The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About841152.tiff RESOLUTION RE: APPROVAL OF WELD COUNTY PLACEMENT ALTERNATIVES PLAN AND AUTHORIZATION FOR CHAIRMAN TO SIGN WHEREAS , the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to Colorado statute and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of administering the affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and WHEREAS , one function of the Weld County Placement Alterna- tives Commission is to prepare an annual plan, the purpose of which is to develop alternatives to the placement of children away from their parents and to find lower cost placement alter- natives for those children who have to be placed, and WHEREAS , such a plan has been prepared and presented to the Board of County Commissioners for approval, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference , and WHEREAS , the period of time covered by the Weld County Placement Alternatives Plan is from July 1 , 1984 , to June 30 , 1985 , and WHEREAS , the Board of County Commissioners has studied said plan and deems it advisable to approve the same. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Com- missioners of Weld County, Colorado that the Weld County Place- ment Alternatives Plan prepared by the Weld County Placement Alternatives Commission be, and hereby is , approved. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board that the Chairman be, and hereby is , authorized to sign said plan. The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted by the following vote on the 23rd day of April , A.D. , 1984 . 1- BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ATTEST: 7Y tS4L!.r✓ WELD COUNTY, COLORADO Weld County ] lerk and Recorder `/ & and Clerk to the BoQxj--- 0.41:_sole.;0- cque Norman Carlson, Chairman Bye yw,yu ed a J Lo r�D putt' Countyerke J son, Pro-Tem APPROVED AS TO FORM: EXCUSED DATE OF SIGNING - AYE Gene R. Brantn County A torney Chuck Carlso ,i .T 22?"ii-tri 841152 . S006Q J T. Martin I--II 0200 042584 WELD COUNTY FY 1984-85 ALTERNATIVE PLACEMENT PLAN This County Plan has been developed by the Weld County Placement Alternatives Commission which includes the following members: NAME ORGANIZATIONAL AFFILIATION Anthony Bliss Partners , Inc. Ann Heiman Citizen Dr. Neil Henderson School District Six, Greeley Dr. Willard Jones Citizen Miriam Marshall Human Resource Department Eugene McKenna Department of Social Services John Michaels Windsor Police Department Al Orlofsky Weld County Community Center Foundation Dr. Karl Schmidli Weld Board of Cooperative Educational Services Diane Smith Weld Mental Health Center William Starks District Attorney Jan Staudinger Our House, Inc. (private RCCF) Lee Steele Probation Department Nancy Varner Citizen Ella Mae White Citizen Dr. Ralph Wooley Public Health Department Donna Wright Citizen The period to be covered by this Plan is from July 1 , 1984 to June 30, 1985. The signatures below affirm that this Plan has been developed by the Placement Alternatives Commission a d approved by the Director of Social Services and by the rd of unty/�C issioners. A OFSKY, C AIR W COUNTY PLACEM T AL RNATIVES COMMISSION EU E MCK , ECTOR WE COUNTY DEPA TMENT� OF SOCIAL SERVICES A ea- ips— NORMAN CARLSON, CHAIRMAN WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ATTEST: 4Lt.U'1Qt WELD COUNTY &PI< AND RECORDER AND CLERK TO THE b RD Depu y County Clerk • TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Number I . PAC PLANNING AND EVALUATION PROCESS 1 II. PLACEMENT AND ALTERNATIVE TRENDS - # of children 1982-1983 3 1983-1984 4 III. PLACEMENT AND ALTERNATIVE TRENDS - cost of care 1982-1983 5 1983-1984 6 IV. PAC PROGRAM UTILIZATION 7 V. EVALUATION OF PROGRAM OBJECTIVES . Therapeutic Foster Care 8 Partners Plus 8 Respite Care 9 Parent Child Support System 9 VI. PROPOSED PROGRAMS • Therapeutic Foster Care 10 . Partners Plus 13 Respite Care 16 Parent Child Support System 19 • VII . ALTERNATIVE SERVICES PLAN REGISTRATION Therapeutic Foster Care 22 Partners Plus 23 Respite Care 24 Parent Child Support System 25 "III. PROGRAM SUMMARY SHEET 26 IX. FINAL BUDGET SUMMARY 27 Appendix PROGRAM NARRATIVE Therapeutic Foster Care a Partners Plus d Respite Care e PAC PLANNING AND EVALUATION PROCESS 1 . HOW WERE OUT-OF-HOME PLACEMENT NEEDS ASSESSED? In the beginning phases, as well as an on-going process, the Commission analyzed the overall status of out-of-home placement within Weld County. This included examination of both the numbers of individuals placed as well as the rationale for placement. Additionally, the Commission became familiar with the criteria used by the Department of Social Services staff in recommending RCCF, group home and family foster care and the typical psychological profile of children placed in RCCF and group care. 2. WHO IS INVOLVED IN MAKING DECISIONS RELATIVE TO OUT-OF-HOME PLACEMENT? The 19th Judicial District and the Weld County Department of Social Services make final decisions relative to the need for out-of-home placements. Input and recommendations to assist in making these deter- minations may include Weld County Probation Department, local school ( districts, Weld Mental Health Center, the legal profession, Weld County Community Center Board, and parents. 3. HOW ARE REFERRALS TO PAC PROGRAMS MADE, AND WHO APPROVES ADMISSION? Referrals to Placement Alternative programs are primarily generated by the social casework staff and the program providers, such as Partners, Inc. and the Parent-Child Support System. Each referral is jointly staffed by the Department of Social Services and the program staff. Final approval for admissions into the program is made by the County Department. An exception to the referral and admission procedure is the Respite Care program. All referrals are made directly to the Respite Care Coordinator who in turn approves each admission to the program. 