November 20, 2006
Brain Death at DSHS.

DSHS once is again is reverting to its brain dead, bureaucracy bound, and baffling mode of operations.

They are canceling the Permanent Placement Family Program (PPFP). PPFP identifies kids in high-risk situations where the parents either through case history, or severity of the situation are not likely to be able to regain custody of the children. These kids are place with a foster family that is already identified as the most probable adoptive home. This program minimizes the children's moves with in the system.

In these programs the various departments within Child Welfare Services, Child Protective Service, and the Foster Care and Adoption sections coordinated and communicated on the children's' placement and case progress.

Without this program the various departments seldom have the coordination required. They do the intake processing on child and place them in an available home. There is no evaluation of the type of case and screening as to long term care. That comes up 90 days into a case with the Permanency Planning. At which point the child may be moved.

In the 2 years this program has been in place, in King Co, 70 families have signed up, 84 children have been placed and 30 of these have been adopted, and another 10 adoptions are close to being completed.

There are 6 regions in DSHS, the King Co. program was the most successful the other regions did not have the success of King Co. The Bureaucracy looks at the "data" and said the program must no be working. Instead of examining why the program worked in King Co. and not in the other regions, the management decided 1 out of 6 must not work. This is a simplistic approach, and defies normal logic.

The other Issue is the Braam Settlement.

The Braam Oversight Panel was created in 2004 to oversee a Settlement regarding Washington State's foster care system. The Settlement was reached after a six-year period of litigation. The named Plaintiff, Jessica Braam, is an adult who lived in 34 foster homes by the time the suit was filed in 1998. The Settlement is intended to improve the conditions and treatment of children in the custody of the state's Division of Children and Family Services.

The top priority of the Braam is:

Placement Stability 1. Each child in the custody of the Department shall have a safe and stable placement with a caregiver capable of meet the child's needs.

The PPFP program is ideal in terms of meeting the conditions of the Braam Settlement. Yet DSHS is revert to the previous status quo in order to meet the goals of Braam. On top of this while the overall DSHS budget increases, DSHS is cutting service to the parents and children.

The title of the Braam Compliance Plan:

Kids Come First

Posted by jcmount at November 20, 2006 11:57 AM | Email This
Comments
1. I can vouch for what John is saying here. I have read the Ombudsman's report, and I have read the Braam settlement. John and I had also attempted to alert SP regulars regarding the unholy alliance between FPAWS and the State Employees' Union, which constitutes a huge conflict of interest for the union as well as the "unionization" of volunteer foster parenting.

Of course, nobody here seemed to care about that. So I wouldn not expect anyone to care about the state's decision to do away with the only department that could possibly have carried out the terms of the Braam settlement.

Anyone out there give a rip? Now would be a good time to speak up.

Posted by: ERNurse on November 20, 2006 02:04 PM
2. While I may not have known about the behind the scene goings on with the PPFP and Braams Settlement, I did feel the impact. In 2001/2002 years we were the 8th? foster parents for a child that had been in the system for a couple of years. The majority of kids that enter the system are already messed up and adding a list of foster homes to their resume only makes things worse. In private everyone knows which kids are likely to go back home, but the system didn't back up their professional opinion. I think these rules made a difference in their ability to act.

We have recently adopted 2 foster kids that we were their 2nd home. The 1st home was like an intake home while the situation was evaluated. We were also the 1st home to another 2nd home adoption kid.

Anyone can tell you that bouncing kids is bad news and anything that can reduce the number of bounces is good news.

Perhaps the statistics were swayed by the multi-year backlog in the adoption process. The first time we met our kids the social worker said she didn't think there was any chance the kids would be going home or to family members. 3 long years later they are finally adopted.

Posted by: Wally on November 21, 2006 07:30 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?