HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolutions - 1983.11.02 - 11707'F. Gosling, Chairpers
HEREP' APPROVE THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION
4/ /1 ;late
NOvember 3, 1983
Miscellaneous Resolution # 83307
BY: HEALTH & _HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE-Marilynn Gosling, Chairperson
RE: OAKLAND COUNTY CHILD CARE FUND BUDGET FOR 1983/1984
TO THE OAKLAND COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Mr. Chairperson, Ladies and Gentlemen:
WHEREAS Pursuant to provisions of Act 280 of the Public
Acts of 1975, Oakland County is required to develop and submit
a plan and budget for the funding of foster care services
to the Office of Children and Youth Services, Department
of Social Services, annually; and
WHEREAS the Oakland County Probate Court, Juvenile Division
and the Oakland County Department of Social Services have
developed the attached foster care services budget for the
State's fiscal year, October 1, 1983 through September 30,
1984; and
WHEREAS the Health and Human Resources Committee has
reviewed this budget and recommends its submission to the
State office.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Oakland County
Board of Commissioners authorize submission of the 1983/1984
Oakland County Child Care Fund budget to the State Office
of Children and Youth Services, Department of Social Services.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairperson of the Oakland
County Board of Commissioners be and is hereby authorized
to sign said budget.
Mr. Chairperson, on behalf of the Health and Human Resources
Committee, I move the adoption of the foregoing resolution.
HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE
OAr_AMD COUNTY
PROBATE COURT, JUVENILE DIVISION
AND
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
CHILD CARE FUND PLAN AND BUDGET
1983/1984
In-Home Care and Basic Grant Narrative. . . Page 4
INDEX
General Narrative . . . . . . Page 1
Oakland County Department of Social Services
Child Care Fund Budget Narrative
Attachment for 1983-34. . . . . . Page 3a
Addendum p•••••.•••••••••• Page 16
Addendum ea Dap ••••••••••••• Page 17
Budget Care Summary
JUVENILE COURT JUDGES
NORMAN R. BARNARD
F..LIGF_NE ARTHUR MOORE.
JOHN J. O'BRIEN
BARRY H. GRANT
r
131 Oaldurtb
OAKLAND COUNTY COURTHOUSE
OAKLAND COUNTY SF:RVIC.E: CENTZR.
1200 NORTH T'LLEC:RAPH ROAD
PONTIAC, MICHIGAN 4E3053
TELEPHONE 85B-0112
JOHN E. DO W5 ETT
DRECTOR, JUVENILE sERvic..-zs
JAMES M_ McFARLAND
ASSISTANT DIP-EC-70R. COURT SERVICES
ACCREDITED BY THE NATIONAL COUNCIL
OEJUVE.ND.E AND FAMILY COUNT JUDGES
V. General Narrative
A (1): Given the current availability of service and
resources that benefit children in your county (or multi -
county area) what are the most serious service needs of
the children in the county or area? In terms of service
outcomes, to what extent do the Child Care Fund and the
Basic Grant meet the needs of children within or in
jeopardy of coming within the juvenile justice system in
the county or multi-county area?
The most serious service needs of children in Oakland County in
those areas funded by the Child Care Fund are, for the
detention or shelter care of children pending hearing and
treatment services for those children who may not be cared for
in their own homes. The Child Care Fund has not proven to be
funded adequately to meet these needs since the institution of
the Child Care Fund Cap.
A (2): if In-Home Care and/or Basic Grant programs are
budgeted in the county's (les') annual Child Care Fund
plan, how do these programs dovetail into out-of-home
Child Care Fund activities? To what extent do these
programs fill "juvenile justice service" gaps within the
county(ies) or area?
-
Under in-Home Care, the Juvenile Court provides programing for
Status Offenders and other selected cases. The purpose of the
program is to reduce the number of Status Offenders requiring
detention pending hearing and reduce the length of outeof-home
placement.
