------------------------------------------------
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE
THE INTERFACE COOL HOME PROGRAM
AN INNOVATIVE APPROACH TO TEMPORARY SHELTER CARE
A graduate project submitted in partial satisfaction of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in
Education, Educational Psychology
Counseling
by
Carol Rostkowski
May, 1987
The Graduate Project of Carol Rostkowski is approved:
R~e
R. Mitchell, Ph.D.
'
California State University, Northridge
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE
PAGE
INTRODUCTION
1
LITERATURE REVIEW
4
The Need for Foster Care
Type of Services
Foster Home Families
Foster Home Children
4
7
11
14
INTRODUCTION TO INTERFACE
16
THE COOL HOME SYSTEM
20
History
Placement Procedures
Main Characteristics of Interface's Program
COOL HOME FAMILIES
20
22
26
30
Selection, Training, & Unique Aspects
Cool Home Family Survey & Results
30
33
39
COOL HOME PLACEMENTS
Criteria for Evaluating Placements
Data Review & Results
Discussion of Data Results
39
43
54
CONCLUSION
59
REFERENCES
62
iii
ABSTRACT
A STUDY OF THE COOL HOME PROGRAM
INTERFACE, NEWBURY PARK
by
Carol Rostkowski
Master
of Arts in Education
There are a variety of services available for troubled youth
and/or their families from public and private agencies.
One such
service is providing temporary alternative living arrangements
when adolescents and their families reach a point where staying
together intensifies the problems that have arisen between them
and spending a short time apart may allow a solution to develop
with the help of counselors.
In these situations, short-term foster care residences are
appropriate for adolescents who are not in need of intensive
treatment and whose behavior is not so destructive that permanent
alternative arrangements are necessary.
Such a service is designed to give adolescents and their
families some breathing space while solutions are being worked
out, but provides a family atmosphere for the youth involved.
This project examines one such program carried out by
iv
Interface, a private non-profit organization in Ventura County.
Interface termed the short-term residences "Cool Homes" in
reference to the fact that they offer everyone a "cooling off"
period during which the immediate problems are worked out and
longer-term solutions are explored.
The examination of the Cool Home program entailed reviewing
placements over the last five years, interviewing key members of
the organization, and surveying past and present Cool Home
families.
The results offered here include a history of the agency, a
description of the program itself, data offered by Cool Home
f~milies
and the review of how "successful" placements have been
over the last five years.
v
INTRODUCTION
In 1982, I volunteered the use of my residence to Interface,
a private, non-profit social services agency covering Ventura
County, California.
I became one of the resources Interface used
for short-term, safe housing for their adolescent clients who were
not in need of intensive treatment and whose behavior did not
present a danger to themselves or others.
I was a "Cool Home".
As a Cool Home, I had young people stay with me because the
situation with their parents had reached a point where everyone
needed to be separated in order to cool down to a point where
counselors could help them work through their immediate problems.
Sometimes, the youth was a street kid who had run out of
places to stay.
Sometimes the youth was a runaway who needed
housing until arrangements were made for him/her to go home.
As
an unmarried woman, with no children, this was a unique
opportunity for me to interact with teenagers.
Between 1982 and
1984, I met some memorable ones:
the 14 year old out-of-state boy who stole his neighbor's
brand new BMW and drove to California (When I asked him how
that year's BMWs rode, he smiled and replied "Great, really
great").
He returned home willingly a week later, ready to
face charges.
the 16 year old punker with stiffly spiked hair who needed
1
2
a bed for the night because it was raining.
The next
morning, without being asked, he washed his breakfast dishes.
the 15 year old girl who could not sleep unless a light
was shining directly on her face because she had been
molested in the darkness when she was younger and those
memories still haunted her, even though she had no conscious
recollection of the incidents.
During those two years, I realized that there was a need for
places for adolescents to stay for periods that were not as longterm as the traditional foster home placements.
Shelters for
runaways, group homes and dormitories may provide temporary
housing, but they can not always provide the nurturing, supportive
atmosphere that a home can.
It is this nurturing atmosphere that
can often be the one ingredient that helps an adolescent mature.
Youth that need housing for only a short time would miss out on a
valuable experience unless there were Cool Homes that provided
this combination of short-term housing and a home atmosphere.
When Interface established the Cool Home program in 1973,
there was nothing similar in the United States.
Fourteen years
later, this type of service is still not widespreag.
The legal
requirements and logistics of recruiting, training and retaining
cool homes are difficult and time-consuming.
There is also not a great deal written about this type of
3
0 .
foster care. Interface remains the primary national model, for the
"Cool Home" system of foster care, but there has not been any
detailed description of or research into their system either.
Therefore, I undertook a study of the Interface Cool Home system.
The study included interviews with key staff members, a review of
the files of over 400 Cool Home placements from 1982 through 1986,
and a survey of past and present Cool Home families.
This paper will present the results of that study.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The literature on foster care reviewed in preparation for
this project can be categorized into the following major areas:
The need for foster care
-
Types of services available
The foster care parents
The child in foster care
A summary of the literature in each category is discussed
below:
The need for foster care
It is an unfortunate reality that it is not always possible
for children and their parents to remain together as the child is
growing up and that it is often best if they be separated.
This
need for separation has been the focus of several studies.
In 1969, the Child Welfare League of America conducted a
study of requests for foster care in seven metropolitan areas
throughout the United States.
The purpose of the study was to
examine the reasons why foster care services were requested in
communities and compare those findings with the availability of
such services in the community.
A total of 1,488 requests for foster care services was
reviewed by the League (foster care being defined as a request for
4
-l
5
separation of a child from the home for placement in a foster
home, etc.), analyzed and categorized into the following areas:
Reasons involving
~
parents:
Deviant parental behavior (neglect, abuse, etc.)
Parental incapacity (illness, etc.)
Socioeconomic stress (parent not in the home for reasons
other than marital problems or illness, for example,
prison)
Psychosocial stress (mental illness of parent, divorce, etc)
Reasons involving the children:
Child's benavioral problems
Child's incapacity
The three most common reasons why foster care was requested
were found to be deviant parental behavior (21% of the requests),
child's behavior (13%) and psychosocial stress (13%).
The study concluded that no one type of welfare services for
children was consistently available and, in fact, there wasn't
even a generally accepted idea of what services should be
available.
Although foster care was found to be the most
frequently requested service (as opposed to institutionalization,
adoption, etc), most case workers preferred to have the child
remain in the home provided
~
~
available (emphasis added).
adequate community support system
However, in many cases, this
l
6
support was not available and foster care became necessary.
The study also showed that foster care was needed because
adoptive homes were scarce and therefore situations that could
more appropriately be handled with adoption were, by necessity,
handled via foster home care.
An article written almost 10 years later (Derdeyn, 1977)
\
I
.'{
indicated that the need for foster care did not diminish during
the period and, indeed, even increased, with 364,000 children
placed in foster care in 1975 alone, an increase of over 25$ in a
10-year period.
Derdeyn's article recognized not only the need for foster
care services, but presented arguments for legitimizing permanent
foster care arrangements.
Derdeyn asserted that some primary
factors preventing children from returning home -- and therefore,
underscoring the need for the availability of foster care -- were
lack of resources of the biological parents, poverty, mental
illness and one-parent status.
These reasons are the same as
those cited in the 1969 Child Welfare League study 10 years
earlier.