4. IS THERE A TEAM APPROACH TO PLACEMENT AND/OR PAC PROGRAM DECISIONS? Each of the following Placement Alternative Programs utilize the concept of a team approach to delivery of services to the client population. They are: Parent Child Support System and Therapeutic Foster Care. Parent Child Support System - A team consisting of a social services supervisor, caseworker, program social worker and educational specialist meet to staff referrals. Upon approval and admission to the program a case plan is developed by the team which outlines each ones responsibility in delivering services to the client. The team consisting of caseworker, program social worker, and educational specialist meet every other week to discuss progress towards the objectives. Therapeutic Foster Care - A team consisting of the caseworker, foster parent and psychologist develops a case plan in working with the child and parents. The team works with the family on a co-therapeutic mode as:well as on an individual basis. The services are delivered on an intensive basis and the team meets weekly to evaluate progress. In both program areas the teams are involved in program emphasis and discharge of clients. PAC PLANNING AND EVALUATION PROCESS continued 5. WHAT IS THE PROCEDURE AND FREQUENCY FOR REVIEWING ONGOING FOSTER CARE PLACEMENTS? Pursuant to the Colorado Children's Code and Senate Bill 26 legislation, each foster care placement is reviewed for need of placement every six months. Within the first thirty days the initial review of placement occurs and then every six months until the termination of placement. Foster care placement involving developmentally disabled children is reviewed every six months by an Administrative Review Committee. In • addition, supervisory staff have on-going reviews with their staff regarding the continued need for placement. The Placement Alternatives Commission receives a monthly report of the cost, number of children in foster care and number of children in Place- ment 'Alternatives programs. { 6. WHAT IS THE PROCEDURE AND FREQUENCY FOR REVIEWING ALTERNATIVE PLACEMENT PROGRAMS? The Placement Alternatives Commission's procedure for review of programs is based on a monthly report. The report contains the following information: number of children enrolled, number of children discharged, monthly expenditure, expenditures to date, cost savings and comparative data. In addition, each program is discussed in terms of progress towards the goals and evaluation of the impact of services on the client population. Once per year the Placement Alternatives Commission requests• an oral presentation from assigned program personnel on the overall performance of the project and its impact on the clients served and whether the objectives of Senate Bill 26 are being met. C / 0 / • U >• 'ri X / ` C) / .CD i -t C Y O t --4 G L C \i. < 1 C1 Z N an I 0 E c Z c a c Y Cl.) v H I C O Y U F G1 .0 L O 1 C C Z.C y y . Ea E E Z • • •') u U a m 1 u o n H a < Z - F P. V , U GI Z U Z Z w E > C a / c ,r F u E. Ol I144 t9 , • rz) :El EL. / O Y O G O . > N L U O 7 .-1 G C 1 Z ,— O < CO ' 1 c C >4 Z 1 C C H Z - +.' el 0.1z • Y Y 0 a O 'O F 1 ' U U 1 u u:. G O O -CT \ U Y C! U an 3 E E \ a C • Z Z / / T . 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 t I 0 CO 1/40 C N 0 W 4.0 C N N - . ualpT?gj io aagcnN r 1 T X O ,u V, C G • G Z C c K CO o a E m r0 r..,-.. n a F W• a c/) CJ _ i C• v > L H L L Q L v • - v. E E C / C a a , U U F.. / o r a • G. L.. u CJ C.I . Z G V E > _ C7 L Z U w r. C4 O I • _ m Y L U Z C CM < a ' r O < 13. p •( > C t _ L i 1 Y a F Z C W Z • J/ + u C1 0 C u 1+ L O O ' O O J F ' 0 U • —1 G C 1 -p In L L 1 co G 3 ' CU E E L' • z z I 1 T • 1 i 4 1 I I i I I *JD R ON 0 COO C 0 0 O CO N uaapTZy3 30 aagcnx • - I 1 x • - T G., I v..-1 I C D • .-4 L u 1 C.- C t O ' y u • • C N 1 • I E C C 1 L at r. O En • L IV L U1 , as L L] I cc A C C a.+ V CJ O E E Z ' • C a) Cl ` -' C C) U 7 'D C C --t .-. 1 L F. H < I a) a) Z E > 1 C .. • 1 u = a-1 F+ Cl I C a I a C G 1 C L 0 I ar Z r i u . 1 o CO - H TO - • ^ > Z 'C 1 z ' C••-.1L, z 0 - - I a) Ti] a) C U P. I a a) ' O • P-. L D • a I J ',1 P. H • . O .--i .y U .,. En \ O r O 0 0 H U Z - , y 7 O O• o 0 : L L W 1 C_ I C) a) u V L s- 1 C r. 0 0 o J 4J I 1 CS D O 4 IL L al in I D O 0 0 T • , O sr) o In 01noLI-) 0 L 0 L Ou> OIn otoou'l O OI OI CO CO n n 4.0 UD In Ln V Cr MM N CVrr (spuesnotp ul) 2]Pj 30 ] SOD 1 i n .17 v u x .71 o -4 o • -' 4 L C C < O • I• 0 I N i, IC E - j 0 C P. I' r. O U) • U Y I C ... L • L O Is2 C C a I w ci o E E v ( I _ c U U C U U L I -, O C 7 .ti •-- H I L Cl. < I < w m z z I 0 -�+ ., I - U = L H • U I a C •-' C o L I C) IL L < w o < . F, U / 0 ❑ c ' C,. 0 -4 -4 c=a < 0 CO a C S C C1 > W 0 w I < O I - J ^ L --+ r P.. U) • U -. rn 0 \ 0 = 0 0 • r^ 0 L L a C ` C a O p L L L, U IL. ` ^ C- V C) U • in L I- I C c O C: O / J , Ili rr o it 3 II C ' L Cr. m I O 0 U L.: T • 0 • C.-- ^O VD tO In Ol C Q Ih CO N ON r r in O In 001010] CO (spuesnoyl ui ) aarj 1c ]SOJ r . Li-) f•) M N - U, .) e N N v.) be) 69 69 a) I C C 7. ;-4 1-1 III N -4 ▪ 4 al al O O P. L-. r r c� c • • r: O r--- N ON 1 I I-7 i L U' I C CI 0 CM CO I O CI f C >. y p: O O O - I C 7 r r . I W I • '> L. < ail t Oi • N Z I CI O ) rt J., C O ^ N M _ U o G < I N • �I 0 enr r 1� r+ N 7t C N- 7 L I c O • a�sn�c=-__- -i O t7 C 1 .• C r C) CO I a C u 00 en In r` O ID I b9 *At b4 +A U •c. c.) , . O G G.. L U ' >, E ".. a, c L C U "� r- ,- 0 r r C.0C O ;i O C C- 1..