|
|
|
DSS Directors Child Care Committee
April 9, 2003
Nicki Griffin Co-chair Franklin Gloria Cook Wake
Bill Scarlett Co-chair Cumberland Helen Kaleel Sampson
Cindy Tharrington Franklin Amy Johnson Mecklenburg
Amie Barham Franklin Tracy Bryant Wilson
Kathy Snethen Orange Linda Allison Alamance
Jack Daulton Caldwell Kay Galloway CCRI Mecklenburg
Cathy Gurganious DCD Stephanie Leach Union Co.
Wanda Smith Durham Nancy Wilson DCD
Karenne Berry Durham Natasha Adwaters DCD
Cathy Dillard Vance Vickie Jackson Wayne
Terry Keene Johnston Ann Barkley New Hanover
Lois Slade NCPC Alesa Bowman Iredell
Tonja Hester Robeson Carla Bass Robeson
Angela Keith Pender Linda Leggett Robeson
Connie McAdams CCN Chatham Della Sweat Cumberland
Denise Hill Guilford Patti Stowe CCRI Mecklenburg
Mary Smith Guilford Nancy Guy DCD
Nicki Griffin opened the meeting. Robeson County states they did not receive the minutes. They will give updated email info to Nicki Griffin after the meeting. February 12th minutes were approved with amendments as follows:
page 1- change Della Sweet to Della Sweat
page 4- paragraph starting Mrs. Guy- on last line change add an "s" to
center
page 5- 2nd paragraph starting A question- change resulted to results
March 12th minutes were approved with amendments as follows:
page 1- change L??? to Lori
page 1- paragraph starting Ron Penney- change 96% to 95%
Fiscal Report: Nancy Guy
Nancy Guy discussed the expenditure reports in Ron Penney's absence. The overall coefficient is the same as last month, 95%. Spending decreased in 38 counties. A handful went down to 100% which was good. Nancy asked the question of what's going on in counties that is causing a decrease spending?
• Counties indicated that they are finding that families from the waiting list are not coming in for child care.
• Mecklenburg held group intake sessions, and found that very few families needed child care.
• Johnston County also found families no longer needed child care.
• Orange County stated they did not have the slots available for new children.
Nancy Guy reported Smart Start was spent at 100% this month. She stated counties must maximize all funds and be sure to spend all their Smart Start dollars. State spending was at 94%, same as last month. The unspent 6% equals $19 million dollars, and if this remains unspent, our argument for additional dollars($15 million) will be hard. The waiting list decreased slightly from January. The number of children served decreased by 35 children. The unduplicated children count was not completed in time for the meeting and will be sent to counties electronically.
Nancy Guy referred to the most recent allocation survey sent to counties resulted in counties offering to revert $4.5 million. Counties requesting additional funding totaled $1.4 million. She stated that the market rate estimates for increases were at $660,000 but counties only requested $300,000. Funding authorizations will be issued next week.
A question was asked about the increase in the market rate calculation for next fiscal year. Nancy Guy stated that the calculations were completed six months ago, and assumed less funding will be available next year than this year. Less funding meant fewer children served in the projection. She indicated that the figure was only a projection.
This lead to the discussion about funding for next fiscal year. Nancy Guy shared that many counties had indicated they were reluctant to clear waiting lists because they did not want to expand their programs, and not have sufficient funds to maintain them. Many stated, given their February budget estimates, they were worried. She stated the Division had decided to give priority to counties to maintain current spending levels for federal funds carried forward to next fiscal year. A letter will be sent to counties asking them how much additional funding they anticipate they would need to maintain spending levels. The letter would have the procedure to request the funding, and also counties would have to provide calculations of how they arrived at the figure.
The question was asked whether this letter would be sent to directors and coordinators. Nancy Guy indicated it would be a hard copy. She reported there had been some problems with electronic mail so it was undecided at this time whether there would be an email would be sent.
Nancy Guy then answered questions from counties.
Q: If Smart Start disappears will money be shifted?
A: Current Smart Start subsidy funding is one of the sources of state funds being used for State MOE match. We need this funding to be able to draw down federal funds.
Q: What is the feeling in the General Assembly?
A: The General Assembly has been asking several questions and have made several recommendations for special provisions. One of the strongest ideas was throwing the 30% Smart Start Subsidy requirement into the Subsidized Child Care program pot. This would be about $60 to $70 million. This would take control away from local partnerships in meeting the needs of their communities. Another idea that has been proposed would change the allocation formula. Legislators have questioned the income eligibility guidelines and the levels of 75% of state median income. The Division was asked to submit a spread sheet indicating how the funding would be allocated based on 25% of state median income.