It would appear that the reasons -for needing foster care
still existed and, therefore, the need for foster care still
existed.
Derdeyn also stated that adoptive homes were not always
available when they would be appropriate and even if they were,
parental rights were strongly protected by the courts, making many
7
children ineligible for adoption.
All these discussions emphasize the need for the existence
of foster homes -- a need that has been expressed from the time
that the "battered child syndrome" was recognized in 1962 and
continuing into present time when child abuse and neglect
incidents are all too frequent stories in the media.
Types oC Services
Foster homes are just one specific service designed to help
children in need.
There are a variety of services that exist in
response to the variety of problems that exist for youth.
In 1976, M. H. Margolin presented an overview of the general
types of services that could meet the needs of runaways.
styles are:
These
entrepreneur, committee, agency, legal, purist,
complex and advocacy.
Each style is described below:
Entrepreneur Style - best exemplified by the good-hearted
neighbor who takes in an adolescent experiencing difficulty with
his/her parents and attempts to act as a go-between to bring the
two parties together again.
The major drawback to this type of
service is the fact that it is not sanctioned by any law and can
even become illegal if the parents of the runaway adolescent
object to their child staying with someone else.
Committee Style - represented by the community organization whose
8
Q
goal is to seek out appropriate resources for the various
situations brought to them by adolescents and to push for the
establishment of those resources that are needed, but do not yet
exist.
The Committee Style does not face the legal problems the
Entrepreneur Style often does.
However, a lack of resources
affect this style's effectiveness.
Agency Style - best exemplified by the crisis hot line service,
this style of service is formed as a response to an specific
social concern voiced by the community.
potential for too much emphasis being
A major drawback is the
pl~ced
on bottom-line
figures (how many calls were received, how many clients helped,
etc.) rather than the individuals who come for help.
Legal Style - most commonly seen in the form of Juvenile Court,
the goal of this style of service is to uphold the law and prevent
crime by dealing with adolescents through the legal system.
The
primary drawback to the legal style is the possibility of emphasis
on the wrong objective, for example institutionalizing adolescents
for running away rather than recognizing their run as a symptom
of a deeper problem.
Purist Style - demonstrated best by the runaway houses that have
been established to provide a safe alternative for youth on the
streets.
The Purist style goal is safe housing, but the
constraint on this goal is primarily adverse social pressure.
•
9
Complex Style - found in the state social services agencies
established for fulfilling expressed social concerns.
This is
similar to the Agency Style of service, but on a more bureaucratic
level.
The primary drawback of this style is, in fact, its
bureaucracy.
Advocacy Style - seen in national organizations that study social
issues and work for reform where needed.
The constraints to this
style are public apathy and the fact that the wide geographical
level it functions on results in a distancing from the youth they
are trying to help.
According to Margolin, a major benefit of having different
styles is the fact that no one style is better than the others and
each style has its place and situation that it is best suited for.
Therefore, different problems of youth can be addressed.
However,
he also cautions that the dangers in having this diversity is that
one style may become fashionable and capture the public interest,
and therefore the resources, at the expense of the other styles.
The other styles may then lose support and disappear, thereby
depriving youth of services they need to meet their special needs.
Two of the articles reviewed described specific programs
designed to help troubled youth:
Larson, Allison, and Johnston discuss a program established
10
in Edmonton and Calgary, Alberta in 1978.
The program was founded
on the belief that the local community, given the proper training
and support, could offer needed services for youth in their homes
and therefore keep the youth within the community.
The major
factors that made the program successful were that the children
were carefully selected based on motivation to work with the
program and matched to a home where they would be most suited,
specific treatment plans were drawn up; and regular, periodic
meetings were held with all involved (counselors, parents,
treatment home parents and children) to assess progress and
discuss any problems.
Treatment home parents were given 35 to 40
hours of training prior to receiving a placement and received
group supervision and weekly meetings with other parents during
their involvement in the program.
In the late 70's, Tacoma, Washington established their
"Homebuilders" program.
Homebuilders focuses on keeping families
together during crises, rather than removing a youth to temporary
shelter.
Specially trained counselors are available 24 hours a
day for a period of up to 6 weeks to families where there was
imminent danger of a member being removed.
When necessary, a
counselor will visit with the family in their home and remain as
long as necessary to diffuse any volatile situation, resolve any
immediate crisis and lay the foundation for longer-term solutions
bY teaching necessary skills to the family to prevent recurrence
11
of the problem.
The advantage to this program is that families
are treated in their home.
This offers the counselor a view of
the environment and situation which would not be possible if the
family came to an office.
In addition, both the families and the
counselor are freed from the time constraints of an office visit
and the situation that brought the counselor to the home is
resolved before the counselor leaves.
The intensity of the
relationship between counselor and family results in the
equivalent of 2 years of therapy being given in a 6-week period -when it is needed most.
Foster Home Families
Research articles dealing with families who function as
foster care parents focus on how to insure a particular
home will be an appropriate foster home and the placements
will be successful ones.
Bauer and Heinke (1976) made recommendations for
establishing a successful program of treatment family care
homes for foster children with emotional and/or behavioral
problems:
the program should be thought out and involve an entire
agency, raher than one or two key staff members.
This
wide base of support would prevent any program from
deteriorating as a result of personnel turnover.
Caseloads for each worker should be limited to allow
adequate attention to each family.
An evaluation system should be established in advance of
the program.
The treatment home parents should be trained prior to any
placement and treated as equal and active participants in
any treatment plan.
They should have access to adequate
support within the community (schools, psychologists, etc).
The treatment plan should include a plan for the
termination of services.
The authors also recommend that referrals to the program be
based on the motivation of the child t9 work toward the goals
established, that pre-placement visits to the home be made by
the child and that a contract of goals be established by the
worker and the child together.
In summary, the key to the success of a placement program
according to the authors is involvement by all parties in the plan
and outcome.
Peterson and Pierce (1974) researched the socioeconomic
characteristics of foster parents in Black Hawk County, Iowa to
aid future selections. Their major findings were that foster
parents tended to come from large families and were not confined
to the lower socioeconomic classes.
Indeed, they found that the
13
characteristics of foster parents did not differ greatly from the
population at large.
Both J. Kraus (1971) and Cautley and Aldridge (1975)
conducted studies with the hope that the success of new foster
parents could be more adequately predicted and therefore carried
into future selection processes.
Both studies concluded that no
single characteristic was crucial for predicting success, but that
a combination of characteristics could be positively correlated
with placements considered successful.
The Kraus study determined that motivation was a key
factor.
People who were "generally interested" in becoming
foster parents were more likely to be successful than those
people who wanted to become foster parents to have a companion
for their own child.
Other factors that were found to be
correlated with success were: foster mothers who were at least
46 years of age and homes where 2 children or other foster
children were already r.esiding.
No relationship was found
between the outcome of a placement and the age, sex or
intelligence of the foster child.
Nor was any difference in
success rate found between working and non-working foster
mothers.
The Cautley and Aldridge study also showed that no one
characteristic was indicative of success.
The study did find that
it was desirable to place a child in a horne where he/she would be
14
the youngest and that the more time a social worker could spend
with a family, the better chance of success the placement had.
Among other factors that the study showed could be correlated with
successful placements were foster mothers who were the oldest in
her family of origin, and who had children not her own stay in her
home overnight for more than a month and having a foster father
report that his own father was affectionate toward him while he
was growing up.
