Important Information from the April 27Th CCL/FFA Meeting

Important information from the April 27th CCL/FFA meeting:

Once again, thanks to Sergio Ramirez and CCL’s commitment to have a positive working relationship with the FFAs, we had a successful CCL/FFA meeting on April 27th. There were over 15 representatives from CCL including the Program Administrator Sergio Ramirez, the Program Chief Mei Yuk Kung, every Regional Manager, as well as a number of LPAs. On the FFA side we had representatives from 13 FFAs, Doug Johnson from California Alliance and Jerry Johnson from CCOFFA.

The following are the minutes from the meeting:

 Sergio Ramirez explained the impact that the current budget problems are generating for CCL. Just the day before, Governor Brown declared that there had to be a significant reduction in State employee travel, which can pose a challenge to CCL, which has to travel to all parts of the State. Also, there has been a hiring freeze in place for quite some time and some of the offices of CCL are down up to 30% of their previous staff. Sergio did comment that it is likely a good thing if the government learns to be more efficient. This may impact the ability for us to have a CCL/FFA meeting next year, and if that is the case, we may try a phone conference version – we will keep you posted.  It was noted that the majority of the FFAs are now doing their CFH certifications and decertifications online through the FFA Web Application and that has helped with the CCL workload, although the FFA Web Application administrator still receives over 1200 inquiries monthly dealing with troubleshooting issues.  Sergio briefly addressed the stronger Reasonable and Prudent Parenting Standards (RPPS) in the CFH, stressing that the purpose of the RPPS is to help normalize the childhood experiences of child in the foster care system. This is especially true for school, social enrichment activities, and work for our foster children. He did note that RPPS issues are very specific including extra curricular activities, and some household issues such as access to cleaning solutions, knives, and medication. Issues such as pool safety do not fall under RPPS.  Doug Johnson of California Alliance serves on a number of the committees that are developing the various guidelines and changes that need to take place as AB12 rolls into effect, allowing youth over the age of 18 to 21 to voluntarily remain in foster care (up to age 19 in 2012, age 20 in 2013 and, if there is funding, up to 21 in 2014). Those youth now have a designation: they are “non-minor dependents” (NMDs). Nothing definitive has been decided yet and one of the issues that will need to be determined is whether there will be any guidelines on who a NMD can room with.  The following are questions that were forwarded from FFAs to CCL for review. All the questions had to go through both the Legal and Policies Departments, so we have the final answer for some, but not all, the questions (the answers are in italics): o 89377 (b) states that the application of the RPPS shall not result in 1. the denial of the rights of a child. 2. contradict Court orders or (and this is the issue -) the written plan identifying the specific needs and services of the child. Since the county worker and/or the FFA worker usually generate the needs and services plan, can they functionally limit the RPPS by simply putting something in the needs and service plan? Yes; the RPPS can be limited as long as it is in the child’s best interest and is justifiable. o 89387(a)(6) states that each bedroom shall have at least one operable window or door that ensures safe, direct, emergency exit to the outside, while 89387 (d)(2)(C)(1) regarding pools states "all windows in rooms that provide direct access from the home to the pool or body of water shall be secured so that they cannot open more than 4 inches". Since they are contradictory, does just one win, or does the first apply to homes without pools and the second apply to homes with pools? Does this mean no foster children rooms can have a window opening to the pool? Where there are windows that do not open to a pool area, the fully opening window rule applies. Where there are 1 windows that do open to the pool, the 4 inch rule applies. With the windows that open to pools, it is also best to have a window alarm (and it doesn’t hurt to also have a floating splash alarm in the pool). The 4 inch rule applies to homes where fencing is not possible due to physical limitations of the placement of the pool and the home. Also, CCL may need to see the pool for themselves to determine whether or not fencing is possible and/or reasonable. CCL needs to grant a waiver for windows providing direct access to the pool. o There were a number of items required under the 83000 (small family) regs that are not addressed in the CFH regs; do they no longer apply? These include : 1) smoking on the grounds and premises - No longer an issue; there may be smoking on the grounds and premises, just not in a car with the foster children present. 2) lids on trash cans – not required, but recommended. 3) food and beverages being stored in covered containers – not required, but recommended. 4) specific items being in the 1st aid kit – the regs do not list specific items to be in the kit, it just states there needs to be a first aid kit (a box of band-aids does not qualify as a first aid kit). 5) lock box for medications requiring refrigeration – with the RPPS being applied to a client having access to their own medication, this needs to be applied on a case-by-case basis looking at the health and well being of all the minors in the home and accessibility to other minors in home. 6) emergency plans being posted in a central location – the family needs to have an emergency plan that they practice, but nothing being posted is required. 7) powdered milk not being allowed in cooking or baking and milk having to be pasteurized – not required, but encouraged. 8) canning foods according to the UC Agricultural Extension Service standards – not required, but encouraged. 9) the requirement for a water safety certificate where the CFH regs just require the supervising adult be able to swim. A certificate is not required, but is a good idea. The Red Cross has an online water safety course with certificate for $19.95 at http://www.homepoolessentials.org * However, since the FFH regulations are less prescriptive in some areas, with the understanding of promoting more normalized home-like environment, it is prudent that the caregiver apply careful and sensible parental decision making. o A lot of FFAs are stressing with the RPPS that if their family does something stupid, even though the FFA has trained them on RPPS and developed good treatment plans about what is wise and prudent, that they will get into a lot of trouble when, under RPPS, there are things that the FFA can't mandate or require. Will CCL take this into account? Can a family get into trouble making a bad choice without the agency getting into trouble? What can FFAs legally do to minimize their liability with the fact that RPPS limits areas where the FFA can make more restrictive rules or policies? The Legal Department is pouring over this issue and looking at precedents in the law. At this point it appears to be leaning towards the liability being only on the parent if the FFA has documented that they have been adequately trained on RPPS and that the specific issue has been addressed and documented in the child’s needs and service plan. However, if there is a pattern of families in an FFA making poor RPPS decisions, the FFA’s training and monitoring methods may be reviewed by CCL. That being said, a final decision to change CCL’s current practice of citing FFAs for violations of certified parents has not yet been made. o Regarding substitute supervision, the CFH regs address occasional prudent parent babysitting (less than 24 hours), occasional alternative caregiver (up to 72 hours in the home or more if approved by the CWS social worker), and occasional respite (up to 72 hours out of the home in a licensed FFH, CFH, Approved Home). It does not address regular, ongoing substitute care such as daycare; how does that fit in? Daycare in a licensed facility has always been allowed, many schools have a latch key program, any family can provide regular care for the children of just one other family without needing a license, and under the new CFH regs, when appropriate, a child can “hang out”

