Create Safe Places

Taking a Hard Look at Fixing the Budget

2009-08-18T10:46:00.000-07:00

My friend, Charlie, said that he does not think we should give the government more money to solve the budget crisis. He sees raising taxes or throwing money at the problem is the easy solution. I was in an intense discussion with him about what California’s leadership was doing, pointing out that the politicians did not want to raise taxes on those who could best afford it, but instead they “taxed” those who could least afford it by cutting back on the safety net of children, the elderly, the poor, the disabled.

Taxing those vulnerable and who are least able to resist is also “the easy solution.” These individuals are less likely to make the difference in an election and certainly in no position to gather signatures or congregate in protest because they are working too hard to live day to day.

The harder solution would be to look realistically at how much we are being taxed. What is the corporations, businesses and citizens contribution to our tax base? Is it fair, reasonable and equitable? After all, don’t they benefit from the services provided by the state and local government? Is it really out of proportion to the rest of the country? Are we really over taxed for what we get?

What about the waste within our government? I recently wrote about the cost of L.A. County to audit Hillsides’ contract estimated at $200,000 to $250,000 to recoup $37,000 (which we believe is in error). Is there a better, more efficient way to audit? I think so.

How about the number of audits we get from different departments (many times a duplication of what another entity has done), by the state and local governments? We have approximately two audits a month. What about the amount of time and staff it takes to submit an invoice to Los Angeles County?

A business would never stand for this. If I can identify waste in my little corner of business with the County, multiply it by the thousands who do business with the state and local governments. Let’s start at the State and then move to local entities. Do we need all the commissions that we have? Do the legislators need all the staff they have? Are there procedures that could be streamlined or eliminated? I am sure that, taking an honest look, we could preserve the level of services for those vulnerable and still cut costs.

An example of this is our local school district’s new Superintendent reorganized the infrastructure of the district and saved millions of dollars. We should do the same thing across the State and Counties.

But no, the sad thing is our government would rather raise taxes or cut services to those who need them without ever looking at the real culprit.

DCFS Chooses Procedures over Substance

2009-06-04T13:38:00.000-07:00

Recently the Department of Children and Family Services has been working on a pilot program to demonstrate that children will fair better if the residential treatment program includes parents in all phases of the child’s experience while in residence. In addition, the residential treatment program will follow the child’s return to the parents. It makes sense: the residential treatment program that knows the child in residence is better equipped to help the parents when the child returns home.

So I was hopeful that when Hillsides wraparound program was referred a child from another residential treatment center that DCFS would be open to and refer this child back to that residential treatment program for the follow up wraparound service. This was in line with this new movement of “the program that has the child in residence is the program that follows him home.”

I was wrong to assume that DCFS would follow sound substance over procedures.

It turned out that DCFS was not used to an agency turning down business in favor of another agency doing it. There was no clear cut procedure, so my attempt to refer the child back to the original agency was bungled and DCFS reaffirmed their decision to have Hillsides do the wraparound service.

Further attempts to get DCFS to “act in the best interest of the child” were ignored, in favor of following the proper procedures. This back and forth took four weeks of negotiations. Hillsides reluctantly opened the case when DCFS refused to reconsider, even though some of their administrators believed that it probably was in the best interest of the child for the other program to provide the wraparound services.

A few months ago, I praised DCFS for doing a study on the re-entry rate of children placed into the community from foster homes, kinship homes and group homes. It was an honest look at their practices and it came out of their concern that their re-entry rate rose from 4% to10% over a three year period. One of the major findings was that “there is a lack of after-care services to provide ongoing formal and informal support.”

What is most troubling about this situation is that, on the heals of releasing this report, the Department is unable to bend over backwards, jump through hoops, do what ever it takes to do what is clearly “in the best interest” of one of their clients.

The Final Story in a Series of Seven Stories

2009-03-16T14:11:00.000-07:00

T.C. had been neglected from infancy. Lacking in self-esteem, she had no hygiene or self-care abilities, and reacted with angry resistance to all efforts aimed at parenting her. Through patience, kindness and structure, her cottage staff achieved remarkable results and T. developed not only age-appropriate social skills, but a sense of her self-worth.

Admitted 3/27/03 and discharged 5/17/05; readmitted 11/02/05 and discharged 7/21/06; readmitted 11/19/07 and discharged 6/27/08. Hillsides staff was not in favor of any of these discharges. T is very unstable. She was discharged the first two times to a previous foster mother who was very uncooperative and was not amenable to services either before or after discharge.

During the third stay at Hillsides, a P3 worker located relatives of her mother in Pennsylvania. T had never met these people. DCFS sent her for a visit on Spring Break in 2008, and by 6/08, had cleared the home as an acceptable placement. Our request to keep her bed open was denied. In less than 2 weeks, the relatives called child services in Pennsylvania and they removed her from the home. Shortly thereafter, she was returned to California and is currently living in a foster home in Los Angeles County. The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services child social worker made it clear upon our inquiry that Hillsides was not an option for placement again. We have no reason to think she will be any more successful in this home than in the others.

REFLECTION
1. Back in 2003, LA DCFS should have conducted a TDM that would address her needs and the support services she would need in transitioning to a new placement. (A TDM meeting is an opportunity for all interested parties in the life of the foster care child to convene and address his discharge and treatment plan for a successful replacement.)
2. The County should never place a child with a foster home that will not be open to supportive services.
3. When considering a new placement out of state have some graduated visits which get longer each time to determine the suitability of the fit. Note, this might be expensive, but would cut down on the trauma of the child involved.

Supervisors comment:
This was a very unstable plan. I am worried about the outcome. This mother has a history of serious problems, and she had very little in the way of pre-placement services. She is also extremely resistant and suspicious, making it difficult for her to make use of the services that were offered.

