Jurisdiction rules don’t always benefit kids

Saturday, Nov. 29, 1997 | 3:54 a.m.

Clark and Washoe counties are the only political jurisdictions in the United States where county and state governments run separate portions of the child protective system.

In all other parts of Nevada and in 36 other states, the state runs the entire system. In other areas, the county is in charge.

Clark County Family & Youth Services has custody of a child until Family Court transfers the case to the state. The child then is handed to the Nevada Division of Child and Family Services for long-term care or potential adoption.

"It's very awkward, and it's easy for a child to fall through the cracks," says Christa Peterson, deputy administrator of the state agency. "It's something Nevada needs to address if we're going to have a well-coordinated system."

The two agencies are supposed to meet on each case that is transferred, but that happens only 60 to 70 percent of the time because of scheduling conflicts, says Stuart Fredlund, Las Vegas district office manager for the state agency.

"I'd like to see that the workers have sufficient time to take care of that, but they're pressured on both ends of the system, and it's hard for them to devote the time," he says.

Decades ago, before child abuse was even considered an issue, the state handled neglect investigations. But local judges, dissatisfied with the state's performance, insisted those duties be transferred to the county. The state eventually assumed abuse cases.

It remained that way until the late 1980s when Jerry Griepentrog, then director of the Nevada Department of Human Resources, suggested the county also manage abuse investigations. In return, the state assumed mental health care responsibilities from the county while retaining its foster care role.

The result was a child protective system run by two levels of government. Along with a similar arrangement in Washoe County, it's a unique setup that has no supporters but lots of critics.

"Any time you hand off the case to someone else that automatically causes a kink in the system," says Kirby Burgess, director of Clark County Family & Youth Services.

The critics include Mary Lee Allen, director of the Children's Defense Fund child welfare and mental health division, and Linda Spears, director of child protection for the Child Welfare League of America, both of Washington, D.C.

Allen's chief concern is that the family assessment made by the county caseworker isn't fully transferred to the state.

"A written record is important but it can be amplified during a conversation," Allen says. "You'd certainly want the opportunity to follow up on what isn't clear, but that's what's lost with this sort of split."

In most cases nationwide, the initial investigator shares the same office with the foster care social worker, Spears says.

"We promote the idea of full-blown discussions so everyone has a clear view of what they're doing and why they're doing it," she says. "What can happen (with the bifurcated system) is the different workers can end up with a different view of the case. The (state) worker either doesn't understand the prior recommendations or doesn't follow them."

Peggy Rowe, a senior child protective services specialist with Family & Youth Services, says her case notes detailing contacts with families are stored on microfilm but aren't transferred to the state agency. Information the state gets usually comes from court documents, and contains only summaries of the case and the services offered.

"The day-to-day record might tell you what a relative said one day but it won't make the court record," said Mary Heine, Rowe's supervisor. "State workers may not know whether to ask for county records."

There have been informal discussions among top officials in both agencies about merging the county's abuse and neglect investigations and the state's foster care duties into a single government division. If that occurs, it's likely the county will take over the entire system.

Adrienne Cox, assistant director of Clark County Family & Youth Services, and Fredlund say the county would be better suited to run the system. According to Cox, the county does a better job addressing children's issues.

"I wonder if that's because the power brokers for the state (in Carson City) are 450 miles away from where the resources are," she says. "I believe in local control, not only in child welfare but in most matters. ... Clark County kids should be the responsibility of the smallest entity that can manage them."

Fredlund says his agency often makes strong funding proposals but they usually get cut. A merged system would draw more attention to child protection, he says.

"I congratulate the county. They get better support because of their close connections to local government than we do."

The big hang-up is whether the county will have the resources to run foster care. However, the positives outweigh the negatives. One advantage is local control vs. having to rely on authorities in Carson City. Rowe and Heine, both former state caseworkers, say the county agency gives them more autonomy.

"The state has oversight over how (county) child protective services is done with no responsibility of how to pay for it," Heine says.

The county's Family & Youth Services, which was made its own agency in 1993, has more stable leadership. The state agency just hired its third director in two years. Fredlund says the county also has a fund-raising "beacon," the Child Haven shelter, which the state lacks.

A merger would improve communication because the individuals who investigate abuse and neglect would have the same boss as the foster care caseworker. And that should lead to better coordination of services for the child, Fredlund says.