Foster Home Children
The articles dealing with a child placed in foster care
center on under__standing the child in order for caseworkers to
understand the effect a foster horne placement has on the child and
therefore to make and manage a placement with more certainty.
Colon (1978) stated that any child placed in foster care
suffers a deep sense of personal loss in being cut off from
his/her biological family; therefore, he stressed the need for
continuing contact between the child and his/her family of
origin during foster care placement.
He felt, in fact, that a
social worker should look first to the extended family before
placing a child in foster care.
Fox and Arcuri ( 1980) found that the cognitive and academic
functioning of children in foster care was comparable to other
low-income children who were with their biological families.
They
15
concluded that placement in a foster home did not adversely affect
a child and, in fact, could be a helpful factor for children "in
need of parents" (p. 496 ).
Pardeck (1985) developed a profile of the child that he found
was likely to experience unstable foster care.
The importance of
this profile was the fact that this knowledge could help to
minimize re-placement of a child into another foster home and
therefore reduce the negative impact on a child's development that
instability causes.
Pardeck found that older, white children in
longer-term placements were more likely to experience unstable
care; in addition, children with behavioral or emotional problems
were also more likely to experience unstable care as were children
of an alc9holic or a family where one parent was either missing or
had abused or neglected the child.
Other factors found to be linked with unstable foster care
were:
caseworker turnover, limited contact between caseworker
and the child and foster parents, and lack of training given to
foster parents to work with children with behavioral or
emotional problems.
INTRODUCTION TO INTERFACE
The literature on foster care, while valuable, deals
primarily with what is thought of as a "traditional" foster home
-- one which is established to provide long-term shelter.
There
is, however, a scarcity of research and literature on foster homes
which are specifically designed to offer short-term shelter.
This
may be a result of the fact that this type of shelter is not
widely used.
An agency in Ventura County has changed the idea of
traditional foster care and made short-term alternative living
arrangements an integral part of its services.
The agency is
Interface and the program they are credited for establishing is
the Cool Home program.
Interface was established in 1972 in response to the drug
problem among youth in Ventura County.
The agency's goal was to
provide crisis intervention counseling for families who were
dealing with a situation involving drugs.
The agency received
grants to investigate the drug problem and develop a treatment
plan.
It was during the investigation into the drug problem that
the agency determined that any drug problem was a symptom of a
deeper problem within the family and began to focus its attention
on the family unit.
During this same period, the concept of "Cool
Homes" was developed.
As Kate McLean, Executive Director and one of the founders of
16
17
Interface recalls, when the staff investigated the possibility of
establishing a group shelter for the youth of the community, they
realized that they would not have the community support critical
to the success of such a program, since at that time shelters were
looked upon as "crash pads" that contributed to the problem by
encouraging youth to run away instead of offering one solution to
help deal with the problem.
As alternate solutions for safe housing were explored during
a brainstorming session, the idea of using community volunteer
homes evolved and the term "Cool Home" was adopted to mean a home
where a youth could be safely housed during a cooling-off period
for both the parents and the youth while counseling to reunite the
family continued.
Interface's concept of Cool Homes incorporates much of the
findings of research on foster care:
The agency itself embodies
the best of the entrepreneur, committee, agency and purist style
of offering services to runaways; that is, Interface relies on
the good-hearted neighbor volunteer who is willing to house a
youth for a short time while longer-term solutions are being
worked out (entrepreneur style) without the problems of
illegality.
Interface helps families by either offering the resources to
both youth and adults to resolve the difficulties that the family
has been facing in the form of counseling and safe temporary
18
housing or by referring a family to the proper resource (committee
style).
A key element of the Interface program is, in fact,
providing names of suggested resources to both the parents -- who
are often found to be just as needy as their children -- and the
youth.
By offering the Cool Home program, Interface is responding to
a specific expressed need in the community and providing safe
housing so youth who are experiencing difficulties at home do not
have to fend on the streets for themselves until such time as they
can return home (agency style and purist style).
The Interface Cool Home program has also incorporated some of
the elements of the alternative programs in Alberta and Tacoma in
that the youth who are involved in the
progra~
are kept within the
community in a home environment, rather than in an institutional
setting; the community itself is involved.
characteristic of the Interface program.
This is the key
As Kate McLean explains:
"Our responses are always going to be to community problems and if
we can't get the community involved in solving those problems,
then we're left to define the community's problems rather than
having the community involved with us."
Interface's Cool Home program also incorporates some of the
recommendations offered in the literature in that the youth is not
cut off from his/her family of origin, but maintains contact where
possible; in addition, the youth plays a role in developing any
19
treatment plan, the ultimate goal of which is reunification of the
family.
The Cool Home program and how it operates is described in
more detail in the next section.
THE COOL HOME SYSTEM
History
As mentioned in the previous section, the Cool Home concept
evolved during the development of a treatment plan to address the
drug problem in Ventura County in the early 1970's.
Establishing a group shelter for runaways and homeless youth
was considered, but the Interface staff realized that a shelter
would not succeed because it would not be supported by the
community.
In the community's mind, shelters were "crash pads"
places to which kids could escape, places that catered to kids and
left parents with no solutions.
As alternative types of shelters were explored, the idea of
using private homes in the community to house youth was developed
and the term "Cool Home" was adopted.
Interface wanted a Cool Home to be a safe place for
adolescents to stay while counselors helped them and their parents
resolve their immediate problems.
The program was designed so
that both the youth and his/her family were actively involved in
the outcome.
It is made clear at the onset of any placement
involving families that the Cool Home is not just a shelter where
nothing was expected of anyone until it was time for the youth to
leave.
The ultimate
goal~
family reunification.
The staff at Interface developing the Cool Home program also
20
21
recognized that there were times when there was no family.
youth was a runaway or was thrown out of his/her home.
The
The time
was the early 70's and California still had an attraction for the
aspiring "flower child".
The Cool Horne program, therefore, was
developed to address that problem as well.
After developing the Cool Home model, Interface began to work
closely with the public social services system for assistance on
recruiting, evaluating and selecting potential Cool Homes.
Interface also arranged with the county social services agency to
have them handle the licensing procedures, but keep the Interface
Cool Homes in a separate file from the standard foster home file
for Interface's exclusive use.
The time and effort spent on establishing a relationship with
the county social services agency has been invaluable.
One of the
main reasons the Cool Home program runs as smoothly as it does
today is due to the cooperation and communication between
Interface and the social services agency.
In December, 1973, almost a year after planning was started,
Interface made its first Cool Home placement.
Today, the purpose of the Cool Home program has not changed.
There are still situations where
both adolescents and their
parents need to cool off before any treatment plan can be
developed to resolve their problems.
Placement in a Cool Home is
still an effective way of giving families this cooling off period.
22
The youth are safely housed and counselors are able to work with
them and their families in a more reasonable atmosphere to offer
crisis counseling, give referrals to the youth and the parents for
needed resources, and to ultimately reunite the family.
Placement Procedures
The steps involved in a "textbook" Cool Home placement are as
follows:
*
Interface is contacted by either a parent or a youth
requesting assistance for a crisis situation. The Crisis
Intake Coordinator records demographic information about the
client (always considered to be the youth) and the family and
a brief summary of the presenting problem.
*
The case is assigned to a team of two counselors who meet
with the family at the family's home.
