
trained to provide specialized care.
PLACEMENT OF CHILDREN IN GROUP HOME BY ETHNIC MATCH
Similarly, we have identified an incidence of ethnic matching in group homes. Attachment E
is a summary of foster children in group homes by ethnicity. We have denoted African-
American facilities. Our report indicates that approximately 47% of African-American children
needing group home services, are placed in African-American run group homes. 83% of all
African-American group home placements are placed in the region, with 50% in the County.
Currently, 72 African-American children requiring group home care are in RCL's of 10 or
higher. Only 6 African-American group homes are available for consideration with these levels
of program and care.
We have also attached a chart (Attachment F) to show the percentage of ethnic match that
currently exists for African-American foster children by placement type.
6
Report to Family & Human Services Committee (continued)
February 26, 1996
ACTIVITIES OF SOCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO RECRUIT FOSTER HOMES
AND IMPROVE PLACEMENT OPTIONS FOR MINORITY CHILDREN
The California State Department of Social Services assumed primary responsibility for general
Foster Care and Adoptions recruitment. Local efforts have primarily targeted specific need
areas such as our Foster Pride/Adopt Pride recruitment and training, Heritage Project, and KPIX
program, and services for children with unique needs. The Foster Pride/Adopt Pride effort is
a nationally recognized training curriculum which Contra Costa County is bringing to this area
through the community colleges. Funding for this project was specifically made available
through AB 2129. The Heritage Project was established with State funds for targeting and
recruiting minority homes in West and East County to provide care for drug-exposed infants.
This project provides for training and respite for families who participate in the extensive
preparation required in order to take these infants. Brian's Kids is a collaborative recruitment
project with other Bay Area counties and KPIX Channel 5 which features children in need of
adoptive homes. Brian Sussman, weatherman on Channel 5, who is also an adoptive parent, has
made this project extremely popular. Our Department has chosen to feature primarily minority
children as part of our outreach strategy for those particular children featured as well as a way
to reach families interested in adoption of minority children in general.
7
Report to Family & Human Services Committee (continued)
February 26, 1996
SUNIlgARY
In response to the four primary allegations made by AMARCH and Reverend Timmons:
♦ The Department does place African-American children with their relatives. As of December,
1995, approximately 51% of all African-American children in out-of-home care, have their needs
met by placement with relatives.
♦ The Department has made good faith efforts to follow AB 548 (Moore) as evidenced by data
supplied by our review of African-American children in out-of-home care. The Department does
follow Multiethnic Placement Act (MEPA) as we do not use ethnic matching as the primary
consideration, rather it is part of the assessment of the child's particular needs.
♦ The Department has placed many African-American children with same-race caretakers. In
data supplied, over 51% were placed with relatives, approximately 93% of African-American
children placed in foster homes were ethnically matched, and 47% of African-American children
in group homes were also ethnically matched.
♦ The Department does use African-American group homes as evidenced by the fact that
approximately 47% of African-American children placed in group homes are in facilities meeting
AMARCH's definition. Additionally, it is not the Department's responsibility to assure that all
group homes stay in business. We will make our placement decisions based on the needs of
children, and will trust that quality group home programs survive this very difficult market-
driven business.
JBC/DF:sjb
Fostcare.rpt
8
A y •
G `C7 Fi l/1 X
x pq
Q 4•t r. V1 H � �• N I�.. Q
O
n o
CDW 00
v, 0 0 0 0 0 00 fp 0p A7
'� f9 fD 00
CDC
O H
A�
O rt
p 00
y N
C CD
O
`� �* t
to
z �' v;
CD
Pt
cn
CO CD
Need
cnm
Gm `� (IQao �' `7
p
O OilP-01 W Moe
cn
46
cs o
-�
O A
O O o O lo."
� O •� ~
oo:....
cn
orAy
c m ...
rA
Need
ad
to 00 00 W \p
0 00
\ \
po 0 0 0 0 00 "t7 A N :
0 y C .>fi: ;::`:Owe :
on
c7
CD y C
0 0 0 o A
�Q? >> w
Q \
Q
Ul
A
C. y ti N W r... r+ y •� �.. ..
p
P M
N
pr
n
-
?
p o 0 0 0
C �
y N
w cn Q
tz
co
10
d � G J N CiII N 1^• A � v v v v �,
r�J
o o m o 0 0 0 h7
O hWLQ
+
e e
e e e m A
� o o
b b CN N Vl
,..CD
_ .
n :: <
n �
O ►•` N Cly C0:
Opwp N N
0 0 0 0 o T
Q• w � e � e e -Ai ti ...
b
pp � :
v v v v p
p o J N VI. N ►�+ f�D
rJ
ti Q
F_n N •p C PF
N a� n• O rQi. '
0 0 Wo 0
A O O e - O �• fp
a
d
0
LZ Y
y N J W 00
n pi
0 0 0 o
7
i
0 0 0 o e rr
y O C >CD
�� x .......... ......-
CD
CD
CD
CD
0
CDCD
z
n
CDCD
a
O
O
CD
Cl.
y
N N
o y
�..
o XXXX
O O rn w �c00
o
CD
c
NO o O o 00 w o `^
o o o O rn i sx y
�o c
. .o
rrJ
� n
C> O O o O O c,. .p-
b
0 0 0 0 0 � O o = a
n
CD
(D O O n n
..