A (3): if you are currently operating programs funded
through Child Care Fund or Basic Grant and grants from
other governmental or private sources, state the
percentage of funding from each source and give a brier-7
description of the program in addition, if you are
currently funding programs entirely with funds other than
the Child Care Fund or Basic Grant but are anticipeting
the use of the Child Care Fond or Basic Grant to continue
such programs, provide a description of these pregrems.
-2-
Your response to this request will allow the
office to determine whether - the programs meet
requirements for Child Care Fund or Basic Grant
reimbursement.
Not applicable.
B. County Operated Institutions
If your county operates an institutional facility
(treatment, secure detention, non-secure detention,
group or detention homes, multipurpose facility,
etc.) describe the services provided in each.
Please state the bed space capacity of each.
Presently, the court operates an active Foster Care and
Adoptions Unit, the Oakland County Children's Village and
Camp Oakland. The Children's Village has (1) a detention
facility (capacity 69 beds) with 52 in 'V' Building and
17 beds in "A" South Building for girls detention. (2) a
•Shelter Care facility with 44 beds and, (3) five other
units which would be utilized for what more commonly
would be called group care facilities, and are referred
to here as rehabilitation units. These rehabilitation
units, combined with the programs at Camp Oakland of Boys
Ranch, Girls Ranch, Adams House and Work Education,
provide an additional bed capacity for 155 children, It
is not uncommon for youngsters to move from detention or
shelter care into one of these treatment or
reabilitation programs.
C. General Purpose County Facilities
If your county operates a facility that is used for
Child Care Fund reimbursed and nor-Child Cara Fund
reimbursed services, (e.g,, to house probation staff
or court rooms) describe the formula that is used to
prorate the Child Care Fund costs for operating the
facility, (e.g., fuel, rent, electricity,
maintenance). If this situation does not apply to
your county enter "not applicable."
The Adoptions and Foster Care Unit is located in the
administrative wing of the Oakland County Children's
Village. The county's 1983 assessment is $5.02 per
square foot for the office area of 4400 square feet,
total annual amount of $22,076.
-3 --
This rental rate incorporates costs for maintenance, fuel,
electricity, etc. As was noted last year there is a concern
by the court that provisions should be made for the inclusion
of these and other administrative costs for operations of the
Foster Home unit in the Child Care Fund budget. The primary
goal of the unit is to provide non-institutional care for
children who are unable to remain in their own homes,
consistent with present day de-emphasis on institutional care.
D. Court and County DSS Rate Schedules
Attach a schedule of base rates paid for family foster
care and independent living by the Court and DSS. If
State rates are used, please indicate this in writing.
State rates for foster care and independent living are used,
unless exceptional rates are approved in those cases requiring
special care.
E. Group and Shelter Home Programs in Licensed Family Homes
If a county wishes to establish a group or shelter home
program in a licensed family foster home, the following
program elements must be described:
1. How the family foster care licensed group-shelter
home program fits into the total foster care delivery
system.
2. The functions and responsibilities of the following:
Administrator, Direct Services Staff, Foster
Parent(s)
3. Intake and release criteria.
4. Program description.
5. Financing
Per diem-detailed
Subsidy - detailed
Written assurance must be provided that the
foster parents will be under contract with the
county.
Not applicable.
MICHIGAN flEPARTMENT OF SCIAL SERVICES
OAKLAND COUNTY LOCAL OFFIC E
Narrative Attachment to 1933 - 84 Child Care Fund 9tIciet 055 SuL-Account
Section VI D County DOS Rate _Schedules
The rate schedule used for OSS Sub-Account funded foster care in the statE
schedule:
- foster care purchased from private agencies is paid at the basic
foster care rate plus the state established administrative rate
for each agency (DSS Manual Section 905);
- foster care provided/supervised directly by DSS staff is paid at
the Adoption Subsidy Rate,
FAMILY FOSTER CARE RATES
Daily Maximum Initial
Age Group Room Board Allowance Clothing Total Clothina Allowance
00-06 $5.02 $.24 $.44 $5.70 $110.00
07-12 6.11 .45 .39 6.95 170.7)
13-18 7.82 .99 .39 9.20 745.00
Independent Living 9.70
ADOPTION SUBSIDY PATES (Family Foster Care Rate Plus Semi-Annual Clothing!)