CONCLUSION
1. Family involvement in the treatment process is a key factor.
2. A plan for discharge agreed by all parties, Hillsides, LA DCFS, the child and the family is necessary for a successful transition. (A plan is not going to work if the child or the receiving party is saying they are not ready.)
3. We should consider mandatory supportive services in the home.
4. Once a plan has been agreed upon, there should be some benchmarks set to determine the move-in date.
5. As a general rule, the residential treatment agency should provide Wraparound services to the receiving family where ever possible, since they are the ones who know the child and the family. (This would entail an exception to the Service Provider Areas (SPA) specific structure of the Wraparound program, since most residential treatment centers do not have Wraparound programs in all the SPAs.)

The Sixth in a Series of Seven Stories

2009-02-03T16:02:00.000-08:00

J.R. was a victim of severe child abuse, who suffered from profound Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, resulting in dangerous acting out, typically as the evening approached. Yet by day, she successfully attended a local parochial school through funding support by private donors. School achievement helped rebuild her trust in herself and others, and led to a big reduction in abuse-reactive behavior.

J. was admitted on 3/14/05 and discharged on 6/25/08 at the recommendation of Hillsides and confirmed at a Team Decision Making meeting of the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services. (A TDM meeting is an opportunity for all interested parties in the life of the foster care child to convene and address his discharge and treatment plan for a successful replacement.)

She went to the home of her father and stepmother, with whom she had never lived. Her mother is a mentally ill substance abuser. She received Wraparound services in the home by another agency. (Wraparound is a program where the process of creating safe places for a child includes wrapping support services around the child and the entire family to increase the possibility of successful outcomes).

She was in the home for less than a month before she reported that she was sexually abused by her father. The accusation was confirmed by her stepmother. J. was removed to a foster care home, and we have been unable to locate her to find out how she is doing. The father and stepmother, who came on the scene fairly late in J’s stay while at Hillsides, received family therapy prior to J.’s discharge from Hillsides. We also sent a rehabilitation specialist into the home for several months prior to the discharge. Obviously, no one saw this coming.

REFLECTION
Again, no one saw this coming. We would assume that the father had no record of child molestation.

Supervisor’s comments:
This is another case where it would have been very helpful if Hillsides Wraparound could have been involved. We know her and would have been able to offer crisis services when she reported the abuse.

CONCLUSION
1. Family involvement in the treatment process is a key factor.
2. A plan for discharge agreed by all parties, Hillsides, LA DCFS, the child and the family is necessary for a successful transition. (A plan is not going to work if the child or the receiving party is saying they are not ready.)
3. We should consider mandatory supportive services in the home.
4. Once a plan has been agreed upon, there should be some benchmarks set to determine the move-in date.
5. As a general rule, the residential treatment agency should provide Wraparound services to the receiving family where ever possible, since they are the ones who know the child and the family. (This would entail an exception to the Service Provider Areas (SPA) specific structure of the Wraparound program, since most residential treatment centers do not have Wraparound programs in all the SPAs.)

The Fifth in a Series of Seven Stories

2009-01-27T11:38:00.000-08:00

S. A. was first admitted to Hillsides on 2/07/06 and was discharged to his grandmother and legal guardian 8/27/08. S. came to Hillsides after multiple suicide attempts resulting in numerous psychiatric hospitalizations. While living here, program staff had to intervene repeatedly to prevent self-harm. Over time, these crisis contacts developed into healthy, secure relationships, and the self-injurious behavior gradually disappeared.

They received family therapy during his entire stay, Therapeutic Behavior Services from Hillsides upon discharge and Wraparound from another agency. (Therapeutic Behavior Services offer intensive one-on-one services to children whose needs go beyond a weekly therapy session. Trained therapeutic behavior specialists work with a child in school, in the community, and in the home, devising an attainable behavioral goal, and then meeting with the child to assist him or her in developing the skills to reach that goal. ) In spite of everything, he was readmitted 12/24/08. We have reinstituted family therapy with a new focus.

REFLECTION
This was a case in which Hillsides and the County agreed on the plan. The one thing that “may” have made a difference would have been if Hillsides provided the Wraparound services since we had the relationship with the client and the family. (Wraparound is a program where the process of creating safe places for a child includes wrapping support services around the child and the entire family to increase the possibility of successful outcomes).

CONCLUSION
1. Family involvement in the treatment process is a key factor.
2. A plan for discharge agreed by all parties, Hillsides, LA DCFS, the child and the family is necessary for a successful transition. (A plan is not going to work if the child or the receiving party is saying they are not ready.)
3. We should consider mandatory supportive services in the home.
4. Once a plan has been agreed upon, there should be some benchmarks set to determine the move-in date.
5. As a general rule, the residential treatment agency should provide Wraparound services to the receiving family where ever possible, since they are the ones who know the child and the family. (This would entail an exception to the Service Provider Areas (SPA) specific structure of the Wraparound program, since most residential treatment centers do not have Wraparound programs in all the SPAs.)

Working Together to Resolve Foster Care Concerns

2009-01-23T10:54:00.000-08:00

Some good news has developed as a result of sharing the stories of the children in foster care who have re-entered the system after leaving Hillsides. While I have been concerned and writing about the need for the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (LA DCFS) to take up the issue of children who are moved into homes and then re-enter the system within six to 12 months, another advocate has been looking at the issue. It turns out that one of the Commissioners from the Los Angeles Commission for Children and Families, Helen Kleinberg, has been concerned about the same issue.

She and selected LA DCFS staff have been involved in taking a sample of some of these re-entering clients, studying the issues and listing the causes (not unlike what I have been doing with the children that we have in our program). They have a laundry list of issues that should be addressed. However, two important conclusions they highlighted was the need for a better discharge planning process to be developed and the need for a better way of engaging support services to the families receiving these children be introduced. These are some of the same issues that I identified in the stories of the children who re-entered the system after leaving Hillsides.