Sometimes (especially
if it is the youth who has contacted Interface), the
counselors meet with the youth first and offer support so the
youth can return home after a run, offering to escort him/her
and facilitating the return.
*
Counselors focus the family on resolving the presenting
problem and work to defuse the emotions that have been
building.
Often this family meeting consists of allowing all
parties to air their grievances, with the counselors acting
23
as neutral mediators to clear up misunderstandings,
facilitate open communication and make suggestions to both
sides on how to resolve the current situation and prevent its
recurrence.
Sometimes, the counselors can help the family
draw up a contract between the youth and the parents to
improve the quality of their interactions and prevent further
misunderstandings.
All parties are encouraged to actively
participate in the meeting and the role of the counselors is
to help the family develop its own best solution to the
crisis.
The counselors remain as long as necessary to work
through the crisis and visits of two to three hours are not
uncommon._ In this respect, the crisis intervention outreach
program is similar to the Tacoma Homebuilders program.
*
In many cases, this meeting is sufficient to diffuse the
crisis.
Counselors then leave after giving the family some
referrals for longer-term counseling or any other resource
that the family may need in their specific situation.
*
There are times, however, during this in-home session, that
the counselors begin to realize that tempers are not cooling
down and little, if any, progress is being made to resolve the
situation.
At this point, the counselors may decide that a
separation is necessary before any other work can be done
with the family, since everyone is too emotional.
At this
24
point, provided the youth does not present a danger to
him/herself or anyone else, they will suggest placing the
youth in an Interface Cool Home.
Everyone must agree to a
placement, especially the youth; in addition, all must agree
to continue working toward a solution.
If either the youth
or the parents do not want Cool Home placement, or if the
counselors feel the family is using the Cool Home as an end
rather than a means to an end, this option is w-ithdrawn.
*
After being notified by the counselors that a Cool Home is
needed, the Crisis Intake Coordinator locates one that is
available.
Some effort is made to match the youth to a Cool
Home; the Cool Home families can state preferences when they
volunteer and as a Cool Home is utilized, strong points they
may have in dealing with certain types of adolescents emerge
that Interface attempts to utilize.
Once a suitable Cool Home
is located, the counselors are notified.
the requirements of placement:
of any kind.
They then go over
no drugs, alcohol, or weapons
In addition, phone calls from the Cool Home and
leaving the Cool Home without permission are not allowed.
*
During the evenings, the youth remains in the Cool Home and
is treated as part of the Cool Home family, following their
schedule, participating in their activities, etc.
During the
day, the youth returns to the Interface Day Program located
25
at the Interface Crisis Center in the Newbury Park facility,
where he/she is involved in an organized program of
activities.
On their first morning, youth in placement fill
out paperwork:
an open-ended questionnaire about their
family background and an employment application.
This
application is completed since the youth are also assigned
chores at the Interface office and are paid an allowance for
their completion -- an attempt to give them experience in
earning wages on their own.
Once paperwork is completed, the
youth are involved in organized activities such as bowling,
racketball, hitting baseballs in a baseball cage, etc.
After
lunch (supplied by the Cool Home as part of the youth's
placement), homework and chores are done.
participate in a second activity.
The youth then
The youth are then
transported to the Cool Home between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m.
*
During this period, Interface counselors continue to meet
with the youth and the parents to resolve the situation and
return the youth to his/her home.
Often a short separation
is enough for emotions to reach a level where reasonable
solutions can be formulated in one follow-up meeting.
Once
this happens, the youth is returned home and hopefully, the
family follows up on the referrals to insure that the problem
wi 11 not recur.
26
*
The counselors make at least one follow-up phone call after
the youth returns home to see how the family is doing and to
offer any further support and/or referrals that may be
necessary.
Main Characteristics oC Interface's Program
There are several key elements to Interface's Cool Home
program that make it unique -- in fact, a national model:
1) Volunteers are used as crisis intervention counselors and
as Cool Home families.
The volunteer aspect of the
program enables Interface to involve the community, but it
also brings a freshness to the program.
states:
As Kate McLean
" I believe that by using volunteers in
counseling crisis situations •••we keep that fresh -- for
lack of better work -- outrage at what's happening out in
the community in terms of either lack of services or a
child who's been molested or a child who's been abused,
that sense of 'this is Q2i okay, it will never be
okay'-.The alternative is [a social services agency]
where they get so ingrained and they've heard it so many
times before, that they forget to be outraged.
They
forget to say 'this is not okay' ••• you have the volunteers
who bring that fresh enthusiasm to
it~
2) The meeting between counselors and the family occurs in
27
Q
the family's home rather than an office.
This puts the
family more at ease and makes it easier for them to
discuss issues in the familiarity of their environment.
In addition, it allows the counselors to gain a better
understanding of the family situation by seeing how the
family lives and functions.
3) The organized activities that the youth are involved in
through the Interface Day Program often gives them a sense
of self-worth.
out:
As Sue Steinhoff, Case Manager pointed
"Most of these kids have never ••• done any
constructive activities that bring up their self-esteem
••• so it's really an eye opener ••• good structured
activities that are healthy for them that they never
thought of ••• So many times, when they leave it's 'oh do we
have to do this' ••• and when they come back it's just like
the energy.
So I see a really positive change in the
kids."
4) By placing a youth in a family environment, rather than an
institutionalized setting, the youth is able to see how
other families function and has the opportunity to
interact with another adult in a positive way.
This
experience is often a critical one for the youth in
placement:
"The vast majority of kids ask, 'Well why do
'
28
you do this?
Do you get paid?'
And when they find out
the [Cool Home] families don't get paid and are doing this
because they just want to help, it really makes a
difference with the kids and I think that is good that they
see that there are healthy families and there are healthy
families that care about them and that especially with a
lot of the depressed kids that we get, it's like 'wow,
there is some help'." (Michelle Fortney, Youth Crisis
Program Director).
"For a lot of the kids, it's the involvement with other
adults that really makes the difference.
And I think that
when we're able to have families that can provide a really
nice environment in terms of their interaction with the
kids and give them a taste of what it's like ••• to deal
with adults that they aren't as volatile with ••• that
that's a really important goal. •• " (Sara Radding,
Associate Executive Director).
These key features are what sets the Interface program apart
from other programs and are basic to any placement -- "textbook"
or non-textbook.
Many of the placements do not result from the
typical scenario described above.
They may result from a youth
who has run away or been thrown out because of problems at home
and has been picked up by the police who then contact Interface
29
for help.
Or they may begin with a youth who comes into the
office on his or her own asking for help since he or she has run
out of places to stay.
Regardless of how a placement situation is started, the
elements remain the same:
face to face contact with the clie.nt in
a place of their choice, volunteer counselors and volunteer
families where the adolescent can get a new view of family life.
The next two sections will examine the key ingredients in
Interface's Cool Home program: Cool Home families and the
placements.
COOL HOME FAMILIES
Selection. Training. & Unique Aspects
Although they have been referred to as Cool Home "families"
throughout this study, Cool Homes are not limited to family
households.
Interface's Cool Homes are headed by single women,
young married couples (with or without children), retired couples
and young adults who are living together.
Anyone interested in
becoming a Cool Home must fill out an Interface application and be
screened by the agency.
in-home visit.
The screening includes an interview and
In addition, they must pass the Ventura County
licensing requirements for foster care residences.
These
requirements consist of a background check, fingerprint check, TB
test, medical statement, submission of a safety plan and an onsite visit by a Social Services worker.
