Loading...
2009-98-Minutes for Meeting February 02,2009 Recorded 3/6/2009DESCHUTES COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY COORDINATING COUNCIL C?" Monday, February 2, 2009 Allen Room, County Administration Building, 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, OR MINUTES OF MEETING Present were Judge Michael Sullivan; County Administrator Dave Kanner; Commissioners Tammy Baney and Alan Unger; Ken Hales, Community Corrections; Hillary Sarceno, Commission on Children & Families; Aaron Brenneman, defense attorney; Ernie Mazorol, Court Administrator; Jack Blum, citizen member; Carl Rhodes, Oregon State Police; Capt. Dave Tarbet, Redmond Police Department; Shelly Smith, KIDS Center; Becky McDonald, 9-1-1; Colleen Kruse and Christie Combs, Courts; and Patrick Carey of the State Department of Human Services. No representatives of the media or other citizens were present. 1. Call to Order & Introductions. Judge Sullivan called the meeting to order at 3:35 p.m., at which time the attendees introduced themselves. 2. January Minutes. Aaron Brenneman moved approval with some minor changes; Ken Hales seconded. Approval was unanimous. 3. Public Comment. DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK Q 2009-98 None was offered. COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 03106/2009 08:06:48 AM I2008-9 Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, February 2, 2009 Page 1 of 7 Pages 4. Safety Net for Abuse and Neglect Matters. Shelley Smith of the KIDS Center said that the Sheriff and Sandi Baxter, Police Chief of the City of Bend, are at a retreat and could not attend today's meeting. Commissioner Baney explained that Pat Carey from the State is in attendance to explain how Karly's Law works and the standards the State uses regarding removal of children from the home. There is substantial concern on the part of police agencies on how this is addressed. Ernie Mazorol said there was a question on whether all counties handle these situations the same way. Pat Carey stated that historically, starting about eight years ago, child welfare was in the same position it is now, which is operating on not enough funding. They try to grow their services to help families as much as possible. There was a strong belief that more funding was needed and federal assistance was requested regarding services and staffing levels. However, how they staff these programs has not changed since the early 1970's. The federal resource agency said more funding was needed, and this was echoed in subsequent years. Wayne Holder, an expert in this field, was then put under contract to look at the system in Oregon. There were about eight people who were able to meet with the federal resource agencies about this situation. There were some pretty disturbing trends found. Oregon was first in the nation regarding children going into foster care. The most alarming thing was that children were coming into care and going home quickly, while others were going into care and ended up staying there for years. For child welfare in Oregon, most of the funding comes from the federal government. During the Bush tenure the bar was set very high and it was hard to match it. Every four years caseloads are analyzed. This is about 70% of the total budget for child welfare in the state. A combination of these lead to working with Wayne Holder, the consultant. A major component was consistency in how the rules are applied. Mr. Carey said he was to design the system with reasonable limitations, and there were a variety of ways identified that children ended up in foster care. The Oregon Safety Model's number one goal was consistency, with direction to come through Oregon Administrative Rule. Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, February 2, 2009 Page 2 of 7 Pages This lessens the choices staff can make to response to particular situations. The other priority was to keep children safe; it is his responsibility to ensure this. He has to balance that with parents' rights and children staying in the family unit. Part of this goal was to reduce foster parent load. Commissioner Baney asked whether other states should have been placing more children, or is Oregon overusing the system. Mr. Carey stated that it is a combination of those things. Part of this does go to his philosophy of keeping the children safe but in the appropriate place. Tremendous damage can be done if children end up in foster care, and it has become apparent that a balance needs to be met. Some children get shipped around and it doesn't bother them; others are dramatically impacted by removal from the home. About 80% of the children that go into foster care go home, so most of them should stay there if possible. He realized that instead of being saviors, the State becomes the bad guy for taking children away from their families. The Safety Model is fairly well set, with few chances for differences in implementation. It has been in effect since March 2007, far ahead from many counties in the State. It is law and will be the model for protective services for everyone. The goal is to lessen foster care, which has gone down in Deschutes County by about 50%. They have received a grant to further reduce foster care. They also want to use the resources that are available, but feel that the foster care level is about as low as it can go. They will attempt to place children with relatives if necessary and possible. Deschutes County appears to have one of the best systems in the State. The other piece is that children in foster care get abused at a level five or six times higher than those remaining in the home, as bad as the home appears to be. Ernie Mazorol asked what they do to make sure the children are safe in the family unit. Mr. Carey said that today they try to remove the abuser instead of the child. He heard from Sheriff Blanton that he was frustrated when responding to a domestic abuse call and the children are caught in the middle of the situation. If that child is put into foster care, it is further trauma to the mother. If the safety threat is removed, the child should not be removed. Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, February 2, 2009 Page 3 of 7 Pages The other big change was a change in risk assessment and safety. They look at risk and ended up with an overwhelming caseload; this does not often involve child abuse. There has to be a direct threat of or actual child abuse at this time. This depends on the situation, which they try to mitigate. Some things can't be overlooked, but about 90% of the cases are part of a process to determine the threat and mitigate it. The Safety Model is a good thing but is not as good as it will be eventually. When you look at the impact of a child welfare system, 90% of states have something like it; the others are moving towards it. The bottom line is, if the State makes an error in judgment, it can result in harm to the child. Jack Blum asked if there is a periodic review of the safety net. The discussion has been that there are times when an officer goes into a home and feels that the child needs to be removed immediately. He also asked if there a safety net for the people where the children are going, the foster homes. Years ago he was a foster parent, and he was not investigated at all to qualify. Since then he was concerned because for years the same thing would happen. Kids would be removed from parents but end up in a horrible foster home. The police may not be able to help, either. Mr. Carey said there can't be two systems. He believes that cooperation is the best way to go. Ultimately the decision to remove a child should be a joint decision. There was an example recently on how this should work. One cases involved a murder suspect with a child, who lived most of his life with others. Law enforcement called with concerns about a hostage situation. There are stronger regulations on foster parents now. A data system for child welfare system was set up based on perpetrators, but it takes a while for the system to catch up. Mr. Carey said that the safety model also deals with children that are at risk to be re-abused. The bottom line is to remain open for communication. He wants to see particular case level situations so he can examine them. He does not expect officers to be social workers and sometimes they have no other options except foster care. They prefer to have law enforcement with them when they call on the family. The laws his group has to follow are cut and dried for the most part. They can't change the laws under which they have to operate. They have to measure how fast they are getting out reports and what the success rate is. Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, February 2, 2009 Page 4 of 7 Pages Input is requested as they want to know that they are doing the right things. If someone is dealing with a situation informally, when do they use the Adoption and Safe Families Act. For instance, perhaps someone is trying to help parents to find a treatment plan. If the cycle goes on too long, the kids have raised themselves. The Act sets the clock, usually a year, at which time the parental rights can be discontinued. Judge Sullivan said that Mr. Carey sat through an audit of the program; he asked for an opinion of the cases, which were randomly selected. Mr. Carey said the State does make mistakes, but in general the cases were very solid. He felt that the system in this area is one of the strongest in the State. Sometimes cases don't move forward and he tries to find out why this happens. The system can be improved, but the tri-county area is the strongest in the State. Judge Sullivan asked if it is difficult to get qualified foster parents. Mr. Carey said that in the early 1970's, most of these had a mom staying at home and a father going to work. It is rare to find this now. They don't pay much to provide care; it is about $490 per month per child. You get people with money who can expend additional funds but don't have a lot of tolerance of behaviors that are not normal to them. On the other end you have people who need the money to survive themselves, and not much of that money goes towards the child. The ultimate answer is no, the system does not encourage quality foster care. There is a high caseload and not much time is expended on following up. They are trying to change the reimbursement rates. Some places get about $3,000 a month or it is left up to the foster parent. The revamp should get the rate closer to $700 or $800 a month, plus more for special situations. There are programs to help children who have special problems, but this is funded through the general fund and of course is the first thing to be cut when funds are low. Judge Sullivan asked if the there is a study that shows that children are better off with a family member. Mr. Carey stated that some children don't even know how to use a fork and a spoon, and don't adjust well in a strange place. Some will eat everything in front of them because they aren't sure where their next meal will come from. Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, February 2, 2009 Page 5 of 7 Pages Judge Sullivan asked about funding being lost if reasonable efforts are not made. Mr. Carey said one standard is that they have to justify the efforts regarding the removal of a child from a home. There have to be reasonable efforts to keep the child out of foster care. If the goal is to find decent parents, it is not the responsibility of the State. Domestic violence is a big issue, but sometimes the child is better off with the mother. The reality is doing this work and staying within the boundaries of the system is difficult. They do check on conditions applied to the offender, like staying away from the victim, but it doesn't always happen. If other options are not available, such as a family member, then the child may end up in foster care. Mr. Blum said that the end result of child abuse cases is bad. In his work for many years in corrections, he saw a lot of this in people who had been abused and were also abusers. If child abuse and abuse in foster care is stopped, it would take a big load off the prisons. He asked if there is a way to get agencies to talk to each other about the best possible system to address this. Mr. Carey said the federal resource centers do a lot of this comparison, from state to state. They know what works and what doesn't. The safety model is a compilation of various resource centers. The safety model is a good thing and will be better. At first he and some of his staff did not want to follow it, but it makes sense. It will never be perfect. Judge Sullivan asked about cuts to the budget. Mr. Carey replied that child welfare and self sufficiency programs will get about a $300 million cut; that is about a 27% cut in funding. The Governor committed to a stronger child welfare system, and has made a lot of efforts to save child welfare programs. The child welfare part would be cut minimally if the Governor has his way. Mental Health, drug and alcohol programs and some others would be cut that do affect child welfare. About 91% of their clients have drug or alcohol problems. People raise their kids the way they were raised; it hardly changes. At some point the core has to be reached'to make sure people are decent parents. Hillary Saraceno asked about the outcomes and how they measure performance. He replied a lot has to do with the length of stay in foster care, and timeliness in following up. Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, February 2, 2009 Page 6 of 7 Pages Judge Sullivan said that there are not many contested parental rights termination cases in Deschutes County. Some cases are handled through settlement conferences. He says they feel this is because all has been done to correct the problem up to that point. Mr. Carey distributed a flyer regarding upcoming training for the Oregon Safety Model; he encouraged anyone who could benefit from this sign up. Commissioner Baney said that it might be helpful to offer training at a variety of locations to expand enrollment to law enforcement and other professionals who are impacted by the problem. 5. Other Business. Scott Johnson said that in early March, there will be a review of Mental Health Services for licensing purposes; members of LPSCC are welcome to be a part of the process. None other was offered. Being no further items discussed, the meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Bonnie Baker Recording Secretary Attachments Exhibit A: Agenda Exhibit B: Sign in sheets Exhibit C: Oregon Safety Model Training Information Sheet Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, February 2, 2009 Page 7 of 7 Pages DESCHUTES COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY COORDINATING COUNCIL GYM ~ { A ..fir February 2, 2009, 3:30 pm Allen Room, County Administration Building, 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR A m& Call to Order & Introductions Judge Sullivan II January Minutes Judge Sullivan Action: Approve minutes III Public Comment Judge Sullivan IV Safety Net for Abuse and Neglect Matters Pat Carey, Regional DHS Manager Provide briefing to Council Attachment 1 V Other Business Judge Sullivan z z v LU Q J a v it o N Nw C aCi ~ N LL. i Cie w ~ti ~ c e ` tvv ~ 1 ~ p U ^ ~ h Cs1 n p c N E ~ v v o z ~ J q ~ V J J ~r r v v a r Oregon Safety Model Phase II Training Community Partners of Deschutes County Course Description: In March of 2007, the Department of Human Services, Child Welfare Program adopted the Oregon Safety Model. All Child Welfare Staff have been trained and now there is a condensed version of the same training available for Community Partners. Trainers from your region will be providing a three hour training specifically for Community Partners who work with Child Welfare staff and their families. This training will consist of an overview of six Oregon Safety Model tools that will guide you through the safety of a child from intervention to permanency. Course Title: Oregon Safety Model Phase II Training Course Number: 000734 Date and Time: February 25, 2009, 9 am to 12 pm Location: Deschutes Human Services Building, 1300 NW Wall St, Lewis & Clark room You must register for this training. Please go to the DHS Learning Center at: htt s:l/dhslearn.hr.state.or.us and create a user profile OR call Ninfa or Teresa @ the DHS Administration Office S41-504-1320