Ociri’irciittiiii'.-.genda CiaiH

County of Santa Clara
Social Services Agency

I '-j, iiju-'

, oOUiv^
O
A.

Department of Family and Children's Services

-TV

'?•

-7

4/

CSFCSSA02 051904

Prepared by: Mary D. Patterson
Special Assistant for
Children's Services

Reviewed by: Nonna Doctor Sparks
Director, Department of
Family and Children's
Services
DATE:

May 19, 2004

TO:

Supervisor James T. Beall, Jr., Chairperson
Supervisor Don Gage, Vice-Chairperson
Children, Seniors & Families Committee

FROM:

Will Lightbourne

Agency Director, Social Services Agency
SUBJECT: Alternative Uses of the Children's Shelter and Assessment Center

RFCOMMENDED ACTION

Consider recommendation from the Social Services Agency to authorize and direct the

Agency to proceed with planning for implementation of a six—month pilot program at the
BdAi'd of Supir'rvi'EiOl

l\rii
C'onaid F, Oage Bl3riC3 AlV'Si^do, P6ti0 McHugl'i, Jirn Be^ll, Liz

F ouiitv' E-ocutivp Polor Fjjttoo Ji

1

Committee Agenda Date dday 1 9, 2004

Children's Shelter and Assessment Center. Planning includes seeking approval from the State

Community Care Licensing Division and identifying funding sources to reimburse pilot
program costs. Forward final recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for approval.
FISCAL rMPLICATIONS

Once approval is obtained from the State Community Care Licensing Division, funding
resources will be identified, consistent with current Board budget policies.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION

At the February 18, 2004 meeting of the Children, Seniors and Families Committee, the
Social Services Agency presented a report on the recommendations of the Shelter Use
Committee for potential alternative uses ofthe Children's Shelter and Assessment Center
facility. This report presents additional information and details components oftwo of the
recommended uses. Once the Board of Supervisors approves an alternative use, a specific plan

of implementation will be reviewed in the Children, Seniors and Families Committee between
August and December 2004.

BACKGROUND

As directed by the Children, Seniors and Families Committee in June 2003, a task force of
community stakeholders and stafffrom County agencies was foraied to recommend potential

alternative uses of the County Children's Shelter and Assessment Center. The Sheltei Use
Committee met for the first time in September 2003 and continued to meet in fall and in
subcommittees through January 2004 to review focus group findings, research reports, fedeial
and state outcome measures, and local need and capacity. The Committee, operating undei a
set of assumptions and with a defined charge, narrowed down recommendations to three
ideas. All three ideas reflect repeated themes supported by community residents and research
in the field:

• Educational Support for Foster Youth of All Ages
• Family Mental Flealth Services
• Family Visitation

Once the recommendations were presented, the Shelter Use Committee completed its charge,
and the Social Services Agency has pursued more detailed information in order to inform the
Board of Supervisors as it seeks to provide direction for potential alternative uses of the
facility. That information is provided below.

Boa r d of £:u p e tv I so rs: Donald F Gacie, Blanca
Count','' Executive Peter Kutras Jr.

Alvarado, Pete McHugh, Jim Beall, Liz Kniss
2

Corntnitteti Agenda Date :May 1 d, dUU4

CHILDREN'S SHELTER & ASSESSMENT CENTER PRIMARY FUNCTION

The Shelter will continue to operate principally as a short-tenn, emergency care facility for
children for whom appropriate placements are not immediately available, and as the major
intake/assessment center for the child welfare system. Based on placement resources and

experiences over the past year, the Agency anticipates that the average daily population for
this usage will be approximately 25, with periodic surges up to 40. The necessary capacity is
preserved to aceommodate the higher number when needed. The Shelter will also continue to
house an Assessment Center that has served about 1400 children a year.

The reduced population at the Children's Shelter has been due to the Department's tremendous
success and speed at identifying children's relatives and qualified, experienced foster family
homes as placement options. While fewer children are staying at the Children's Shelter, and
for shorter periods of time, the County investment in the facility continues to support the
important care and treatment of the children who reside there.(See Attachment)

An option that was not recommended by the task force and is not recommended by the
Agency is to utilize the non-emergency beds as longer-term residential placement. The
Agency believes this is not needed and such a use is contrary to the principle of limiting
institutional care to small facilities. In addition, properly staffing the remaining beds as a
treatment facility would be prohibitively costly.
LICENSING AND REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS

The Community Care Licensing Division(CCL)of the California State Department of Social
Services has been contacted regarding regulations and restrictions on the use of the Shelter
facility for the proposed alternative uses. The pre-eminent consideration of CCL is to assure
the safety and confidentiality of Shelter residents. Regular visitors to any part of the facility,
who are not involved with the care and supervision of the Shelter resident population, would
need to be strictly checked, approved and supervised at all times.

The possibility of physieal modifications to the facility to separate residents from visitors may
be considered. However, other well-established priorities were stated frequently by

community members:

Priority; Maintain the open, attractive, welcoming physical environment of the facility.
Board of Supetvisots. Donald F. Gage, Blanca Alvarado, Pete McHugh, Jirn Beall, Liz KnI
Count','■ Executive Peter Kutrae Jr

3

Committee Agenda Date :Mav 1 9, 2004

Priority: Keep costs of any new programming minimal.

Priority: Utilize the space more fully to meet the needs of children & families m the system.
The following procedures, if implemented in any program, may help assr re that the priorities
are balanced, and that licensing regulations are met. However, any program proposal must be
submitted and approved by CCL in detail:

1. Restrict number of participants plus staff for a program to 40 or le^s
2. Obtain background clearance of all program staff from CCL
3. Assure vigilant Check-In/Check-Out procedures for program part icipants
4. Maintain constant supervision of program participants, and always maintain
participants within sight of an approved staff person

5. Contain program participants to one cottage and tightly schedule tl: eir movement on
campus. Movement on the campus would be supervised at all time
5.

A. EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT FOR FOSTER YOUTH: PILOT PROG lAM
Proposed Services:

a. Identification and assessment of children and youth experiencing l^rriers to educational
success such as no access to high-quality preschool, frequent school moves, difficulty

maintaining study skills and engagement in school, mental and ph} sical health

limitations

b. Pre-school

c. Tutoring

d. Assistance to parents and caregivers in navigating school and human services systems
e. Linkages to Independent Living Program, enrichment activities and other services

Proposed Target Population: Child Welfare supervised children who need additional
educational and learning support. Of the approximately 2200 children in he Department of
Family and Children's Services census, the pilot program would target 20 to 25 per month.
Estimated Cost of Six-Month Pilot: $120,000

Program Coordinator and Assistant
(contracted or employed)

$80,000

Additional Human Resources: Assessment tool developer.

$37,500

Board of Supervisors: Donald F. Gage, Blanca Alvarado, Pete McHugh,.Jirn Beall, Liz Kniss
Count',' EiK.ecutive Peter Kutras Jr.

4

Committee Agenda Date :May 1 9, 2CiCi4

teachers, tutors (contracted or employed)
Office Supplies

$2,500

Facilities and Equipment(use pre-existing)

$0

B. FAMILY MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES: PILOT PROGRAM

Proposed Services:

a. Identification and assessment of children, their parents and caregivers and their specific
needs to achieve reunification and prevent re-entry into the system
b. Therapeutic parenting classes and parent support groups

c. Individual and family counseling, including transitional and crisis services, offered
in-home and at the facility

d. Linkages to other mental health services

Proposed Target Population: Child Welfare supervised ehildren, their parents and caregivers,
based on assessment. Of the approximately 2200 children in the Department of Family and
Children's Services census, the pilot program would target 10 to 15 of those families and
caregivers per month.
Estimated Cost of Six-Month Pilot: $120,000

Program Coordinator/Family Care Manager and

$80,000

Assistant (contracted or employed)

Additional Human Resources: Therapists, counselors and

$62,500

care managers (contracted or employed)
Office Supplies

$2,500

Facilities and Equipment(use pre-existing)

$0

C. FAMILY VISITATION

The need for appropriate facilities to accommodate productive and nurturing family visitation
sessions was identified by the Shelter Use Committee as a serious gap in Santa Clara County
and a critical component to supporting the successful reunification of families. The Social
Board of Supervisors: Donald F Gage, Blanca Alvarado, Pete McHugh, Jirn Beall, Liz Kniss
L'-ountv E:;recutive: Peter Kutras Jr.

5

Committee Agenda Date :Mav 1 9

2004

Services Agency will work with Family Court and Juvenile Court to identify appropriate
facilities in the County. The Children's Shelter and Assessment Center cumently offers limited
visitation capability for Shelter residents and their families. The Social Services Agency does
not recommend expanding that service at this time beyond its current limited scope, due to the

challenges of obtaining required background clearances on a constantly changing stream of

individuals.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

As State funding streams evolve through the current budget process, proposed legislative

changes unfold, and a Title IV-E waiver request is pending from California, there may be
opportunities to pursue governmental funding sources for proposed alternative uses. Other
private and public funding sources can also be pursued.

Additionally, a common theme reflected in the Shelter Use Committee's recommendations is
the need for thorough and ongoing assessment of children, not simply related to the need foi
protective custody, but in order to best meet the overall developmental, edueational, mental
health and physical health needs of the ehild and his or her family and caregivers. Assessment
functions already take plaee at the facility, were part of the original vision, and expansion of
those functions is well aligned with the current direction of the Department of Family and
Children's Services, the stated priorities of the Shelter Use Committee, and are a fundamenta

building block of improved outcomes for children, as required by the federal government. The
educational and family mental health services proposed for pilot status include assessment

activities that may be reimbursable. Funding for such expanded assessment may also be
available through the federal Early Periodie Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment(EPSDT)
program and other sources.

rONSFOlIENCKS OF NEGATTVE ACTION

proposed
alternative
u ci i tt
uses of the Children's Shelter and Assessment Center facility developed by the Shelter Use

the recommended action will result in inaction on thei ,
Failure to approve-Committee.

STEPS FOLEOWTNG APPROVAL

Upon direction of the Children, Seniors and Families Committee, place this item on the Board
of Supervisors' agenda for direction and approval.

Board of Supetviso

Donald F Gage, Blanca Alvarado, Pete McHugh, Jitn Beall , Liz Kniss

u'.ountv Executive: Peter kutras Jr.

Committee Agenda Date :Mav 1 9, 2004

ATTACHMENTS

• Shelter Investment (Miscellaneous)

Boatd of Supeivisors; Donald F Cage, Blanca Alvarado, Pete McHugh, Jim Beall, Liz Kniss
u ountv Executive: Peter Kutras Jr

7

Children's Shelter Investment

May 2004
Average montniy
Fiscal Year

Budget
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000

2001
2002
2003
2004

2005*

population

Authorized Positions

$5,398,160
$6,345,962
$7,549,354
$10,431,882
$10,017,332
$11,494,772
$12,535,633
$13,920,697
$14,035,310
$10,824,795

82

N/A

91

N/A

101

N/A

140

124

143

133

162

123

167

91

173.5

59

151.5

29

110.5

N/A

*As proposed in the County Executive's Recommended Budget