The Cool Home families are individually trained through inhome meetings with the Interface staff involved with Cool Home
placements.
The discussions are centered on the kinds of
adolescents Interface sees and places, the kinds of problems the
youth have, kinds of problems that the family might have with the
youth, how to handle those situations, etc.
They are also given
an operations manual describing Cool Home procedures including
when they should call Interface for assistance, who to call
for help, etc.
As previously noted a unique feature of Interface's Cool Home
30
31
program is its reliance on volunteers to accomplish much of what
is handled by paid staff in other agencies and its involvement of
the community in the resolution of community problems.
The Cool
Home families accept placements on a voluntary basis; they are
free to turn down any Interface request for them to house an
adolescent.
When they do agree to house a youth, they are
reimbursed $10 per day per youth. They are expected to provide
sleeping quarters, dinner, breakfast, and a sack lunch.
A special
program has also been established which provides the Cool Home
families with a $100 per month retainer which allows Interface,
when housing is needed and none is available in other Cool Homes,
to place a youth with the retainer family.
Currently, only two
families have utilized this option, the rest preferring to retain
their voluntary position for any placement.
This emphasis on the use of volunteers meets the objective of
Kate McLean, Executive Director, to maintain the enthusiasm and
fresh outLook that newcomers bring to any organization.
This
enthusiasm is especially important when dealing with adolescents
in crisis.
These young clients are often very cynical and
mistrusting of adults --
a carry-over from the problems they may
be experiencing with their parents.
When an adolescent is placed
in a home that has volunteered its services, and discovers that
they are
~
being paid for helping, the youth is frequently
jolted into rethinking his/her mistrust of adults.
The knowledge
32
that there 2!2. adults who care enough about others to open their
homes to them can be the beginning of a new attitude for the
youth.
In addition to this voluntary aspect of the Cool Home, a Cool
Home contributes to a youth's experience by demonstrating what
another family is like.
A youth can then see that families can
have disagreements and resolve them and that there are other
adults that the youth can communicate with.
This sometimes starts
the youth thinking that if they can communicate with
~
adult,
maybe they are also capable of communicating with their parents.
The Cool Home experience also enables the adolescent to see
how other fami 1 ies function.
The father, perhaps, helps with
household chores or the family has dinner together and this isn't
so in their homes.
In my case, adolescents (particularly females)
could see that a single woman could own property and live alone
successfully.
Regardless of the specific experience, the youth
can get a fresh outlook on family life that can often make them
feel optimistic that their families can have this type of
existence also.
Or if not, as Sara Radding put it:
"Even if they
go on to be street kids and never really gel in terms of getting
services.-they remember the experience they had with that family
and they hold that •••when they can have a really good experience
with a family, _.we've given them something in their minds that
maybe might break that cycle that they think, ' ••• when I have a
33
family, I want to set it up a little different' or 'this is how I
want it to be.'"
This opportunity to be in another family and communicate with
them can also help the youth clarify their
thoughts~
I have often
seen how being with a Cool Home fami·ly for a few days allows
youths to think out their problems, articulate their feelings to
another adult and, in some cases, even rehearse what they would
like to say to their parents.
As a result, the next meeting
between the youth and his/her parents becomes more productive than
it otherwise would have been.
Cool Home Family Survey & Results
In order to fing out more about Cool Home families, a
questionnaire was sent to 35 families who have functioned as Cool
Homes over the last 5 years whose names and addresses were
available.
The following questions were included:
1.
Why did you become a Cool Home?
2.
Describe the preparations Interface gave you prior to
your becoming a Cool Home.
3.
Would you change them?
How?
Do you feel you were adequately prepared for a Cool Home
placement?
Why or why not?
4.
What were you told about being a Cool Home parent?
5.
What weren't you told that you wish you had been?
6.
Describe the chores/rules that you give to a Cool Home
34
p '
youth during placement.
7.
How do you spend your evenings when there is a Cool Home
placement?
How much time do you spend with the youth?
How much time do you spend watching TV, etc.
8.
Describe your best Cool Home placement experience.
9.
Describe your worst Cool Home placement experience.
10.
If you are no longer a Cool Home, why did you stop?
11.
If you had to do it over again, would you be a Cool Home?
Why or why not?
12.
Would you recommend becoming involved with the program to
other families?
13.
Why or why not?
Please add any other comments you feel would be helpful.
Eleven questionnaires were returned.
Those returning
questionnaires included both former Cool Home families and those
currently involved in the program.
The findings from the
questionnaires are summarized below:
*
The best sources for new Cool Home families are churches and
Interface itself.
Most of the Cool Homes who responded first
heard about the program in their church or were crisis
counselor volunteers with Interface and were, therefore,
involved in placing a youth in a Cool Home.
*
A second good source of Cool Home recruits was the media.
35
"
Several Cool Homes learned about the program through an ad in
their local newspaper or radio.
*
The majority of Cool Home families became involved in the
program because, in their words, they wanted to help
adolescents.
This fact reinforces the findings of J. Kraus
in his study of factors that might predict the success of new
foster homes, namely, the fact that a family is "generally
interested" in helping.
This factor was correlated with
successful foster home placements.
It can also show why Cool
Homes of Interface are successful in dealing with their
placements.
*
All the Cool Home families who responded felt their training
was adequate and they knew what was expected of them;
however, regardless of the amount of preparation a Cool Home
family was given, the best training for a Cool Home placement
was "on the job" training.
Learning by doing was the way
most of the families really learned what it meant to be a
Cool Home.
As one respondent wrote:
"Honestly, the first
[placement] was unexpected, but not a problem.
We received a
lot of support via the telephone from the staff".
*
As the statement in the last paragraph indicates, a key to
success for the Cool Homes was the on-going contact with and
continuing support from Interface staff while a placement was
'
36
in progress.
This on-going contact incorporates the
recommendations of Pardeck to minimize unstable foster care
placements.
In Pardeck's study, limited contact with the
caseworker was linked to unstable foster care placements.
*
Although initial training was viewed in a positive light by
the respondents, the weak spot in Cool Home preparation was
training in how to handle "problem" cases:
Home family summed up their frustration:
One former Cool
"I wish we talked
more about discipline and what to do when our house rules
were violated •••We would turn the problem over to the office
after talking to the youth -- the office did nothing and I
felt as though we could do nothing.
I felt that these kids
spotted that weakness and took advantage •••This was
obviously a very frustrating area and the main reason we
quit."
Another respondent echoed this thought:
"[I wish we had been
told] that some of the youngsters were or would have more
problems than we anticipated."
*
There was no clear-cut reason why a Cool Home family dropped
out of the program.
For a few, unpleasant experiences caused
them to leave the program.
One family is quoted above.
Another family felt put off by the attitudes of a few
volunteer counselors, who were probably attempting to put the
37
adolescent at ease and instead offended the Cool Home:
"Some
of the people who delivered the children late at night were
very cold and ••• entered my home as if I was the maid ••• I was
told to be sure to take good care of the client."
however, time was the main factor.
For most,
Their schedules no longer
gave them the flexibility needed to be able to house an
adolescent even for a short period of time.
They left the
program because they felt they could not give it the
attention they thought it deserved.
*
Regardless of the reasons why any Cool Home family left the
program, they unanimously recognized its value and left with
basically good feelings about the program and their part in
it.