• .y C G. C.. 0 Y S- S- O a.) a . Y 0. C1 to 7 O In li an E 7 N V U i L tl t7 CO 1Y V -C O N S.- Cu V E I.. I a a) .4) Y O) ..._ tp O) C C Y L L Y fl_ Q) to J I 0) rJ S.- in L ?t .C V al NQs tO N !7\ EVALUATION OF PROGRAM OBJECTIVES • DEGREE PROGRAM PROCESS OBJECTIVES PERFORMANCE LIFT (a) Average number of kids to be served per mo . 10 10 100% herapeutic oster Care • (b)Average length of time in Program not to exceed 24 mo . Average length 9.5 months 100% (c)Average cost per month to serve child not to exceed • $ 799 Under expended for fiscal year 100% 1983 - 1984 (d)The treatment plan at 87.5% of the children were discharge for at least 80 z dismissed to non-substitute care of the children served will call for a residence other 1 child dismissed to substitute 100% than substitute care . Care (a) Average number of kids ' Partners Plus to be served per mo . 13 11 .5 partnerships monthly 80% (b)Average length of time in Program not to exceedl2 mo . average 9.5 months per child 100% (c)Average cost per month to serve child not to exceed $ 331 _ - at budget 100% (d)The treatment plan at discharge for at least 80 % 90% of all discharges were to of the children served will child's home 100% call for a residence other than substitute care. (e)60% will be placed in less 85% of children needing place- 100% restrictive settings ment were placed in less restric- tive settings (f) 70% will not be charged with ' 90 were not charged with furthe - further delinquent offenses delinquent offenses 100% I (g) 80;k wi I f maintain contact ...5+k n2r+nor if+nr A;rrk -n.. O[0.' ...•._+,c__� ___i__� I ....._, EVALUATION OF PROGRAM. OBJECTIVES DEGREE PROGRAM PROCESS OBJECTIVES PERFORMANCE MVT (a) Average number of kids to be served per mo . 10 18 children received Respite 100% Respite Care during the_year Care All children to be provided long (b)Average length of time in term respite to prevent n/a Program not to exceedn/amo . institutionalization (c)Average cost per month to Due to increased use of Excess serve child not to exceed Cost Funds , budget increased $ 159 - $900 for fiscaT year 1983-84 95% (d)The treatment plan at All of the population served discharge for at least n/a y, would require substitute care n/a of the children served will with the exception of those who call for a residence other pass away or relocate outside than substitute care . the county (e) (a) Average number of kids ' to be served per mo . 11 Unable to evaluate - Program Par -t-Child just begun Sup, ..rt System (b)Average length of time in Program not to exceed 6 mo . (c)Average cost per month to serve child not to exceed $ 412 - (d)The treatment plan at discharge for at least 85 % of the children served will call for a residence other than substitute care . (e) PROPOSED PROGRAMS - - Therapeutic Foster Care PROGRAM Q1 1 . Target Group a. Average number of children to be served per month 10 b. Age 2 through 11 Gender Male/Female t. Admission criteria : 1 . Referral made because child has been defined as emotionally disturbed 2. Working with family and child in home has not resulted in improvement 3. Multiple previous relative or foster placements have failed 4. Behavioral repetoire of the child makes success in foster care unlikely d . How is this program an alternative to out-of-home placement? Therapeutic Foster Care provides the least restrictive and least costly, yet effective and stable environment, in which children having suffered extensive emotional damage, can be treated with the parents with the goal of reuniting the family. Where appropriate, permanency planning for long term placement or adoptive placement will be considered. 2 . Program description (Attach program narrative in Appendix Section) \ FREQUENCY/ STAPP I PROVIDER(5) I COST SERVICE ACTIVITIES DURATION R GrNTRA T - I . a. Training and support of foster parents monthly/1 year staff - Placement Alternatives Social Caseworker IV b. Coordination and direct application of therapeutic and educational services to child and family monthly/1 year staff $23,724 c. Initiation and coordinatio of court action on behalf - of child and family onthly/1 year staff II . Diagnostic, prognostic and appropriate therapeutic as well as educational services eekly/1 year contract Center for Therapeutic 4 hrs) Learning-Dr. Richard $14,400 Delany II . Foster care incentive payment monthly/1 year contract Foster Family $24 ,000 IV. Foster Care Maintenance monthly/1 year contract Foster Family $33,720 _ TOTAL 595,844 Prograz Cost per Child 59,584 P --POSED PROGRAMS (Cons) . PROGRAM 11 1 Thera eutic Foster Care (cont) 3. Cost savings analysis Ave. V Anticipated Ave. COST/ Ave. Cost/M0 Pro-rated Total Cost avings Total Placement of ('3 of PAC Prog Adm. Cost PAC Program (3) - Savings Child/MO per child per Child/Mo Per Child/M (6) (1) k if No PAC (4) + (5) (7) $799 (89) (89) i / Sp. Group Hm. $710 $799 1 ,800 799 799 \1001 \ 7007 • 7 7 RCCF \ \ 799 (536) (1072) Family Foster 263 799 ." \2 Care L. \. TOTAL 1 _ TOTAL $5,846_ 4 . Program objectives a .Process objectives _ 10 (1) Average number of children to be served per month: (7) Average length of time in program not to exceed 24 months . (3) Average cost per month to serve child not to exceed $ 799 - (4) The treatment plan at discharge for at least 70 2 of the children served will call for a residence other than substitute care. ill \ PROPOSED PROGRAMS (Cont ) PROGRAM 01 Therapeutic Foster Care (Cons ) 4. Program objectives (Cant) b. Outcome objectives : (As a result of this program , what impact outcomes do you hope to achieve?) 