1 1
oo to p W N —
O O O ' .� •' n
7� � �y !G�� � � �f��y � � � !L�� !(•may i
(D (D CD(D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D CD (D (D (D Ri
H.. r• r• H• Vl
A A A A A A �A7 A (� A A A A A A 0
A
R R O O N, R O N
�G O
•
all• �.
A• A• A• nA• O• nn• (�• nAAA• OO• ACD
O
CD (D CD (D (D (D (D (D (D CD CD (D CD CD (D CD w rY V1
�"!.. �. �. �. M M M -t ..� riZ. K .t M .t �+ n
AA A A A A A A A A A IC) A A A A H O
C> o o o .- 0 0 0 o o o n
\ OHO OHOO - \ C> \ N d Uj
N N N N w O N N N N w O w y W O
O w ON to O N
A A
�O �D I'D 00 LO OO I'D I'D I'D �D �O �O �O �O 110
w W w po LA �10 l!i lA
f7 C7 C1 C7 'Ti O
CC P��••. O
F• F• � � GGP
a. a a m
eD
o a �
tr
�•* (D �7 N e'�' y � �r
CD (Det
C .
y
O H
� n
m � b
ti R°
N n
f7 °'
m o
rn. y
RRR P �
O �
N b
H �
W
Ct
n
Ct
d
�Q
D4 l
• W N N N N N N N N N N r.. 00 llK////
O \O 00 �] O� to W N �. O oo J
A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
co cu cu co co cu c� cu co m co co m co C.
R° o
0
A A A A A A A A A A A A A A O
N (D (D (D N CD (D (D CD (D
A A n A A 0 O A
R A A
R y
0 0 •r o 0 0 0 Cl .- 0 0 0 •- o c
rn 00 o ON o` LA �o 00 ►�
r-� '-•� W W N N �--� N O O �-` N �-` �-' y � �
J�, 00 O J O N 00 00 N O\ 00 n to
110 LO \D 110 oo LD ko 00 110 w (vv�O to 00 Q
Ln .A •A � U v. vW, � , oo Uh in
y 0
cr
¢ CD
E �G ►O
CD
N C A deD
oNCD M
o a
�. cr
A N
ITI n
tr " o
00 p fA
A eo
00
� y
c.
N R ft
O E n
N •
M
rt
d
lD b
n�
rj
� N
Attachment E
I CHILDREN IN GROUP HOME PLACEMENTS
Compared by Ethnicity
January 1996
Grp.Home Plcments: African-Amer: Cauc: Latin: Other: Total:
101 71 20 09 201
By RCL
14-12 21 22 03 00 46
11-10 51 28 12 04 95
09-08 19 18 05 04 46
07-05 10 03 00 01 14
101 71 20 09 201
By Location:
Within CCC 51 25 12 06 94
Neighboring County* 33 16 04 01 54
Outside Region** 17 30 04 02 53
101 71 20 09 201
In A.A. Group Homes
(by AMARCH Def.) 47 06 08 04 65
Within CCC 42 06 08 04 60
Neighboring County 05 00 00 00 05
* includes Alameda, San Francisco, Solano, Marin
** in decreasing older, includes Sacramento, Stanislaus, Sonoma, San Benito , San Joaquin, Shasta.
(CRPU4:GHPLCLST.Jan)
pb
Degree of �n
Y
C)
n
� �_ . of
_C-D
a � W
Cn
3
Y
i �
' o
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Social Service Department
DATE: February 16, 1996
TO: Family & Human Services Committee
FROM: John Cullen, Director
J
SUBJECT: Children's Services - Out-of-Home Care
The attached report is submitted to the Family & Human Services Committee of the Board of
Supervisors in response to allegations made by AMARCH(Association for Minority Adolescents
in Residential Care Homes) members Al Simmons and Faye Crosley, and the Rev. Curtis
Timmons regarding our Out-of-Home Care.Program for.children.
Specifically, they have alleged that the Department:
♦ fails to place African-American children with relatives;
♦ doesn't follow the law regarding ethnic matching;
♦ doesn't place African-American children with same-race caretakers;
♦ fails to use African-American-owned group homes, thus causing many to go out of
business.
The attached report provides very detailed information on our out-of-home care program
including: program purpose; descriptions of types of out-of-home care settings; placement
trends; summaries of placements by ethnicity and type of care; criteria used and process for
making a group home placement; legal requirement regarding ethnic matching; and, some of the
efforts undertaken by the Department to focus efforts toward family maintenance and family
preservation in our high risk communities. In attempting to answer specific allegations and
focus the scope of review, we have also developed a number of charts which provide specific
data on placements.
It is the Department's hope that this material is responsive to the requests of Family & Human
Services Committee and that it formally and finally puts allegations presented by AMARCH and
Rev. Timmons to rest.
JBC:sjb
Fosteare.rpt