Commissioner Kleinberg and the LA DCFS staff working on this study invited a limited group of providers to look at what had been identified and the areas that we thought they should address. It was a most meaningful discussion and, for the most part, their findings reflected our experience. All participants agreed we needed to address a better process for transitioning the children from foster care and group care into the “family homes.” The meeting ended with suggestions of a few more avenues for collecting data and then a commitment to work on developing systems to increase the probability of a successful transition.

I look forward to future meetings of working together with the Department of Children and Family Services in developing those systems.

The Fourth in a Series of Seven Stories

2009-01-13T15:43:00.000-08:00

Although here for only three months, J.B. participated well in group and individual therapy, per her therapist’s discharge summary. She made use of the opportunities here to explore art, music, dance and other expressive media. This helped her develop healthy, constructive outlets to address issues of abandonment and loss.

First admitted to Hillsides 6/28/07 and discharged to her aunt on 8/24/07. J was discharged by LA DCFS against our advice as she was extremely unstable. The aunt lived in Sacramento and refused to accept any offers for services that we recommended. She was with her aunt for a very brief time before being admitted to another like agency. She was readmitted to Hillsides on 9/10/08. It is unclear why she left the other agency for Hillsides, but it seems to have been a decision of the LA DCFS CSW, not the agency.

REFLECTION
1. Hillsides should have insisted on better joint planning.
2. If the aunt was a viable placement, the County and Hillsides should have made Wraparound or some wrap like services a condition of placement with the aunt. (Wraparound is a program where the process of creating safe places for a child includes wrapping support services around the child and the entire family to increase the possibility of successful outcomes).

CONCLUSION
1. Family involvement in the treatment process is a key factor.
2. A plan for discharge agreed by all parties, Hillsides, LA DCFS, the child and the family is necessary for a successful transition. (A plan is not going to work if the child or the receiving party is saying they are not ready.)
3. We should consider mandatory supportive services in the home.
4. Once a plan has been agreed upon, there should be some benchmarks set to determine the move-in date.
5. As a general rule, the residential treatment agency should provide Wraparound services to the receiving family where ever possible, since they are the ones who know the child and the family. (This would entail an exception to the Service Provider Areas (SPA) specific structure of the Wraparound program, since most residential treatment centers do not have Wraparound programs in all the SPAs.)

The Third in a Series of Seven Stories

2009-01-06T14:17:00.000-08:00

M.F. was admitted to Hillsides on 4/11/05 and discharged on 7/18/07. M had severe and sometimes violent tantrums at home and in school which led to this youngster’s placement at Hillsides. Intensive use of Therapeutic Behavioral Services helped him develop a number of substitute behaviors as an alternative to having tantrums, which led to experiencing more success in school and on home visits. He also became an avid swimmer, participating in aquatics activities at the Rose Bowl.

The Hillsides therapist worked intensively with his grandparents and his mother although she felt that the DCFS Social Worker’s plan to send him to live with the grandparents was not feasible. The mother was an active substance abuser and clearly unable to provide a home for M. The court concurred that sending M to his grandparents was not advisable, but an aunt living in another county showed up and petitioned the court to let her take him.

The court agreed in spite of his very vocal opposition. As M was very unstable at the time, we recommended that a little more time was necessary to help prepare him. The court discharged him immediately into the aunt’s care. She was opposed to any outside services to help her with him. Within a month, he was back into the system and, as far as we know, is doing well in a foster home.

REFLECTION
1. Outside County and Court should have allowed Hillsides to spend time with County’s social worker in planning M’s movement out of Hillsides.
2. Listen to M’s objections about living with his aunt (after all he has control on how cooperative he is going to be in the placement).
3. See if there are things that would make this aunt more acceptable to M.
4. If there are no alternatives to the aunt’s acceptability of M, explore alternative permanent placements.

CONCLUSION
1. Family involvement in the treatment process is a key factor.
2. A plan for discharge agreed by all parties, Hillsides, DCFS, the child and the family is necessary for a successful transition. (A plan is not going to work if the child or the receiving party is saying they are not ready.)
3. We should consider mandatory supportive services in the home.
4. Once a plan has been agreed upon, there should be some benchmarks set to determine the move-in date.
5. As a general rule, the residential treatment agency should provide Wraparound services to the receiving family where ever possible, since they are the ones who know the child and the family. (This would entail an exception to the Service Provider Areas (SPA) specific structure of the Wraparound program, since most residential treatment centers do not have Wraparound programs in all the SPAs.)

The Second in a Series of Seven Stories

2008-12-17T16:44:00.000-08:00

A .K. was first admitted to Hillsides on 4/05/06 and was discharged on 6/5/07. When A.K. entered Hillsides, he was morbidly obese, weighing more than 148 pounds. When he was discharged a year later, he had dropped to 122 pounds through a combination of diet and intensive exercise supervised by the nursing and recreation departments. While still overweight, his general health had improved dramatically. Upon his re-entry into Hillsides’ residential program in July of this year, after having been removed, he weighed 226 pounds.

At the time of discharge, A.K. was still not stabilized, although he had been doing better. Hillsides’ advocates were opposed to the discharge both for his fragility, and also because his mother had barely been released from jail and had not received services to help her deal with this boy. The Los Angeles County’s Department of Children and Family Services made the decision to move him with no input from Hillsides. It wasn’t until Hillsides’ intervention that the County agreed to a post-discharge Team Decision Making meeting (TDM). (A TDM meeting is an opportunity for all interested parties in the life of the foster care child to convene and address his discharge and treatment plan for a successful replacement.)

At that point, Wraparound Services were initiated and provided by Hillsides’ team. A.K. did not do well at home, and his mother was not effective. (Wraparound is a program where the process of creating safe places for a child includes wrapping support services around the child and the entire family to increase the possibility of successful outcomes). He was readmitted to Hillsides on 7/22/08.

