HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1988Minutes of the
YOUTH ADVOCACY PROGRAM
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
January 5, 1988
7:00 P.M.
Members Present: Fran Bukrey, Donald Colleton, Mike DeVaul, Kathleen
Hardgrove, John Lane, Jr., Kip MacMillan, Rev. Michael
Murphy, Stanton Payne, Allen "Bo'* Price, Robert Rutledge,
Bob Roy, Clara Cortes Scott, Epifanio Rether, Delores
Holmes
Members Absent: Manuel Isquierdo, Rev. Zollie Webb
Staff Present: Helen McCarthy, Ambrose Baltes
Presiding,: Don Colleton, Chair
1. Don Colleton called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.
2. Approval of the Minutes of December 29, 1987
Staff corrected page 3, paragraph 2, line 8 to read: "conduct" disorders
instead of "contact" disorders.
With this correction, the minutes of the December 29, 1988 Youth Advocacv
Program Advisory Committee meeting were approved unanimously.
3. Executive Session
The Committee adjourned into Executive Session to discuss a personnel
matter at 7:15 p.m. The Committee reconvened into Open Session at 7:35 p.m.
The Committee agreed to meet in Executive Session to discuss a personnel
matter on January 11, 1988 at 6:30 p.m. unless cancelled by staff by tele-
phone. The date of January 21 at 7:00 p.m. was set aside as an alternative
date.
4. Consideration of Agencies to Provide Youth Advocacy Services
Don reviewed the process to date, including the in-depth questioning of
agency applicants at the last meeting. He hoped the Co=ittee could reach
a decision on each agency application at this meeting. He said he would
entertain separate motions, by agency, to approve advocacy contracts. In
response to a question, Helen McCarthy explained that funding to each agency
must be approved by the Human Services Committee and City Council. It will
be scheduled on the Human Services Committee and the City Council agendas
on January 11, 1988.
Mike DeVaul moved, seconded by Bob Roy, to approve an advocacy contract
with Family Focus. 'like said that Family Focus had a long history as a
successful community based agency and welcomed the agency's involvement
in the program. Bob noted the importance of Larnie Jones' co"ents at the
last meeting about how to preserve the integrity of the advocate's role
Youth Advocacy Program
Advisory Committee
Minutes of 1/5/87 ... 2
within the broad range of agency services. The Committee agreed on the
value of Family Focus providing -these services. The motion was approved
unanimously. Delores Holmes, as Executive Director of Family Focus Our
Place, abstained.
Kip MacMillan moved, seconded by Mike Murphy, to approve an advocacy
contract with Youth Organizations Umbrella (YOU). Kip noted the
responsiveness and experience of YOU with troubled youth, particularly
in its emergency housing program. The Committee agreed on the value of
YOU providing these services. The motion was approved unanimously. Delores
Holmes, as Executive Director of Family Focus, abstained.
Bob Rutledge moved, seconded by Fran Bukrey, to approve an advocacy
contract with Evanston Hospital. Stan Payne expressed that the advocate
does not need to be clinically inclined; yet someone at Evanston Hospital
without clinical skills might have difficulty functioning in that setting.
Bob Rutledge stated that he has been reassured that Evanston Hospital can
provide an advocate who truly provides outreach, such as in the ACCESS
program. Hospital personnel understand that the advocate is not to become
a clinical person. The Coordinator will be responsible for assuring that
the advocate meets outreach responsibilities. Bob Roy expressed need for
the advocate to be truly accessible to clients and not lost in hospital
institution. The advocate must do more than just "mental health advocacy".
Mike DeVaul also expressed concerns about clinical orientation. The
advocate needs to be a "streetworker". "Bo" Price said the advocate must
have street sense. Mike Murphy said if advocate does have this street
sense, then the hospital's clinical orientation could be an important
benefit to program. Kathy Hardgrove noted concern that youth assigned
to Evanston Hospital advocate might be stigmatized as having mental
health problems.
Don Colleton expressed objections to Evanston Hospital as a grantee.
The hospital has not identified with neighborhoods in the past. Also,
will it be possible for the advocate to operate freely outside of the
mental health delivery team; Bob Rutledge noted that the entire program
is an experiment. Hospital wants to be more involved in community ser-
vices and to provide more than inpatient and outpatient services. Safe-
guard is Youth Services Coordinator who can help the hospital to be
successful. The resources of the hospital would be an excellent asset
for the program.
Ron Dombrowski, representing Evanston Hospital and the ::zrson to serve
as the advocate's supervisor, responded to concerns. He commented that
"clinical" should not be seen negatively; a clinician can be anyone with
good human relations skills. Evanston Hospital is not a monolithic
institution, but a multitude of specialized functions. The advocate will
serve a new and different function. He understands the role of the Youth
Services Coordinator to help shape the program. Advocate can help break
through red tape of hospital for clients. He explained how ACCESS program
functions to provide outreach to chronically, mentally :li adults in the
community.
Don Colleton asked why Evanston Hospital Corporation doesn't provide
funds for this program on its own; this would demonstrate co=itment
°�IIIIIII "�' �� � ICI � �II ° I � I� °I�h ""III II- I ' 11 1
.I " �� i� 1, �I li � I �� � �1
f Youth Advocacy Program
Advisory Committee
Minutes of 1/5/87 ... 3
of hospital. Ron responded that each department in the hospital is
responsible for balanced budget. The Department of Psychiatry is com-
mitted to this program.
Helen McCarthy stated the Importance of advocate's ability and willingness
to provide concrete services - accompany person to Public Aid, to YMCA,
pursue employment, etc. Ron stated the hospital would provide services
needed by clients, including concrete services. Helen also raised the
issue of perception of Evanston Hospital in eyes of many in target group.
Will this interfere with ability of advocate to develop relationship?
Clara Cortez Scott said many Latinos do not seek services from Evanston
Hospital or St. Francis Hospital. We need to provide outreach to these
persons. The advocate can do this. "Bo" said who the advocate is will
dictate whether youth will trust him/her. "Bo" said he was willing to
give Evanston Hospital a chance. Mike DeVaul said he was willing, with
some reservations. The motion to approve Evanston Hospital contract was
approved unanimously. Delores Holmes, as Executive Director of Family
Focus, abstained.
Bob Roy suggested that expectations of advocate could be specifically
outlined in the Evanston Hospital contract. The Committee agreed that
these expectations should be outlined for all contracts. The Committee
agreed that all agencies should agree to jointly review advocate job
description, salary levels and recruitment procedures, including the
involvement of Coordinator in advocate selection process.
The Committee briefly discussed next tasks for the Committee. Don asked
Helen to prepare a list. Mike Murphy suggested that an "issues" committee
could be formed. It was agreed to discuss this at the next meeting.
The Committee adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Helen McCarthy
Director of Health and Human ervices
lip
Minutes
Youth Advocacy Program
Advisory Committee
February 11, 1988
7.00 P.M.
�'�t't'S pCAS2 St.
Ocr. C:U,acon,
John Lane Jr.,
Stan Payne,
So Price. Sob Rutledge,
__-b Lr if _1zo
Reyther .tnc:
.:ine JeVaul
.4ambers absent:
gran Bu4% :elores
F.o_nes.
Ki �fa.`fillan.
Clara 3cct.,
and Rev. .o? _:e
3ta__ ?resez::
Helen :: _art.
anz ,-nbros_
=,altos
?residir.a.
)on Co..a=o^,
Zhair
Don Colleton called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.
Minutes 3f Jar.uar 3. 1983
,.:andidate by the next Advisory Committee meet: n;The �. • aso _ L ,.^:tree
decided to defer anv discussion of the extent to which the program could
be implemented without a coordinator in place, until the next mee:_ng, by
which time this issue may be resolved.
a.7a.._ -_.. _=n- _. --sns ;c:cc,_ _ r.,- =as
The Committee reviewed the draft contract for the Youth ^cac? services.
Bob Rov moved that the contract be amended to state that ,:e entire agency:
overhead cost of $4,334.00 should be paid up front in =e'truar'•' :388.
The motion was seconded for the purpose of discussion by Kathleen :?ardgrove.
Bob explained his rationale based on the advantage of using funds approved
in the 1987-88 budget before these funds elapse and are :-etlrr.ed tc the
3eneral fund. If the entire agency overhead cost can =,,e f rer: this
budget then these funds will he [reed -up in the 1988-89 `uczet fcr :thee
purposes to benefit clients of the program. In response t_ cues:icy,
GIs. `icCarchp indicated that unused Funds would not Carr? :ver -_zit :he
next Fiscal vear. The Committee discussed whether the 1cr:{ of --ne agencies
! �. r.r �M .'r �,•� •, ...� Y:.�, �i •'S j,'�;� �ti,M�. '••.' ..ice'„ 'r tr{..w .�� t�.��.. .� \ ',;:. ♦- a�-,ny.•w ...• 'P:. ' !.. �.!.
• , ; ��.�- . ���' �Youtli' Advocacy Program "� �'��'
Advisory Committee meeting...2
during the month of February justified beginning the contract on
February ist. Ms. McCarthy stated that the agencies have participated in
three meetings to develop a common job description, salary level and
• -• recruitment• process for ithe, advocates:= Several members of the Committee
expressed concern about beginning the contract and particularly paying the
overhead cost in advance when the program is still not underway. Many
questions could be raised in the community about why the agencies are
receiving these funds before any services are actually delivered.