Age Group Per Diem Rate
00-06 55.95
07-12 7.35
13-18 9.70
jw/df
8-29-83
-4-
VII. In-Home Care and Basic Grant Narrative
A. .Service component authorized in previous fiscal year:
1. Report evaluating impact of services. The Oakland
County Juvenile Court has made a concerted effort to
reduce the number of Status Offenders detained in
our facilities and processed through the court
system. Since 1973, with a federal grant, we
initiated a specific project to impact the prior to
adjudication Status Offender who is a high risk to
removal from home, primarily the home truant.
Our efforts to avoid detention have been measu red by
monitoring the number of detentions prior to
adjudication since baseline year, 1975. Addendum 1
shows graphically the success of our efforts.
The 1932-83 !n-Home Care Plan stated that our
objective was to maintain a level of prior to
adjudication detentions no greater than 25% of 1975 ;
or 125 actual detentions annually. For 1382, the
graph in Addendum I translates into 107 actual
detentions. Therefore, the objective of this
Juvenile Court was exceeded.
The second stated objective was to reduce the length
of detention for the population served by 40% from
the length of detention expected. The expected days
of detention was established from actual prior to
adjudication detentions in 1975. An explanation and
the data are found in Addendum H.
Based on the data, the actual days in detention were
513 compared to the expected days, 1,001. This
represents a 49% reduction. Again, the objective
was exceeded.
The final objective was to avoid out-of-home
placement in at least half the Status Offenders
referred to this program as an alternative
disposition to out-of-home placement. Since. this
program is new for the 1982-83 program year, our
data represents cases served and closed to date.
Asof July 1, 1983, 15 cases were accepted as part
of this program. Eight of these cases have been
closed and the remaining continue open. From the
1.10
eight closed, three were closed because of continued
problems and their removal from home. Four were
either dismissed or continued at home under
probation. One child truanted from home. However,
she turned 17 and was dismissed from court. The
objective to avoid out-of-home placement in half
these cases is being achieved.
Under the in-home care concept, this unit is serving
the prior to adjudication, detainable status
offender and a small population of dispositionaI
cases. The criteria is that removal from home is
possible because of the family dynamics as opposed
to the seriousness of the offenses.
During 1582, case characteristics were accumulated.
These characteristics were taken at case closure.
(1) Females represented 69,5% of the cases closed;
males 31.5%, This is consistent with previous
years. (2) Average age for males referred was /4.7
with the youngest child served at the age oF 12.
For females the average was 15.4 with the youngest
female served at the age of 11. (3) For all cases
served, 26.8% of the natural parents had intact
marriages; 52% of the natural parents were
divorced; 12.6% had one parent deceased; 3.9Z of
the cases, the natural parents were never married;
and 4.7% of the cases the child was adopted.
Comparison of males and females, showed equal
representation in each of the above categories. (4)
Seventy-three per cent of the cases served had W.:
least one prior agency contact before the
— involvement with Status Offender Alternative
Resources. (5) Thirty-one cases or 25% had prior
court contacts but only 11 or 9% were previously
adjudicated.
Addendum ll shows the reduction in expected days la
detention was 488 days. We estimate that the five
cases served in the dispositional alternative saved
an additional 655 days of out-of-home care. 0*,..1r
estimate is based on the length of service in our
program.
2. Proposed changes in last year's authorized
components.
Not applicable.
PTV r TT.
B. Component problem statements.
The Oakland County Juvenile Court has made a concerted
effort to reduce the number of Status Offenders placed in
our facility and processed through the court system. The
cou rt wishes to continue the Status Offender Alternative
Resource Program previously funded as. an in-home care
program,
The extent of the problem has been outlined in the
baseline data in the evaluation section it is our
contention that without these services the number of
Status Offenders detained and proceeding to Court would
increase dramatically.