REFLECTION
1. Have a TDM that would include the mother in the planning process
2. Set up a plan that would insure that she was established back into the community with a job that could support A.K. (the mother and son were homeless when he returned to Hillsides).
3. Provide Wraparound services well in advance of his returning home

CONCLUSION
1. Family involvement in the treatment process is a key factor.
2. A plan for discharge agreed by all parties, Hillsides, DCFS, the child and the family is necessary for a successful transition. (A plan is not going to work if the child or the receiving party is saying they are not ready.)
3. We should consider mandatory supportive services in the home.
4. Once a plan has been agreed upon, there should be some benchmarks set to determine the move-in date.
5. As a general rule, the residential treatment agency should provide Wraparound services to the receiving family where ever possible, since they are the ones who know the child and the family. (This would entail an exception to the Service Provider Areas (SPA) specific structure of the Wraparound program, since most residential treatment centers do not have Wraparound programs in all the SPAs.)

Where is the Bailout for Charities Serving Children and Families?

2008-12-12T12:57:00.000-08:00

Teresa De Crescenzo, Executive Director of GLASS Youth and Family Services, wrote an excellent opinion article for the Los Angeles Times where she asks “Where’s the bailout for non-profits?” She continues, “The stock market is in free fall, financial organizations are being bailed out and the Detroit automakers may yet get financial help from Washington. But what about those of us in the non-profit world? Where’s our bailout?” I salute Ms. De Crescenzo for expressing what many of us who devote our lives to helping others feel.

The State of California is enmeshed in their own fiscal meltdown it appears that it will not be in a position to help non-profits for many years. In fact, the exact opposite has been and is occurring. As the Executive Director of a major residential treatment center for children in foster care and families, my Board and I struggle to give abused, neglected and abandoned children the treatment that they need and deserve. Despite the fact that the State has failed for years to cover the costs of these comprehensive services, we continue to treat thousands of children and their families each year with a system of funding that has only given Hillsides an increase of 5% after more than five years of flat funding---not even an annual cost of living increase.

In effect, charities like Hillsides and the clients we serve have been burdened almost to the breaking point while we as a society are willing to bailout corporations who are now experiencing the aftermath of their own mismanagement and greed. Where is the equity for those children who are unfairly being accused of depleting state funds due to an increase in demand for the free lunch programs, as reported in the Pasadena Star-News on December 4? Where is the fairness for those children who are suffering due to the cuts in educational support or whose families have had their child care subsidies slashed?

If I sound angry and frustrated, I am. Everyday, I see firsthand the suffering and challenges people face—particularly the children in foster care who have no voice. Out of a commitment to create safe places for children and families living in Los Angeles County, the Board of Hillsides continues to take the position that rather than cut vital services, our charity is using our limited financial reserves to manage this downturn in the economy. Our reserves are not an endless source of revenue and, frankly, I do not know how much longer we will be able to continue doing this. A non-profit’s only alternative when funding is not available is to turn desperate people away, as we have no bailout to fall back on.

If the choice is between sitting on the sidelines willing to maintain status quo or letting children continue to suffer the ravages of child abuse or go without breakfast and lunch or providing assistance to charities, the answer seems simple to me. While many of you might not like the idea of tax increases, I believe this is the only option left open to the State of California. We’ve tried budget cuts with disastrous human consequences, now it is time to consider “Whoever does this on the least of thee does it to me.”

The First in a Series of Seven Stories

2008-12-08T14:12:00.000-08:00

THE FIRST IN A SERIES OF SEVEN STORIES: M. R.
This child was admitted to Hillsides on 4/4/06 and discharged on 4/18/07. Prior to coming to Hillsides, this client had experienced multiple failures in school. In addition to poor academic progress, he had behavioral problems, and was a chronic truant as well. At Hillsides Education Center, he achieved stability in both school attendance and performance, developing a particular interest in the industrial arts program. He reduced his aggressive behavior and truancy.
Upon discharge, he went to a group home in San Bernardino to be closer to his grandfather. M.R. was a street-savvy kid who was not a good fit for Hillsides. His grandfather came in regularly for family treatment, but as he lived almost two hours away, it was difficult for him. Although we were not optimistic about M’s prospects for success, his grandfather very much wanted him to be closer to home. We didn’t oppose this plan.

A DCFS Team Decision Meeting was arranged, but because he moved to another group home, aftercare services was not recommended. He left the group home after two or three weeks (he was considered on status AWOL, Absent Without Leave) and lived on the streets for a while. He apparently was placed in several group homes following his sojourn on the streets.

REFLECTION
The plan to move the client closer to his grandfather was a good one. Things DCFS might have done: 1) Explore the suitability of the receiving group home for this client, and 2) Had a Wraparound provider involved with the transition with a goal of placing him with the grandfather. (Wraparound is a program where the process of creating safe places for a child includes wrapping support services around the child and the entire family to increase the possibility of successful outcomes).

CONCLUSION
1. Family involvement in the treatment process is a key factor.
2. A plan for discharge agreed by all parties, Hillsides, DCFS, the child and the family is necessary for a successful transition. (A plan is not going to work if the child or the receiving party is saying they are not ready.)
3. We should consider mandatory supportive services in the home.
4. Once a plan has been agreed upon, there should be some benchmarks set to determine the move-in date.
5. As a general rule, the residential treatment agency should provide Wraparound services to the receiving family where ever possible, since they are the ones who know the child and the family. (This would entail an exception to the Service Provider Areas (SPA) specific structure of the Wraparound program, since most residential treatment centers do not have Wraparound programs in all the SPAs.)

ACTION
See below to find out what you can do to help a child and youth in foster care.

Requiring Foster Family Certification for Adoptions May Close Some Family Doors

2008-11-14T13:49:00.000-08:00

Just when I think that the administration of the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) is on right path with initiatives to keep families intact with supportive services, to move children in out-of-home care back into their families, extended families or adoptions, they come up with a policy that flies in the face of good practice.

