The Federation took its continued concerns about what was supposed to be a pilot project to privatize DSHS Child Welfare Services in one region to a legislative oversight committee Wednesday (Dec. 8).
The union has voiced alarm at recent moves by DSHS that appear to extend the pilot or parts of the pilot statewide. That violates the law creating the pilot, 2SHB 2106.
The union took those concerns to the House Early Learning and Children’s Services Committee at a pre-session hearing Wednesday.
Ursula Petters, a social worker supervisor in Bremerton and a member of Local 1181, and Jeanine Livingston, the union’s contract compliance director, ticked off a number of potential problems with the request for proposals for phase 1 of the project.
Workload is one of the concerns, they said.
“Having only one family group meeting every 90 days on out-of-home placement is not acceptable,” Petters told the panel. “Permanency must be the focus from Day 1. Family group meetings with the social worker present need to occur at least monthly. Yet, this presents a new workload issue.
Wasting money in a time of a $5.7 billion budget deficit is another big concern.
“We are deeply concerned that the amount of money allocated to implement the proposed system is grossly inadequate to do all that the request for proposals prescribes to the master contracts,” Petters said. “With transportation, visitation, placement, housing, drug and alcohol treatment, expanding in-home treatment and services and adding staff – the master contracts will burn through these budgets in very short order – or alternatively not provide services when they’re needed.”
The union has voiced alarm at recent moves by DSHS that appear to extend the pilot or parts of the pilot statewide. That violates the law creating the pilot, 2SHB 2106.
The union took those concerns to the House Early Learning and Children’s Services Committee at a pre-session hearing Wednesday.
Ursula Petters, a social worker supervisor in Bremerton and a member of Local 1181, and Jeanine Livingston, the union’s contract compliance director, ticked off a number of potential problems with the request for proposals for phase 1 of the project.
Workload is one of the concerns, they said.
“Having only one family group meeting every 90 days on out-of-home placement is not acceptable,” Petters told the panel. “Permanency must be the focus from Day 1. Family group meetings with the social worker present need to occur at least monthly. Yet, this presents a new workload issue.
Wasting money in a time of a $5.7 billion budget deficit is another big concern.
“We are deeply concerned that the amount of money allocated to implement the proposed system is grossly inadequate to do all that the request for proposals prescribes to the master contracts,” Petters said. “With transportation, visitation, placement, housing, drug and alcohol treatment, expanding in-home treatment and services and adding staff – the master contracts will burn through these budgets in very short order – or alternatively not provide services when they’re needed.”
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comment Policy
We appreciate our readers and thank you for adding to the discussion. The following guidelines are established to ensure respectful tone in the comments of readers so we can all enjoy the site.
• Keep comments on topic - any comment that appears to be off-topic will be edited or deleted.
• Profanity - we’re PG13 here. Moderate language is allowed, but we reserve the right to edit out anything offensive.
• Personal attacks - personal attacks on the authors or other commentators will result in an immediate ban.
• Editor’s right - While we encourage comments that challenge or offer constructed criticism, we reserve the right to edit or remove any post, and to ban a user.*
• External linking - external links are ok, if they are relevant to the original post and your comment. Simply linking to your own site will be frowned upon.
Final Words
You, and only you, are responsible for your words. Once your comment is submitted, that’s it — you’re immortalized. Think before you submit.
*WFSE members are protected under the following Communications Ethics policy:
Under the provisions of the AFSCME “Bill of Rights for Union Members” regarding communications, “Members shall suffer no impairment of freedom of speech concerning the operations of this union. Active discussion of union affairs shall be encouraged and protected within this organization.”
If you believe your comments were removed unfairly, you may protest the removal of your post to the Communications Committee. Leave your protest at Contact Us on WFSE.org