1 . Prevention of multiple placement for children who have suffered repeated uprooting and ongoing instability in home environment. 2. Prevention of more restrictive, less natural setting. 3. Permanent disposition in the child's best interest: a. Return to parental home with improved functioning. • b. Long term foster care with guardianship. _ c. Termination of parental rights and adoption 4. Cost savings. • 5 . Program evaluation Describe method of evaluation , related specifically to Program objectives : 1 . Tabulation of data a. To compare child with its own placement history b. To compare child with a control group 2. Statistical compilation of data on a yearly basis, long term follow up 3. Statistical compilation of data yearly • PROPOSED PROGRAMS . . PROGRAM 112 Partners Plus 1 . Target Group - a . Average number of children to be served per month 13 . b. Age 12 through 18 Gender Male/Female d. Admission criteria : Youth who are at risk of being taken out of their homes and being placed in group care or residential care. • d. Nov is this program an alternative to out-of-home placement? This is a preventative program. Through support, advocacy, and relationship building, youngsters are maintained in their homes or in less restrictive placements. • 2 . Program description (Attach program narrative in Appendix Section) SERVICE ACTIVITIES FREQUENCY/ STAFF PROVIDER(S) I COST DURATION n ' T Recruiting, training, monthly/1 year Contract Partners, Inc. $4,797 supervision and management activities i - Lay Counseling and support eekly/1 year 10 hrs) Contract Adult Partner $46,800 (13 Partnerships) TOTAL $51 ,597 Program Cost per Child S3,969 • PR OSED PROGRAMS (Cont ) 'a PROGRAM U a Partners Plus (Cont) 3. Cost savings analysis ? rot (41 X41 (51 rA (7) Ave. P Anticipated Ave. CAST/McAve. Cost/MO Pro-rated Total Cost avings Total Child/MO Placement of (1) of PAC Prog Adm. Cost . PAC Program (3) - Savings if No PAC per child per Child/Mo Per Child/ (6) (1) x (4) + (5) (7) 13 /3 RCCF/Group Hom $823 $331 0 $331 $492 $6,396 To-1, 13 TOTAL $6 ,396 4 . Program objectives a .Process objectives (1 ) Average number of children to be served per month: 13 (2) Average length of time in program not to exceed 12 months . (3) Average cost per month to serve child not to exceed $ 331 _ (4 ) The treatment plan at discharge for at least 80 1 of the children served will call for a residence other than substitute care . PROPOSED PROGRAMS (Cont ) PROGRAM 11 Partners Plus (Cont ) 4 . Program objectives (Cont) b . Outcome objectives : (As a result of this program , what impact outcomes do you hope to achieve? ) 1 . 20% of all children served will not be placed outside their own homes. • 2. 60% of all children placed will be placed in less restrictive placement. 3. 70% of all children served will not be charged with delinquent offenses . 4. 80% of all children served will maintain a relationship with their Partner after financial compensation is discontinued. 5 . Program evaluation Describe method of evaluation, related specifically to Program objectives : Each child in Partners Plus is evaluated individually around four major areas : 1 . Has the child been in a licensed placement while in Partners Plus? 2. If child has been placed has he/she been placed in the least restrictive setting? 3. While in Partners Plus has the child been charged with any delinquent activity? 4. After the paid partnership is terminated is there ongoing contact between the adult and the child? In addition a "control group" is monitored and compared to the Partners Plus population to verify the program' s cost effectiveness. PROPOSED PROGRAMS - - PROGRAM #3 Respite Care 1 . Target Group a. Average number of children to be served per month 10 b. Age 0 through 21 Gender Male/Female d- Admission criteria : Developmental Disabilities d , How is this program an alternative to out-of-home placement? Maintain children in their own home. 2 . Program description (Attach program narrative in Appendix Section) FREQUENCY/ STAFF PROVIDER(S) COST SERVICE ACTIVITIES DURATION n * n T Project Coordinator onthly/1 year Contract We eC Foundation $16 ,077-CExcess Cost Fund s needed/1 year Contract Weld County Community 3,000 Center Foundation. Respite Care s needed/1 year Contract Individual Providers • • TOTAL $19 ,077 Program Cost per Child $1 ,908 PRO SED PROGRAMS (Cons) PROGRAM (1 2 Respite Care (cont) 3. Cost savings analysis (11 24 (3) (4) (5) (() (7) Ave. 4 Anticipated Ave. CDST/ Ave. Cost/M0 Pro-rated Total Cost avings Total Child/MO Placement of (1) of PAC Prog Adm. Cost PAC Program (3) - ' Savings if No PAC per child per Child/Mo Per Child/ (6) (1) x (4) T (5) (7) 3 3 Home 0 $159 0 $159 (159) (477) 3 3 RCCF $1 ,700 $159 0 $159 $1 ,541 $4,623 4 4 Institutions $2,562 $159 0 $159 $2,403 9,612 TOT4L ____UL___ TOTAL $13,758 4 . Program objectives a.Process objectives (I) Average number of children to be served per month: 10 (2) Average length of time in program not to exceed n/a months . (3) Average cost per month to serve child not to exceed $ 159 (4) The treatment plan at discharge for at least n/d': of the children served will call for a residence other than substitute care . PROPOSED PROGRAMS (Cont ) PROGRAM 03 Respite Care (Cont ) 4 . Program objectives (Cont) b. Outcome objectives : (As a result of this program , what impact outcomes do you hope to achieve? ) • Reduce costs for out-of-home placements by maintaining children in their own homes. • 5 . Program evaluation Describe method of evaluation , related specifically to Program objectives : Since these children historically would be in some kind of