The Department of Child and Family Services and its Director, Trish Phloehn, are insisting that they will not contract with foster family agencies (FFA) who do not certify their foster families for adoption. For those unfamiliar with the process, this direction means the foster family will be required to go through a process for certification that is similar to the process they already go through to be certified foster families. The major difference is that they must be willing to declare that they are interested in adoptions.

At first blush, this would seem to be an improvement in service delivery because it would cut down the time that it takes for a foster home to become an adoptive home. In fact, DCFS is citing this as a reason for wanting it in the contract. They are also saying that an adoptive home study is a higher standard than a foster home study even though FFAs report that they are just as exacting for their foster homes as the adoptive homes. And finally, DCFS is saying they do not want a foster family who wants to adopt to fail the certification and approval process to adopt a child even though DCFS can not cite, nor can the FFAs cite, an instance where this has happened.

What they fail to take into consideration is that foster care homes for some children are temporary homes used to care for the child until reunification or permanency can be worked out. A number of foster care homes would like to assist children in this transition period of their lives, but do not have a desire to adopt. A number of foster care families who entered the foster care system with the idea they did not want to adopt have changed their minds after being foster parents to a child or children. In other words, they fell in love with the child or children and decided to adopt. Demanding that they be certified to adopt prior to accepting foster care children may have stopped these families from being foster parents. The Department could have closed the door of opportunity for adoption at a later date.

Couples like my wife and I who are over 65 who might have the time to do foster care would be eliminated because we are too old to be certified, or because we are not interested in adopting at this stage in our lives. Some wonderful older couples, who take in babies and toddlers while reunification is being worked through, would be eliminated from the pool of potential foster care homes. If, in fact, a foster home does want to adopt, and an infant or toddler is in their care while the biological mother is getting clean and sober, it puts the foster parent in competition with the mother. This unintended competition is not supportive to the reunification process.

Hillsides does not have a foster family agency, however, at one time Hillsides did take in infants and toddlers whose mothers were addicted to drugs and alcohol and worked with them to help them regain their babies. This was one of the most successful programs we operated, because these mothers did not want to be addicted, wanted to get clean and sober, and wanted to regain their babies. Most of the mothers were able to get their children back within 12 months. One of the things we had to do with our own child care staff is to remind them that they were to be role models to these mothers, they were not to put up barriers to helping the mothers bond with their children. Even though they also loved these children, their job was to help the mother regain custody. This would be a difficult task for a foster care mother who wanted to adopt the child she was caring for.

The Department needs both kinds of foster care homes. The Department will have children who will not be able to return to their families and need a permanent home where adoption would be the outcome. Several types of foster care homes exist: those very much interested in adopting children, those that may grow into that frame of mind as the child has lived with them, or those that may have gotten into foster care with the expressed intention of wanting to adopt.

Unfortunately, the Director of DCFS has persuaded the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors to buy into this policy without hearing some of the strong arguments against doing this. We now have a situation where the Board of Supervisors has publicly supported its DCFS Director, and it is difficult for them to reverse their decision.

The direction taken should not be either or, but a thoughtful discussion on solutions that will meet the needs of all parties involved.

Outrageous Reaction Can Result in Further Replacement

2008-11-12T16:20:00.000-08:00

It seems like the more reasonable the public policy is for foster care children, the more outrageous the reaction is in carrying it out. Just last week, a child we have had in placement for four years had a Team Decision Making Meeting. The upshot of the meeting was that this girl was in placement too long and needed to move. So Department of Children and Family Services decided to move her the next day, without any thoughtful planning for a transition, determining school placement, and identifying what supportive services she and her placement caregivers might need.

As the executive director of a foster care children’s charity in Los Angeles County, I have seen too many of these thoughtless reactions. I guarantee that she will be replaced before the end of the year. This is a very difficult child who will probably be in some sort of “placement “ for the rest of her life.

This is no way to move children out of placement.

Proposition 4 Adds Risk to Young Girls

2008-10-21T09:21:00.000-07:00

I am writing to all of you over my concern regarding an initiative that will appear on our November ballot, Proposition 4 “Waiting Period and Parental Notification before Termination of a Minor’s Pregnancy”. This is almost a carbon copy of Proposition 85, which was defeated in the 2006 election. The initiative would require all doctors or clinics to give parents of minor girls 48-hour notice if their child is requesting an abortion.

The significant difference between this proposition and Proposition 85 is an alternative exception to notification requirement, which states that doctors can notify an adult family member instead of a parent, based on a written statement from the minor that (1) she fears abuse from that parent, and (2) her fear is based on a pattern of such abuse.

As a parent, we would all want to know if our daughter was pregnant and if she were requesting an abortion. Certainly, as a professional, well-educated adult who is the parent of a young woman, we would want them to postpone sexual activity until they are mature enough to handle it and that they have the tools to practice safe sex when they do decide to do it.

We know that 70% of young women do speak with their parents about their pregnancy already. We also know that it is impossible to legislate good communications with family members.

As advocates for disadvantaged, abused children, we should be concerned about this proposition because its passage would put this population at the greatest risk. Although the alternative exception requirement to an adult family member has been added, in the real world children who suffer abuse would risk further abuse. The children are in danger of being further abused should they tell, and/or seriously injured or killed, should they try some non-medically approved procedure to abort their pregnancy.

I would urge all of you to study the proposition carefully, keeping in mind what it would mean for the many battered and abused children of our community should it pass.

Recent Trends Indicate Poor Performance

2008-10-07T15:34:00.000-07:00

As executive director of Hillsides, I am an outspoken supporter of the current trend in public policy to initially evaluate every family who comes to the attention of the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) to determine the risk factors in leaving the child/children in the home and providing services to the family to stabilize the children. Hillsides , along with a number of other agencies around the State, demonstrated that this was an effective strategy in a State pilot for Family Preservation. Families received the help they needed, and children remained safe in their own homes.

