Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Social Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Human services director outlines core-services plan; county-funded in-house psychologist credited with reducing placements
Summary
Human Services Director Sarah Casana presented the county's core services plan: state core funding fell to about $120,000 this year; the county's child-welfare block is about $640,000; an in-house psychologist, Dr. Sarah Gillingham, provides trauma-informed, in-home services used to prevent out-of-home placements.
Human Services Director Sarah Casana briefed the Board of County Commissioners in a July 22 work session on the county's core services plan and data used to allocate services. Casana said state core services funding has declined to "a 100 and a little over $120,000" this year (down from roughly $134,000), while Clear Creek's child-welfare block grant is about $640,000.
Casana emphasized the county-designed position for Dr. Sarah Gillingham, a contracted psychologist paid from core funds, who provides flexible, trauma-informed services including in-home therapy, trauma evaluations and rapid access psych assessments when courts or caseworkers request them. Casana said the in-house approach removes geographic and transportation barriers and allows the county to sustain engagement: "What I appreciate the most about having her on staff is that she will do a ton of outreach with families," she said, noting the clinician can continue outreach after missed appointments and help families begin services.
Commissioners asked about program evaluation cycles (three-year planning cycle with annual review), the potential for a deeper reassessment of how the $100K+ in core funding is used, and whether other counties invest core funds in similar ways. Commissioners suggested staff examine peer counties and consider an RFI to map provider availability and alternate uses of core dollars. Casana said the county is also partnering with Colorado State University researchers and CDHS on program evaluation.
What happens next: staff will continue annual evaluations and compile comparisons to peer counties; commissioners requested a deeper analysis of alternative uses of the core allocation before the next funding cycle.
