The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 06181996 - C57 • C.57 i THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on June 18, 1996 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Bishop, DeSaulnier, Torlakson, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT: Grand Jury Report IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the 1995-96 Contra Costa Grand Jury Report No. 9607, "Planning Delays Children's Permanent Placement, " is REFERRED to the County Administrator, the Internal Operations Committee and the Family and Human Services Committee. I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: June 18, 1996 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By� ,Deputy cc: County Administrator Internal Operations Committee Family and Human Services Committee i I A REPORT BY THE 1995-96 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY 1020 Ward Street Martinez, California 94553 (510) 646-2345 RECEIVE® i JUN �-61996 Report No. 9607 CLFR CONTRA6 ARDCOSTA CO.ISORS I PLANNING DELAYS CHILDREN'S PERMANENT PLACEMENT s., Approved by the Grand Jury: Date: RAMIRO /G JURY FOREMAN Accepted for Filing: / Date: JOHN`F. DE POEL �� JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT PLANNING DELAYS CHILDREN'S PERMANENT PLACEMENT BACKGROUND The 1993-94 Grand Jury issued two (2) reports critical of the Contra Costa County Social Service Department - Child Welfare Division regarding their foster care and adoption procedures. Report #9402 dealt with issues of adoption versus long-term foster care. Report #9405 focused on the lack of communication between the Department of Social Service and care givers, including potential adoptive parents. The 1994-95 Grand Jury Report#9509 was critical of the length of time children wait for permanent placement. The 1995-96 Grand Jury conducted a study of the Contra Costa County department of Social Service- Child Welfare Division's progress on addressing some issues raised in the above-mentioned reports. FINDINGS 1. In response to the 1994-95 Contra Costa Grand Jury request, the County contracted with a consultant to set up a viable schedule for redesign of the adoption program. In some areas, the Child Welfare Division is more than three(3) months behind the agreed-upon time frame. 2. The Child Welfare Division appointed a training coordinator who schedules in-house training sessions on child welfare issues. Relevant sessions are being held in cooperation with the University of California at Davis and California State University at Fresno. 1 3. The Child Welfare Division has instituted cross-training with the Juvenile Court and Family Law Attorneys. 4. There has been no progress in producing a current training manual. 5. The Child Welfare Division has conducted two county-wide training forums for Social Workers on Concurrent Planning and Kinship Care involving potential foster parents, care givers, adoptive parents, and representatives of the legal community. Concurrent Planning is defined as"simultaneous planning for alternate permanent placement during the family reunification process." 6. Program-specific classes are offered to foster parents, relative care givers, and adoptive parents through the Contra Costa Community College District. 7. The Social Service Department is committed to: a. Design a concurrent planning model by June 1996. b. Organizational changes for implementation of the model to be completed by December 1996. 2 C. Subsequent evaluation by October 1997. 8. Professionally developed criteria are available to determine which children are candidates for concurrent planning. 9. Children in dependency cases are still waiting excessive lengths of time, often exceeding two years, for permanent placement. Permanent placement can be long-term foster care, kinship care(family member) or adoption. 10. Court continuances are sometimes necessary because Social Workers have failed to prepare documents in a timely manner. 11. Outside factors, i.e., family law attorneys, often defeat the Child Welfare Division's commitment to early permanency planning. 12. When management of the Child Welfare Division decided to combine Family Reunification Workers and Family Maintenance Workers, the union required extensive negotiations and redundant training. 13. The new state-wide Child Welfare System/Case Management System(CWS/CMS) which facilitates permanency planning, will not be fully phased in until 1998. However, Contra Costa County requested an earlier implementation date from the California State Social 3 Service Department. 14. The new CWS/CMS System will automate such items as: a. a common repository of statewide data b. standardization of documents C. inter-county tracking capability for children in dependency cases 15. The Contra Costa County Social Service Department has participated in the design in the CWS/CMS computer system. CONCLUSIONS 1. Although the 1995-96 Grand Jury recognizes the Child Welfare Division's commitment to expedite a child's permanent placement, the Division continues to be bogged down in the planning process rather than moving into the implementation process. 2. The absence of a training manual hinders the ability of Social Workers to provide up-to- date and consistent services to the children. 4 x. 57 3. Unions, courts and family law attorneys need to commit to the permanency planning process instead of creating barriers. 4. While some progress on Permanency Planning is evident, the Child Welfare Division needs to accelerate its progress on implementation. RECOMMENDATIONS The 1995-96 Contra Costa County Grand Jury recommends that the Social Service Department- Child Welfare Division: 1. produce an updated training manual that reflects current polices for Social Workers; 2. promptly implement the professionally developed criteria for determining a child's eligibility for permanent placement; 3. persist in the dialogue with the unions, courts and family law attorneys to remove barriers for implementation of permanent placement; 4. maintain the commitment to CWS/CMS training and implementation as currently planned; 5. require system-specific computer training of Social Workers. 5 COMMENTS The issues of foster care and adoption are a national concern. Contra Costa County has the opportunity to provide leadership in the area of children's welfare through its commitment to improving foster care and permanent placement. The 1995-96 Contra Costa County Grand Jury believes that without commitment to realistic completion and implementation, the process of planning can be limitless. The Child Welfare Division must start implementation now. 6 SECTION 933 (C) OF THE CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE §933. Comments and Reports on Grand Jury Recommendations. (c) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body, and every elective county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All such comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the_ grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. One copy shall be placed on file with the applicable grand jury final report by, and in the control of the currently impan- eled grand jury, where it shall be maintained for a minimum of five years. Leg.H. 1961 ch. 1284, 1963 ch. 674, 1974 chs. 393, 1396, 1977 chs. 107, 187, 1980 ch. 543, 1981 ch. 203, 1982 ch. 1408 §5, 1985 ch. 221 §1, effective July 12, 1985, 1987 ch. 690 §1, 1988 ch. 1297. Cross-References Admissible evidence. Penal Code §939.6. "Grand jury" defined. Penal Code 3888. Grand jury report to be based only on own investigation. Penal Code §939.9.