The majority would "definitely" recommend participation
in the program to other families and a few were even planning
on rejoining the program when their schedules permitted them
to do so.
The words of the respondents sum it up the best:
"The experience is certainly worthwhile!"
"It was a growing experience for all of us.
The children
learned how to share their home with others and we all
learned that it takes a lot of work to get along, but
there is a lot of rewards."
"Our society doesn't go out of its way to prepare people
38
to be parents and all the responsibilities that go with
it.
It's really wonderful that there are places such as
Interface that believe in the kids and give them a safe
place to be •••We are very proud to be a small part of such
a worthwhile
organization~
The next section will deal with the placements that were made over
the period of time from 1982 through 1986.
COOL HOME PLACEMENTS
A study was conducted of the placements made in Interface
Cool Homes during the five-year period from 1982 to 1986.
The
purpose of this study was to determine whether a profile of a
"successful" placement could be developed which might be
beneficial in making future placements.
Criteria for Evaluating Placements
First,- a definition of "successful" was developed.
The
Youth Crisis Program Director and the three Crisis Intake
Coordinators-- the staff most closely involved with Cool Home
placements -- were interviewed (the Residential Care Coordinator
position was not filled.at this time).
Each was asked to give
their definition of "successful" placements on a scale of 1 to 5,
using 5 to indicate "very successful", 4 to indicate "successful",
3 to indicate "moderately successful", 2 to indicate "moderately
unsuccessful" and 1 to indicate "unsuccessful"·
Using the data from these interviews, a composite definition
for each rating was developed.
the staff again.
•
These definitions were reviewed by
The final definitions developed were as follows:
Very Successful - The key factor in a very successful
placement is that the placement made a difference for both
the youth and the parents.
All parties come out of the
situation changed and with a feeling of having a fresh start
39
40
The specific elements of a very successful placement are
1)
The presenting problem is resolved and there is a behavior
and attitude change on the part of the youth and the
parents.
2)
The Cool Home placement is of short duration, a one-time
situation, and the youth returns home because both he or
she and the parents desire reunification.
Reunification
occurs with each side having a different outlook than
before the placement.
3)
There is a high level of involvement and cooperation from
the youth and the parents to resolve the situation.
4)
The parents and the youth genuinely like each other, but
are under a temporary stress situation that has
necessitated separation.
5)
Longer-term solutions (therapy, etc.) are willingly
sought where they are deemed necessary.
*
Successful - The key factor in a successful placement is that
the presenting problem gets resolved and the groundwork is
laid for further change, although there is still a lot of
work to do to prevent recurrence.
The specific elements of a
successful placement are:
1)
The presenting problem gets resolved and the youth begins
to learn new skills through his/her interaction with
Interface counselors and the Cool Home experience.
41
2)
There is a high level of involvement and cooperation from
both the youth and the parents to resolve the situation.
The resolution is reached through mutual agreement and
the youth and the parents reconnect emotionally.
3)
The Cool Home placement is for an average length of time
and is a one-time placement.
However, the family may
again need crisis counselors in the future, although not
placements.
4)
-
.
Longer term solutions are sought by the family where
deemed necessary.
Moderately Successful - The key factor in a moderately
successful placement is that while the presenting problem
gets resolved, that is all that happens.
The specific
elements are
1)
The presenting problem gets resolved.
However, there is
no significant change in the attitudes of the youth or
the parents that will prevent a recurrence.
2)
Placement is of normal length, but multiple placements
occur over time.
3)
Placement is a "band-aid" and the family calls for
Interface intervention again.
4)
The family uses crisis counseling as an alternative for
on-going therapy; that is, they seek Interface as crises
42
occur instead of seeking therapy to prevent crises.
*
Moderately Unsuccessful - The key factor in a moderately
unsuccessful placement is the fact that the problem is not
solved, but at least the situation does not get any worse.
The specific elements of a
mod~rately
unsuccessful placement
are:
1)
The presenting problem does not get resolved, but there
is at least no deterioration in the youth's behavior
either.
2)
There is little involvement by the parents toward
resolution of the problem.
The youth returns home
because of a lack of alternatives, but the attitudes and
behaviors of the youth and the parents remain the same as
before placement.
3)
Placement is used as alternative housing and lasts longer
than normal.
There are multiple placements over a period
of time.
*
Unsuccessful - The key factor in an unsuccessful placement is
that, in retrospect, the youth should not have been placed in
an Interface Cool Home, but it takes a while for the situation
to be clarified.
The specific elements of an unsuccessful
placement are:
1)
The presenting problem leading to placement does not get
43
resolved and in fact the youth's behavior may even
deteriorate, for example:
*
*
the Cool Home complains about the youth's behavior
the youth may run away from from the Cool Home or
Interface
*
the youth breaks the rules of the Cool Home (curfew,
stealing, etc.)
2)
Placement is more for emergency shelter than for "cooling
down".
Placement lasts much longer than normal and the
record may noted that the youth is unsuitable for future
Cool Home placements.
3)
There is no involvement of the parents toward resolution.
There is a long history of dysfunction in the family.
There is refusal by the youth and/or parents for
reunification and reunification, if it does occur, is due
to lack of alternative solutions.
Data Review & Results
Once the definitions were developed, the file of each Cool
Home placement was reviewed.
Demographic information (sex, age,
and length of placement) was gathered and each placement was
given a rating from 1 to 5, based on the presence of the specific
elements in the case as noted in the case management notes.
A total of 435 placements was reviewed.
These placements
break down by age at the time of placement and gender as follows:
44
AGE
#HALE
11
3
6
9
12
6
13
19
13
16
36
52
14
27
73
100
15
28
89
117
16
50
49
99
17
17
21
38
18
0
TOTAL
#FEMALE
147
TOTAL
1
288
435
For this review, the placement, not the youth was considered the
unit of measurement.
For example, if a youth was placed in a Cool
Home twice from 1982 to 1986, this was counted as two placements.
The reason for this was the fact that each placement was unique -the youth was older, the precipitating crisis was different, the
Cool Home families were different.
In other words, all the
characteristics were different because they occurred at a
different point in time.
The data developed from the file review is discussed below
and displayed in Tables 1 through 6.
It should be noted that in
the interest of keeping the charts as simple as possible, ages 11
and 12 are combined and ages 16 through 18 are combined.
This was
done because placements of 11 year old clients are rare.
In fact,
45
only a total of 9 placements were made in this age group in the
entire five-year period studied.
In addition, the majority of
placements are no older than 16 years old and only one 18 year old
was placed in the period studied.
PERCENT OF COOL HOME PLACEMENTS BY SEX & AGE (TABLE 1):
Of the 435 placements made from 1982 through 1986, the
majority, by an almost 2 to 1 margin, were female:
(66S) versus 147 total
288 total
(34~).
For female adolescents, most placements made involved 14 and
15 year olds (162 total or 56S of all female placements),
while for males, most placements involved 16 year olds (50 or
34% of all male
placemeqt~).
EVALUATION OF PLACEMENTS BY SEX (TABLE 2):
There were 24 (5.5%) unsuccessful placements, 247 (56.8%)
moderately unsuccessful placements, 130 (29.9%) moderately
successful placements, 29 (6.7%) successful placements and 5
(1.1%) very unsuccessful placements.
Most successful placements made involved 14 year old girls.
The most unsuccessful placements made involved 15 year old
girls.
...0
-::t
.......