The motion was defeated 1 to 8 (John Lane, :r. iot ?raser0 ,*
Kathleen Hardgrove moved and Manuel 1squierdo seconded a ~potion to amend
a contract to start "larch 1, 1988, with reimbursement to be billed and
reimbursed on a monthly basis. This motion was ^assed 7 to 2.(John Lane, Jr.
not present) .
Bob Rutledne recommended chat the larg::a_e in sac:_.n 7 to he revised
strengthen the role of the Y:vth :ervi_ns _-n•_ _- the :cntrict.
e _roposed the folU _. _ !an -sage he it:
•: == an_ shall 7r=--_ --. ere'.-- im :7, in' -_ .t "
hike Det'aul moved and Manue: :squieriz se=cn_ec a me_Wn to appr3 e Oe
agency contracts with the abe:•e chances. The motion passed unanimously.
Helen McCarthy updated the Committee on the progress of the `cuth Advocate
recruitment process. She stated that the tree Adoccacti Agencies have
agreed to joint recruitment including one jcb announcement. They are
working on a common ;ob iescr_aticn ans have j_nne! -c 3 zom7on salary
level. all applications wi:! be reY ieyed .. . _pr•s_entati':es _: )m each
agency and a committee of these representatives "i:: i^.ter:iev the applicants
and make the final selectee.. he Corrnic:e= en=-rset :his 7erl:17e
process. There was agreement that if ^css:t_z _ne .each=er._:e oordinator
should be involved in the interview ind sel :.: ad : Ves.
Consideration of program evaluation ^r-'cess ^rc__dures
Due to limited time the Committee agreed cc pcs:p7ne ..is discussion cc
a future meeting.
"eet_. Was ac nurnec it _ . 7.7.
.
Helen McCarthy, Staff �1
cc: Joel Asprooth, City ".anager
DRAFT — NOT APPROVED
MINUTES
Youth Advocacy Program
Advisory Committee
March 17, 1988
7:00 P.M.
Members Present: Fran Buckrey, Don Colleton, Delores Holmes,
Manuel Isquierdo, Michael Murphy, Stan Payne,
Bo Price, Bob Rutledge, Bob Roy, Epifania Reyther,
Clara Scott
Members Absent: Michael DeVaul, Kathleen Gardgrove, John Lane, Jr.,
Kip MacMillan, Rev. Zollie Webb
Staff Present: Helen McCarthy and Ambrose Baltes
Presiding: Don Colleton, Chair
Don Colleton called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.
Minutes of February It, 1988
The minutes of the February 11, 1988 Youth advocacy Program Advisory Committee
meeting were unanimously approved.
Youth Services Coordinator
Don Colleton introduced Carey Wright. the new Youth Ser^ices C-�ordinator.
Each Committee member introduced him/herself giving a brief <sti;ement of
his; her interest in youth. Care': tallied brief l.: ,ibout » . . cry nal and
professional background and expressed his enthusiasm for :"A position. Don
noted, on behalf of the Committee, how fortunate it is -.o �iave someone
with such excellent experience and credentials to lead this program. dike
Murphy moved, seconded by Bob Roy, to confirm Carey Wright's appointment
as Youth Services Coordinator. The motion passed unanimousl_:. Don expressed
his gratitude to the members of the Screening Committee :_r wheir hard work
and the exc eilent product of their effort.
Pronres� report _ n Youth :advocate Jule cion
Helen McCarthy reported that ;.pint interviews with the . Fmi . Focus.
Evanston Hospital and Y.O.U. have been scheduled for the :1st :y- weeks in
!Larch with eleven applicants. 5econa interviews would he i&L in earl_:
:April with the final selection shortly thereafter.
r
Youth Advocacy Program
Advisory Committee meeting ... 2
The Committee provided input as to the qualities to seek in Youth Advocates.
Manuel Isquierdo suggested that at least one be bilingual and others agreed.
Delores Holmes said the Screening Committee was aware of this need. One
applicant to be interviewed is Hispanic. She and others pointed out that
the Jamaican, Haitian and Belezian youth are likely to be in the target
population. The need for advocates with "street smarts" and knowledge of
Evanston was stressed. Personal qualities such as natural leadership
abilities, spirit and charisma were identified. The ability to listen and
Tenable others" were sited. Advocates must understand the importance of
enpowering the youth of families in the program. They need to be good
brokers of services. Past volunteer work with youth is a good indicator
of someone's real commitment and sincerity. Someone who can "talk with"
youth, not "talk at" them is needed.
The Committee expressed the need to start the program as quickly as possible,
particularly to cake advantage of school referrals before the school year
ends. The need, however, to start the program "right" - -with the processes
well thought out was also expressed. The Committee expressed the hope that
the program would be operational by mid -May.
The Committee agreed to cancel Elie April 7 meeting due t, t:1e school holiday,
and to reschedule it for Wednesdav, April 13, 1988.
The Committee adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
Helen McCartl-1 , 5taf;/
cc: Joel Asprooth, City Manager
-1 1• II I I i . 1 1 I I 1 1 1 II 1 I1 11 I I I I I I I 11111
^ 1 I 1111 111 I I' 1 1 1 1' 1 1I1 P I I I I ' 1 1 1 1 1 111 11 1 1 1 11 - 11111
DRAFT - NOT APPROVED
YOUTH ADVOCACY PROGRAM
Advisory Committee
April 13, 1988
7 :00 P.M.
Members Fran Bukrey, Don Colleton, Mike DeVaul,
Present: Manuel Isquierdo, John Lane, Jr., Michael Murphey,
Bob Roy, Epifanio Reyther
Members Kathleen Hardgrove, Delores Holmes, Kip MacMillan,
Absent: Stanley Payne, Bo Price, Bob Rutledge,
Clara Cortez Scott, Rev. Zollie Webb
Staff Helen McCarthy, Carey Wright, Ambrose Baltes
Present:
Presiding: Don Colleton, Chair
Don Colleton called the meeting to order at 7:10 P.M,
Minutes
Due to lack of quorem at the start of the meeting, the approval
of the minutes of the Marcie 17, 1988 meeting was postponed to a
later meeting,
Progress Report on Youth Advocate Selection
Helen McCarthy said the Advocate Agencies are interviewing
finalists for the positions on April 14. Carey Wright is
participating in the selection process. It is expected that
advocates will be selected shortly and on board by mid May.
Program Start Up Schedule
Helen and Carey reported that they expected to begin accepting
referrals in mid May.
Program Evaluation
The Committee reviewed the memorandum from Ambrose Baltes
regarding the evaluation of the program. Ambrose described :iis
recommendation that the program collect baseline information
through testing of clients upon entry into the program and aater
certain time periocs in the program. The evalua_ion could consist
of comparing pre -test and post-test measures. Helen clarified
that this material is not definitive but is intended to stimulate
discussion by the Committee. The Committee agree: it did not
favor a lot or: testing, particularly psychologicaa testing.
Manny said he would prefer looking specifically a_ ::`.:e program
goals and ob;ectives on page -1 and 3 of the oriL_inai program
proposal.
Youth Advocacy Program
Minutes Z
The Committee reviewed these objectives and agreed that school
attendance and police contacts are objective indicators which
should be collected.
Mike DeVaul stressed the need to evaluate behavior changes in
the youth and families. For example, the youth may still not
attend school regularly, but he may show other changes, such
as getting along better with his parents or comings home on time,
etc. These changes may have major impact on the =amily. Bob
Roy emphasized the importance of assessing some change in the
quality of life for the youth and family. The Co=ittee
discussed the possibility of having each youth (and family)
complete a brief questionnaire about such changes, particularly
in relation to problems identified at entry into the program.
It also was suggested that the referral agency might complete
a questionnaire, noting changes in behavior obser-red.
The Committee discussed the need to evaluate the system of
services - how well it serves the clients - as well as the
change in clients. Manny stressed the need to evaluate what
impact the program is having on the services available and
provided to youth. Also, he wants to know what ser•,7ices the
advocates provide which are different, such as apaearing on
behalf of a youth at an expulsion hearing. For the program to
be effective, the advocates must be visable and effective in
the service network. Carey said the Committee needed to arrive
at a common mission statement for the program. There needed
to be agreement on what we most want to accomplish. These
families will be very difficult to change. We need to have a
realistic understanding of what "success," will be. :his will
help the Committee to decide on how the program s:,ould be
evaluated.
Don summarized the general concensus that the eva*-,-ation should
include the following:
l) objective data such as school attendance, -police contacts.
2) profile of use of resources, including ser-rice gaps.
3) data on behavior changes and attitude charges in
youth/family.
4) client survey regarding perceived wea',:nG--_ systzW.
Helen McCarthy asked for the Committee's approval _c consult with
one or more outside evaluation experts, about t`:e resign of the
evaluation. The Committee concurred.
The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
7j C p w
l� rllf �^1yy I/�l�
-,SON �nq
ryc•o�+rrS Zv--bynJ
U r is slur dvA :p
r�2'4 41gy uricyvr
Ir 4M S nS�t9 MGM
7 l,-, `v,
YI)PA
:?-law S.' •�\
�drrtl na15
0,6 -bd.ty lyPd
�605Q�0ju
C/Mrbztrvva2p
v--rsodobd
-rttnr��r0
.