The dramatic reduction in out-of-home placement from 39,000 in 2000 to 20,000 in 2007 can be attributed to the above strategies and others that DCFS put in place. The net effect has been to reduce the number of children in group homes and to decrease the number of placements that children endure before they are to be placed in a residential treatment center.

All of this is a positive step in the right direction. However, there is a trend in our current placements that is of great concern to me. There is a rush to move children through the residential programs and into “permanent placements,” which has some disturbing and unintended outcomes.

Even though we do not have access to the children’s records once they leave Hillsides, we do learn what happens to many of them.

Over the past 12 months we had 14 DCFS children leave Hillsides. Of those 14, we know that seven returned to placement and of the remaining seven, we do not know the results of five of them; two remain at home. None of the children who left went to another group home, all went to single family homes. These statistics are not good. We know that 50% failed to remain in their placements; it could be and most likely is higher since we do not know the fate of five of the children.

Many factors could be cited for this poor performance. I am not interested in fixing blame, but on studying the individual cases to see if there are steps Hillsides, the County, and the courts can do to improve this poor outcome. I plan to take what few facts we know about each of the seven cases and see if there is something that Hillsides can do directly to influence a better outcome.

This poor performance is not peculiar to us, but it spans the whole placement community. I know for a fact that another large well-respected agency reported a similar trend. I would hope that the Department of Children and Family Services would step back and evaluate what is happening and collaborate with the providers to improve this situation.

Response to Guest Letter

2008-09-09T14:12:00.000-07:00

In response to our guest letter that was posted on September 5 on my blog, I appreciate the views, opinions, and concerns of our donors, friends, and supporters, including those who differ from Dr. Astrid Heppenstall Heger. My blog is not meant to advocate for one political party, but rather to highlight issues that affect the children and families we serve at Hillsides.

We live in a nation where we can be respectful of opinions and perspectives that differ from each other. We live in a nation where society can be heard, legislation can be signed into law, and justice can prevail. Equally, we live in a nation where some children experience horrific situations and I’m afraid the trauma will be with them for the rest of their lives. I am only hopeful that the men and women who commit these horrific crimes will be prosecuted to the fullest extent.

When a child such as ten-year-old Maria finds herself 16-weeks pregnant and struggling to get through this terrible experience, I am comforted by the fact that she will survive because of a legal medical option available to her. I personally would prefer that we live in a nation where abortions do not occur. However, I also feel this procedure has been going on since the beginning of humanity and legislating against them is not going to stop individuals from having one. Taking in the pros and cons I come down on the side of a woman’s right to choose (believe me this is not an easy decision for them) and sanctioning medically supervised abortions with regulations.

But for children like Maria what is at stake is their survival, their sanity, their healing, their hope for a better childhood, their courage to move forward. As a service provider for children and families in crisis, we must highlight the difficulties and complications of social services that will arise for our clients. And in our 95 years of existence, Hillsides has been creating safe places for children and families who are in crisis. We have been able to serve 35,000 children and their families, providing mental health treatment, giving the tools for a stable home, educating parents on how to better communicate with their children, and finding ways together to preserve the families that will lead to creating safer places for everyone.

We are fortunate to have professional staff with the expertise and knowledge to give this mental health support to our children and families. We are also fortunate to have donors, friends, and supporters who care for the mission of Hillsides—creating safe places for children and families—by giving their time, talent, and treasure to enrich the lives of our foster care children who have been physically, sexually, or mentally abused, to expand services, to empower others and spread awareness of the good work we do in the community, and to join us in the numerous opportunities to make a difference.

With this in mind, I thank you for your time, compassion, and understanding of the many views that make up the fabric of our nation.

Sincerely,
John M. Hitchcock, LCSW

Guest Letter: Disgrace and Discouraged

2008-09-05T11:19:00.000-07:00

Dear John,

Maria had driven to Tijuana with her mom, sister and little brother to buy a special dress for her aunt's wedding. This was the most beautiful dress she had ever owned--no the most beautiful thing she had ever seen--and she hung it on a nail pounded into the wall of a garage in Bell Gardens that they called home. Every Sunday she tried on the dress--anxious for the time to pass when she could wear it to be in the wedding. But one Sunday the dress had become too small, her mother could not fasten the small white buttons. Her mother rushed her to the emergency room fearing the worst--cancer.

I was summoned to the Emergency room to evaluate Maria--She was sitting in the corner of the windowless exam room with tears running down her face. Her mother had fled the room leaving her to fend for herself. A tiny 10 year old she looked much younger than her age, and now dressed in a too-big dress handed down to her and wearing black Mary-Jane shoes and bright white socks she looked translucent--a shadow of the girl that might have been.

At age 10 she had just been told that she was pregnant. Pregnant by her father who had been raping her for over two years. We spoke and I comforted her--on examination we found her to be 16 weeks pregnant, and because she was so small her womb was now pushing down her vagina making intercourse impossible so her father had been raping her anally. Her sister when asked about whether the little brother had been sexually abused--said "No, he still laughs."

So last night when the Republicans welcomed with thundering applause, a woman who believes that all abortions must be outlawed--my heart stopped in my chest at the very idea that we as a Nation would ever consider taking away the rights of women and children--my patients--raped, abused and violated in the most horrific ways. How careless we are with the lives and souls of those who are less fortunate.

I am moved to tears at the thought of the precipice that we are approaching. I could spend hours on poverty, loss of the middle class, no health care etc etc etc.--but sitting there that day in that stark, cold clinic room with a little girl whose only hope for survival was an abortion--I was glad to have that option. Of course, I would love to see a time come when everyone knew to practice abstinence, or even birth control, or a time when rape and incest were words we did not understand and women had the right to say no and have someone hear her--but apparently none of these words---abstinence, birth control, rape or incest has penetrated the isolated, cold world of Gov. Palin.

Tell me where we go to be heard--I cannot believe that women, and men, across this country who understand what violence against women and children really means--will not stand up to be counted.