Based on our experience with Status Offenders, the
underlying problem brincing them to the attention of the
Juvenile Court rests with the family interactions. In
some instances the breakdowns can he seen in the initial
socialization process. in the majority of these cases
the breakdowns are more related to crisis situations
brought on by family changes; thatis death., divorce,
separation, adoption, and developmental issues. Based on
our position, we feel that service components will have
the following effect on the parent/child relationship.
I. We will keep parent and child involved in
the planning process and allow them to control their
own destiny.
2. We will provide an opportunity to increase problem
solving approaches. This means reduce controlling
apprdoches, stress and unhealthy emotional tactics.•
3. We will work to keep the responsibility of the
problems resolution on the family.
4. We will provide a realistic view of what one can end
cannot control. It will remove the notion that
problems can be solved by magical solutions through
the court, through a therapist, or a peer.
5. We will eliminate feelings of helplessness and hope-
lessness for the child and parents. The services
will be aimed to providing support for this child
and parents.
G. We will assist families to get the most appropriate
community resources for their problems.
-7-
7. We will be a third party to sort out problems before
they develop into major crises. Our approach,
therefore, uses conflicts as an opportunity to
motivate change.
8. We will work on the bond between the parent and
child. We will stress commitment and reduce
abandonment. The ultimate objective is to establish
or re-establish a level of relationship.
Although our experiences are with the Status Offenders,
prior to detention, this service component had similar
effects in other delinquent offenders and children at
of removal from home at disposition.
C. Target population description.
Under the evaluation section of the 1n-Horne Care
Proposal, a description of the youth and families
targeted was given. This description has remained
constant over the past several years.
- For youths to be eligible for services, the following
criteria will be met:
1. The presenting complaint is a status oTfense, or,
if not status, not serious enough to on-clorger public
safety in a delinquency case or the elIld's safety
in a reelect case
2. The child is at risk of removal from home because. of
the family dynamics as opposed to the seriousness
of the charges. The child refusing to return home
or the parent refusing to take.a child home, makes
a case eligible.
3. Legal Involvement.
a. For prior to adjudication cases, the legal'
requirement is, at a minimum, a complaint and
either,
i. Parent and child sign an agreement
to participate, or
if. A Temporary Order is entered. -
b. For adjudicated cases, an Order is entered
indicating participating as an alternative to
the out-of-home placement. This Order may
be either,
1. A full Dispositional Order, or
ii. A Temporary Order pending disposition.
4. There must be a possibility that services can avoid
or reduce the length the child is out of home.
Based on 1982 referrals and trends in 1933, the
program will provide services to 200 children
including 60 cases served as an alternative
disposition to out-of-home placement.
D. Services model description:
I. Describe the services which will remedy or reduce
the identified problem.
a. What services will be provided.
. Crisis Intervention will be the primary
intervention technique used to provide
services at all case levels. To avoid the
detention of the detainable Status Offender,
it will be in many instances the primary
service. When cc--es are referred to the
in-home care component as a di_spositional
alternative, it will be an available
approach to both child and family to reduce
stress, to provide support, to demonstrate
to families and children that we can grow
from problems.
Intensive caseworker support- fchild and
family). intensive casework support will
primarily be used for the child served as
a dispositional alternative to out-of-home
care. By intensive casework support we
mean no less that two face-to-face meetings
of the Family weekly. This service will be
available for prior to adjudication case if
the complaint on the child is authorized
for official court action.
Staff will establish a minimal twice weekly
meeting where child and parents will meet to
-
discuss issues and improve communications.
Emphasis on the family meetings is to
improve problem solving skills and closely
monitor court orders. When possible, we
will include student interns to provide
direct services to a child while- the regular
regular staff concentrate on the family
interactions.
The program will continue to maintain a high
priority in avoiding the authorization of
complaints. We anticipate that a majority of
our cases will he initiated by a complaint
and a sinned agreement with child and
parent, intensive casework support WIT be
provided in those cases where there is a
delay in implementing a referral with a
community agency.
iii. Group Counseling,
A group approach with parents and children will
be considered when the population in the
dispositional alternative group is sufficient
to implement this method. The group approach
will serve as a support system for the parents
and the child, an opportunity to educate
families and an opportunity to practice what
has been learned.
iv. Use of Community Services.
