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.
Showing posts with label foster care children. Show all posts
Showing posts with label foster care children. Show all posts
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
The Third in a Series of Seven Stories
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.)
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
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.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Society Diminishes Value of Children, Especially Foster Care Kids
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.
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.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Los Angeles Children’s Court Should Support Foster Care Policies
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…
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…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