Astrid Heppenstall Heger, M.D.
Professor of Clinical Pediatrics
Keck School of Medicine
Executive Director
Violence Intervention Program
Los Angeles, CA
aheger@aol.com

2008-03-25T11:02:00.000-07:00

In American history women have played a significant role in making our country what it is today. In particular, women addressed a plethora of unmet needs in communities and founded countless nonprofits. Most specifically in Los Angeles County, Deaconess Evelyn Wile envisioned a world where children were safe and nurtured in their homes.

During National Women’s History Month, I wanted to bring attention to Wile’s vision, which has rescued over 35,000 children in 95 years. Founder of Hillsides, formerly the Church Home for Children, a Pasadena foster care children’s charity, Wile saw the devastating affects of death, divorce, desertion, and disease had on children left behind.

Serving children at risk and their families in Los Angeles County, Hillsides follows in the footsteps of its founder who believed in creating safe places for children. Unlike the traditional orphanages of the early 1900s, Hillsides created a cottage concept, an open space home environment where children would experience a normal childhood, share a room with no more than three children, and be cared for by house parents.

Reminiscing, Wile described what was apparent, “I knew there was no money, land or house for such an undertaking--nothing but five hens which a friend had promised me…” With blessings from the Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles, Wile set forth and purchased the first home in Highland Park in 1913, and in just four years relocated Hillsides to what many children refer to as their safe haven--17 acres in the San Rafael Hills of Pasadena.

Wile continued, “Through the kindness of friends who loaned their cars, we were able to take the children out to the new homesite and allow each of them to turn a little of the sod and thus be in ‘at the beginning.’ We hoped that the lesson of the bare hillside would impress itself upon the children’s hearts and minds, in comparison with what is ‘to come’ through the generous gifts which have been made.”

Today, children continue to turn a little of the sod, tend to the weeds, and discover new life in plants and flowers. In their gardens, they find a peaceful, restful place they can visit to get their minds off of the things that may be weighing on their hearts and minds.

Children living at Hillsides because of their foster care placement or severe emotional disturbances find comfort, security, and trust with our staff. Given intensive treatment combined with recreational therapeutic activities, children begin to thrive and establish connections with adults.

In addition to the residential program Wile founded, Hillsides has expanded its programs and services to serve families in crisis who need support in redirecting their lives to create safe places for their children. We also provide special education and a transitional living and housing program, as well as advocate for children’s rights.

When a man was directed to the home during Wile’s day, he was surprised to hear what Hillsides really was, and said he had “‘supposed those were two real homes--perhaps a father and son were building.’ And that’s exactly what we want them to be--real homes!” Wile recalled.

Wile truly created a real home for children traumatized by their early circumstances. After 95 years, eight homes, and an apartment building, Hillsides remains a true home to 66 children and 20 former foster care youth.

Society Diminishes Value of Children, Especially Foster Care Kids

2007-10-18T11:18:00.000-07:00

Over 510,000 children are in foster care nationwide and of those children, about 81,000 are in California. In Los Angeles County, we have more than 37,000 children living in out-of-home placements. For years, Americans have said children are our most valuable resource, our future. Based on recent events that demonstrate the value in which we hold our children, the impact of America’s future is bleak.

A lawsuit was filed in the State of California, on behalf of foster children, because of the poor reimbursement given to foster parents to care for them. Children continue to be the largest segment of our population that lives in poverty. In addition, President George W. Bush vetoed a bill that would make health care available to all children living in America.

Foster parents have been under-funded. In particular, California’s reimbursement rates to foster parents are embarrassing and fall far short in providing the financial resources necessary to give foster parents the ability to provide adequately for our children’s needs. According to a recent report released by Children’s Rights, the National Foster Parent Association, and the University of Maryland School of Social Work, California’s current foster care rates must be increased by up to 61 percent in order to cover the real costs of providing care for children.

As the executive director of Hillsides, a Pasadena-based foster care children’s charity that provides care to children at risk and their families, I have seen families struggle to meet the financial obligations to care for their own children. What agencies are beginning to see now is a decrease in the number of foster parents willing to open their doors to children who have been abused, abandoned, and neglected.

Inadequate foster care rates negatively affect foster parent recruitment and retention, potentially increasing the likelihood that children will be placed in institutions or shuttled from one foster placement to another—and decreasing their chance of finding permanent homes. At Hillsides and in other similar residential treatment centers, we see the devastating affects that multiple foster care placements have on children.

As a society, we are challenged to solve children’s issues and make sound policy. Too often we talk about the problems, but never quite find positive solutions. Or the pen never makes it on the paper to sign sound legislation into law. Or policies are never put into practice. When will we begin to hold elected officials, government administrators, and government agencies responsible for bettering the future of America’s children?

Keeping silent perpetuates this cycle of political ping pong and furthers the abuse these children must endure. In one way or another, society’s silence fosters this atmosphere which greatly devalues our children. I see a society that has misplaced its priorities of caring for our children and is no longer a focus.

Most schools, particularly in the large urban areas, are under-funded and failing to provide educators with adequate tools to teach students. Teachers, caretakers, and childcare workers are poorly paid and not given the tools they need to be successful with their charges. We have not wanted to pay higher taxes to improve children’s situations. We have argued for years about the cost of universal healthcare without considering what the denial of such a program does to the children and families in need of it. We protect the gun lobbyists, while our children are shooting each other on the streets. We ignore the devastating affect of drugs and alcohol on children and families without making rehabilitative programs available to all that need it.

The fact remains that child protective services started in New York at the turn of the 20th century using Humane Society regulations designed to prevent cruelty to animals. Even today, kennels receive more money to board pets than foster families who care for children, according to reports citing the lawsuit filed in California. As a society, we have not come very far in the last one hundred years.

When will we say, “It’s time to consider what is in the best interest of all children living in America and let’s do what it takes to accomplish that?” As a society, we can put a stop to political ping pong. We can vote for Presidential and Congressional candidates who talk the talk and walk the walk when making policy that is in the best interest of American children. We can communicate to our elected officials and hold them responsible for placing children first. If we do this, we will begin to see hope in the future of our children.

