Proposition 36 Findings: Generally agree with the findings with the following clarifications: • Drug testing is just one way to measure progress. The community-based Substance Abuse Treatment Providers have contact with participants at least twice per week for a minimum of three hours and regularly evaluate and document their progress. • Substance abuse is a chronic condition and relapse is an expected occurrence in many cases. It often takes a number of treatment episodes before a person is able to maintain sobriety and the person must exercise constant vigilance. Proposition 36 treatment is often the first treatment episode for the participants. • In San Mateo County, the completion rate of those that enroll in treatment ranges from approximately 29% to 35% depending on the level of treatment. • Senate Bill 803 is one of multiple bills currently being considered at the state level. Unfortunately, as of this writing, it appears that none of these bills will pass through the Legislature in 2005. However, Senate Bill 803 appears to be the most likely to pass eventually. Since the June 14, 2005 issuance of the Grand Jury report on Proposition 36, Senate Bill 803 has been amended twice. Some of the key changes include:
- Striking language appropriating $150,000,000 annually from 2006-07 until 2010-11 and inserting language appropriating $120,000,000 annually until 2010-11. - Expressly prohibiting the use of SACPA funds for drug treatment and probation supervision associated with drug treatment courts established pursuant to Article 2 or 3 of the Health and Safety Code. - Striking language allowing for the use of SACPA funds for mandatory drug testing services. - Striking language creating the presumption of treatment eligibility in certain cases. - Expressly prohibiting the use of SACPA funds for the reimbursement of incarceration costs. - Striking language making a parolee who has committed a second nonviolent drug possession parole violation ineligible for continued parole and subject to reincarceration. Replacing it with language allowing for reincarceration or intensified parole conditions to achieve the goals of drug treatment. - Expanding the factors a court shall consider when considering intensifying or altering the drug treatment plan of a defendant. • The County has not conducted a local evaluation of its Drug Court program for several years.
Recommendations: 1. The Board of Supervisors should take steps to relieve the burden, which Proposition 36 has placed on the Probation Department and the Court. Response: Agree. A significant number of Proposition 36 participants fail to report to Probation let alone attend treatment. It was reported at the June 2005 Workgroup meeting that there were 62 first time violations filed in Redwood City Court and that 42 of those were for not reporting to Probation. To address this situation, the Board of Supervisors recently allocated funding for an additional Probation Officer and a Human Service’s Assessor. The Assessor will meet with participants immediately following their sentencing hearings to explain treatment and the assessment process, instill in them the importance of treatment, clarify program procedures, and reinforce the Court’s expectations. The additional Probation Officer increases the program’s ability to respond more rapidly to Court violations and failures to enroll in programs. Additionally, the Probation Department has recently developed new computer software to streamline documents to the Court. The new software allows Probation Officers to complete approximately seven to ten violations per hour versus two to four violations per hour under the old system. The increased staffing and the software upgrade should allow Probation Officers to spend more time with program participants, resulting in better outcomes. 2. The Board of Supervisors should request the State legislature to amend Proposition 36 in accordance with Senate Bill 803. Response: Agree. While Senate Bill 803 will likely not pass through the Legislature in 2005, it has the opportunity to address some key elements regarding the effective treatment should it pass next year. The most significant component of SB 803 – appropriation of at least $120,000,000 annually – must remain in this bill or any bill that addresses SACPA. While language stating the intent of the Legislature is helpful, it does not assure the annual appropriation of funds needed to sustain SACPA mandates. 3. The Board of Supervisors should continue to urge the Legislature to formulate new legislation should Senate Bill 803 fail, which will reconfigure Proposition 36, and also allow funds to be used for programs proved to be more effective.