alternate care all of their lives, the thrust of evaluation will be to determine whether care can be provided in a less restrictive, locally oriented way which will avoid expensive out-of-county placement alternatives. The evaluation will be provided by the Weld County Department of Social Services in conjunction with review of program by the Placement Alternatives Commission. Out of the group of high risk children, ten children will be selected for placement in Respite Care Program. Ten other children with similar profiles will be followed during the pendancy of the project. Records will be maintained by the Department of Social Services for both groups. The records will contain baseline data, monthly statistics on placements , monthly progress reports as well as self evaluation. PROPOSED PROGRAMS - . PROGRAM # W Parent Child Support System . 1 . Target up a. Average number of children to be served per month 11 . b. Age 1 through 4 GenderMale/Female d. Admission criteria : Preschool children who have been abused or neglected and can reasonably be expected to be at risk of abuse of neglect. Children who are at risk of out of home placement because of the maladaptive functioning of the parent. d. Bow is this program an alternative to out-of-home placement? Improve the functioning of the parents so the children will no longer be at risk of abuse or neglect and will not need to be placed out of the home. 2 . Program description (Attach program narrative in Appendix Section) FREQUENCY/ STAFF PROVIDER(S) I COST SERVICE ACTIVITZ£5 DURATION T A T Social Worker full time/1 yr. Contract Parent Child Center $20,160 Education Specialist full time/1 yr. Contract Parent Child Center 16,128 Clerical 1/8 time/ 1 yr. ontract Parent Child Center 1 ,140 Travel monthly/1 year ontract Social Worker 1 ,056 Director 1/8 time/ 1 yr. ontract Parent Child Center 2,016 Children 3,168 Specialized Services 1 ,440 Supplies onthly/1 year ontract Parent Child Center 2,640 Office 300 Psychologist Consultant s needed ontract 1 ,200 Program Services onthly/1 year ontract Parent Child Center 5,184 TOTAL 554 ,432 Program Cost per Chile 52,475 PT 'OSED PROGRAMS (Cont ) • PROGRAM 0 4 Parent Child Support Syst?Mont) 3. Cost savings analysis (1) fa) (3) (4) (c) (F) (7) Ave. # Anticipated Ave. COST/MCAve. Cost/M0 Pro-rated Total Cost avings Total Child/MO Placement of (1) of PAC Prog Adm. Cost . PAC Program (3) - Savings if No PAC per child per Child/No Per Child/ (6) (1) X (4) + (5) (7) 2 a2 foster care $234 $412 0 $412 (178) (356) 9 9 home . 0 $412 0 $412 (3708) TOTAL 11 TOTAL ($4,064) 4 . Program objectives a . Process objectives (1 ) Average number of children to be served per month : 11 (2) Average length of time in program not to exceed 6 months . (3) Average cost per month to serve child not to exceed $ 412 (4) The treatment plan at discharge for at least 85 % of the children served will call for a residence other than substitute care . PROPOSED PROGRAMS (Cont ) PROGRAM IPA Parent Child Support System (Cant ) 4 . Program objectives (Cont) b . Outcome objectives : (As a result of this program , what impact outcomes do you hope to achieve? ) To improve the overall functioning level and parenting capacity of • the parents so that the children will not have to be placed out of their own homes until they emancipate. To provide remedial education services to the child so he/she will not be behind when he/she starts his formal education. To reduce or eliminate abuse or neglect referrals on these families. 5 . Program evaluation Describe method of evaluation , related specifically to Program objectives : 1 . There will be no new referrals of abuse of neglect on 90% of the families in the program. To be determined by review of the referrals to the Department of Social Services. 2. Foster care will be avoided for 85% of all children in the program. 3. Six months after discharge from the program, 75% of the target families will have avoided foster care entirely for all their children. 4. After completion of the program, the parents will show increased parenting skills as evaluated by the social worker and the Parent Child Interaction Checklist. • Cr ce, •: H k • Cs O 10 O O' NN c- 0 0 _. CV N N- n O O pC r rn ' CO N N O) l- N N 5- N L rO L J ' E O N J N r r0 cc O 0 O O O O O N N N N V art as N Op V e N- N- ^ of 'O ~ i en t+, th J l] V) C C00 en LL-) O] J N in N r M M en N N in _ V) C] in In I C Y _. 5- U... CO Y n 14- U 0 O C U L > q) 0 0 0 N N N L N •r 'O 0 0 VO V n ^ rw J Y Y C Cr) ["') N to Q C LL C' e N N VD N r 6 O o L N N CV z r n U N 0 •r Y N M N 0 L Cr) Cr) C7 F- CO O _ Q m LL 0 — a' F- a N H O tr)co • L Y W N Y C C CC O, • C • 0 O U' Z •• UI In E 0 O CU O CD Q I 0 _ cu a CC N • r W • 0 C • >, a CO a - C L N • > O • I- 1.4J0 Y N Y • O .5 X o 0 V C r V) II V) .O U ri 7a' 0 XN r E • 'O � W E x Y r N E E • E(0 Cu • > Q W T L O C X C r - L L a • V) N O N N CO • IT 4- n- a W Q a 0•r L O E 0 >•. 0 L t _ I- I ) O N V 0 a C W a C • Y a F- '-" OVa CV II L E C I~i G O U J ZcrC LL �Y n i cu r0 • N E • L Q VI 0 I- d' �i C N in C N • t6 V L • 0 0 Jin E COn U •i- 4-) • U >, o- • in Q c L O p � M X • J N- U } E O E N a al t a -0 I E n L Y • 0 0' j •r rO C _ v 0 W non ICU II m Inu o • CO >ra S.- O CO E _c --' 4' E • N S.- 0 al z co •r O c I-O N N L F- O e z r ror O I L Y N • I a cil F- N C E N a O n • G 0 >),>-I • Co O G V) 0 LL W O V) r O in F- U N NU L Z > 0C Y N r N Li C U N N G L N U > C C ✓I n N • I O Y r- O N C N L L X C a 0 ) -r N ''' E CC L 0 0 Y Z N _ N Ih r,r J C O O V C N N N 4-) OCE C NLL -> Nr Y D3 � C i R I > -.