V iv, 01
PPF- w oAd
� °� °fig �oay�nd , ►•v(�1
YOUTH.ADVOCACY PROGRAM ADVISORY COMMITTEE
May 5, 1988
7:15 P.M.
Members Present: Don Colleton, Chairman, Bob Roy, Manuel Isquierdo,
Stanley Payne, Kip McMillan, Delores Holmes, Fran Bukrey,
Bob Rutledge, Kathy Hargrove
Staff Present: Carey Wright, Greg Simmons, Ambrose Baltes
Absent: John Lane, Jrs., Bo Price, Mike Murphy, Epifanio Reyther,
Mike DeVaul, Clara Scott, Rev. Zollie Webb
The minutes from 3/17/88 as well as 4/13/88 were approved.
Carey Wright explained the Youth Advocate hiring process was complete. He
introduced Greg Simmons who will be located at Evanston Hospital. Greg
lived in Cabrini Green and has 15 years experience in the social service
field. Delores explained that Oscar Joseph, who knows the community well
and. has a long history of volunteer work, will be the Advocate at Family
Focus. Kate Kimball -Karen is on her honeymoon and will be the Advocate
at Y.O.U. All will be on board May 23, 1988.
Carey discussed the importance of the referal process and emphasized that
the program should not become a dumping ground for insoluable problems.
Carey then outlined an exercise that he wanted all to participate in. This
will allow each Board Member to help define the high, middle and low priority
youth for ref eral into the program. This exercise should developea wide
perception of the at -risk youth and allow for the development of a necessary
profile for each category. There were certain givens: Evanston Residents,
ages 11-17, multiple problem youth, multiple social service contacts. The
Committee divided into groups and completed the exercise. Carey will have
a composite profile developed by each of these groups by Board members, ready
for the next meeting. Everyone expressed the importance of this first step
in the process and the need to understand what the high priority youth seems
to look like.
Manuel suggested that the group give consideration to a program name that
better describes what is going on. YA/SC was a suggestion. (Youth Advocate/
Systems Coordination)
The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m.
4;Z!��Xze�-
Ambrose Baltes - Staff
DRAFT - NOT APPROVED
YOUTH ADVOCACY PROGRAII
Advisory Committee
.Tune 2, 1988
Members Fran Bukrey, Don Colleton, Mike DeVaul, Kathleen Hargrove,
Present: Delores Holmes, Manuel Isquierdo, Mike Murphy, Stan Payne,
Bo Price, Bob Roy, Ipifanio Reyther
Members John Lane, Kip McMillan, Bob Rutledge, Clara Cortez Scott,
Absent: Rev. Zollie Webb
Staff Helen McCarthy, Carey Wright, Greg Simmons, Kate Karen,
Present: Oscar Joseph, Ambrose Baltes
Minutes of May 5, 1988 Meeting
The minutes of the May 5, 1988 Youth Advocacy Program Advisory Committee
were approved unanimously.
Program Update
Carey Wright reported on program implementation. He introduced the three
Youth Advocates; Greg Simmons from Evanston Hospital; Oscar Joseph from
Family Focus and Kate Karen from Y.O.U. He has been holding weekly meetings
with the advocates and representatives from the advocacy agencies. Carey
said he has visited almost all agencies serving youth and has made formal
presentations regarding the program to agency staff at many locations. One
case has been referred and the intake conducted. Two other cases are in
the process of being referred.
Don asked if the Advisory Committee should assist in getting more referrals.
Carey said he has ao concern about receiving referrals. he slow start-up
is mainly due to working out the referral process and the paperwork. :dany
agencies have indicated that they are in the process of making referrals;
however, the Advisory Committee can certainly assist in getting the word
out about the program.
Review cf 7eferral =orm and Process
Carey distributer; the latest draft of the referral form dated i/Z/88. we
reviewed the form in detail and answered questions from the Committee.
One eligibility criteria, that of being an Evanston resident was discussed.
Carey said that based on talking with many agencies, he recommended that
a District 55 or 2OZ student who lives in the Evanston/Skokie area could be
accepted into the program on a special recommendation. :here was lengthy
discussion on this point. `.anny supported including these yids on a special
exception. Mike Murphy agreed as the behavior of these kl`s influences
YOUTH ADVOCACY PROGRAM
Minutes of 6/2/88 . . . 2
Evanston kids. Fran questioned this because this program is funded with
City of Evanston tax funds. Children that are Skokie residents should not
be provided service with this money. Helen McCarthy suggested that we
try this on a trial basis and that a possibility would exist in the future
for some small support from the Village of Skokie for these kids. Fran also
said these kids should only be included if they are receiving services from
the Evanston service network. It would not make sense for Evanston advocates
to be coordinating services of Skokie agencies. Bo Price suggested that
Jack Siegel, from the Evanston Legal Department, be asked if there is any
legal problem with serving kids who do not live in Evanston. He said there
might be political questions raised from the City Council about this. The
Committee agreed that it wished to serve these kids on a special recommenda-
tion and exception only. The Committee also agreed that if a family is
living in Evanston and :roves out of Evanston that services could be continued
in the program through the school year, if indicated. Also, the program
would snake the referral and linkage to another community where a -family may
reside.
The Committee also reviewed the eligibility criteria related to accepting
a youth in instances when multiple social services are needed rather than
currently being provided. The Committee agreed that such youth should be
included in the program.
The Committee discussed whether the parent should be required to sign the
referral form and decided that each referral agency is responsible for meeting
its own guidelines for sharing client information. The space on the form for
a parent's signature will be maintained but the referral agency may make a
referral without this signature. At the time that Carey interviews the
parent, then he will obtain parental consent for any future information
sharing between agencies.
The Committee suggested that an additional question be placed on the form to
state why the agency is referring this youth to the program.
Carey described the rest of the intake process including to advocate's roll
in making contact with all the agencies agreed to by the parents. He distri-
buted the youth advocate information form. Bo stressed the importance of
the program staff coming to its own conclusions about families in the program
and not relying too heavily on the information from agencies.
Carey reported that the case staffings will take place at scheduled
tames. 7h a summer schedule will be on Tuesdays from 9:13C at
and Thursdays from 3:30 to 5:30 at Family Focus. Several _ l,tza members
suggested considering a late afternoon (5:00 p.m.) or even,.-5 staff;.ng t4-e,
especially during the winter. This would be the most convenient time for
working parents. Don said that staff should adjust the schedule as needed
based on the availability of parents.
Helen said a written description of the referral and intake process will be
prepared by Carey and distributed to the agencies and the : c";'-sory Committee.
YOUTH ADVOCACY PROGRAM
Minutes of 6/2/88 . . . 3
Client Profiles and Program Goals and Objectives for Year One
Carey distributed a chart which listed the composite of high profile case
which was developed from the three subcommittees at the last Advisory
Committee meeting. The chart also showed the existing services in Evanston
to address the needs of the high profile youth, the services available
through the Youth advocacy Program, the objectives which these services
are designed to meet and the basis for the evaluation of these objectives.
The Committee reviewed this chart and agreed that it was extremely valuable
for laying out in a graphic format what this program is all about. Delores
noted the blank and question mark under objectives for the issue of the
family being low income. She said that this blank indicates that we, as
a community, do not have a clear plan for addressing the financial needs
of these families. The Committee agreed that this chart will be revised
as we gain more information and more clearly define the program objectives.
Carey requested a subcommittee from the advisory Committee to review
specifically the evaluation criteria for the objectives of the program.
Mike DeVaul, Manny, Bob Roy and Bob Rutledge were appointed to the sub-
committee.
The next meeting of the Advisory Committee will be on Thursday, July 7 at
7:00 p.m.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
40,L'I"L Ll�,Ui
Helen McCarthy, Staff
cc,. Joel Asprooth, City :tanager
r
(NEEDS) ( SERVICES )
Carposite of high Profile Existing Resources in Evanston Youth Advocate Program
YAP Case
acadenic problems, MIS (S.I.T. Everting School ), ' - lk3tivut.ion
' truant, drop out I District 65 (Earn and Learn), - suplaurtive counseling to
1` Y.J.C. G ASP-GED? ottl4r develop p► rpcs and goals
1 - Advocacy
- law to Iltxlerate gang
Family Focus, Y.O.U., Y.H.C.A.,
- Supl,ortive counseling to
affil. I
F.A.H., COE-POPS, District 65 and
develop Ixtrposa and goals
- nntlerate to high polio:,
202, Y/O/Polio , Y.J.C.
contacti; I
- loan to high drug use �
PL--r cotnseling, St. Francis
- Idtntificatiun of probltan
mrml E IS
advcY-,cy
- low self estec3m
(sexual acting out,
Family Focus, Y.O.U., District
65/202, Y.J.C., other counseling
- suwOrtivr relationship
idt_ritifying
suicidial depression)
servicxs
arxl building
clients' strenriths
- ttiak parenting skills
- probably lnw inotm
- other sibs with l
problomj
- parent Wit)) t
probl.ans
- c1 Ists ur it:ntL3d
St. Francis, Family Counsaliny,
F-dwIy Focus, otlwr
tiaiglibors at Wrk, Flrugrncy
Assiztarmcv, 1114 l,cujr.un, 1•'.,mi I y
Cott Ise 1 i nq
EvdMitat ikn+lP i1, Fumtly
Cotuueiln.J, St. Francis, F'ail.tly
i)OVIIS, NPM and others &cVA4tltl
cmi nu-t t3
Evanston HUL; xtal (trlsts
Intervention) L'ulice, t:Lc,
6-wm� 1
1 OLUD: i'I VFS )
- I school attendance:, grade
- i suswnsians
- attairm nt of job readiness or
job specific skills and
errpIcrpumL
- i mRAI, deliquent arrest wA
puliLV ddjWitnent, =Ita,:Ls
- youth receives assessrlint
tredtnl::nt, and atlx:t
appropriator Services
- prevent Flreglianey and su►cidu
previgit psych. hospitalization
- Parentimj enharlcwkmt skills - parenting skills
As�sslwnt
- sul>lx�rtivr anlrLveling - ?
aises�Ant.nt, sU"X.)rtive
LLmnseling, ddvoc:icy
- 24-!xxlt sett'►ce, pre-�:ri5ts
asb�5511 t' 11t
l 1 EVAU1 LK171ot11
J•.
