Inquiry Into the Effectiveness of the Children’s Shelter

Conclusions 7

• CL1 Page 7
  There are a number of unresolved problems at the Children’s Shelter, notably the runaways, the physical abuse perpetrated upon the staff and other residents, the children sexually abusing each other, the recidivism rate, and the lengthy stays for many teenagers.
• CL2 Page 7
  Despite the fact that a full-time deputy sheriff and a detective from the Sheriff’s Office are now assigned to the Shelter, they cannot stop youth from running away because the Shelter is not a locked facility.
• CL3 Page 7
  Based on the incident reports, the Grand Jury found that there are children at the Shelter who are severely emotionally disturbed.
• CL4 Page 7
  Congregate care is not developmentally normative. Living in an institutional setting establishes this as a frame of reference for the children as they adapt to the institution. The congregate care of children who have been abused and/or neglected provides the opportunity for the abused to become an abuser.
• CL5 Page 7
  The estimated cost for the overall operation of the Children’s Shelter in Fiscal Year 2003 is approximately $19,000 per month per child, based on an average daily population of 60, with questionable outcomes for these children. 7
• CL6 Page 8
  The Management Audit prepared for the Board of Supervisors in 2001 and past Grand Jury Reports highlighted the many problems that have existed at the Shelter and offered possible remedies. Social Services has addressed some of these issues, but despite past efforts to implement solutions, it is obvious that the problems still exist. Recommendation The Grand Jury learned that the problems at the Children’s Shelter are serious and complex in nature. Therefore, the Grand Jury strongly recommends that the Board of Supervisors appoint a Blue Ribbon Task Force consisting of national, state and local experts in child welfare and child development. It should also include a representative from the Juvenile Court and a mental health expert who has experience with abused and neglected children. This Task Force should provide an in-depth study of the needs of our children who are taken into protective custody, and identify the optimum programs and/or new approaches for their care. 8 PASSED and ADOPTED by the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury on this 27th day of May, 2003. ____________________________________ Fred de Funiak Foreperson ____________________________________ Ron R. Layman Foreperson Pro Tem ____________________________________ Patricia L. Cunningham Secretary 9 References Documents Child Development, Children’s Mental Health and the Juvenile Justice System: Principles for Effective Decision-Making. Vol. 14.1, David E. Arredondo, M.D., Medical Director of the Office of Child Development, Neuropsychiatry and Mental Health and EMQ Children and Family Services. Children’s Shelter FY 2003 Staff & Operation Analysis as of February 16, 2003. EMQ Children & Family Services Matrix Children’s Shelter Program Practice Handbook. Grand Jury Santa Clara County Final Report 1997-1998. Grand Jury Santa Clara County Final Report 1999-2000. Institutions vs. Foster Homes: The Empirical Base for a Century of Action, Richard P. Barth, Ph.D., Jordan Institute for Families, School of Social Work, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2002. Management Audit of the Department of Family and Children’s Services of the Social Services Agency, October 2001. Mental Health Law Reporter, Vol. 21 No. 4, April 2003. Off Agenda Report to the Children and Families Committee on the Status of the Out of Home Care Placement Initiatives, October 2002, Will Lightbourne, Director, Social Services Agency, County of Santa Clara. Santa Clara County Children’s Shelter, Incident Reports, October 2001 through March2003, Inclusive. Technical Assistance Brief, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, December 2002. Questions Every Judge and Lawyer Should Ask About Infants and Toddlers in the Child Welfare System, Joy Osofsky, Ph.D., Candice Maze, J.D., Judge Cindy Lederman, Justice Martha Grace and Sheryl Dicker, J.D. The US Department of Justice Child Delinquency Bulletin Series, March 2003, Treatment, Services and Intervention Programs for Child Delinquents, Barbara J. Burns, James C. Howell, Janet K. Wiig, Leena k. Augimeri, Brendan C. Welsh, Rolf Loeber, and David Petechuk. When Interventions Harm: Peer Groups and Problem Behavior, American Psychologist 54 (9): 755-764, Dishion, T.J. McCord, J., and Poulin, F. 1999. 