Response: Agree. The Proposition 36 Workgroup will monitor all legislation related to Proposition 36 and continue to work with the County’s legislative advocates and statewide groups to correct some of the inherent problems with the legislation, most notably funding, the allocation formula and enforcement options. 4. The Sheriff and Probation Department should develop a standardized protocol in cooperation with cities for drug testing that includes random basis testing and frequency of testing. Response: Disagree. The Probation Department is required by the Court to randomly drug test probationers. In the past calendar year, Probation has administered over 25,000 drug tests in the Adult Division. With the additional Probation Officer and efficiencies achieved with the new software, Probation should be able to complete this task without the help of the Sheriff’s Department or other police departments in the County. Children and Family Services Findings: Staff is in general agreement with the Grand Jury’s findings. The Grand Jury recognized many improvements that Children and Family Services (CFS) has made in the last few years, and staff continues to work toward further improving services to the children and families of San Mateo County. Recommendations: The Board of Supervisors should direct the Human Services Agency Director to direct: 1.0 The management of CFS to increase support for foster parents by: 1.1 Completing the Foster Parent Bill of Rights by September 1, 2005. Response: Agree. The Foster Parents Bill of Rights has been completed and was reviewed by the Foster Parent Association as well as Human Services Agency (HSA) staff. It will be submitted to the Board of Supervisors in September. 1.2 Completing the Foster Parents’ Manual by September 1, 2005. Response: Agree. Following review by the Board of the Foster Parents’ Association and HSA staff, the Foster Parent’s Handbook was completed August 22, 2005. It is anticipated that the Handbook will be distributed in early October, with the information online by January 2006. 1.3 Providing foster parents with a Health and Education passport for each foster child within 30 days of placement. Response: Agree. CFS policy is to provide a Health and Education Passport (HEP) to the resource parent, group home, FFA, etc. as soon as possible but no later than 30 days after initial placement of a child into foster care, in accordance with the Welfare and Institutions Code. This policy has been followed in the Family Reunification and Permanent Placement units. Recent process improvements to further reinforce this policy include development of a Health Passport Interview Form to be used by Social Workers as a template for obtaining health care information for children coming into foster care and inclusion in the HEP, and requesting Supervisors to remind their staff of the policy and to monitor adherence. In the Court Investigations unit, this policy had not been followed since most children in this unit are not technically “placed,” but rather are in sometimes lengthy periods of shelter care awaiting Court jurisdiction and disposition including possible placement in an ongoing home. The Court Investigations unit has now been instructed to provide parents with an HEP within 30 days of the child’s placement in shelter care. 1.4 Assuring each foster child has had a physical and mental health assessment at the time of placement. Response: Agree. Every child entering a shelter care home receives a physical exam prior to admission. Further, every child receives a Child Health and Disability Prevention (CHDP) exam within 30 days of a Court dispositional order for placement. Many children are referred for a psychological evaluation as a part of the Court jurisdiction/disposition process. All children who are in out of home placement are referred to the San Mateo County Child Abuse Treatment Program for mental and physical health assessment and treatment services. The Child Abuse Treatment Program collaborates with Partners for Safe and Healthy Children (PSHC), the Edgewood Center for Children and Families, and Youth and Family Enrichment Services (YFES). PSHC is a multidisciplinary team formed in 2005 with members from County Public Health Services, Mental Health Services, Alcohol and Drug, and CFS to provide services for children 0-5 years and their families. Edgewood Center and YFES provides services for children ages 6-18 years and their families. 2.0 The management of CFS to work with the Foster Parent Liaison to: 2.1 Provide a working environment with additional privacy to enable the Liaison to speak openly and fairly to all. 2.2 Develop a carefully crafted official job description that delineates the Liaison’s responsibilities and authority and grants real authority to act on behalf of foster parents. 2.3 Identify neutral areas away from CFS, such as an independent office and private places in schools, churches or community centers, where the Liaison can meet with foster parents. Response: Agree with recommendations 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3. CFS has worked with the Foster Parent Association Board over the last year to improve the effectiveness of the Liaison. The job description and responsibilities have been upgraded. Conversion of the Liaison to a supervisory level position, reporting to the Director of CFS, will be recommended in the September budget revisions. Following the hiring process, which will include input from the Foster Parent Association, the Liaison will be relocated by November 2005 to an offsite office in the community that will be accessible to the foster parents. 2.4 Upgrade the CFS quarterly newsletter to foster parents to a monthly newsletter which would communicate important information, clarify areas of confusion, suggest solutions to common problems, encourage greater participation in the Foster Parents Association. Response: Agree in part. Beginning in September 2005, the CFS newsletter to foster parents will be sent out every other month instead of quarterly. It will focus on changes in policy and procedure, Agency changes, and clarification of any current issues. Updates to the Foster Parent Handbook will be included in the mailings. Any time-sensitive information between issues will be distributed in special mailings. 3.0 The management of CFS to explore possibilities for eliminating or simplifying the steps involved in writing social workers’ reports and thereby decrease the time spent on those reports. Suggestions include additional clerical help and use of handheld electronic devices. Response: Agree. All staff have been provided with a QuickPad, a portable word processing keyboard device that allows for the recording of contacts, draft reports, etc. in the field for later transmission to their desktop applications. The possibility of filing petitions and other Court documents electronically is being explored with the Juvenile Court. Other technological advances are considered as new devices become available. A specific clerical person in each region has been designated to format and/or finalize court reports when requested. An additional clerical position was added in the June budget revisions to support staff and the court process, and another clerical position will be requested in the September budget revise to help facilitate the out of home placement and payment process. 