COOL HOME PLACEMENTS 1982 THROUGH 1986
I'Ll
~
MALES
FEMALES
ISSSI
lXXXI
140T
12o1I
t
~ 100t
~__. aolI
~
a..
~
a:
so+
UJ
[]]
~
::::>
z
40
20t
0
l __ ,~tz01
11
13
~GE
14
15
AT TIME OF PLACEMENT
16
17-18
r--..
-::t
N
~
COOL HOME PLACEMENTS - 1982 THROUGH 1986
H
~
Evaluations of Placements by Sex
FEMALE
MALE
ISSSI
2aoT
lXXXI
t
240+
~ 2001
w
!
~ 160+
n..
LL
0
a:
120
w
a:J
~
z
80
I
40.L
J IX.;;...:=__
Very Successful
29
Mod. Successful
Mod. Unsuccess.
EVALUATION OF PLACEMENT
Unsuccessful
48
"
LENGTH OF COOL HOME PLACEt1ENTS BY SEX (TABLE 3):
The philosophy of the Cool Home program emphasizes short-term
placements and this seems to be borne out by the statistics.
The majority of the placements (223 or 51.2%) lasted 3 days
or less and 79.3% (345) of the placements lasted 7 days or
less.
Other data developed that is not shown in the charts
shows that the average length of stay for a Cool Home
placement was 5 1/2 days.
placement was 3
The median length of a Cool Home
d~ys.
COMPARISON OF EVALUATIONS & LENGTH OF STAY (TABLE 4):
The length of the Cool Home placement did not seem to have
any influence on whether the placement could ultimately be
considered successful or not.
In all cases, when evaluation
data was broken down by length of stay, more than 50% of any
given category was made up of placements considered
moderately unsuccessful, or unsuccessful.
'
0'\
-<T
('f")
1-4
LENGTH OF COOL HOME PLACEMENTS - 1982 THROUGH 1986
H
~
FEMALES
MALES
lXXXI
t--
120-.-I
i
-'
'
i
100-L.
en
~
z
w
:£
l
+
eo+
<t
l
lL
60+
!
LU
u
..J
0..
0
+'
a:
:.
m 40--;:::E
::::J
z
LU
'
20.;.
16
g6
-'
r--·-~q_~
;
oL
I
1
2
3
....
5
6-9
LENGTH OF STAY IN DAYS
10-19
20-29
!>:e?.is£<!.;;7'
30+
0
ll"'\
-:t
l::il
COOL HOME PLACEMENTS - 1982 THROUGH 1986
~
Unsuccessful
120T
Comparison of Evaluations & Length of Stay
Moderately
'loderately
Successful
Successful
unsuccessful
IZZZI
I"SS"Sl
~
Very
Successful
I
I
'j
tI
100j_
ii
1-
~
:::E
w
(.J
:5
Cl..
LL
0
a:
w
ro
:::E
92
+ Nl.ll
1 .6"N
UJ
!
so+I
~
81
73
~
I
60
1.41
~
+
I
T
+
2.71
I
I
i
<
<
50
<
1
4 _01
47
I':,to.ts )-I
a
40.1..1
:::J
z
~
QL
,
. . -·-w
r ' ' '
2
.11
'
16
/
~·n~
68 8"
/
1/L/A
~~:21 ••.~ .. ---~~-~
4
3
45
=
2
< < <
5
I 4.01'
'
'
'
6-9
LENGTH OF STAY IN DAYS
I
10-19
20-29
6
<16.71
~6.61
I 2 ? (.J_c6.71
30+
51
EVALUATIONS OF FEMALE PLACEMENTS BY AGE GROUP (TABLE 5):
Most female placements involved 15 year old girls.
It is
not surprising, therefore, that most moderately unsuccessful
placements also occurred in this age group.
In fact, more
than half of all placements in any age group were
unsuccessful.
However, many of the female placements have
also been moderately successful:14 year old girls,
girls and almost
21~
30~
34~
of the placements for
of the placements for 15 year old
of the placements for 16 to 18 year old
girls were evaluated as moderately successful.
EVALUATIONS OF MALE PLACEMENTS BY AGE GROUP (TABLE 6):
During the five-year period studied, there were no placements
involving male adolescents that could be considered very
successful.
The greatest success rate for males occurred in
the 16 to 18 year old age group.
This age group had the
greatest number of placements (67 total) and the placements
were almost evenly divided between moderately unsuccessful
placements
(49.3~)
placements (50.8$).
and moderately successful/successful
The largest percent of moderately
unsuccessful and unsuccessful placements occurred in
placements involving 14 year old boys, where almost 3/4 of
the placements were not successful.
N
If)
If)
lA
.....:l
FEMALE COOL HOME PLACEMENTS - 1982 THRU 1986
~
H
Unsuccessful
Comparison of Evaluations by Age Group
Moderately
Moderately
Unsuccessful
Successful
Successful
L~--s:J
L
~
Very
Successful
111111111111
89
Ul
1-
r--~~1.41
z
w
:::E
w
u
<!
.....1
n.
1..1...
0
a:
w
aJ
:::E
::J
z
19
14
13
~GE
AT TIME OF PLACEMENT
15
16-18
('t')
ll"l
""
MALE COOL HOME PLACEMENTS - 1982 THRU 1988
r.r.:l
...:I
I=Q
~
80
Unsuccessful
17771
Comparison of Evaluations by Age Group
Moderately
Moderately
Unsuccessful
Successful
~SJ
.
Successful
[lJ.lTl
lXXXI
70
....enz
60
~
50
UJ
<(
..J
0..
LL..
0
40
ffi
Ill
30
:E
~ 20
10
0
11-12
13
1~
AGE AT TIME OF PLACEMENT
15
16-18
54
0
Discussion of Data Results
The one finding that emerges from a review of the data is
that no clear-cut conclusion can be drawn from a review of the
-
files.
There is no magic formula that would enable Interface to
predict with any accuracy when a placement will be "successful"
and when it will be
"unsuccessful~
This lack of any clear-cut conclusion is neither unexpected
nor undesirable.
Interface considers itself an agency of last
resort for adolescents.
safe.
The emphasis, therefore, is keeping youth
This emphasis results in a second, different criteria for
placements:
appropriate versus inappropriate.
It became clear
during my file review that a case can be "unsuccessful" by
definition, but still be very appropriate for Interface to become
...
involved in.
This point was emphasized again and again during my
interviews with key staff members:
"I hope [the counselors] never ever leave a kid on the street
who doesn't have a safe al ternati ve ••• I'm really resisting
[defining what an appropriate placement is] because I feel we
are there to make sure that kids have safe alternatives and
that if we have kids who are difficult, then it's more of a
pressure for us to find the kinds of homes that can take
those difficult kids ••• I accept the fact that [there are]
kids who ••• present too much of a danger to our Cool Home
familes ••• Beyond that, I don't feel the need to define an
'
55
appropriate placement." (Kate McLean, Executive Director)
"I think any child that needs our services or parents that
need our services when that child has no other option, no
other place to go [is an appropriate placement] ••• There's
very few times when I felt a child has been totally
inappropriate ••• so most of the times when [counselors] are
making a placement, [the placement is] appropriate one way or
the other -- whether the child needs the help or the parents
need the help."