- N N 4-) irG O -rC I E •• LrXO Nr CO tO c N Or X O its N N U U O MO C N Y O in (,J 0 L r C ea C C Y L E V) -C O -r E C In F-- O O ea -_ C N m T S- 4-' N •r O I O N O I 0 S- in nX >3N I CCO OZ4- OCE > O5- CCU _0 •r a) s- a n Y O) 0 L O a 0 •r Lin O m O r > S- 0▪ O L ) n C C I G N O CI- C I CCU N. 0) w vI a N c a d N r E F- V) W 'r , c LL _O Inr0r4-' r I -0 -0aNNC r II- N- N I -r V) C Z Cu O r U@ CU> Y ~ N •r T C N C^ N IO C N U in Li_ U in > F-tA n0 .) r to C O 5- C C C O • O C r Cl. i O C -r 0 G Y L -C CD I-- oO- r0 C U i OVFO I- CC O Y a' J U r6 i ri. 'O O a J • -cu s- - • - J - 0.1 CC MS a r N Cr) C L I a r a r N Cr) V l n 3 a S- O) U 0 t CO F- H Q W Z O 0 O 0 0, O, 01 N- •- N 1— -- >, 5- 0 i C) S- e ..= 7 +-1 O i 0 N .- 7 N r- e y J-1 O p N- ' n r-- C) O 0 0 O, Cr. O, 0)F- a) W C) N- N- In •O 1 i 7 S] in ro r0 t0 e- CO J N t e - N C) N -0C 1 C J 5- I LL CO I CL I rF N = _ . _ O 0 0 N- a) 1 a) O 0 Cn O, V i > in C) CO N- N- a i C)•r -O 7 1-1 +1 C Lfl LO e d- r O r07 e N N C C Lc - i •r +) C) N In S- :0 o ro CO LL U N N y V C) N 7 N > V J CO 5- •> = 0, co i Q i L/1 N CC N LO C N CD j I n r0 r pN CO I n O 0 i C) In • C C r r E cc n C, C to00 0 • ro IT F- LJ r N C1 F- - O N ✓ C d 01 5- C) 0 > CU .- . C 2 C U LC w -0-D C 0 LI>- M 0) O 11 C -O c r n r In -r N -r C) C J t0 4-1 d CI In I CC n30 > C3 X V C -CF- N .C >, O -N i •r In CU V Y CC 7 -o s- 'a V • s- C d N S.- W C 7 J r LL C1- 0 C CO > d 0 J Y CC 0 Y 5- U C i) O _ N r0 U S- 01 V) a) +1 r I- _�yII ,-- yy IO C N N C r0 >, O J 1 0 i� i-1 -I-) Y E O F- C X I-- M •r r C C) F- -o r I .CI C) r J •> O m I 41 — C S- nro -0 -o E Z -• s_ C N V >C O 11 O_ C J Cr ) V 7 CO In > O CC C) O - O I-LI n E .-. 7 d K C N r 0 0 U CO S- .• U C .. C rl = N O a) N N to C 0 >1 Z C) M d in 5- K S.- 3 _ Y CU 0 V to O O C 'O I y r� 0 c r- 4_, C) +� Y V a) F >Z i O, 0 > i V C )- COro N C) C 0 d th - C S- r0 -r O n3 01 +) S- 0 0 V) 5- r•) C) C) C > - 0- i N - C O N to C I V) i +1 O 0 r C 0 •• co ro S. 0 I U) CO N II C C) 4-1 N IE a) N S- C C L Y CL V) O V a) O ro I O Q) O S.- eV II- N O E u too- a) cc (..) O)Z O •r al V r C LO r > Cl C • CI C E _ a) a) i >' C) -1-) r I E •o >at) C C N 0) C W -0 O & .C CO a) I— -0 -r f-- Q C� J 0 N C r J C) S- S- > a-' a) > Q r in -r C C) CO C C) In O CO C O Z • Cl- CO -C 0 O- S- m C CO i C C U C F- EOF- CCO C CO .a 0 0 - tn Y -O C In V 5- i r CC 5- 1- 7 • C) C C) C7 o J C. 3 Cdr N r'7 c7- t a 7 2 r d i - • Ix) • co 0 C) Y a. C F W Z i 0 Q ji l O O O N�I N ro M r o N O r F . N rLT I4 V NLOIT O) O) L V I- CO I— O) r ON N N N i 0) L d' III r N d- n N N N rc)E -CZJ r r r LLD to E Y O O LOU) 4 o - t\ ro r` O O f--- Y Y N- I\ 0 0 O I 0 O 0 O O O ~ N e. CO 01 S- tD IS) 0)7 1] N .C CO O N VI r . 117 N 0 N I . C Y 7 5- u_ ro Y n - 4- N O n O 0 n- 0) I Q) n t` O 00 0 V i > N O O i 0)-r -O O M Ch 7 Y Y C ID L O en o la - N Q C Li r Z L- O U 0) r Y N F- v) ul i Q fao O ro CC CD Li U F— CO N • N CO ).--• i C'D N • • fa L W CO U U Q rn Co K ICr)— O Y 0) N CC r U . t i 0) O GI r LT O i U O J r 4- O r d n r N Co • L N -� CO I N N O 4- 0) i >e v") W r >c •r . > ro co N 1-3 0 O r Y to O U -D E co 0 ro ro Y n .. K t CY i r0 v -O C N N Q Y 0 C O • CO C 01 i C CW CL CD CD- o 0 7YY +) +, Y +> Y Y 0 Q W T 0 0) J 0 -�l .r O C O O to 0 0 0 0 0 VI > CC N E i 0 CO i W 0000000 0 > e✓ J O Li_ • an i 0 n I 0000000 0 5- 0 W Q i a t o Cu5- U 0 i •rN Cs_ I-- N n N Y U O 64 CO Y Y ro CI r0 CI ro r0 rO Co QLi N VI C 3 r Ul C C 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 -o _J Z IN ro 0) N i i -CI CO O ) C C C C C C C C C Q W 0 Q) a 0 5- 4- 4- to 0 0 ro ro r0 ro rO ro MI CO Y 0 aI— r V I M = Y 4- i T In >) 7 T Y -0 TD 'D 'D -0 'O -0 -o C J co . 7 ro >> rO O_ fl •r 0) 0) 0) Q) 0) 0) 0) 0) Q .. CI- r C X X X X X X X X C C ro -o O •r -r -r -r -r •r -r I— rN- r 7 C 5- r- t0 C) ELL W LL U. W 1.1- U- L.- ro ro E Y I-0 Y E Lt_ • i 0/ O fa Y � E Cn MD r Z U) U 0 0 O) n -) C 0 o •- COl- c)r 0o, 0 CCC U Y I I CL Y O FI- > U r CV C N LN FI W i �- O I in I-, 0 - .. _C) U CO 0 Y 0 0• N Y r 0 r r- r re 7 Y U 0 . 0 i -0 N C N Z N C N VI C V) U r r • O > 7 0.1 •)- 0 .4 1 O an tsa< 4- r0 0e ee e e e,e, C Y U "O U U 0) r N Y U I-- r 5_ C r V c C C U VI Z > OO) 0) 0) 0 i 0 > 't7 X Vf C C 0 i r vs U > O 0) U 0 i r W Q) C O C r CO 0) 0) U N IC n .. r ro -O I 0 3 N Y > C) Q 0 Q) r - 5 r ro i C I -o to in N .. O) 0) ro r ro ref C E •) V E Y 0) in•r rn 7 C U C 0) Y ro CI)E •> CS Q) 0i) N 0 0)r r C O C N i E > W X 0 U n Y r- C in -) I C C O m ro i -r .D U r r n ro ro i Y C U O Z L C1) E Y 5- > 7 Y O - 0. •r U 0 d i 0 0 to C) 0) i N C O C L Li) p- n C I C E 0) sr- VC) O E Cl) 0) Cu C O. ro 0) C E 0)-0 0) +) r I •r -O -0 O CC) U - - N Ill E co L Y r- Cr) ro U n n 0) 0l ro C-7 Q i 0) K ro 0) H 0) '> r • F- co -O •r r Y 0) i > Y �C cow i > Y r0 > Cu M Y _ � C C 4- 7 C r V ro N U 7 U c 0)C 0) ro C 0) C O n O C C 0 -r 4- c 0l 0) 0) i o•r 0 c t C n i 0) C U I Z F 0 7 O r n Y OW = 1- N I- d V) U Q N UO0 F- KO C) 2 Y s_ S- N C • o C r 7 Cr_ r MS _0 V C- r N M •d• v) ID n CO N O 0_0_ r- N Col QN 3 a C) . Ca U CI CC Q w rsI I O O L c , c v Io <.. r,. Ici) I o 0 0 N O N in 1 N-..1 in m C> t o O C W o N N C t v 1 t` I� ii-iO r C r r N I�; p C0a .- r , , IIn F I C) >- S.- V L a) L ✓ L E Y 0 O E O N n In r rci O O O O O cr LID O CO N N Y Y O O O N O N LO O 0`1 M en Cr 0 co V m o N N O N r--- V Cr H N -D ) L N N C J L)in to CO cr r r r a ,- V r r In m o In L co O to - in 10 I C Y L L LL ra Y n In 0 0 0 CO I O o 0 0 0 O V in O CV N N U L > an OOON ON an CO O r'1 re-, i ill-r -0 Oam ONN 0 n n , V 0 Y Y C 0 a r r r a r a' N N O O N r n n Q C Li_ p . Z L 0 U 0) r Y N I- an t/1 S- C 0 r6 C CO W U F 4 N • - • 3C CD in W CO Q CO) - . • r - • - II an C • C Z II • N . • C) 0 U CD Q I - in 11 L U •r N 0 J L • an Y • Y V C Ca_ cl . Y L C > r0 -C L L L •r d C 0 - C E i i Y Y •4> 4-> > I N CO- • E 0 E N Y 0 0 0 0 a f) W r E • E0 in In 0E 0E 0E 0E a) 0 V II II E N _ C - EEEE E E N o •--• C N N in • II r C CD C Q L r L N r in S. S- L S.a) E CW Y Y r X • L E C O 0 0 a) ro C X 0 Y 0 a r z n n i U▪) 0 XQ' N 0 L • C Q C J E L E E Y 0 C 5- V O LC) N 0 O CD W L) +> L 0 • E Cl) ^ B CO CV N N a C t C U N C CV Y CL C N r E CE E II N L O II II II II 11 d O tflC r 'O N -r • - Q E L.