- initial intake and
school records (pre-
twasure) and;
tennirwtion/1 yr. eva.l
relxirt iamb sclxaol F
record . dust -na astu e 1
- intake it11tl l-ud i..t
tecrxds dmi, temina-
tiun/1 yr . eval . t eprll t
and Ixilicu to-Lutds
- as evaltuted by pArent
- initial intake and
tumurutfat/l yr, rupotL
fran client and parent
- initial intake -
tet7r1114iLi011/l yr
rel.ul t
- tnitral int.tke
- lAttelILS pltiblures dad l,l(a,lcin' l it .iAt�,��rtrj. 3lrhl aht':s4
solving arsd temarviLwlt I yr.
twit Cote]
- prevent family crisis - Tutn4futlun Iehut
1,,f1L)M,U 1
( HEEDS) ( SERVICES) )
Canposite of lligh Profile Existing Resources in Evanston Youth Advocate program
YAP Case
- acadevac problcvts, I LMLS (S.I.T. Evening School), - Motivation
truant, drop out District 65 (Earn an3 barn), 1 - supportive cwnseling to
Y.J.C. GRASP -CEO? other i develop purp-ise ark goals
- Advucacy
- low to urxierate gang Family Ecjcus, Y.O.U., Y.H.C.A-,
affil. F.A.H., CCE-11]PS, District 65 and
- moderate to high police, 202, Y/O/polio:, Y.J.C.
contacts
- law to high drug use Pear counseling, St. Francis
I (ONI S) Ents
- low salt efteteln
(se-xual acting out,
suicidial depression)
- wart patenting skills
- protubly iuw inoxw
- otlieir sibs with')
probl earls
- parent with f
prolilralu
` Family Focus, Y.O.U., District
1 65/202, Y.J,C., other counseling
` services
St. Francis, Family Counseling,
Family Focus, other
tk ighbors at 1,grk, Ehiargency
Assistance, PIC program, Family
CYxui--;--- 11ny
Evanston Wspital, Family
Couuseling, 5t. Francis, Family
Focus, W arxi others depaa wj
on r"
- 5uI4)lu r t i ve course l i ng to
davelop purpose and goals
f - Identification of problen
j advocacy
- supportive relationship
identifying and building
clients' strengths
f I —
[OBJECTIVES)
. i - .
(EVALUATIOti l
- tschool attenjarce, grade 1
- initial intaku and
- isuspensions
sclrool records (pre-
- attairwwnt of job re:adine:;s or
measure) arid;
job specific skills and
termination/l yr. uva.)
employrm3nt
repurt arx) school
records (putit-na:asuic)
- 1Mj, delialuetrt arrest and
- intake a1Mj lul ice
polio: adjustnuit, Lontacts
records and, tennrn>a-
tion/1 yr. oval. reotrt
and polka records
- youth receives assessn,=nt
- as evaluated by parent
treatment, and other
appropriate services
- prevent pregnancy and suicid,
- initial intake and
prevent psych. hospitalization
tennlnation/l yr. report
fruu client aM parent
- Parenting enhancLm"it skills - parenting skills
Asseswent
- supportive uuwiseling
- axsesumult, Supportive
counse l i riy , advocacy
crisis urlerltea9 Evanston Hitipital (Crisis - 24-dour service, pre -crisis
IrltCrlta:ntluel) PUlice, eCc. asses'art-Int
.. p
- parents probletus and pitAALyo,
solving
,- prevent family crisis
- initial intake: -
termination/l yr.
report
initial intake
llle akC/IYR��lrh3 asxss.
and ternam-ite44t 1 yr.
uutl't ilk`
- termination rc-Tutt
( 4r1 t 1 m-1
DRAFT -NOT APPROVED
YOUTH ADVOCACY PROGRAM
Advisory Committee
July 7, 1988
7:00 P.H.
Members Fran Bukrey, Don Colleton, Hike DeVaul. Kathleen Hargrove,
Present: Delores Holmes, Manuel Isquierdo, Hike Murphy, Stan Payne,
Bob Roy, Bob Rutledge
Members John Lane, Kip McMillan, Bo Price, Ipifanio Reyther, Clara
Absent: Cortez Scott, Rev. Zollie Webb
Staff Helen McCarthy, Carey Wright, Greg Simmons, Kate Karin,
Present: Oscar Joseph
Presiding: Don Colleton, Chair
Minutes of June 2. 1988 Meetinr,
The minutes of the June 2, 1988 Youth Advocacy Program Advisory Committee
were approved unanimously.
Review of Monthly and Quarterly Reporting Format - The Committee reviewed
the format of the report covering the time period April 25 to June 30, which
had been mailed previously. Carey Wright proposed that this format be used
for the monthly reports to the Advisory Committee and for quarterly reports
from. the Advisory Committee to the Human Services Committee. The Committee
agreed to the following changes in format. The program activity narrative
should be shortened and should incorporate "bullet" points similar to the
section on accomplishments and goals. Program issues should be listed on
all monthly reports to the Advisory Committee. The Committee may decide to
amend or delete these issues when the report goes to the Human Services
Committee. Several editorial changes were made to the program activities
narrative.
The Committee discussed the profile of cases referred as of 6/30/88.
Several members liked this case by case profile and wanted it continued.
Others felt that this information could be provided in an aggregate form by
way of a statistical report. After much discussion, it was agreed that for
the July report Carey should prepare an aggregate statistical report and
should continue the case profile summary. The Committee will decide which
of these reports is most beneficial. The Committee requested the following
changes in the case profile report: a column for race should be added; the
column titled "source of income" should be deleted because it may provide
too much information about a particular family which might compromise
confidentiality (This information should, however, be included in the
aggregate report.); the column titled "significant problems" could be
expanded to include problems of the family as well as the youth, such as
housing; this report should indicate instances when indi7iAual cases are
from the same immediate family or from the same household. Also, this
YOUTH ADVOCACY PROGRAM
Minutes of 7/7/88 .....2
report should indicate whether the intake and staffing have taken place and
whether the case has been accepted into the program.
The aggregate statistical report should include the information contained in
the case profile with the following additions: source of income should be
included and broken down between public benefits, full-time employment and
part-time employment. Parent/guardian information should be included, such
as number of cases with single parent, both parents, grandparent or other
person as guardian. The Committee asked that the aggregate report show a
monthly and year-to-date number for each category.
The Committee agreed that report showed significant accomplishments in the
first two months. Carey explained that since the and of this report on June
30, ten additional cases have been referred, for a total of twenty cases.
Review of Client Profile Worksheets - Carey redistributed the worksheet
which had been discussed at the last meeting. The worksheet is a chart
showing needs, services, objectives and evaluation of the Youth Advocacy
Program. Carey asked for discussion from the Committee about the mission of
the program. Is it merely coordination of services or is there an
acknowledgment of service gaps that the program is intended to fill?
Everyone agreed that coordination is not enough, that we must assess the
underlying reasons why a family has not participated in services
previously. For example, if a child needs glasses, why hasn't he received
them? Is it due to lack of understanding of the need, lack of money, lack
of ability to organize oneself to get them, etc. Carey commented that at
many stuffings there is a lot of "head scratching" among the parents and
agencies about actions to be taken. Fran pointed out the need to
differentiate between short and long term goals. It will probably take at
least three months to establish enough of a relationship to have a true
understanding of the needs and therefore the actions required. At the end
of the first staffing, it will be important for various members to be "in
motion" and tackling a piece of the problem, but realistically major gains
will take much longer. Mike Murphy stressed the importance of the advocate
in providing a relationship "bridge". He stressed the importance of the
advocate not merely referring these youths to others, but actually on a face
to face basis linking the youths to a new person as a helper. Bob Roy
stressed the importance of bonding with these youths, which may take a long
time and which may come about after various concrete tasks are
accomplished. The advocate can serve as a role model to the Youths or
parents in how to get things done. Manny pointed out information regarding
school drug programs in other communities which showed that it often took up
to fnrty contacts with the youth to get him or her to recognize a drug abuse
problem and participate in treatment. Mike Murphy said he wants Carey to be
in a position to push hard as a strong advocate for different agencies and
groups, particularly churches, to offer programs for youths.
