2004 Recertification
In 2004 Building Blocks was recertified by the ODJFS for two more years of conning unsuspecting prospective adoptive parents. Naturally, a month after the recertification was approved, we requested the file. It took a little prodding (in the future, we learned, better to make the request using regular mail rather than email), but we got everything we wanted to read.
Denise had to be happy this time around. There was only one complaint in the entire period included in the file, the Ponishes, and since we have already told that story, there is no need to go into it again here. (However, Linda writes in a Feb. 26, 2004 summary that there were four complaints, though none resulted in violations being found. Alysha Towell was probably the other one, but who were the other two? Did confidentiality procedures prevent the release of any of those documents to us? Did she just fail to document them?)
The proceedings began with an entrance conference on Jan. 28 at which, Linda notes in a summary for the file a month later, Tom Rotunda, whom she describes as “Administrator” was “not present, but aware” of the conference (Wonder why Linda would make that point?). Denise is described as “Owner/Director,” and of course she was present.
More board minutes were included, and these we have added to that chapter, with appropriate commentary.
BBAS duly noted, in all its documentation, its change of corporate address to 25 Public Square, a/k/a Fortress Marco, even including its amended articles of incorporation and updated certificate from the state. The state in turn amended its certification to reflect that, as well as certifying Denise’s home as a branch office (did you really think she’d move all that fancy computer equipment to Rick’s office?)
Linda remarked that “the agency’s record organization and documentation have improved, since the previous review” and was generally understanding of the few lapses that remained. “The agency," she concludes, “continues to be cooperative with the department and usually implements any recommendations for improvement” (Emphasis ours).
BBAS was, as usual, cited again for a violation of record-keeping rules, this time for “[failing] to ensure that the adoptive applicants completed the application information and and [not using] the current application for all applicants.” Linda attributed this to some staff turnovers during the two years. Linda also found other things not really rising to the level of violations but nevertheless requiring correction.
Denise submitted yet another Corrective Action Plan on Jan. 29, 2004, listing the six things she would fix. A month later, a followup visit found them in compliance and the certificate was granted in early March.
Not quite the end of story, however.
One detects signs of Denise Hubbard’s clerical incompetence in some of Linda’s comments as to the specifics, particularly in areas not found to necessarily be violations.
Referral process is inconsistent. Section 2 states that you will refer within 7 working days and this section (3) and section 8 suggest that you
will refer within 5 working days (Most agencies refer within 2 working days).
This Section: Paragraph 2: Section 1 is followed by Section 3. There is no Section 2. You may wish to revise the numbering.
More fine work from our favorite secretarial-school dropout. You just know she typed these things herself initially and didn’t let anyone else proof them (recall also Mary Hutchison’s observation that she was able to weasel out of giving them a refund because of contradictory language in the contract, however).
The really interesting document to us was the technical assistance memo Linda sent Denise a day or two after the visit. It's a bit more in-depth about some of the shortcomings of BBAS’s homestudies, as experienced by the Moodys (as well as, one would suspect, others) than Linda was in her official summary.
A number of your assessments are done in very short periods of time (3-4 hours). It does not seem that you could do a quality assessment,
know the applicants/family and go over training topics during this amount of time.
Some of your assessments appear to be more documentation of what the applicants have said rather than your assessment of them.
Some of your assessments are 3-4 hours while other[s] are 8 hours. You should review this and determine an average number of visits and times.
The Assessor training I attended said 5 or 6 visits.
I would recommend that the homestudies be reviewed before approval to ensure all forms and documentation are complete
Training: Most agencies complete 30 to 50 hours of formal training with applicants. I understand that they have reading materials
and are required to summarize this information and it is reviewed with you; however a lot is lost in this type of training. Many agencies
talk about how much more they learn about the applicants in a classroom setting and training has been determined to reduce agency
liability and risks to the child. It seems like it would be impossible to cover all the required areas, including 3 hours of cultural training and
complete the assessment in 4 to 5 hours or even 10.
From Linda’s tone and the fact that she repeats the concern about how short the homestudies were given what had to be done in them, one gets the feeling that she suspects some cheating going on (i.e., the boxes on the form checked but nothing actually happening) but can't quite prove it (And indeed, the Moodys did experience exactly that).
Is this just Carla? BBAS had long since stopped using her for homestudies by this point, remember. If it were just one bad assessor, one suspects Linda would be aware of this and would not have paid so much attention to this. Especially since her reports from the two unannounced visits (in other words, inspections) she made to BBAS during the previous two years as required by state regulations, one while Carla was there and one afterwards, do not mention this issue (in fact, the earlier one, while Carla was there, has no technical assistance memo attached at all).
And remember that this kind of document fudging has been done by BBAS before ... as Linda may have remembered, it was a cornerstone of Mary Hutchison’s complaint, a mistake that Denise managed to have fobbed off at the time on the late Carol Wilson.
We also bring up the fourth because of its relevance to our story. Remember how our homestudy sat at Denise’s house for at least several days before she reviewed it and found that the homestudy was on the social worker’s personal letterhead rather than the agency’s? The mistake that cost us a couple of weeks, $450 and possibly Cyril’s life?
Incredible. Five years had gone by and Denise still wasn’t doing this routinely.
We don’t wonder why. We know. It’s the color of this page.
See you in 2006.