4.0 The management of CFS to: 4.1 Evaluate and strengthen the initial training program for social workers. Response: Agree. The curriculum for induction training will be revised by the end of the year to reflect new best practices, with emphasis given to the role of Resource Parents as a support resource for Social Workers, as well as an ongoing source of information about the children that they care for. Starting with the next induction training, one day will be designated as “A Day in the Life of a Resource Parent,” at which Resource Parent representatives will address the trainees on issues and challenges they face with children in their care and with Social Worker staff. Another new component of the training is the “buddy system,” in which Social Worker trainees are paired with experienced Social Workers two days a week for three weeks, first in an emergency response unit and later in a family maintenance/family reunification unit. 4.2 Become accredited by October 1, 2006. Reports should be made to the Grand Jury on progress toward accreditation every quarter commencing September 30, 2005. Response: Agree. HSA has started the accreditation process in response to previous Grand Jury reports, as a top priority project of the new Planning and Evaluation Manager. A consultant has been hired to review a number of Agency polices, procedures, and protocols and prepare for the Council on Accreditation (COA) review process. Following implementation plan development, the COA process takes approximately 18 months, with full accreditation expected by Spring 2008. Interim progress reports will be provided to the Grand Jury through the County Manager’s Office. 4.3 Reevaluate its regional model as regards CFS. Regionalization for community-based prevention services could be maintained, but all child welfare services should be centralized. Response: Disagree. In response to the Blue Ribbon Committee and several previous Grand Jury reports, CFS has moved toward more centralized management and administration. In 2004, a Director with sole responsibility for all CFS programs was appointed and several program managers/staff and programs were relocated to the Central office. In addition, a Labor Management Committee (LM) was established to evaluate the effectiveness of regionalization and make recommendations; further changes in organizational structure resulted from completion of several staff surveys in early 2005. However, a key component of effective community-based multidisciplinary services is a strong community presence. The placement of intake and ongoing staff in the regions working with partner organizations allows CFS to better serve families and be seen as part of the community. An LM subcommittee is looking at additional support for the regional CFS staff, to ensure adequate resources to serve the community. The Child Welfare Systems Improvement Plan has a strong emphasis on community-based service; enhancement of this system is an ongoing concern. CFS and the LM Committee continue to look for additional ways to support staff in the regional offices. 4.4 Monitor frequency and thoroughness of personnel evaluations to ensure that all professional staff is evaluated annually. Response: Agree in part. The County requires that employee performance evaluations be completed for probationary employees, either three or six months from the initial date of hire. Regular performance evaluations are completed for full time, permanent employees every two years as required by MOU agreements. Starting in 2004, CFS management received and reviewed regular quarterly reports on all past due performance evaluations. By December 2004, CFS was in substantial compliance with the performance evaluation criteria; continued compliance is being monitored. 4.5 Take full advantage of existing technology, such as electronic transmission of reports, acceptance of electronic signatures, and any other support services within the County. Response: Agree. As noted in our response to recommendation 3.0, the possibility of filing petitions and other Court documents electronically is being explored with the Juvenile Court and other technological advances are being considered as they become available. However, the transmission of electronic reports and acceptance of electronic signatures is a complex issue, as some documents and attachments filed with the Juvenile Court require original signatures. However, CFS will continue to work with the Juvenile Court and service providers to establish processes leading to expanded use of technology. 4.6 Meet, or continue to meet, regularly with other community resources, such as LAPP, Family Service Agency, San Mateo Medical Center pediatricians and others to improve the relationship of CFS with the court, social service agencies, medical professionals, foster parents and associations. Response: Agree. As a part of the Human Services Agency, CFS embraces the spirit of community involvement and collaboration. CFS staff participate in numerous community meetings with schools, private community-based agencies and other community organizations to support our community partnerships working to develop additional resources at the community level to support protection, prevention, and permanence for children. This involves a interaction with a wide variety of programs, as follows: Children and Youth System of Care (CYSOC): weekly meetings with the directors of CFS, Juvenile Probation, and Mental Health that focus on children in out of home placements. Pediatric Death Review: monthly meetings with staff from San Mateo Medical Center, Health Department, CFS, District Attorney, and law enforcement agencies to review deaths of minors and identify needs for preventive services. Partners for Safe and Healthy Children (PSHC): collaborative partnership of San Mateo County Mental Health, Public Health Services, Alcohol and Drug Services, and CFS that meets on a weekly basis to coordinate treatment services for children who are receiving services from CFS due to abuse and/or neglect. Family Services Agency: although the Family Services Agency no longer holds the therapy contract, CFS staff does meet with FSA staff on a regular basis to coordinate services at the Visitation Center. Foster Parent Association Board: the CFS Director and Centralized Child Welfare Services staff meet with the Board Members of the Foster Parent Association