Don Colleton summarized by saying that the Committee is asking Carey and the
advocates to be "almost miracle workers". The program is more than
coordination of services; it is using all possible means to engage these
youths and family in services in the broader community. Fran gave an
I
YOUTH ADVOCACY PROGRAM
Minutes of 7/7/88 .....3
example of a child who doesn't got to school because he misses his bus every
morning. There is no adult in the family who wakes up in the morning and
sees to it that the child receives breakfast and gets to school. This type
of situation is one which calls on a lot of creativity on the part of an
advocate. The advocate needs to help the youth overcome his own situation.
Perhaps, the youth should have an alarm clock and be taught how to use it.
Perhaps, the advocate should take the youth to breakfast and see that he
gets on the bus. There are many ways to intervene with the ultimate goal of
enabling that youth to get to school each day.
Due to a lack of time, the Committee decided not to discuss program
evaluation. Carey reported that the Subcommittee on Program Evaluation had
met twice and was scheduled to meet next week. The Committee agreed that
program evaluation would be the first item on the next agenda. The
Committee agreed that the next scheduled meeting of August 4, 1988 was not
good due to vacations. Carey will contact members to set up another meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 P.M.
cc: Joel Asprooth, City Manager
C.t-,,
441v� 1�C
Helen McCirthy, S�Jf
YOUTH ADVOCACY PROGRAM
ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
July 28, 1988
7:00 P.M.
Members Don Colleton, Michael Murphy, Ipifanio Reyther, Bob Roy
Present:
Members John Lane, Kip McMillan, Clara Cortez Scott, Bo Price,
Absent: Rev. Zollie Webb, Mike De Vaul, Fran Bukrey, Delores Holmes,
Stan Payne, Manuel Isquierdo, Bob Rutledge, Kathleen
Hargrove
Staff Carey Wright, Oscar Joseph, Kate Kerrin
Present:
Presiding: Don Colleton, Chair
Don Colleton called the meeting to order at 7:10 P.M.
Minutes
Due to a lack of quorum at the July 28 meeting, the approval of the minutes
of July 7, 1988 was postponed to a later meeting.
Review of Draft -Proposed One Year Program Evaluation to be Submitted to Human
Services Committee
Ken Ehrensaft, Ph. d.. research consultant, founder and former director of
Youth Outreach was introduced to the Committee by Carey as a possible
consultant to conduct a one year evaluation of the program. He stated that
following two recent meetings with the Research Sub --committee, it became
evident that outside expertise was needed to help us focus and move the
process along. Ken spoke briefly regarding his qualifications, including the
fact he has conducted several similar evaluations and is familiar with the
social service delivery system here in Evanston.
Carey discussed the process which led to his draft of the :o,,.ittee's
proposed plans to evaluate the program. He went on to discuss components of
the draft and asked if the Committee would request second year funding to the
Human Services Committee. He stated further that an evaluation of the
program would not be completed until September 1989 and funding of the
program for 1989-90 would need to be requested now. Both Chair Colleton and
Bob Roy felt the Committee would support and advocate funding, if necessary.
However, Mr. Colleton felt that our memo to the Human SeV7iCeS Committee
should not begin by requesting funding. He went on to suggest several
changes in the memo which might make it more effective when presented to the
YOUTH ADVOCACY PROGRAM
Minutes of July 28, 1988 2
Human Services Committee. Bob Roy also made several suggestions and the
discussion began to focus more on the actual plans for evaluating the program
rather than the overall memo.
After a somewhat lengthy group discussion regarding evaluation, Mr. Colleton
asked Ken Ehrensaft to share his thoughts and expertise. Mr. Ehrensaft
shared that although he could measure the components we were suggesting, he
felt the evaluation would be more effectively conducted without using control
groups. Mr. Ehrensaft felt strongly that a control group is not a good
indicator of success for our program. He also said measuring youth's police
involvement was not an accurate indicator of success. Mr. Ehrensaft stated
that the best indicator of success would be to measure improvement in several
areas of school performance, i.e., attendance, behavior, grades, etc.
Bob Roy said we are dealing with people who have been to agencies and haven't
continued. How will we measure if youth in the system have had significant
changes and if the Youth Advocacy Program (YAP) was the reason for the
change. Mr. Ehrensaft stated we could do this if we also measure if agencies
are cooperating and serving this population. Mike Murphy stated we should
base evaluation on treatment goals established at the staffing. Mr.
Ehrensaft assured that he felt this program could be evaluated using goal
attainment scales to measure variables we have outlined in the original
proposal. He stated he would submit his thoughts to us in writing at a
future meeting with Mr. Colleton, Helen McCarthy and Carey Wright.
Review of Ouarterly Report to Human Services Committee
Committee members stated that the Quarterly Report was clear and concise.
Mike Murphy stated it was easy for him to read quickly and provided him with
an overview of program activities.
Review of Monthly Service Report
Carey Wright stated that only three weeks had transpired since the last
meeting but with the help of Kate Kerrin, he had developed a draft for
reporting aggregate client information. (This reporting format had been
previously suggested by the Committee). It was assessed by the Committee
that we further review this form when more members were present.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:03 P.M.
Respectfully submitted
Carey W t, Stay /
YOUTH ADVOCACY PROGRAM
ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
September 8, 1988
7:OO P.M.
Members Don Colleton, Michael Murphy, Epifanio Reyther, Bob Roy
Present: Fran Bukrey, Kathy Hargrove, Delores Holmes, Stan Payne,
Bob Rutledge
Members John Lane, Jr., Mike DeVaul, Manuel Isquierdo, Kip MacMillan
Absent: Bo Price, Bob Roy, Clara Cortez Scott, Rev. Zollie Webb
Staff Carey Wright, Oscar Joseph, Kate Kerin, Helen McCarthy
Present:
Presiding: Don Colleton, Chair
Don Colleton called the meeting to order at 7:10 P.M.
MINUTES
The minutes of July 7, 1988 and July 28, 1988 of the 7outh Advocacy Program
Advisory Committee were approved unanimously.
PROGRAM SERVICE REPORT
The Committee reviewed the Program Service Report for August, 1988. In
response to a question, it was clarified that the program year officially
started March 1, 1988, which is the City's fiscal year; however, the actual
program start-up for referrals was June 1, 1988. Therefore, the 25 referrals
"year-to-date" refer to referrals for June, July and August, 1988. Some
Committee members expressed concern that there was only 1 referral in the
month of August, however, it was agreed that August traditionally is a low
activity month due to summer vacations and lack of youth involvement in
schools and agencies. It was agreed that the more significant issue is where
the referrals have come from. To date, the vast major— y of referrals have
come from the two school districts with a handful from agencies. Since the
agencies were so involved in developing this project, •sty have they not made
more referrals into the program? Delores Holmes said -nat many cases which
would have been referred by Family Focus were referred by one of the School
Districts. This points out that many agencies have been struggling with the
same cases that the school districts are concerned ac.-ut. This reporting
format does not allow for communicating that other agencies are involved with
(and would have referred) the same cases. Carey Wrig._ said that there is
still some confusion among agency staff about what cases ire appropriate for
referral. This will be clarified by written program pr_:edures and a program
brochure/flyer. Fran Bukrey said that the process of doing an assessment of
E
YOUTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
Minutes of September 8, 1988 . . . 2
a client varies significantly between agencies. Some agencies by the nature
of their operation take longer to do the kind of assessment which would lead
them to refer a case to the program. She said that she expected the majority
of cases to come from schools, since they have the most contact with youth.
Bob Rutledge said it was important to determine whether agencies have
"working lists" of clients who they are concerned about and considering
referring. Stan Payne said that if agencies feel that they do not need to
refer cases then is the program needed? It was decided that this issue
should be broached with the agencies at the next meeting of the Coalition of
Youth Service Agencies to determine the reasons for the slow referral rate
from the agencies. Don Colleton summarized that this issue should be given
top priority in the next month.
A question was raised about the meaning of the term "extended intake." Carey
explained that in some cases it may be extremely difficult to get the parent
to participate in the program. The parent may consent to the program but may
not become involved enough to attend a staffing. This, by definition, is the
nature of "hard to reach" families. In these situations, the Advocate has
been maintaining regular contact with the youth but no coordinated staffing
has taken place. Stan questioned if parental involvement in the staffing is
a requirement or whether it would make sense to go ahead with a staffing and
case plan without the parent being present. Delores said that she thought it
was very important to try to pursue parental involvement in the staffing.
This was part of the initial proposal. However, since by the very nature of
some of these cases, perhaps we should go ahead with the staffing with
parental consent but without their presence. One of the primary goals in
such a staffing would be to gain greater participation and involvement of the
parent. The Committee agreed to this approach and asked Carey to go ahead
with staffings after a reasonable opportunity has been given to get the
parent to attend.
