Grievance Council, Consumer Hearing Panel and Office of the Child Protection Ombudsman work together? (2) What is the role of each? (3) How well does this work for clients? and (4)
Where does the client go first; and for what reasons? Sen. Wharton recommended strengthening
the Ombudsman office and eliminating the Grievance Council to avoid putting clients through
unnecessary hearings.
Representative Nora B. Stephens said that it is not necessary to have three hearing processes.
She agreed with Sen. Wharton that the Ombudsman process is necessary and should be
strengthened. Rep. Stephens recommended the Ombudsman office be independent from the
Department of Human Services (DHS), including financial independence; have power to enforce
compliance; and have responsibility for follow up. She also said there needs to be a clear
procedure for the hearing process.
Chair Haymond reviewed the issues presented by Sen. Wharton and Rep. Stephens and said
that the panel will give the recommendations further consideration.
Scott Clark, Board of Child and Family Services, suggested the panel also examine the
following issues regarding the Consumer Hearing Panel: (1) Should the panel have the right to
make employment-related decisions? (2) Should the panel have the right to change file entries?
and (3 ) Should the panel have the right to regulate licensing?
Mr. Howe stated that Pat McElroy, National Center for Youth Law, said that if the
Ombudsman office had sufficient power and independence, the center would consider asking the
federal court to reverse its ruling regarding the Grievance Council. Sen. Hillyard asked what the
procedure is for such a change. Ms. Hancock said if all parties agree to modification, it would
require a court hearing. Carolyn Nichols, Office of the Attorney General, said that if agreement
can be reached, the Grievance Council can be eliminated. She noted that without agreement the
council will expire, along with the rest of the settlement agreement, in August 1998.
3. Report on Ungovernable and Delinquent Pilot Program in Fourth Juvenile District Court -- S. Brian Lindsey, Executive Director, Youth Reclamation, Inc. (YRI), reported on the results of the pilot program as well as projections for expanding the program to other areas. He
reviewed the handout titled "Youth Reclamation, YRI Program Update" and said that publication
of the outcome research for the program is targeted for December 1997. He expects there will be
additional challenges implementing this program in rural areas and with youth in foster homes.
He stressed that dealing with ungovernable and delinquent youth must be a collaborative effort.
Paul Curtis, Director, DCFS Western Region, said that the purpose of intervention is to keep
youth out of DCFS custody and provide in-home services to youth and their families. He said
that the program has been offered to the fourth, fifth, and sixth district juvenile courts. He
expects the research to show that as a result of this program the number of youth in high-cost
care in the Western Region has decreased.
LaRay Brown, Associate Director, Western Region, said that protection of the child and the
community is not compromised by this program. She stated that the current focus is to move the
YRI program into the rural areas of DCFS Western and Southwest Regions. The program will
first be implemented in Manti, then in Richfield and Delta / Fillmore. Ms. Brown feels it will be
necessary to make adjustments to adapt this program to a rural setting.
Chair Haymond asked about the cost of high-cost care. Ms. Brown said the average cost is
$100 per day. Mr. Lindsey reported that average cost for in-home care is $45 per day for 90
days. The families pay a portion of that cost according to a sliding scale rate. The care
following the initial 90 days is provided at no cost to the families.
Jenny Barber, Alpine School District, Aspire Program, said the Aspire program focuses on
educational needs, setting and attaining goals, tutorial assistance, class attendance, job skills, and
job performance. The main goal of the program is to support and facilitate the students' existing
school program. Ms. Barber said that this curriculum is being transferred to a web base delivery
program to assist students in remote locations.
Chair Hillyard requested that the directors and judges of all youth programs appear before the
panel and give their recommendations regarding ways to unify, streamline, and overcome
duplication in services and funding. Mr. Lindsey said that the letter distributed to the panel from
Judge Leslie D. Brown titled "Fourth District Juvenile Court, To The Division OF Child and
Family Service" addresses these concerns. Ms. Brown added that the YRI program is a multi-
agency program.
Chair Haymond said that the two year pilot has shown positive results at the family level. He
thanked Mr. Lindsey, Mr. Curtis, Ms. Barber, and Ms. Brown for their presentations.
4. Review of Possible Changes to Child Welfare Statutes_Janetha W. Hancock, Associate General Counsel, reviewed the handout titled "Suggestions & Questions Regarding the Utah
Child Welfare Reform Act, 1998 General Session" which lists items that have been suggested or
discussed as questions, ideas, or possible changes to Utah's Child Welfare Reform Act. This is
not an official list and in no way reflects any official recommendation or suggestion from the
Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel, or from any legislator. These items
include: (1) kinship placements; (2) requirement to establish programs designed to meet the
needs of children who are in custody on grounds of abuse or neglect; (3) definition of terms for
sexual abuse in Title 78, Chapter 3a, and in Title 62A, Chapter 4a; (4) child abuse and neglect
database; (5) statutorily define "substantiation;" (6) re-create in statute a system for obtaining
protective orders for minors in juvenile court; (7) inclusion of the recently enacted crime of "
commission of domestic violence in the presence of a child" in the civil definitions of child
abuse; (8) amend Section 78-3a-308 to state that failure to keep statutory time lines is not a
jurisdictional bar to the proceedings; (9) clarify the potential "rights" or preferential
consideration of fathers under Section78-3a-307; (10) authority of juvenile courts to do paternity
testing and establish paternity; (11) representation of the "State" or the "Division" by the
Attorney General in abuse, neglect, and dependency proceedings; (12) search warrant issues; (13)
the role of the Child Welfare Legislative Oversight Panel; and (14) changes due to federal
legislation.
5. Report of the Executive Director of the Department of Human Services on Implementation of Section 62A-4a-118 (Accountability to Legislature)--Doug Springmeyer, Director, Office of Compliance, DHS, distributed a report titled "Bureau of Services Review,
Child Welfare Compliance Review 97-1." This preliminary report is a compliance and
performance review of DCFS regarding the settlement agreement.
Rod Betit, former Executive Director, DHS, reported that the main focus during the last 18
months has been rebuilding the DCFS to meet the terms of the settlement agreement. He listed
improvements made in the DCFS including: employee accountability, increased resources,
automated environment, neighborhood teams, restoring partner focus, creation of the Office of
Child Protection Ombudsman, and additional tools and training for staff. He said Child
Protective Services (CPS) findings show significant improvements in compliance levels in
unaccepted intake, general CPS, and medical neglect. He reported that foster care results show
strengths in case planning and service delivery, but found weaknesses in areas of notifications
and other interactions with people outside the agency. He said most of these problems can be
corrected by improving the way caseworkers document cases. Mr. Betit noted that after the
panel report is available a comprehensive plan will be developed.
Ken Patterson, Director, DCFS, agreed that documentation is critical for compliance. He
said that children must be protected from harm.
Mr. Springmeyer introduced Caren J. Frost, Bureau of Services Review (BSR); Jack L.
Green, Office of Compliance, DHS; and Mary Ann Shaening, Shaening and Associates to the
panel. Mr. Springmeyer said that the BSR report represents the requirements that can be
determined by case review, however, 40 percent of the requirements cannot be determined by
case review. Those remaining requirements will be presented independently. He said the DCFS
has been committed to implementing changes as they are able. He recommends implementation
of a program that will give immediate feedback to individual caseworkers.
6. Other Business _ There was no other business discussed by the panel.
7. Adjournment _
MOTION: Rep. Stephens moved to adjourn the meeting at 11:15 a.m. The motion passed unanimously. Sen Wharton was absent for the vote.