on a monthly basis. Legal Advocates for Permanent Parenting (LAPP): the Centralized Child Welfare Services Manager meets with LAPP on a regular basis to plan joint training programs for CFS staff and foster parents. Adolescent Collaborative Action Team (ACAT): the CFS Adolescent Services Manager co-chairs this group, which meets monthly to develop and coordinate services for adolescents including the comprehensive strategic plan that looks at seven critical areas. Court Roundtables: the CFS Director meets with the two Juvenile Court Judges, County Counsel, representatives from the Private Defenders Panel, Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASAs), Juvenile Probation, Mental Health, and other court-related staff on a quarterly basis to discuss pertinent Court-related issues. Child Welfare Services System Improvement Plan (SIP) Oversight Committee: community stakeholders from both public and private agencies meet on a quarterly basis to review and participate in the SIP for provision of prevention, protection, and permanence services for children in San Mateo County. Citizens Review Panel: mandated by the State Department of Social Services, this group of citizens and agencies meets monthly to review CFS operations, policies, and procedures. A review of 37 youth who had reentered the foster care system in less than 12 months was recently completed. San Mateo County is one of only three counties that have a functioning CRP. Fatherhood Collaborative: the Fatherhood Collaborative Governing Board consists of 15 County and community partners meet that monthly to provide oversight for the Fatherhood Project and looking at ways to better engage partners in the CW system. HSA/CFS is a member of the Governing Board and provides support to this collaborative. Housing Our People Effectively (HOPE): Centralized Child Welfare Services staff participate on the leadership committee of this countywide collaborative of representatives from public and private agencies, with the mission of ending homelessness in San Mateo County. Interagency Placement Review Committee (IPRC): CFS staff participate on this interagency committee composed of representatives from San Mateo County Mental Health, Juvenile Probation, and County Office of Education to consider requests for placement of children at levels above that of a Foster Family Home. Youth Campus Planning Committee: the CFS Director participates on the committee with representatives from Juvenile Probation and the Juvenile Court to plan for the new Youth Services Center that is presently under construction. Additionally, CFS staff in the regional offices participate in numerous community meetings with schools, private community based agencies, and other community organizations to support community partnerships working to develop additional resources at the community level to support protection, prevention, and permanence for children. Integrating Emancipated Foster Youth into Society Findings: Staff is in general agreement with the Grand Jury’s findings. The Grand Jury recognized that Adolescent Services has taken several important steps to provide for a coordinated transition for adolescents moving from foster care to independence. Recommendations: The Board of Supervisors should direct the Human Services Agency Director to: 1. Transfer two or more social workers who are dedicated to youth in the ILSP, ILP Aftercare Services, THPP, and WIA Youth Education and Employment Services, into Adolescent Services from Children and Family Services. Response: Disagree. Adolescent Services is part of Children and Family Services (CFS). Currently, there are three Social Workers assigned to cover the Permanency Planning (PP) cases in the unit. Caseloads in this unit, as in all CFS units, are determined by a workload standard that is uniform across all CFS units. The unit currently justifies three Social Workers based on the caseload size. In addition to these three workers, Independent Skills Living Program and Employment Services staffs team with the Social Workers to provide expanded services to these youth. As caseloads grow in this unit, additional Social Workers will be assigned as needed. 2. Increase housing options for current and emancipated foster youth. Response: Agree. The Board of Supervisors (BOS) authorized $750,000 to support the development of a transitional housing unit for these youth at the June budget hearings. The BOS also authorized $180,000 in stipends to assist emancipated youth with housing, school, training, and employment. This program will be implemented over the next several months. HSA will be analyzing the service needs of emancipated youth and reporting back to the BOS in December 2005. 3. Reclassify the Workforce Investment Act staff to permanent status. Response: Agree. Two Extra Help positions will be converted to permanent ESS positions in the September budget revisions, to be covered by a combination of Workforce Investment Act (WIA) and Children and Family Services funding. 4. Complete the planned Adolescent Services survey of all program participants to gauge the effectiveness of the programs and find areas where improvements could be made and provide a base for follow-up. Response: Agree. Adolescent Services completed a survey with ILP youth towards the end of the program term, with general questions on what they thought about the program. Several youth focus groups were also held to gauge the effectiveness of these programs. The results of these surveys were used to improve the curriculum for 2005-2006 ILP training. Assessment of survey information will continue, with changes to be made as necessary. 5. Provide improved transportation options to Independent Living Skills Program participants. Response: Agree. Current transportation systems will be reviewed to develop plans for better utilization of existing resources. Expanding the use of bus passes and offering mileage to foster parents could increase the options available to older youth to help them become more independent and experienced in using the public transportation system. Payment of mileage expenses to foster parents for transporting youth to the evening Independent Living classes will also be explored. 6. Develop better outreach programs to inform and involve eligible participants not currently participating in Adolescent Services programs. Response: Agree. As the Grand Jury report notes, there has been an increase in the number of youth participating in Adolescent Services Programs. Participants in the ILP have gone from 25 to 50 in the last two years. This year, a new contract with College of San Mateo was completed to further expand the ILP program. Another opportunity for growth is the Transitional Housing Program; brochures and information notices will be developed and sent to emancipated youth and youth currently in active Adolescent Services cases.
|