UPDATE ON EVALUATION OF PROGRAM
Bob Rutledge reported on the discussion at the Human Services Committee
regarding the evaluation of the Youth Advocacy Program. He said that the
Committee endorsed the Advisory Committee's recommendation for a one year
evaluation of the program to be completed in September of 1989. He said that
Alderman Feldman had suggested that the suggestion that the evaluation also
include an evaluation of the organizational st:uctaze :f the progrr.-.. He
said that he and Ken-hrensaft, the consultant, and stiff met to ccasider
this. There was an agreement that this component of tie evaluation would be
useful and should be included. Mr. Ehrensaft said this :could necessitate a
modification in the evaluation format and that the cost would be increased to
$6,000. Bob recommended that we take this contract change back to the Human
Services Committee for approval. This was agreed to by the Committee.
Bob described the role of the evaluation subcommittee. = e subcommittee will
serve as the liaison or bridge with Mr. Ken Ehrensaf_ and the Advisory
Committee. The subcommittee will bring progress repo.----- to the Advisory
Committee and will take back perceptions of the Advisory ,:r-aittee to
YOUTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
Minutes of September 8, 1988 . . . 3
Ken. Finally, the subcommittee will provide oversight on Ken's work. The
Committee agreed to this role for the evaluation subcommittee.
REVIEW OF YOUTH ADVOCACY PROGRAM PROCEDURES
The Committee reviewed the program procedures. page 1 through 4. Carey
explained that another section of the procedures is being developed which
deals with administrative issues between the Youth Service Coordinator and
the advocacy agencies. Helen McCarthy pointed out that page 2-III on Intake
will need to be revised to reflect the earlier discussion on extended
intake. Fran Bukrey pointed out that the appendices were omitted. Carey
said they would be distributed to the Committee.
DISCUSSION ON THE USE OF $11,000 SCHOLARSHIP/EMERGENCY FUND
Carey explained that the original budget included $11,000 for emergency funds
for program clients. $5,000 of the $11.000 was added to the budget by the
City Council on the motion of Alderman Drummer. These funds are to be used
for scholarships or training. A question was raised as to whether the
scholarship money was to be spent only on YAP clients or whether it could be
used for the larger community. Helen McCarthy said her understanding was
that the $5,000 was for YAP clients only. Don said he would discuss this
with Alderman Drummer. Carey reported that the advocates and supervisors had
met to develop guidelines for how these funds should be spent. They
developed 5 categories of funds which included: 1) incentive money to reward
positive behavior changes of youth; 2) relationship building activities; 3)
self esteem and talent building activities; 4) funds for emergency or crisis
needs and 5) scholarship or training funds. After considerable discussion,
the Committee agreed that some maximum amount per youth should be agreed on
administratively, so that one youth would not have an unfair use of these
funds. On the other hand, Carey should be allowed flexibility in determining
individual client need. These funds should be available over and above the
funds which other agencies may be able to make available to these youths
according to their normal policies. The Committee asked Carey to report on
the use o£ these funds on a routine basis. The Committee agreed that the
1989-90 Budget should include the same level of funding for this item.
Due to lack of time, the in-depth discussion of :te YAP missi:n and
philosophy was postponed to a future meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Helen McCarthy, Staff
YOUTH ADVOCACY PROGRAM
ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
October 6, 1988
7:00 P.H.
Members Don Colleton, Michael Murphy, Bob Roy, Delores Holmes,
Present: Kathy Hargrove, Stan Payne, Bob Rutledge Hike DeVaul,
Manuel Isquierdo, Bo Price
Members John Lane, Jr., Dan Hoses, Fran Bukrey, Epifanio Reyther,
Absent: Rev. Zollie Webb
Staff Carey Wright, Kate Karin, Helen McCarthy
Present:
Presidinr,: Don Colleton, Chair
Don Colleton called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M.
MINUTES
The minutes of the September 8, 1988 meeting of the Youth Advocacy Program
Advisory Committee were approved unanimously.
SEPTEMBER SERVICE REPORT
The Committee reviewed the September Service Report. It was clarified that 5
additional cases were staffed. No new referrals were received. There are 16
families currently active in the program. The question of referrals from
agencies was addressed. Delores Holmes and Mike DeVaul reiterated that it
takes time for agency line staff to be educated and comfortable with a program
like this. Mike added that the YMCA is working harder to address the problems
of YMCA clients before making a referral. Helen McCarthy reported that this
had been discussed at the Coalition of Youth Service Agencies. In addition to
the reasons already noted, some agencies stated the problem was the time it
takes to get a a signed release from the parent for referral to the program
because these parents are "hard to reach." She said that youth service
agencies anticipated that the majority of the referrals would come from the
schools. The important point is how much the agencies and schools are working
together on a case, once referred. The agencies had suggested that the
Service Report should keep track of agency involvement, i.e., in case
staffings, in addition to agency referral information. The Advisory Committee
agreed that this addition would be useful. The Committee expressed concern
that more agency referrals had not been made; h:;wever, they expressed optimism
that these referrals would be made after a process of education of agency
staff takes place. The Committee agreed to look carefully at this question in
the next month. Bob Rutledge noted that we must overcome the agency staff's
reluctance to admit "failure" when they refer a case to the YAP program. Mike
Murphy suggested that the concept of "agencies" be expanded to include
non-traditional agencies.
YOUTH ADVOCACY PROGRAM
Minutes of 10/6/88 . . . 2
Carey reported that Oscar Joseph, the advocate at Family Focus had resigned.
Obviously this has caused him to carefully think about whether there could be
any programatic issues involved in the 2 staff resignations. The Committee
questioned Carey and Delores about Oscar's resignation. Although there were
many personal reasons involved, some issues regarding the program structure
may have contributed to it. Specifically, Oscar may have felt some confusion
regarding his role in relation to the agency supervisor and to the
Coordinator, in particular, who made final programatic decisions. This issue
will be discussed later in the agenda.
Carey said that interviews have been conducted with applicants for the Youth
Advocate positions and decisions should be reached shortly. In the meantime,
Family Focus will continue to carry the caseload of that Advocate except for
one family with whom Carey will work
DISCUSSION OF ISSUES RELATED TO PROGRAM STRUCTURE
Carey gave an overview on the program structure and some of the issues and
challenges it presents. He compared it to the task of 2 parents living in
separate households supervising a child. It requires a lot of communication
and commitment to work. Sometimes issues of authority are magnified and I
parent may be played off against the other. There is a lot of time spent on
processing of information and decisions in this program.
Due to some of these issues, Carey developed a set of administrative
procedures which would guide action of the agencies, the advocates and the
Youth Services Coordinator. These procedures have been discussed in 3
meetings with the agency administrators and/or supervisors and him. Committee
members questioned Carey and representatives from Family Focus and YOU about
their perceptions of the program structure. (Don Baker from YOU had joined the
meeting) The Committee expressed strongly that the Coordinator needs to be in
control of the program. "Carey may need a heavier shoe." Carey said that
each agency handles supervision of cases differently and has a somewhat
different concept of the role of the agency vis a vis the coordinator. This
sometimes puts the advocates in a difficult position. Helen McCarthy said
that the issues of clinical responsibility for how a case is handled may be
the most significant issue. Carey said he was not asking for the Committee to
resolve this question that evening but to be aware of some of the issues which
he is struggling with.
At Manny's suggestion, the Committee agreed to invite representatives from the
3 advocacy agencies to the next meeting to speak about their perceptions of
the program and about the program structure issues. The agencies should be
asked to respond to the administrative procedures drafted by Carey and to
indicate instances where they do not agree with or are uncomfortable with the
procedures as drafted. The Committee agreed that it is very important for the
Committee to thoroughly understand the impact of this structure on the program.
YOUTH ADVOCACY PROGRAM
Minutes of 10/5/88 . . . 3
It was also agreed that in a meeting in the near future, the Advisory
Committee should review and endorse a mission statement for the program since
a mission statement and guiding principals for the YAP program may differ from
those of an individual advocacy agency. This needs to be clearly understood
by the agencies so that their direction to the advocates will coincide with
YAP principals. The discussion with the agencies was set for the November 3
meeting.
1989 BUDGET REVIEW
The Committee reviewed the proposed 1989-90 Budget for the YAP program. Carey
noted that a 30% secretary would be added, this position coming from the Human
Relations Commission budget. Additional advocacy agency overhead costs, from
$4,000 to $7,000 are included in the budget due to the supervision costs from
the agencies. The Committee asked Carey to increase the training and travel
allotment to $2,000 to fund training for the advocates and himself. Helen
McCarthy explained that this is a proposed budget which would be submitted to
the Budget Office and City Manager for inclusion in the overall City Budget
which would go to City Council at the end of December. Manny Isquierdo moved,
seconded by Bob Rutledge, that this budget with the additional training funds
be submitted to the Budget Office. The motion was approved unanimously.
Helen McCarthy announced that the contract for the evaluation of the Youth
Advocacy Program would be on the Human Services Committee and City Council
agenda for October 10, 1988.
