Issue Summary:

Multiple Response System:

Results of small group discussion with some pilot counties and conference call with JoAnn Lamm & Sherry Bradsher

·        Everybody agrees that MRS is a better way of practice and all believe that the project needs to be implemented statewide.

·        Statewide implementation does not need to be a prolonged process due to potential for loss of focus, two child welfare system in the state and continuity of services for families and children,

·        No fully working model of MRS in the state and everyone is concerned about data collection and evaluation.  Division working with UNC about a possible free evaluation process for MRS

·        The Division will request from the General Assembly a phase in implementation process that will begin July 1, 2003 with an expectation of statewide implementation by July 1, 2005.  The statewide implementation may be similar to the SA Demonstration Project and phase in process.

·        The Division consult with Child Welfare Attorneys at the AG’s office in terms of how to best request legislation action to make this happen i.e. revision to the existing MRS special provision, special provisions or changes in the general statues to allow a two-system child welfare system.  Something will be needed to allow counties to legally use one system or the other.

State Child Fatality Taskforce:

JoAnn Lamm has been attending the Taskforce meeting as a non-voting member.  The Taskforce is asking the Division to review policies that would allow DSS to “police” home school programs.  Co-Chairs have dialogue with Nicki Griffin, Franklin County, who is our appointee to the Task Force and she plans to attend the meeting on March 17^th

Foster Care Rate Study:

The Legislative & Advocacy Committee had requested that we assist in determining a foster care rate increase request to the General Assembly.  The Division does not have a comparative data to support a rate increase.  Susan McCracken, Hope Hunt and I have research this matter and found no comparative data which could justify a rate increase.

Mental Health Reform:

The Legislative & Advocacy Committee asked us to work with them in regards to the state Mental Health Reform Plan.  It was made clear by the DHHS Secretary to the Division that child welfare families are high risk; therefore will be considered priority one for services.  However, there are no intentions to change the Mental Health Reform Plan to say that.  The Division of Mental Health feels that every DSS Director needs to be involved in their local county plan to ensure that issues that relate to our clients are a priority.  Discussion with the Legislative Committee is that DSS Directors that it is difficult to become involved on the local level.

Position or Policy Recommendation for Board Action:

·        Support the Division’s plans to submit to the General Assembly legislation that would allow statewide implementation of MRS beginning July 1, 2003 with full implementation by July 1, 2005.

·        That the Director’s Association support the Division’s position that we not be involved in the “policing” of home school programs as recommended by the State Child Fatality Taskforce.

·        The Director’s Association decides whether or not to take on the challenge of a foster care rate study.  What to do as the next step?

·        The Director’s Association through some type of notice or communication let DSS Directors know why and how we need to be involved in our local mental health plans.

General Information for Dissemination:

No information to disseminate.