2 for a time after they get out of school (RPPS). Between all these options, regular ongoing substitute care is covered.  Sergio also addressed a misconception about Administrative Action procedures. There are those who believe an LPA can issue an exclusion or pull a license on their own initiative; this is NOT the case. Any Administrative Action is reviewed all the way up the chain of command and is also reviewed by the Legal Department before any such determination is made.

RE: CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE ENDORSED CONFERENCE From May 11 through 13 California Alliance is sponsoring the California Mental Health Advocates for Children and Youth (CMHACY) at the Asilomar Conference Center in Monterey. This year’s conference will address California’s proposed realignment of children’s services to the counties and the pending impact on California of federal Healthcare Reform. Additionally, two preconference institutes scheduled for the morning of Wednesday, May 11 will focus on the nexus of public education, special education and children’s mental health services. The cost is $320 for the pre-conference and conference if you stay at Asilomar and $360 if you don’t stay at Asilomar. For the conference only, the cost is $270 if you stay at Asilomar and $300 if you don’t stay at Asilomar. There are still openings available. Please contact California Alliance for further details.

THE CALIFORNIA STATE BUDGET The wrangling, debating, and negotiating regarding how to deal with the $21 billion deficit the State of California is facing continues. The good news is that, to date, NO ONE has brought up the idea of further reducing the FFA rate. If anything changes, we will let everyone know as soon as possible.

CCOFFA MEMBERSHIP As always, there is no cost or obligation to become a member of CCOFFA. As you see below, CCOFFA currently has 126 member FFAs, representing over 45% of the state’s FFAs. If you like to become a member of CCOFFA, just contact us at [email protected], call (209) 988-8348, or fax us at (209) 577-0272.

UPCOMING EDITIONS OF THE CCOFFA NEWSLETTER Over the last year and a half, the frequency of the CCOFFA newsletters has been driven by the budget crisis and the changes in the regs. The new regs are in place and unless something changes, we will likely not see a further rate reduction. So, this newsletter is more likely to go out on a quarterly basis unless a pressing need presents itself, at which point we will send out as many newsletters as necessary to keep all the FFAs informed.

PLEASE FEEL FREE TO SHARE COPIES OF THIS NEWSLETTER WITH WHOMEVER YOU WISH!

THANK YOU FECHTER & COMPANY: The snail mail version of this newsletter is sponsored by Fechter & Company, CPAs, an accounting firm based in Sacramento that provides audit and tax services to FFAs throughout California. If you have any questions or auditing needs, please contact them at 916-333-5360.