The Committee adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Helen McCarthy, Staff
cc: Joel Asprooth, City Manager
"t I&,
Ix
=,. City of Evanston
October 26, 1988
Civic Center -
✓ 1
2100 Ridge Avenue
Evanston, Illinois
60204
Telephone
IV328.2100
TO: Chair and Members of the Youth Advocacy Advisory
Committee
FROM: Carey Wright
Youth Services Coordinator
SUBJECT: Schedule of Monthly Meetings in 1989
To insure adequate time to prepare service reports, I am
requesting monthly meetings be changed from the first to the
third Thursday of each month. The proposed 1989 schedule of
meetings would be as follows:
January 19
February 16
March 16
April 20
May 18
June 15
July 20
August 17
September 21 :{
October 19
November 16
December 14* (second Tuesday of the month)
It is felt that the above change will alleviate unnecessary stress
imposed on staff by the past schedule. Thanks for your consideration.
CW:br
Civic Center
2I00 Ridge Avenue
Evanston. Illinois
}°s 60204
°• City of Evanston 12/32Bz10D
October 26, 1988
TO: Host Advocate Agencies
FROM: Carey Wright, Youth Services Coordinator
SUBJECT: Assessment of YAP Organizational Structure
This is a follow-up letter to remind you that on Thursday,
November 3, 1988 at 7:00 p.m., the Youth Advocacy Advisory
Committee is requesting your attendance at their monthly
meeting to assess the current functioning of the organizational
structure of the Youth advocacy Program. `Fore specifically, we
would like the Host advocate Agencies to each address the
following questions within a five minute time period:
I. What have been the strengths of the YAP
organizational structure to date?
2. What have been the weaknesses in the YAP
organizational structure to date?
3. In response to weaknesses you outline, do
you feel the Youth Advocacy Administrative
Procedures (enclosed) are a step in the
right direction? What changes or additions
need to be made?
We view this process as a step forward in our efforts to address
the needs of high risk youth. We look forward to hearing your
thoughts and views on this matter.
CW:br
Section One (Ganergj Clinical Procedures)
The YAP Procedures statement was developed to inform staff and community
agencies of the process and flow of referrals, the timeliness and
categories of services, and the broad expectations of the provision of
quality services to the family and agencies Involved.
I. Pre-screening (Eligibility Criteria) - Initial process
involving referring agency's assessment of youth's
eligibility for services based on the criteria listed
below.
It should be noted that all criteria must be screened
(checked) prior to making a referred to the program.
A. Youth 11-17 years old
"Identified clients" to the program must be within this
age range at the time of referral. However, any sibling
or individual family member In the household is eligible
to receive services once a case• has been staffed and
accepted in the program.
B. Evanston Residentsx
Youth must live within the Evanston City limits. x(it
should be noted that at the discretion of the Youth
Services Coordinator special consideration for services
can be given to youth living outside of Evanston but who
are attending either District 65 or 202. This consider-
ation is primarily given when it is assessed that a non -
Evanston District 202 or 65 youth's behavior adversely
affects the behavior of youth living in Evanston.)
C. Youth with Multiple Problems
This program is designed to help youth with problems in
two or more of the following categories: 1) school,
2) family, 3) police, 4) community, 5) peers, and/or
6) i nt rapeychic.
D. Multiple Social Services Involved or Needed (past or
present)
The needs of youth referred to this program have not or
cannot be met by the mission of any single agency;
rather two or more service providers are essential to
address their problems.
E. Parents have Agreed to Participate
Parents or guardians must agree to at least participate
in an intake interview to assess the specific needs of
the "identified client", and in general, other indivi-
dual family members.
I
' f
YAP Procedures .................... -2-
II. Screeninv of Referrals - This process involves the Youth
Services Coordinator receiving a referral, assessing
appropriateness, and planning a course of action.
A. Once a referral (See Appendix A) has been received, the
Youth Services Coordinator records the client's name,
date received and referring agency into the YAP log
book.
B. The referral is then "screened" by the Youth Services
Coordinator to assess the eligibility and appropriate-
ness for our services.
C. If the screening process disqualifies the referral from
services, the Youth Services Coordinator will notify
the referring agency (individual) of the reason within
(5) five working days from date of receipt. The case
is then designated as "closed at the time of screening."
D. When a referral Qualifies for service, the guardian or
parents of the individual client are telephoned within
five (5) working days to schedule an appointment for an
intake interview.
III. Intake - Assessment of family structure. problem areas,
needs, attempted solutions, and motivation for services_
A. In most cases initial intake interviews are conducted
within two weeks from the date a referral is received.
Interviews are usually conducted in the client's home
to minimize resistance and maximize the opportunity
to assess the family in their environment.
i
B. In general, intake interviews include the Youth Services
Coordinator, an assigned Youth Advocate, and either the
entire family household or individual Family members
depending on the circumstances. Interviews are usually
completed in one or two sessions. However, some cases
are held in Extended Intake to more comprehensively
assess family needs and/or engage "key" family members
in the process who may be resistant to participating.
C. When referrals are involved in the ~.:{tended Intake
process either the Youth Services Coordinator and/or
Youth Advocate will maintain at least weekly contact
with the family until a disposition can be reached.
D. When the family and Youth Services Coordinator have
agreed on a general need for services, a staffing is
scheduled on a date and place convenient for the
family.
:'I
YAP Procedures .................... -3-
E. if during the intake process a parent/guardian appears
resistant to participatina (missing appointments) in
service. but the child can benefit from our involvement,
the case will be staffed with a goal of engaging that
family member as part of the action plan.
F. The Youth Advocate has the responsibility for acquiring
a signed "Release of Information"' from (See Appendix B)
and to invite appropriate community agency representa-
tives to the staffing. Failure of the parent to sign a
"Release" could result in the disqualification of a
case.
G. If a referral is ineligible during the intake process,
the referring agency is notified of the reasons for
ineligibility by the Youth Services Coordinator.
IV. Staffing - Multidisciplinary meeting involving community
agencies, family members, and YAP staff to develop a
coordinated plan of action.
A. Specific purposes of staffing:
1. Discuss how each agency/person is involved.
2. Identify what family members feel their needs are.
3. To develop goals based on input from family members
and agencies.
4. To develop a coordinated interagency plan of action ,•
identifying roles and responsibilities of agencies
as well as family members.
. .f
B. Staffings are usually conducted either Tuesday A. M. or
Thursday P.M. at an agency or place acceptable to the
fami 1 Y.
C. Staffings are convened by the Youth Services Coordinator
who has the authority of Chairman.
D. Developing a plan of action is an active process requir-
ing the involvement of all participants. Although
differences of opinion are expected, the families stated
needs will be ultimately considered when setting goals.
E. The Youth Services Coordinator has the responsibility
For sending "minutes" (See Appendix D ) of the staffing
to participants within ten (10) working days.
:,
YAPProcedures .................... -4-
V. goordination •- Implementation of coordinated plan of
action to a family.
A. Youth Advocates have the responsibility to monitor
services and maintain intensive or consistent contact
with family members and/or service providers.
$. Youth Advocates receive weekly supervision From their
immediate agency supervisors and ongoing consultation
in the YAP Team meetings (including Advocates,
Advocates' Supervisors and Youth Services Coordinator).
C. Youth Services Coordinator provides weekly training to
advocates.
D. Advocates are available 24 hours to intervene in Family
crisis.
VI. Three Month Review - A formed staffing evaluating progress
toward achieving initial plan of action.
A. Youth Advocate has responsibility for updating partici-
pants on the progress of the case.
B. Participants (community agencies and family) discuss
evaluation and develop ideas for continuing plan,
changing plan. or terminating case.
C. Youth Services Coordinator to prepare "minutes" within
ten (10) working days.
VII. Termination - Procedures in process of being developed.
Section Two (General Administrative Matters) r.
The second major purpose of the YAP Procedures statement was to deli-
neate roles of accountability between Advocate agencies (Advocates,
Advocates' Supervisors, and agencies' administrators) and the Youth
Serivices Coordinator.
A. Team Meetings - Meetings involving Advocates. Rdvocates'
Supervisors, and Youth Services Coordinator to share
program information. define Advocate's role in each case
management plan, and address overall program issues.
1. Unless the Youth Services Coordinator is informed.
Advocates and Advocates' Supervisors are to participate
in a weekly two hour meeting.
2. Team meetings are chaired by the Youth Services
Coordinator, who is responsible for deveiopinR the
agenda with input from other Team members.
YAP Procedures ....................
-S-
2.
Team meetings focus on:
a. sharing relevant program information;
b. planning, revising and updating Team members on
individual case management plans;
C. defining Advocates' role in. relationship to the
case management plan;
d. team building.
B. Supervision of Cases
1.
The Youth Services Coordinator initially develops the
Youth Advocates' case management responsibilities, i.e.,
frequency and nature of client contacts, case goals, in
conjunction with other Team members (Advocates,
Advocates' Supervisors).
2.
The Advocate's Supervisor is responsible for the day to
day supervision of a Youth Advocate's case activities.
,
3.
It is expected that each Advocate will receive a
-
standard of two (2) hours of supervision per week from
the Advocate's Supervisor to insure adequate support and
guidance.
,
4.
If a case management plan in, or needs to be changed,
_
the Youth Services Coordinator is consulted during the
weekly Team meeting, or earlier by phone if necessary.
Yi
r
C. Vacations. Sick Da vs aid Other Days Off
1.
Vacations. Youth Advocates' requests For vacations are
determined by the host agency, but the Youth Services
Coordinator should be informed a month prior to vacation
to insure adequate coverage of cases and beeper
responsibilities.