(a) The program will utilize existing community
services. For the prior to adjudication
population served, the objective is that the
community services will meet the needs of the
family and child and, therefore, avoid official
court involvement. For the child served as a
dispositional alternative to out-home-
placement, community services will provide
follow-up services after caseshave been
terminated from the in-home care components.
(b) How long the services will be provided
The length of services in this unit will depend
on the legal status of the case. The prior to
adjudication population will be served for no
longer than 60 days. The dispositional
-1 0-
alternative to out-of-home placement will be
served for no longer than six months.
(c) How often the service will be provided;
The frequency of services again depend on the
legal status of the case. With the cases
served as a dispositional alternative, two
face-to-face meetings weekly is expected..
For cases authorized for court, our commitment
Is again for two faca-td-face meetings weekly.
These will occur whether the child is at home
pending court or in temporary detention. For
cases that remain at the prior to adjudication
level, contacts will range from telephone calls
to twice weekly meetings dependent upon the
services being provided to the. family in the
community. Again, the maximum length of our
involvement for prior to adjudication cases is
60 days.
(d) Caseload size:
Staff will carry between 10 and 15 cases per
worker. This will include four cases each as a
dispositional alternative to out-of-home
placement and the Tc=mairder from the prior to
adjudication population
(e) Use of non scheduled payments:
- Not applicable.
2. Describe the client selection process
Theelements are why the selection is made, who makes it,
when, and how?
a. Prior to adjudication population;
1. Children are served in this program who are in
danger of being detained or are in detention
because of family dynamics and not the
seriousness of the offense. The Usual
population is the home runaway.
-1 1-
ii The circumstances usually include several home
truancies, parents are frustrated as they do
not want their child home or children are so
frustrated that they do-not wish to return
home.
Ni. Program procedures require a comp!aint as well
as the possibility of detention. If no
complaint is received, the child is screened
out of the program.
• Program staff handling initial interventions,
dete -mi-- el ICJIbiI ty Based on the -50v,-. In
some instances the court's intake department
will specifically request our participation.
v. Decision to accept a case into the program is
made at the time of the initial contact or at
a preliminary hearing. The decision is not
based on whether the first intervention
successfully avoids detention or court hut
on the case circumstances.
b. Dispositional alternatives to out -of -home
placement.
i. Same as criteria under population prior to
detention.
ii. Same as ii under prior to adjudication
population. In addition, our experiences have
found that a history of a previous out-of-home
- placement is an indicator of the likelihood of
another such placement.
iii. Program procedure requires that a hearing
officer enter a specific order placing the
child in the Intensive Casework Unit instead of
a placement out-of-home.
iv. Program supervisor makes the inittal
determination whether a case meets the
criteria. Referrals are usually made by
regular casework staff. The rule of thumb in
determining eligibility is to determine whether
if this program Was not available, the worker
would be requesting out-of-home care.
-12-
v. The decision to accept into the program is
made by the hearing officer at a hearing.
3. The method or delivery.
State who is responsible for:
(a) service delivery:
Services will be provided by casework staff
exclusively assigned to this program.
(b)• Case plan:
Case objectives will be developed at the initial
contact by assigned casework staff.
(c) Monitoring case goal and objectives attainment:
Casework staff are responsible to maintain records
of their contacts with the child and family.
Supervisor will review monthly these reports.
(d) Supervising the service delivery:
This is the responsibility of the program
supervisor.
4. State the goals and measurable objectives. State-
how the goals or objectives will be monitored and
evaluated.
The general goal of the Status Offender Alternative
Resource, is to avoid an out-of-home placement
whether at the point of detention or at the point of
disposition. If the child is placed outside the
home at detention or disposition. our objective is
to reduce the length of that placement. More
specifically our objectives are:
a. To maintain a level of detention no greater
than 25 % of the 1975 rate, that is 125
detentions annually.
b. To avoid out-of-home placements for half the
-I 3-
children referred to this program as an
alternative disposition for out-of-horn
placement.