She continued by pointing out some concerns that counties may address in conversations with local legislative delegations if given their county's permission.
• Gross income is used to calculate eligibility, not net.
• With higher income levels, the parent pays more of cost of care.
• If income levels reduced, the average cost of care will increase.
• If the number of eligible children is reduced, what will happen to the children.
• Share any specific examples.
The Directors Association also has talking points that they sent out to directors. Nancy stressed that coordinators must make certain they have their director's approval before contacting legislators on behalf of their counties.
Division Report: Nancy Guy
Legislation has been proposed that impacts licensing provisions was shared with the committee. The proposed bills may be found on the General Assembly website www.ncga.state.nc.us/ and are:
HB109/ SB 226 Unauthorized administration of medicine by Child Care Facility.
HB846/ SB 877 Illegal Child Care Facility
HB152 Unauthorized Meds./ Prevent SIDS/Child Care
Two of the bills have to do with getting parents' written permission before a child care provider may administer any medications. This was a result of a child's death when a provider administered medicine without parent's knowledge to help the child sleep. The other bill would make it a Class I Felony to operate an illegal Child Care Facility. These bills have been referred to committee.
Market Rate Survey Status: Nancy Guy reported that the Division was pleased with the results thus far. The goal of an average of 75% responses had been met for many counties, with some counties exceeding the percentages. She explained the contracting agency was beginning to call providers who had not responded, and will continue to do so until the required number of responses are received. .
The question was asked if counties could receive a copy of providers who have not responded in their own county. Nancy indicated she would check. The question was also asked providers have 100% subsidized children how would the Division know why they did not respond. She explained, in the phone call to providers, it would be noted. There was a question of why the average reimbursement rate per county had so much difference. She explained there were a number of factors such as bonuses, differences in populations served such as serving primarily preschool populations, and also some counties have high number of Certified Developmental Day Centers which resulted in higher subsidy payments.
Data Warehouse Training: Nancy Guy reported some counties have already received letters regarding training dates for the Data Warehouse System. Eastern counties were being trained first. She indicated the Data Warehouse will be able to generate many reports and there is an online manual. Information is sent with the training letter.
Subsidy Services Consultant Changes : Nancy Guy thanked counties for their patience with the changing of some county's Subsidy Services Consultant. She recognized that for many counties a change meant getting aquatinted with a new person. Statewide subsidy consultants were reduced from 10 to 9 consultants, so a reorganization of territories had to be completed.
Manual Changes: Nancy Guy
The Manual Change Notice will be mailed out. Many counties had already received theirs and others should be receiving theirs soon. She noted there was a revised question and answer for the More at Four included with the change notice.
Bill Scarlett had noted there was a change in the way counties pay providers for the More at Four day. Nancy Guy indicated there was not a change that it was a maximum of 75% rate for the More at Four portion of the day. There were several other questions that followed. Points made were:
• Counties are not allowed to negotiate rates with More at Four providers.
• Certified Developmental Day Centers with More at Four classrooms are reimbursed at their regular cost study rates.
Other questions remained unanswered such as combining classrooms. Nicki Griffin then proposed to have someone from More at Four come to the next Committee meeting.
Reversion Reallocation Process:
Discussion continued from the last meeting concerning the reversion reallocation process. Process that was noted in the March minutes were:
• DCD identified counties whose spending coefficient was less than 91.5%.
• DCD also considered whether or not counties had a waiting list.
• Counties who were spending over 102% were brought to the 102% level.
• Counties with spending coefficients between 98% and 102% who had a waiting list received additional funds.
Suggestions made at this meeting were:
• Begin process sooner so that counties will have reallocations either in December or January. There was a question of whether it should be quarterly.
• Reward good managers
• Enhancements and bonuses should be separated from the combined spending coefficient.
• Maintain flexibility
The process will be voted on at the next Child Care Committee meeting in June 03.
Military Families:
A survey will be sent to counties to inquire about any obstacles they have experienced serving families that had been called to duty.
Agenda for June meeting: (NO May meeting)
Vote on process of reallocation/reversion
More at Four
Budget Updates
The committee then adjourned.
Respectfully Submitted
Denise Hill