2.
Sick Days. Youth Advocates are responsible for contact-
,
ing their agency, the Youth Services Coordinator and
clients when they are sick. or arrangements should be
made to inform all necessary parties at the earliest
time possible.
3.
Other Days Off. Follow procedure outlined for either
vacation or sick days.
0
.• %
YAPProcedures .................... --6--
0. Resignations
1. In the event a Youth Advocate terminates employment, it
is requested that one month's written notice be given to
both the Youth Services Coordinator and Host Agency to
allow for continuity of care to clients in the program.
2. Prior to the last week of employment. the Host Agency,
the Youth Advocate and Youth Services Coordinator will
meet to determine the appropriate course of action on
all cases.
E. Statistics
1. Advocates' agencies are responsible for submitting
monthly statistics (See Appendix F) to the Youth
Services Coordinator on the 5th day of each month.
Information received is used to generate reports on
the activities of the program to the Youth Advocacy
Advisory Committee and other sources.
F . Beever Coverage
1. A Youth Advocate is on call to clients 24 hours a day
on a rotating basis every three (3) weeks. Schedules
are developed and submitted to both the Youth Services
Coordinator and Director of Crisis Intervention Services ,
at Evanston Hospital by a designated Youth Advocate.
2. When on call, the Youth Advocate is expected to be
available to adequately address the clients' crisis
situation. (It is anticipated that only a small per -
tentage of clients will need to contact Youth Advocates
by this means. ,{
G. Case Records
1. Advocate agencies are responsible for maintaining case
records for clients referred to the Youth Advocate.
Records should include: 1) a referral form; 2) signed
consent Forms; 3) minutes from staffing; 4) daily
reports; 5) a copy of their monthly statistics and
termination report when indicated.
H. Evaluation of Advocates
1. Youth Advocates will be evaluated every six months to
provide feedback on performance during that specific
time period. Objectives are developed by the Youth
Advocate, Host Agency and Youth Services Coordinator
prior to the start of each reporting period.
YAP Procedures
.................... -7-
2. In addition to the above. a Youth Advocate may also
participate in the particular evaluation process
administered by the Host Agency.
I.
CasQ A_ssiRnments
1. Upon completion of the Staffinv Process (See pg. 3,
Sec. IV), the Youth Services Coordinator will assign
the case to a Youth Advocate based upon:
a) availability,
b) potential match with or needs of the family.
2. It is expected that Youth Advocates develop their
capacities to engage and work with a range of client
populations.
J.
Trainj_g
1. Youth Advocates are required to participate in ongoing
training as scheduled by the Youth Services Coordinator.
2. Training mandated by the Youth Services Coordinator will
be paid for by the City OP Evanston.
3. Other training sessions or workshops may be of interest
to Youth Advocates. but they must either bear the cost
or discuss the situation with the Horst Agency.
K.
Additional Sections will be developed as issues are
identified.
MINUTES
YOUTH ADVOCACY PROGRAM ADVISORY COMMITTEE
December 1, 1988
7:00 P.M.
Members Present: Dan Colleton, Fran Bukrey, Mike DeVaul, Delores Holmes,
Stanton Payne, Bob Rutledge, Bob Roy
Members Absent: Kathleen Hardgrove, Manuel Isquierdo, John Lane, Jr.,
Michael Murphy, Bo Price, Epifanio Reyther, Zollie Webb
Staff Present: Carey Wright, Helen McCarthy, Kate Kerin, Bernard
Turner, Corey Smith
Others Present: Don Baker, Ron Dombrowski, Ken Ehrensaft
Presiding Official: Don Colleton, Chairman
Don Colleton called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M. He explained that the
November meeting had been cancelled due to the shooting at the Civic Center
and that the November agenda would be discussed this evening.
MINUTES - Approval of the October 6, 1988 minutes was postponed due to lack
of a quorum.
1989 Meeting Schedule - The Committee approved the 1989 meeting schedule
which would change the meeting from the first Thursday of the month to the
third Thursday of the month. This will enable staff to prepare the monthly
service reports in advance of the Committee meeting.
October and November Service Reports - Carey Wright announced that the
revised service report form would be used for the December monthly report.
He highlighted the October and November reports, including the additional
ten referrals during this time period. He noted that the program has
identified a lack of direct support services to students attending night
school at District #202, which is affecting YAP clients. The Committee
agreed that, due to the time needed for the main agenda item, it would not
thoroughly discuss program service gaps at this meeting but would do so at
the January meeting.
Discussion with Contract Agencies Regarding Issues of Pr -,gran Structure -
Don Colleton explained that the agencies holding advocacy contracts had been
invited to this meeting to share their views regarding the current program
structure.
Don Baker, Executive Director of YOU, began the discussion. He said that
his thinking on this subject evolves every day and is in a state of flux.
He commented on the strengths of the program, particularly on the quality of
the staff persons. He constantly struggles with whether the "collegial -co-
operative" model of this program can work. Such a model is based on
struggling with different philosophies and perceptions of the right approach
to work with YAP families and it is a model where authority and power are
I I I 1 1I II i F ' 1 I1 1 11 111 11 PrI lI
MINUTES OF THE YOUTH ADVOCACY PROGRAM ADVISORY COMMITTEE
December 1, 1988........... Page Two
relatively moot issues. The question is whether we are prepared to make the
investment in time and energy to make the collegial model work. Although he
has advocated strongly for doing this in the past, he is questioning more
and more whether it is worth this investment. He clarified "not worth it"
by noting the amount of time which is spent in the team meetings chaired by
the Coordinator with the supervisors and advocates, on talking through plans
and decisions for each case. There is a tremendous burden on staff, both
Carey and the advocates, in the amount of communication with others which is
required to make this structure work. In response to a question about what
is attractive about the model, he said that the model allows (and requires)
agencies involved to sit down around a table and work out differences which
ultimately benefits clients. This model also means that the services can be
provided in varying ways with varying styles which cut across agency,
neighborhood and racial boundaries.
Ron Dombrowski, Social Worker at Evanston Hospital, said that this structure
had brought together people with different perceptions to learn from each
other, which has been very positive. However, he doesn't like the "Monday
Night Quarterbacking" aspect of case review, which may occur when the agency
representatives review each other's cases. A lot of time is spent
struggling with who is supervising the case and who is serving as
consultant.
Delores Holmes, Executive Director of Family Focus/Our Place, said she never
thinks of YAP clients as Family Focus clients, only as YAP clients. She
sees the YAP program as "housed" at Family Focus and not directed by Family
Focus. She believes it important that Carey has the authority to direct the
cases, while the agency does the "day to day supervision". She agreed that
the biggest strengths in the program are the staff people. She said that
"wonderful things" are happening with the families being served by the
program. The question of whether this can be a true model program is
whether we can accept shared power. In response to a question, she
clarified that "day to day supervision" meant to her accountability for
advocates' time and activities and giving the advocate guidance in carrying
out the service plan agreed upon.
The Committee discussed the issues raised by the program structure. Stan
Payne said that the agency who pays the advocate is going to be the agency
with the authority over the advocate. If Carey is to have the authority,
then the advocates should be paid by the City. Ken Ehrensaft, the
consultant engaged to evaluate the program, said that classical management
literature clearly indicates that a program is not successful when a person
has two supervisors. Bob Roy described his vision that for the purposes of
this program and this special population, the agencies involved are
operating with a YAP mission and style in order to get the job done in a way
that hasn't been done before. Fran Bukrey pointed out the similarity
between a social worker in District #65 who report to the Coordinator of
Social Work, yet who also reports to the Principal of a school.
Carey described the difficulty that he and the advocates have had at times
sorting out the ambiguity over who is in charge of what. He thinks this
MINUTES OF THE YOUTH ADVOCACY PROGRAM ADVISORY COMMITTEE
December 1, 1988........... Page Three
program structure can work, once there is clarity over everyone's roles. He
is concerned about the strain on the staff involved until that clarity is
reached. Bob Rutledge said that he has known of cooperative models for
programs which can work well if the basic ingredients are there. He said
that he feels the Advisory Committee has to take on a difficult task of
defining the mission and philosophy of the program. This mission can then
be carried out through the direction, philosophy and style of the
Coordinator. Without a clear definition of program mission, it is difficult
to resolve the structure problem.
Don Colleton said that he is pleased with the progress being made in
breaking down the barriers between agencies on behalf of the clients in the
program. He is encouraged by what he has heard about the content of the
team meetings between the Coordinator and the advocate agencies. He
expected many of the difficulties which the staff is having over some of the
structural issues. He posed the possibility of a clear statement that the
Coordinator be in charge of decisions on cases, with the agencies providing
administrative oversight and serving as consultants in the actual delivery
of services provided by the advocates.
The Committee agreed that the staff should continue to work on the
structural questions. In the meantime, the Advisory Committee needs to
define a program mission and philosophy with the idea that this will affect
program structure. A Subcommittee was appointed to bring back a
recommendation to the Committee at the January meeting regarding program
mission. The Subcommittee is Don Colleton. Mike DeVaul, Bob Rutledge and
Fran Bukrey, and perhaps, a member not in attendance.
Thu meeting was adjourned at 9:30 P.H.
Helen McCarthy