10 Interviews Chief Financial Officer, Social Services Agency, Santa Clara County, April 3, 2003. Cottage Manager, Santa Clara County Children’s Shelter, October 24, 2002. Deputy Director, Santa Clara County Children’s Shelter, February 19, 2003. Director, Department of Family and Children’s Services, County of Santa Clara, December 9, 2002. Director, Santa Clara County Children’s Shelter, November 18, 2002 and April 2, 2003. Director, Social Services Agency, County of Santa Clara, January 22, 2003. District Attorney’s Office, April 15, 2003. District Attorney’s Office, September 9, 2002. Division Director, Santa Clara County Services, EMQ Children & Family Services, April 10, 2003. Executive Director, Orangewood Foundation, March 18, 2003. Executive Director, Silicon Valley Children’s Fund, February 19, 2002. Medical Director, EMQ Children & Family Services, and the Office of Child Development, Neuropsychiatry and Mental Health, March 3, 2003 and April 10, 2003. President and CEO, EMQ Children & Family Services, March 3, 2003. Senior Mental Health Program Specialist, Santa Clara Valley Health and Hospital System, February 19, 2003. Social Work Supervisor, Department of Family and Children’s Services, Santa Clara County Children’s Shelter, October 24, 2002. Social Worker Community Care Facilities, Department of Family and Children’s Services, County of Santa Clara, October 24, 2002. Social Worker, Department of Family and Children’s Services, County of Santa Clara Social Services Agency, February 19, 2003. Supervising Judge, Dependency Court, Superior Court, State of California, County of Santa Clara, September 23, 2002, October 10, 2002, and February 28, 2003. 11
• CL7 Page 6
  The Grand Jury acknowledges the efforts that many citizens and officials have put into constructing and operating this Children’s Shelter. Although the Children’s Shelter in Santa Clara County was hailed as a benchmark at the time of its construction, and many efforts have been made to provide for the care and treatment of the children in a congregate environment, evidence indicates it has not achieved its goal of providing a safe, nurturing and temporary environment for children awaiting placement. The very serious behavioral and mental problems that exist must be addressed vigorously. These at-risk children have been entrusted to the community’s care. It is crucial that the community carry out that responsibility by providing the best alternative. Concerned citizens have made efforts in the past to point out the problems which exist at the Shelter and to encourage the authorities to act, i.e., past Grand Jury Reports and the Management Audit Report. While some remedies and improvements have taken place, problems persist. Clearly, a new approach is needed. 6 During the course of its inquiry, the Grand Jury learned that recent social science research has suggested some innovative and promising approaches to caring for children who are now housed in congregate-type environments, like the Shelter. Due to the very serious and persistent nature of the problems encountered at the Shelter, the Grand Jury believes it is time to enlist the help of those individuals familiar with both the latest literature in the field and the on-the-ground success stories. At this critical juncture, the community can only benefit from the analysis and advice offered by a diverse panel of experts committed to creating the best environment for our abused and neglected children. Finding I There are a number of unresolved problems at the Children’s Shelter, notably the runaways, the physical abuse perpetrated upon the staff and other residents, the children sexually abusing each other, the recidivism rate, and the lengthy stays for many teenagers. Finding II Despite the fact that a full-time deputy sheriff and a detective from the Sheriff’s Office are now assigned to the Shelter, they cannot stop youth from running away because the Shelter is not a locked facility. Finding III Based on the incident reports, the Grand Jury found that there are children at the Shelter who are severely emotionally disturbed. Finding IV Congregate care is not developmentally normative. Living in an institutional setting establishes this as a frame of reference for the children as they adapt to the institution. The congregate care of children who have been abused and/or neglected provides the opportunity for the abused to become an abuser. Finding V The estimated cost for the overall operation of the Children’s Shelter in Fiscal Year 2003 is approximately $19,000 per month per child, based on an average daily population of 60, with questionable outcomes for these children. 7 Finding VI The Management Audit prepared for the Board of Supervisors in 2001 and past Grand Jury Reports highlighted the many problems that have existed at the Shelter and offered possible remedies. Social Services has addressed some of these issues, but despite past efforts to implement solutions, it is obvious that the problems still exist.

No Responses Found 2

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.