CAFCA Children's Treatment Services Committee Minutes

Joint Meeting of the CAFCA CTS Committee and the Foster Care Committee

Meeting held at Families First

January 19, 2007

Members Present: Patty Erjavec—Committee Chair and Dave Dillingham (El Pueblo), Cynthia Noah and Libby Lennan (Adoption Alliance), Sister Amy Willcott (Mount St. Vincents), Jana Welsh (Kidz Ark), Jedd Hafer (Childrens Ark), Bill Hildenbrand (Savio House), Pam Hricik (Shiloh Home), Mark Mellinger (Beacon Center), Angela Bornemann (Arapahoe House), Peg Long, Katie Mason, Susannah Carroll, and Heidi Hendricks (CAFCA), Brad Kusick (tennyson Center), Karen Yarberry (Jefferson Hills), Marianne Anderson (Adoption Options), Terry Rogers (Lost and Found), Melissa Maile (Catholic Charities), Skip Barber (CAA)

Identified Goal – To discuss partnering when TRCCFs step a child down or up to/from Foster Care.

Questions and Discussion:

When you have a child ready to step down, who makes the decision where the child goes, to parents, or what?  It was communicated that it depends on the county as to who the decision maker is, and it varies a lot.  It also depends on the CPA.  Training on the process, was recommended for all involved, before the child is placed.  A concern is that the Foster Parent frequently raises issues, just hour before the child is discharged.  While many Foster Parents are doing this for the right reasons, that some are more concerned with how/when they’ll be paid.  The county is the primary responsible agency for locating the step down placement.

It was noted that the desperation of the caseworker frequently drives the placement as opposed to considering which placement is best for the child.  It was suggested that there needs to be a profile developed on the child that the providers can check out.  The counties also use their own homes first, regardless of appropriateness.  Communications with everyone involved needs to be approved and we should never surprise caseworkers with a plan that they aren’t aware of.

It was suggested that CAFCA develop a database for coordinating placements.  Heidi suggests meeting with the county intake people, as they’re the ones that decide on the placement.  She also suggested that preferred providers would become the ones who attend the meeting.  With smaller counties that don’t have an intake person, someone needs to identify the person who fulfills that function.  Having aftercare sessions with the Foster Care people to ensure that the placement is appropriate is crucial to the success of the placement.

Peg says there needs to be exploration on how a child can return to the TRCCF from Foster Care on a short term basis.  She claims that the State is willing to dialog re: reducing the number of placements in TRAILS, etc.  Peg says that it is her legacy to get that process started.  The State says it’s illegal to return a child to TRCCF without closing them out of Foster Care.  A longer window of respite care up to 30 days need to be developed with the state.  Placement plans should include a provision for respite.  There is total buy-in from the counties on this issue, but the State needs to be convinced.  

Developing partnerships in people in this meeting need to promote this process.  Peg says the loophole exists for overcoming this obstacle; we just have to lobby the State and keep pursuing it.  The Continuum of Care Committee is the one that needs to be primarily involved.  Peg has already presented this to the Continuum of Care Group; it needs to be acted on.  She indicates that this has already been discussed at the JBC Hearing Committee.  CORE dollars could be used according to Heidi; counties have some flexibility in using this money for Respite.  This allows for counties to do case rates, e.g., the county contracts with the provider for five months of residential care, but they’ll work toward getting the child home for 10 days for Respite.  This saves the county money and opens the road to allow providers and counties to maximize their $$.  Treatment Foster Care was recognized in the past session, it creates another opportunity for partnerships between CPAs and providers.

Many times Foster Parents are not prepared to deal with the level of severity of a lot of these kids and we are losing these people.  Partnering between providers and counties need to occur more and we need to think outside the box on how to work together more effectively.  Peg says the Community Living Centers (CLCs) will facilitate this situation, but there is a licensing issue.  CPA Providers went to the Group Home, which Heidi says is a good mode. Concerned was expressed that some counties are frying their Foster Parents with trying to care for these hard-core kids. 

Next Steps:

Have Foster Care Committee meet with the Providers quarterly.

Develop Training opportunities for Foster Parents.

Approach State through the Continuum of Care Committee regarding developing the longer window of respite care.

The CTS Committee met alone after the Foster Care people left.  It was suggested that we need to make several people aware of the directions we’re heading and our needs, especially around the inequity in rates situation.  Patrick Brodhead, the JBC Analyst needs to be involved, Karen Beye, the new DHS Director will be invited to our next meeting, and at some point, Representative Buescher needs to be involved. 

It was noted that there are currently 950 kids in residential care throughout the state, the average daily rate is $147, and there are 24 providers below that rate.  The JBC understands our problem and we either need to suggest to them a specific average rate for all providers or they will give us one that won’t work.  It was noted several times throughout the discussion, that we need to expect that current existing funding dollars need to be accepted as we consider this, there are no extra dollars.