(Sue Steinhoff, Residential Care
Coordinator)
"Basically I'm concerned with whether the Cool Home placement
is going to be a benefit ••• whether it may be a kid who's on
the run and maybe isn't going to stay, but it's a clean bed
and a shower ••• and that may be all we're gonna give that kid,
but that's okay ••• is there a positive outcome that we're
aiming for, based on a Cool Home placement.-if it's a kid
who doesn't fit in that other category as far as not being
placeable (author's note: i.e. a danger to him/herself or
others or under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time
of placement) and that something beneficial can come out of
the placement.
be."
And that, I guess is what my criteria would
(Michelle Fortney, Youth Crisis Program Director)
56
The best illustrations of appropriate/inappropriate versus
successful/unsuccessful placements can be supplied by anecdotes of
memorable Cool Home placements (note:
names have been changed for
privacy purposes):
Joe was 15 years old when he began a series of four
placements in an Interface Cool Home.
His association with
Interface began when his mother, in front of Interface
counselors and Joe, openly admitted she did not ever really
love him and did not really care what he did.
however, love and care for his two brothers.
She did,
Joe stayed with
Interface while counselors worked to find alternative living
arrangements for Joe.
He tried to live with his father, an
admitted homosexual, but could not adjust to this
environment.
him.
His grandmother felt she was unable to care for
Joe returned to an Interface Cool Home as each
alternative fell through.
And with each return to Interface,
his attitude deteriorated.
Interface was finally able to
find a place for Joe in the Conservation Corps, so he could
begin to earn some money and plan a future. By all
definitions, Joe's placements were unsuccessful.
Nothing was
resolved at home and Joe and his mother never reconciled in
any way.
However, Joe kept in touch with his first Interface
counselor and let her know how he was doing and what was
going on in his life.
When she last heard from him, he was
57
in the Navy and doing well.
He had just married and was
beginning a life of his own.
Joe may not have had any
"successful" placements with Interface, but his placement
with Interface, by everyone's account, was very appropriate.
Hank was 16 and stayed in an Interface Cool Home for almost
an entire month.
At the end of this time, he returned home,
only because there were no other alternatives.
Hank's
parents were unwilling to change and would not cooperate with
Interface counselors to work toward a common solution.
However, in the month Hank stayed with Interface, the agency
was able to help him by giving him strength and awareness to
help him understand his parents better.
After he returned
home, Hank called Interface fairly regularly to let the staff
know what was happening.
When they last heard from him, he
was starting to perform better in school and had gotten a
part-time job.
By all accounts, he was beginning to put his
energies into himself and create success on his own.
Even
though nothing was resolved between him and his parents, Hank
benefited from his stay at Interface.
These are only two of the cases that Interface helped in some
way, even though their Cool Home stays were not as successful as
would be desired.
There are many more.
Interface is a "safety
net", an agency where kids who have no place else to turn can turn
58
to and receive some kind of care.
"In that safety net, we catch a lot of kids and they never
end up being street kids or they never end up getting kicked out
because the family gets help" {Sara Radding).
By being this safety net, Interface has also become a
national model for other agencies to emulate so that adolescents
throughout the country can get help.
CONCLUSION
This paper presented the results of the study into
Interface's Cool Home program.
The study consisted of interviews
with key staff members, a survey of Cool Home families and a
review of the files of 435 Cool Home placements made from 1982
through 1986.
The results/conclusions that can be drawn from the study are
summarized below:
*
An integral ingredient in the establishment of any
shelter care system that utilizes private home is a close
affiliation and coordination with the local public
services agencies.
Working with and through such
established agencies will facilitate not only the
recruiting and licensing of residences but also the
resolution of cases where placement is necessary.
*
Recruitment of homes can best be accomplished through
churches and within the agency itself.
The media can
also be valuable in finding new sources of volunteer
shelter homes.
*
Training of shelter families should include a discussion
of "problem" cases and procedures to handle violations of
rules.
This is a sensitive area, since it has the
59
60
potential of alienating new volunteers.
However, in the
long run, such discussions will prevent the frustrations
that often cause families to drop out of the system.
*
In addition to pre-placement training, on-going meetings
should be considered to maintain the quality of the
shelters.
Most of the Interface staff members who were
interviewed wanted to establ.ish a program of qn-going
training to better prepare the Cool Home families how to
deal with some of the more troubled youth.
They felt,
however, that such a program would not interest current
Cool Home families based on feedback they were receiving.
Several of the Cool Home families who responded felt more
information on handling problems and more on-going
support from more experienced families would be valuable.
Therefore, this idea should be seriously re-examined •
•
An organized program of activities for youth in placement
should be an important part of any shelter care program.
*
Based on Interface's experience, more females than males
will be placed.
It would be valuable, therefore, if any
program of organized activities, were developed with this
in mind •
•
Emphasis on the use of trained volunteers as counselors
61
@
and shelter families should remain.
Volunteers will
insure the enthusiasm necessary for the success and
quality of a shelter care program.
This certainly has
been a key in the success of Interface's Cool Home
program.
Interface has demonstrated that an innovative shelter care system
can be established.
Such a system takes a great deal of effort to
develop, implement, and maintain.
The Cool Home program of
Interface shows, however, that the effort is valuable, worthwhile,
and rewarding.
'
REFERENCES
Bauer, J. E., & Heinke, W. (1976). Treatment family care homes
for disturbed foster children. Child Welfare, 55,
478-489.
Cautley, P., & Aldridge, M. J. (1975, January). Predicting
success for new foster parents. Social Work, 20, 48-53.
Child Welfare League of America (1969). The need for foster care.
New York: Author.
Colon, F. (1978). Family ties and child placement.
Process, Jl, 289-312.
Family
Derdeyn, A. P. (1977). A case for permanent foster placement of
dependent, retarded, and abused children. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 47, 604-614.
Douglas, William, Crisis Intake Coordinator, Interface, Personal
interview, April, 1986.
Fortney, Michelle, Youth Crisis Program Director, Interface,
Personal interview, January, 1987.
Fox, M., & Arcuri, K. (1980).
Child vlelfare, 59, 491-496.
Kinney, J. M., Madsen, B., Fleming, T., & Haapala, D.A. (1977).
Homebuilders: Keeping families together. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45, 667-673.
Kraus, J. (1971, January). Predicting success of foster
.placements for school-age children. Social Work,~' 63-72.
Larson, G., Allison, J. & Johnston, E. (1978). Alberta parent
counselors: A community treatment program for disturbed youths.
Child Welfare, 57, 47-52.
Lore, Patsy L., Crisis Intake Coordinator, Interface, Personal
interview, April, 1986.
Margolin, M. H. (1976).
Welfare, 1, 205-215.
Styles of service for runaways. Child
62
63
McLean, Kate, Executive Director, Interface, Personal interview,
January, 1987.
Parcell, Christie, Crisis Intake Coordinator, Interface, Personal
interview, April, 1986.
Pardeck, J. T. (1985). A profile of the child likely to
experience unstable foster care. Adolescence, gQ, 689-696.
Petersen, J. c. & Pierce, A. D. (1974). Socioeconomic
characteristics of foster parents. Child Welfare, 53, 295-304.
Radding, Sarah, Associate Executive Director, Interface, Personal
interview, January, 1987.
Rosenblatt, A. & Mayer, J. E. (1970, October). Reduction of
uncertainty in child placement decisions. Social Work, j2, 52-59.
Steinhoff, Susan, Residential Care Coordinator, Interface,
Personal interview, January, 1987.