• The stated objectives will be monitored by
continuing to track the daily admittances to
Children's Village- The closing data will also
be monitored to determine placement at closure,
legal involvement with the court- and any length
of placement outside the home.
5. Case record management techniques where appropriate:
a. Case record contact:
Program component staff will keep records
of all screened for services. Program
files will reflect the documentations of
the outline in pages 8 through TO of the
"Planned. Budget Guidelines."
b. Case review procedure:
Cases will be reviewed by program super-
visor at opening and monthly after the
opening. The case staffing approach will
be utilized by staff on a monthly basis for
c a ses presenting particular proble m s.
Supervisor will also work with staff on a
more immediate basis when need arises.
Staff will note on their contact sheet the
case was reviewed with supervisor.
At closure all cases will be carefully
reviewed by supervisor. The review
includes the reading of all reports and
follow-up summaries. Supervisor also
monitors cases in regard to detention,
court involvement and where the child
resides at closure.
Progress in achieving objectives will be
indicated by the following behaviors in the
report.
i. The amount of interaction between
parent and child. •
-I 4-
ii. The amount of open communication
between parent and child and the
worker.
iii. Reduction in avoidance behavior such
as running away from home.
iv. The commitment between parent and child
to continue working on the problems.
v. The identification by parent and child
of their role ond conflicts within
their home.
vi. Voluntary participation of the family
in community agencies.
vii. Development by the family of specific
steps to achieve their objectives.
Child will be terminated from in-home care project
when:
F. Parents and children have developed a plan
that can be implemented without the need of
court supervision.
Children and 7aront, after having been
served by the intensive services, have
demonstrated improvement and ability to
relate, communicate and solve problems.
The child, at this time, will be placed
on a regular probation order or dismissed
from court.
iii. Parents and/or children by their actions or
lack of actions have not followed through
. with the recommended plans. The child is
returned to court and usually is placed
outside the home.
Reason for termination will be noted by the
closing form and in the memo to Intake or in a
transfer memo to the newly assigned work.
-15 -
F
6. State the worker qualifications:
Al] staff will have a minimum of a Bachelor's
Degree and already have had .several years
experience in serving youth In light of
these services, staff will need to hav
diagnostic skills, the ability to control case
interviews and a knowledge of cocrounity
resources. Staff are also required to have. a
knowledge of the court process and procedures.
Proposals for program not previously funded through in-
home care.
Not applicable.
CL/pkc
8-4-83
AltQIAL;Lli,.
bet ,cintfon ts lmpI&znted
• is
Cri
'rE lnl.
'El
PAEADJUDICAM A01,181ONS TO CHUREN 1 8 Vi LLAc
, OP .STATUS OFPF,NDEAS Y QUARTE • '
1
Rn— wi•Vspaldv 14.N.IN/Ay.o.pe.e.140.Anap 14 le, 044,11n4&l..s.l.polt41.71/04./....N..strael-44.110,10.1leanle, Palo la). orweewea WO, MOM. *kW 1.014.11n0 ktry .6 . • w. . w 01. v
11:4 a d
9/7,A111 1,976 119n r, 7.n ,t ()(111 11,11 )„.
,,r,=„n 1-3,43-1331_1r 1 5 13
Expected vs Actual Day; of Detention for 1982
The expected days in detention was established from the actual pre-adjudicted
detention of status offenders in 1975. The days in detention were categoriz e d by
the length of the detention from one to thirty days. Any detentioa beyond 30 da y's
was placed in the "30 Day" category because lengthier det entions usually l'ncluded
children waiting placement after adjudication.
To establish the expected number of children for each category, the number of children
in each category was divided by the total number of pre-adjudicated detentions (418)
in 1975. Therefore, 48 children were detained for one day, divided by 418 equals the
rate of detention for this category at 11.5%. For 1982 program year, the 11.5% was
multiplied by the total number of children served, 125. The expected number of
children for one day would be 14.