� X x L L E CU Y 5- in CC Z 5- 0 Y X In C C L a O in to C Q C C L N L S- 0- 0 MS CU n:, to r N an its C F- 0 W O Y 0.4-) N E0 L L U -r • U N r r 0 0 O I---LL ^) C 0 n 0 E U 'C) r r • - V C C 1- J E0 0 O 0 C L i • L I a1 o 5 0 Q E O E In r N 0 C O v N C) a n i I C N mb9r E d r coon Y C -r 0 O n d } L •• i b4 C N an d U N r >> I F a) r Cu CCU X i r L Co i co -r N 4-) Z •- nee,* n e, 0 ro co ^Y LL -O -r > E to C >, o C Y L n Y CO C r r U i •r0 N Y 0 U O W O (U O i C Y 0 J C O V a) •r O CU S- U 0 0 C U m 0 LC) CU -4 C0 CC) I- 'r E ' r > L n rn O)•r Y I- V v CnYr -YY E CO I 'O r an ro UN L0 4- C I O) an K1 0 r- E tit D r a) C5.1r Co L L Cti c L 0 CO Z -r O J O -c In r CO F- d O C O L an rM- o (U 3 C L (� in L C in i } N r 0 a) C) V 0 X C C '0) C Z U (U •r L r O CL 5- 0 0 C C N L Z E •r U O r o U a) C U Y U L C r 0 o N > s- a) U N Y C C Y O 0 C o Y C Q) n 0 U -r Y LO 0 0 >> N •• 0 >> O U > ) Y N d S- In t v 3 0 C L L N Y I 0 00 V)) 0 L v •r , o ro 0E E O 0 r r CO 0 I to d •r C)a) Y d L r 3 O O V o C C?> C r > i i II- Y r0 •-) r OM In E •• L 0 -O 0 tn C) i 0 r Y L L O -4 C •r Y rd E a) n U N C) 0 0 CO re Y Y L Y U Lt)0 i tC Y U 0 n 5- •0 V L C >-r I O C O Q1 N r an E > U n L 00 0 Q1 r a4- Cn 0 U o z 0 0 o E > > O O W .r •r In C CO 0 L o o V i > W N d N W a) Cu a Cc I C E a. L I- N S- C I I al•r E 0 a) r r In ) O Q r C C C C C CO Y r I - 'O r 0->-, -C a) N o z ra) ccccc r- > I- v-> - C C to -o c� •r In00000V a TO C 0) m O o o c c C L rI CL L N C L L • 0 oC U L - . C L CO XI V -0 NCiO F- CO s a r61] U L Y 3 co Y O c • . . . . . n . a) c C 0 d r N r7 to CD 0- r d 0- i n - 0 0 >- 2 Q m -- W -72 • -r 0 7 "OUtiTY Weld P. RAM SUMMARY SHEET Fy 1985 SHEET FOR ALTERNATIVE PLACEMENT PLAN .- . 1ROGRAM Target Group Total PAC PAC Progam Administrat. Total PACPROVIDER ; ________j AGE 0/MO1 Prog. Cost/Yr Cost/Kid/ED!Cost/Kid/MD' Prog.Cost/Ri( -- --- - . . I Therapeutic 1 Weld County ___ _ 2_7_1 10 _i $95,844 $799 0 ;• $799 Foster_Car_e-- Partners Pl us j Partners, 12-18 $331 0 $331 I Inc_ 13 $51 ,597 - i • 1 Respite Care Weld-County 0-21 10 $19 ,077 $159 0 I $159 . ;Foundationer Parent Child i 432 I $412 0 1 $432 I Support System ;Parent Child 1-4 111 1 $54, 'Learning Center i 1 I • 1 1 iIii i 1 i . II 1 \ • it i i LHH 'k _l ___ , . . 1 • • TOTAL , 44 $220,950 ANT. $1 ,701 O' C - o N C O _ CO M cr G in r to 01 N N In 0 H ae W S U < F \ \ 40 --- H S I • NV W I CT N N C U N W g LO O CO ..7 W H C 1` N • O O t` CO LI O CO CO It1 O y. 1 - O C = Cn LL') r L) - N C � CJ CI) Z CO I= CO L F 1 W F V B Z \ . .. M C O th e 1 W N 01 n - ON t"^ E " > C) r In O r L- L-7 Iti p n [..., � C CJ N r 01 GI- W b's tr7 l0 r r LO O G r • F S- W F V c Q C ON [+: 5 O N O' ✓ 0 H y W 1` C CO Ca CO CO ! E : • O K G n U 01 O CO F C W G W 4. C: •- • • L p a • w c0 Z • • • . H M• H - G_ E W +� W C p IA n F In ...-. N C •n. C C �i1 C 01 . U S- W W • CO N CO G G CO 01 • 01 01 01 O W O Y .-7 N • i C N F CO C)Cr- • r • 0 r a .~7 l >) • T >, = >, G C1•K O r r •r C) r H W � 9 L7 LL = O Cl "= '07 0 F" � r- 10 r � F C Co F K > d $15> N >5- •C > • p .. W H CO U r2 [� F U G] Y 0) Y C1 Y YMO CU 0-O U C) C) r N C U) U U La. — F H U IU C C Q O L IF Y w dl- C) W H C < '.i G K C IF- i` W LI)OW I✓- L w p --- _0 C) co C) CO 0) J 0. V- d v d W C W U W < LUCC E- F X 4) G .2 C 3 r N M C 47CUL < F G • O CO CO U r Z CO H W C G C C.: •- 0I 15b4 • • THERAPEUTIC FOSTER CARE PROGRAM OF WELD COUNTY; A program established through S.B. 26 for emotionally disturbed boys and girls two to twelve years of age who cannot be maintained in their parental home and are found or predicted, to be unable to survive in conventional foster care. PROGRAM EVALUATION: Fiscal year July 1 , 1983 through February 1984 GOALS FOR THE PROGRAM WERE: 1 ) Prevention of multiple placements . 2) Prevention of more restrictive residential or institutional placements. Both goals are being met. OTHER DESIRED OUTCOMES: 1 ) Permanent disposition in the best interest of the child. a. Return to parent's home. b. Long-term foster care with guardianship. c. Termination of parental rights and adoption. 2) Cost savings (see fiscal report to the state) . TYPE OF CHILD PLACED: All except one of the children served by the program this year were boys ranging in age from nine to thirteen years. The only girl in the program will be four years old in March 1984. PROGRAM PROGRESS AND SIZE: Eleven children were served this year. Nine remain in the program. Seven are still in placement. Six of those are in therapeutic foster care. One child is in conventional foster care. PLACEMENT ENDURANCE: Of eleven children one had to be moved to another therapeutic foster hone. CURRENT STATUS OF THE PROGRAM: One female child, age ten, is currently awaiting placement. Two boys , aged ten and eleven, are being evaluated for acceptance into the program. PLACEMENT HISTORY OF EACH CHILD: See attached table Page 2 PREVENTION OF RESIDENTIAL PLACEMENTS: None of the children served this year have been placed in residential care. LONG TERM SUCCESS OF THE PROGRAM: 1 ) Current Status : Of .seventeen children served by the program since its inception, two are ently residing in conventional foster care. Two are in adoptive placement awaiting finalization of the adoption. Seven have been discharged to their parental homes. Of those : Six are known to be residing in their parental homes and maintaining adequately — there while: One of them moved to another state with his father with current functioning unknown. Six remain currently in therapeutic foster care with — two awaiting adoptive placement. 