Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05181999 - C111 C.111 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on May 18, 1999, by the following vote: AYES: SUPERVISORS GIOIA, UILKEMA, GERBER, DeSAUL?NTIER and CANCIAMILLA NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE On this date, the Board. of Supervisors were given a report on the consent calendar portion of the Agenda by the 1998-99 Contra Costa County Grand Jury. The report was titled, "The Present Status of Group Home Programs of the Child Welfare Division, `You've Come A song Way, Child Welfare! Deep on Truckin'!", No 9904. Following Board discussion, it was moved and seconded that the consent items be accepted. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED the attached Grand Jury Report No. 9904 is ACCEPTED. 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:May 18, .999 Phil Batchelor,Clerk of the Board of supervisors and Collaty Administrator By: Dep C A REPORT BY THE 1998-99 CONTRA COSTA COUP"TY GRAND JURY 725 Court Street Martinez, California 94553 RECE1 ±APRVED . j 2 91999 Report No. 99134 CLE IK BOARD OF 6UPERViSORS QN—MA STA Co. The Present Status of Group Home Programs of the Child Welfare Division "You've Come A Long Way, Child Welfare! Keep on Truckin'i" APPROVED BY THE GRAND JURY: Date: �-ILAWRENCE W. DENS GRAND JURY FOREMAN ACCEPTED FOR FILING: Date: ���� �f�t 1 ;JODZE�NOF V DE POEL THE SUPERIOR COURT S Section 933.(C) 933.05-California Government Code Segfion 93a, Comments and Reports on S ctio 233-05 Rest99nse to_Qrand ur Grand .lure Recommendations Recommendations-.Ccsntent (C) No later than 90 days after the Requirements, Personal Amearance by grand jury submits a final report on the Responding Party; Grand .lure tenon to operation of any public agency subject to Affected-Agency, its reviewing authority, the governing (a) Por purposes of subdivision (c) of bendy of the public agency shall comment Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, to the presiding judge of the superior court the responding person or entity shall on the findings and recommendations indicate one of the following; pertaining to matters under the control of (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. the governing body,and every elective (2)The respondent disagrees wholly or county officer or agency head for which partially with the finding, In which case the the grand jury has responsibility pursuant response shall specify the portion of the to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 finding that is disputed and shall include days to the presiding judge of the superior an explanation of the reasons therefor. court,with an information copy sent to the (3) for purposes of subdivision (c) of board of supervisors,on the findings and section 933, as to each grand jury recommendations pertaining to matters recommendation, the responding person under the control of that county officer or or entity shall report on of the following agency head and any agency or actions, agencies which that officer or agency (1)The recommendation has been head supervises or controls, In the findings implemented,with a summary regarding and recommendations, All such comments the implemented action. and reports shot[forthwith be submitted to (2) The recommendation has not yet been the presiding judge of the superior court implemented, but will be implemented in who impaneled the grand jury.A copy of the future,with a timeframe for all responses to grand jury reports shall be implementation. placed on file with the clerk of the public (3) The recommendation requires further agency and the office of the county clerk, analysis,with and explanation of the or the mayor when applicable, and shall scope and parameters of on analysis or remain on file in those offices.One copy study,and a timeframe for the matter to shall be placed on file with the applicable be prepared for discussion by the officer grand jury final report by, and In the or director of the agency or* department control of the currently impaneled grand being investigated or reviewed, including jury,where It shall be maintained for a the governing body of the public agency minimum of five years. Leg.H.1961 ch. when applicable.This timeframe shalt not 1284. 19,63 ch. 674, 1974 chs.393,1396. 1977 exceed six months from the date of chs. 107, 187, 1980 ch.543, 1981 ch.203, publication of the grand jury report. 1982 ch. 1408 sec.5, 1985 ch.221 sec.1,eff. (4)The recommendation will not be .7!12!85 ch 690 sec. 1. 1988 ch. 1297,1997 Implemented because it Is not warranted ch.443 or is not reasonable,with an explanation therefor. The foregoing are portions of Section 933, the responding party is responsible for compliance with all of the requirements. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRANT JURY REPORT NO. 9904 The Present Status of Group Home Programs of the Child Welfare Division "You've Come A Long Way,Child Welfare! Keep On Truckin't." BACKGROUND Since 1995, the Child Welfare Division(CWD)of the County Social Services Department has been.effecting positive changes in methods by which improved and more efficient services are delivered to at-risk-children within the County. The goal of CWD is to provide the at-risk-child with a safe and healthy environment directed toward a permanent home. The CWD utilizes homes that are State-licensed and staffed 24 hours per day, as mandated by law(Health& Safety Code, Title 22, Division 6, Chapters 1 & 5). The State rewires that CWD make one(1) unannounced visit per year, or on complaint of a resident(Section 16501.1,Welfare& Institution Code). PIN'DLNGS. 1. Three new approaches being developed by the CWD are the oversight of the Independent Living Skills Program (IL.SP), the Child Welfare Services/Case Management System(CWS/CMS)and improved foster home and group home programs. 2. CWD makes only one(1)unannounced visit per year, or on complaint of a resident. 3. Group home staffing numbers are not mandated by CWD, but by the State (Health& Safety Code, Title 22, Division 6, Chapters 1 & 5). 4. Some group homes visited were not well maintained. 5. In group homes, minors on probation are sometimes housed with non- probation children. 6. Parenting classes for parents reuniting with their children are available but optional, unless mandated by the court. 7. At a group home in West County, a physician reported one(1)case of over-use of prescribed medication. CONCLUSIONS: 1. Group homes appear to be operated by qualified staffs. Each staff'works as a team for the welfare and benefit of the children living therein. 2. Although CWD does an adequate job of supervision and monitoring of the group homes, there is room for improvement. 3. Until passage of SB 933, part of Ch. 311, Statue of 1998, effective October 1, 1998, group homes were not visited often enough to ensure efficient operation. 4. Poor maintenance of group homes is unacceptable in a tax-supported program. 5. When housed together, probationary children have an adverse influence on non-probationary children. THE 1998-1999 GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT CWID: A. require that management of all group homes maintain the state-required number of staff on each shift. B. stop housing probation department children with non-probationary children. C. conduct mandatory parenting classes for all parents reuniting with their children. D. have its staff'make monthly or bi-monthly visits to group homes. E. on their visits, check for and report signs of possible over-medication, or other aberrations. F. instruct the director of each home to review policy on medication with his/her workers and follow directions from each child's personal physician. G. require that group homes be kept in good physical repair.