The following table describes the expected days in detentlon compared to the actual
days. The actual days was accumulated at the closure of our cases.
Length of Percentage No. of Children Expected Actual No. Actual
Days in of Population Expected Based on Days in of Children Days in
Detention per Category Pop. of 125 Served Detention in Detention Detention
1 11.4 14 14 22 22
2 15.0 19 38 7 14
3 8.1 10 30 9 27
4 8.5 11 44 5 20
5 9.8 12 60 2 10
6 8.6, 11 66 0 0
7 8.8 11 77 0 0
8 2.1 3 24 - 0 0
9 2.4 3 27 0 0
10 .7 1 10 1 10
11 .7 1 11 0 0
12 1.2 2 24 1 12
13 .5 0 0 1 0
14 1.2 2 28 0 0
15 1.7 ' 2 30 0 0
16 - 1.9 2 32 1 16
17 2.4 3 51 1 0
18 2.1 3 54 1 0
19 1.2 1 19 1 0
20 .2 0 0 0 0
21 2...1 3 63 0 0
22 .9 1 22 1 22
23 1.2 2 46 1 0
24 .7 1 24 0 0
25 .2 0 0 0 0
26 .5 0 0 0 0
27 .7 1 27 1 0
28 .2 0 0 1 0
29 .5 0 0 0 0
30 + 4.5 6 180 12 360
100% 125 1,001 61 513
* From the 125 children served, 65 children were not detained and are not included in
the column, "Actual Number of Children in Detention."
/pke
6/22/83
ANTICIPATED MENDITURF/CREDI'
384,895.
8,049,277.
173,137.
13,662_
6,000.
933,400.
k„uii.„11.1
COUNTY Oakland
FISCAL YEAR l983-84
PROGRAM PLAN AND BUDGET CONTACT PERSON
COURT: Earl L. Koonce
PHONE: 858-0256
DSS: Jeanne Walter
PHONE : 858 -1 1
TYPE OF CARE
I. FAMILY FOSTER CARE
II. INSTITUTIONAL CARE
III. IN-HOME CARE
IV, INDEPENDENT LIVING
V. ADOPTIVE SUBSIDY
VI. STATE WARD CEARGEBACK
VII. BASIC GRANT
A. County Program
B. County Share of Joint Program
SUBTOTAL
ANTICIPATED CREDITS (Subtract from Subtotal)
-TOTAL COUNTY CHILD CARE
- 1,158,226.
8,407,04.5
BUDGET DEVELOPMENT CERTIFICATION
The undersigned have participated in developing the program budget presented
above.
Signed.
Signed
Presiding Judge of Probate Court, Juvenile Division Date
County Director of Social Services Date
I certify that the budget submitted above represents an anticipated gross
expenditure for the fiscal year October 1, 19 thru September 30, 19 -
Signed
Chairperson, Board of Commissioners
OSS-2091 (Rev. 5-79} Pravin ditir ot.solto
Date
300,608 .
32 836 .
39,326
2. County DSS Supervised
-Foster Care Payments
-Non-Scheduled Payments
4
234.
45 0,
10,382.
500.
1,944,
2,760
FAMILY rmTr-R rim TOTAL 2, / QO rt
County Child Care: Budget Detail
' Page
COUNTY CHILD CARE-DETAIL BUDGET
For Office of Children and Youth Services
F.Y. October 1, 1983- September 30, 19 84
County Oakland
i Date Submitted
: Annual (total, antici- Anticipated
TYPE OF CARE Gross Cost. . Dated exp,) , Days Care
• I., FAMILY FOSTER CARE .
A. Directly Supervised
1. Court Supervised
-Foster Care Payments
-Non-Scheduled Payments
13, Private Agency Family
Foster homes
1. Court Placed
-Foster Care and Admixastraive
Rate Payments
-Non-Scheduled Payments
2, County MS Placed
-Poster Care and Administrative
Rate Payments
-Non-Scheduled Payments 359
69
145
44
1,877,014.
5,306,239.
535,927.