2) Consistency of current status with initial plan: Of the seventeen children: - Eioht left therapeutic foster care with disposition being exactly as planned. One Teft therapeutic foster care to reside with his natural father rather than — with his natural mother. Five are in therapeutic foster care progressing as scheduled. One is in therapeutic foster care with plan changed to include possible guard- - ianshiP with his foster parents. Two children who have been discharged from the program currently are in con- ventional foster care. CONCLUSION: The therapeutic foster care continues being consistent in attaining it's stated goal : prevention of residential/institutional placement. So far only one of seventeen children has had to be moved to another therapeutic foster home. The program continues to operate at capacity with only recently (early 1984) being able to take additional referrals . Expansion of the program is not being requested for the comino year. i O (1 Y L o, Y L C d d r... to C L C) E '-' 0 CO L o > v o E C..) O E O) x E v as 0 0 CJ L CJ O 10 r C 0 C O 7 r' r p - • O' 1 S- r N 0 Y C C 0 0 C L co 1 LL t") L O • Y 4- 4-) CD tan-E ir O •C COI in 0 Y • L O ro Co O CC: 0) 0 0) -o 3 c -o • rn 1 ✓ F M1 L of to C • co C • N L O O = r L ✓ m CD C V c ._'=, N nJ Y • N 1 to r r L r0 1 CC C) O L r0 CJ C V co 1 O OC Y C -•-Iry -.- 1: N r ^ ^'-J S._C • • L U to C1 0 • CJ O C - L O CJ C E N F d _- L O O S 0 Y E II-, .12:C I N r3 U S O E 100 r). In N NJ 0 O Y L r _Y O CJ O L C rr \ in C 3 .In rn I r Y O- 3 C Y o -rt.= 3 • ° in r co >- � .rJ L 1 -o N N O c C) a t E .. N to c ro O L in C V Y V © tD N 0 N C O 4- E r J ro c x N w N - N Cn - L M Y r Y ra _ C) O • r0 C) V r N \ Cry Ot I.., .. • C Lc 023 3-0.1 m L (V LTC C • Y >t CO L O r0 ro r In 1 p 0 ry c O E tl_ ♦= r Nm O L C Y C -.- r 4v r N O -C 0) O • >y— Y O • I y C Y to 1]IC in o LO- O c r O Y un Cf C cCLOp NC N ) C) t I O r [L v C U Q' I y N 0 r_n o ry -; t�•T �— • C N E O r >' to c • L -r J o "In i O O Y � F m an c E Y �. L r�,1 in cc) Y O d o r in Q p OJ L d O i U 0 U O CT Ci` 1 .4-, C Y O IO N V- r Q O • C CT -- Y In E O C N In C Y L -.- -r • • CO L G C) 4 4' Y OJ v 1 N C y OJ Y 0 r0 O r0 •— •-, r-- `•I) N t 0J Io L -0 3 yr Co N r O 0 4-3 C a O A C r0 a • r O O Y C `D • I O N to C L -r C T O L CO L O • C L DO Ir ill • O. D 0 Q C m0 - Cl 1 in C Y • L O Y • N x '-' n A • O r- r CJ O C) -O r�O"J O 4.-I O O - cm Cn O p O v y C E +) co r E In T E N d 0) I`") tP L O QJ CJ CO cc, C = E Y L > > o Y C C , - 1 cu L C) O ro O CJ O U . Co 1 " p p -' C Y �O Ir V LL V 4- 0- Z O I- J F- W W U �_ J N p -" LL t. C O W VI CC W J G CD - C V C W C W C...) G Nr NC W C T in 0 Z 0 - to F- C - C > J C F- O O O j CD ~ 1'- C C O - Z �_ C C Z O W F- C L If L F'- L J t`J - 12 C C u O LIJ J Ill C W I O 0 ` LL ` L L W C C C C] C O u O ≥ O C (-) C ~ L ' O I C J W L .C • Z W < W L 7 J _ O .L-. ,orc i , I :L/ PARTNERS PLUS CURRENT PARTNERSHIPS: I CHILD Objective #1 Objective #2 Objective #3 Objective #4 Aviod Placements Less Restrictive No further Maintain contact Placement delinquency with Partner , BT U S U S JG S S S S i BM S S S S i MW S S S S CH S S S S LM S S S S � ; I DC U U S S , LY U S S S I MM S S S S JR S S S S TERMINATED PARTNERSHIPS: AJ S S S S DB S S S S WC U U U U BR S S S S WH U S S S LR S S S S IT S S S U FN U S S S CS U U S U JM S S S S KEY: U=Unsuccessful 5-Successful TOTAL: 12 Successful 6 Partially Successful 2 Unsuccessful • 339-5300 s -. �_ } 3819 St. Vrain/Evans, Colorado 80620/303-353-6420 (Denver/303-825-7300) . ' "Serving Individuals With Developmental Disabilities" weld county community center ' foundation MEMORANDUM TO : Placement Alternatives Commission FROM: Pat hloodsl � RE : Respite Care Program DATE : March 8, 1984 • The respite care program has provided 1 , 8632 hours of relief care to 18 children from July 1 , 1983 to February 19 , 1954 . More parents are beginning to use the program on a fairly consistent basis . Out of the 18 children served , 14 are mentally retarded , one has spina bifida and developmental delays , and three have severe language and motor delays . Of the 14 children who are mentally retarded 10 children have at least one other developmental disability , the most common being a seizure disorder. We are currently looking at the possibility of setting up a "drop-in" respite care program one evening a week . If parents think they ' ll use it , we could set up a system of several providers in one location for specified time (maybe 7- 10 P .M. ) . ( As a comparison , from August 1 , 1982 to June 30 , 1983 the program provided 1 , 956-1 hours of respite care . ) For the past several months we have seen an increase in use by families who have little or no money to pay for respite care services . One family in particular care on a regular basis . aihigh out-of-home placement and uses respite Due to the increased use by families who are unable to pay the program will be out of excess funds by the end of March. We are asking if it is possible to obtain an additional S900 .00 in excess cost funds to get through June 30. If we cannot obtain these funds we will have to deny ,respite care to any family that is unable to pay on their otwn . John H. Wooster, Ed.D. Executive Director • Lt v-,;rr Fa'ncv o' Umne°her c'\1e'0 Q;_ , Hello