Los Angeles Children’s Court Should Support Foster Care Policies

2007-06-20T09:38:00.000-07:00

As the executive director of Hillsides, I have seen far too many children in the “system” who should never have been there. Fortunately, the Department of Children and Family Services has halved their out-of-home placements in the last seven years. The Department’s two major goals are to transition children back to their homes more efficiently and to reduce its reliance on out-of-home care.

Several strategies have been effective in reaching these two goals. Structured Decision Making helps an investigative worker assess a child’s risk of further abuse in the home. If the child is not in immediate danger but his family is in crisis, the worker can refer them to a community provider that can help them and so keep the family together while eliminating the risk of further abuse.

Point of Engagement has also contributed to reducing removals, providing much-needed help to these families, and reducing the risk of abuse. This strategy recognizes that families want what is best for their children and are willing to make changes. It brings the social service agencies and family together at the “point of engagement” with the Department so that the service agency immediately begins working with the family.

Team Decision Making (TDM) incorporates all available people involved with the child or family to discuss a plan to move the child into permanency. This particularly important strategy helps a child return to his family or relatives because the assembled group not only determines the steps but also what individuals and agencies will be involved in the plan’s success.

Although these strategies are in place, staff do not always support the Department’s policy, and in the case of one child at Hillsides, neither did a judge. The Department must ensure that these critical strategies, all of which are in the best interest of the clients they serve, are incorporated by the line staff and supported by the courts.

View the full story…

2007-06-01T10:04:00.000-07:00

The people who take care of foster children and the agencies who work to get them adopted so they can have some permanency in their lives have not received a cost of living increase in the past five years. Without these cost of living increases, many who do this valuable work can no longer afford to do it and they are dropping out of helping these vulnerable children find permanency in their lives.

Help me keep the promise to California’s foster youth by writing a letter to the Senators and Assembly members fax the letter to them today. These members of the Senate and Assembly are meeting this week and next to produce a budget for the Governor to sign. They need to be urged to enact this important legislation. The letter to these Senators and Assembly members can be used as an example for your own letter. Please share with me what you did in this regard.

Foster Care Legislation Introduced

2007-05-25T15:41:00.000-07:00

US Senator Barbara Boxer introduced the Foster Care Continuing Opportunities Act that would provide federal funding to States to continue providing essential foster care services such as food, housing, and legal services to youth over the age of 18.

Boxer is quoted as saying “This legislation would help improve the services for foster care youth so they can better transition from childhood to adulthood. The future for foster youth, once emancipated, is often bleak. In my state of California, about 65 percent of emancipated youth are homeless, less than three percent go to college, and 51 percent are unemployed. We must do more for these youth adults who deserve much better, and there is no better time to do it than during Foster Care Month.”

As someone who has worked in the foster care system for over 45 years, this is a bill that is long overdue. However, it is only the beginning, our system for helping foster youth is sorely lacking. Hillsides recently implemented Youth Moving On, an emancipation program to assist foster youth in the transition from foster homes to independent living. We were shocked on how ill-prepared these foster youth were to make this move. Many of the foster youth entering our program had never worked, had their own bank account, knew how to shop and prepare meals. They were ill-prepared to be living alone.

Even though independent living classes for foster you in California is part of the program that all foster youth 14 years and older take, it does not seem to be doing the job. We need to look again at what we are doing in preparing these youth to leave the foster homes they reside in. We need to make sure that any legislation that extends the states’ rights to access federal funds for foster youth up to age 21 includes services that will give the youth support during this critical time in their lives.

Reflecting on Foster Care Awareness Month

2007-05-25T14:56:00.000-07:00

As I reflect during Foster Care Awareness Month, I realize in my 45 years of working with children in foster care I have never been as optimistic as I am now about the public policy being enacted to address the issues of abused children and their families. I have learned over the years that most parents want the best for their children and will do almost anything to see that they are successful. Situations of abuse usually arise out of the problems of adults; drug and alcohol abuse leads the way with dysfunctional relationships taking up a close second. Being out of work, stress, homelessness and poor parenting skills all lead to situations where children are being hurt.

For many years protective services solved the problem of abuse by removing the child from the home which, in far too many instances, only prolonged the abuse. Families were ordered to change their ways with no real guidance or help to do so. Children drifted through the system hoping that something would change so they could go home.

Over the past five years public policy, particularly in Los Angeles, has changed. There is recognition that families need immediate help and if given that help, their children can remain with them safely. In instances where children were formerly removed, it is possible to get them involved with a variety of services that help them stay out of the system, resolve the issues and allow the children to remain at home.

2007-05-02T17:37:00.000-07:00

We received this information via email and wanted to share it with you.

The Census Bureau has opted to eliminate the “foster child” category from the 2010 Census and thereby strip us of the ability to assess where foster children reside, the demographics of the families caring for these youth, and how best to allocate scarce resources. Instead of requiring that Census respondents identify foster children in their home, these youth will be grouped with an all-inclusive group of “other” children, whether related or not, residing in the household. The less than satisfactory reason offered by the Census Bureau for eliminating this invaluable information on the size, composition and economic status of families caring for foster youth is that the extra line for respondents to report on foster children would have extended into the page fold and tripped up scanners that read the answers.

Please join us in expressing the view that foster children count -- and deserve to be counted! It would be truly unfortunate to allow our most vulnerable youth to become invisible.

A fact sheet and sample letter in regard to this issue is attached. The issue will be considered by the House Sub-Committee on Information Policy, Census, and National Archives, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. If you’d like to express your opposition to the change, please send a letter to Representative William Lacy Clay (D-MO), Chairman of the Sub-Committee. Letters can be faxed to the attention of Tony Haywood at (202) 225-2392. Thanks, in advance, for any support you can offer on this important issue.