25,185_
50,279
25,251
Subtotal Court Operated
Institutions 7,719,180. 90,721 258
-0-
-0--
-0- -0-
-0- -0-
-0 - 70-
.4•nn••n•n
Subtotal County D.S.S,
Operated Facilities -.0-
INSTITUTIONAL CARE TOTAL 8,2049,177,
County Child Care: Budget Detail
Page 3
TYPE OF CARE
Annual Cross (total antici Number
Cost pated exp.). of Beds
Anticipated
Days Care_
B. Court Operated Institutions
1. Detention
("J." Bldg & "A" Bldg)
2. Group Care Facility
(Camp Oakland & Other C.V.)
3. Shelter Care Facility
4. Other
C, County D.S.S. Operated Facilities
1. Group Care Facility
2. Shelter Care Facility
3. Other
IN-HOME CARE SUMMARY
County Oakland
I. List all service components which
requested information for each.
(Service Component)
A) Status Offender
Alternative Resources
B)
C)
B)
E)
make up the THC program and specify the
CCF 10ther Pub-
radm, unit) $ExpenditureWc Funding
4 Juvenile 173 137. None 173,137
Gross
Expanditu
F)
Subtotal IHC - Court
Subtotal THC -
173,137
4
TOTALS IHC 173,137. 173,137
II. For each service component listed above, complete a separate IN-HOMF CARE
BUDGET DETAIL, (DSS 2094) filling in the appropriate budget. items
D55-2093 (Rev. 5-79) Previous ed)tion obsol•?te
44 ,87 5.
1 6,4.68 2
Four - Child Welfare Worker 11 i Casework .160
150,
i10_
1,500.
80.
(-to ,',1 -nits/contract)! u (total cos
-0-
HOME CARE BUDGET DETAIL
Service Component
A. PERSONNEL (EmployeesOf Court or DSS)
1. Salary and Wages
(name) (function) - (Tihrs./wk.)
One- Child Welfare Worker Supervisor 40
2; Fringe benefits (specify)
365 of Salary Cost
Total Personnel
(total cost)
29,608,
90,199,
Administrative Unit: DSS F-1 Court
PROGRAM SUPPORT (For Employees Identified in "A" above
1. Travel (Personal Mileage) '
(purpose) ' (rate/mile) (est. # miles) (total cost
See clients .27 14,815 4,000.
---1-- -- 75-
_ . ____
2. Supplies and Materials §.19nary SToc;K 100.
Print Shop 100. -
3 Other Telephone Commuciation T 1,700
(specify y Convenience dbpier (basis & rate) Membership DLLs & Pubic -Cation
-Building Spade Cost Allocation
Postage
F,7i *r-ent
Total Program Support 8,455,
C. CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1. Individual Consultants or Providers
(name) . I (rate/unit)
2.. Contracting Organization
a, Closed-end contracts
(name)
PSS-2094 (Rev. 5-79) Previous :.:c11.'zion obsol3te
3rd day of it ) November 19 83
-
P., ALLEN
Clerk/Register of Deeds Conn
#83307 November 3 1983
Moved by Gosling supported by McConnell the resolution be adopted
AYES: McDonald, McPherson, Moffitt, Moore, Nelson,'Page, Perinoff, Pernick,
Price, Rewold, Wilcox, Aaron, Calandro, Doyon, Foley, Fortino, Gosling, Hobart,
Jackson, R. Kuhn, S. Kuhn, Lanni, McConnell, (23)
NAYS: None, (0)
A sufficient majority having voted therefor, the resolution was adopted.
STATE OF MICHIGAN)
COUNTY OF OAKLAND)
1, Lynn D. Allen, Clerk of the County of Oakland and having a seal,
do hereby certify that I have compared the annexed copy of
Miscellaneous Resolution #8 3307 .adopted by the Oakland County Board of Commissioners
at their meeting held on November 3, 1983
with the orginial record thereof now remaining in my office, and
that it is a true and correct transcript therefrom, and of the
whole thereof.
In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
seal of said County at Pontiac, Michigan
this