|
|
|
North Carolina DSS Directors Association
Child Care Committee Meeting
January 8, 2003
Members and Attendees Present:
Jay Burrus Dare Co. DSS
Christine Degeberg Onslow Co. DSS
Susan Parrish Catawba Co. DSS
Jack Daulton Caldwell Co. DSS
Tracey Bryant Wilson Co. DSS
Susan Thompson Forsyth Co. DSS
Ron Byrd Harnett Co. DSS
Carla Bass Robeson Co. DSS
Linda Leggett Robeson Co. DSS
Tonja Hester Robeson Co. DSS
Beverly Mercer Pasquotank Co. DSS
Angela Keith Pender Co. DSS
Lisa Worley Pender Co. DSS
Ann Barkley New Hanover Co. DSS
Connie McAdams CCN – Chatham Co.
Wanda Smith DACCA – Durham Co.
Karenne Berry DACCA – Durham Co.
Natasha Adwaters DCD
Algernon W. McKenzie Columbus Co. DSS
Nicki Griffin Franklin Co. DSS
Rob Kindsvatter DCD
Denise Hill Guilford Co. DSS
Patti Stowe CCRI – Mecklenburg
Mary Smith Guilford Co. DSS
Helen Kaleel Sampson Co. DSS
Amy Pike Buncombe Co. CCS
Linda Allison Alamance Co. DSS
Terry Keene Johnston Co. DSS
Bill Scarlett Cumberland Co. DSS
Lula Jackson Anson Co. DSS
Cindy Tharrington Franklin Co. DSS
Amie Barham Franklin Co. DSS
Kay Galloway CCRI – Mecklenburg
Karatha Scott NWCDC
Vickie Jackson Wayne Co. DSS
Lois Slade NCPC
Cathy Gurganious DCD
Gloria Cook Wake Co. DSS
Nicki Griffin called the meeting to order at 9:35 am. Minutes from the October 9, 2002 meeting and minutes from the December 11, 2002 meeting were approved.
Ron Penney reported that the November and December average spending, excluding Smart Start, is at 94%. Smart Start spending is at 106% and the total of all services is at 96%. Ron stated that if this spending pattern continues unchanged that we could have a surplus of $15 million. Ron also stated that static spending would probably not be the case, and that the spending would increase.
Update from Nancy Guy on the work of the Allocation Advisory Committee. The finalized recommendations of changes to the formula for allocation are as follows:
1). Funds shall be allocated based on the projected cost of serving children in a county under age 11 in families with all parents working who earn less than 75% of the State median income.
2). No county’s allocation shall be less than 90% of their SFY 01-02 initial child care subsidy allocation.
There was quite a bit of discussion about the how the formula was created and the impact. The following questions were asked and answered by DCD staff (Nancy, Ron Penney and Rob Kindsvatter).
Question to Nancy – Will you look at the expenditures in each county to determine the allocation for that county? Nancy answered – All funding will be distributed according to the one formula if the proposal is approved.
.
Question – Will this be fair to the smaller counties? Nancy answered – You would get your allocation based on this new formula.
Question – When will this go into effect if approved? Nancy answered – When the state budget is approved since the allocation formula is contained in Special Provision language which is a part of the Budget Bill.
Bill Scarlett asked what the logic behind not using any other need besides employment? Nancy stated that that it is not in the current formula and the other needs are only between 1% & and 4% of what is spent at this time. In addition, employment information is available through the census data.
Bill Scarlett asked why the Committee was using SFY 01-02? Nancy stated that the Committee chose this because certain counties lost in this current SFY (02-03) so it seemed to be fairer to go back to SFY 01-02. Bill stated that some counties would have to reduce the number of children that they serve.
Question – Is there any recommendation that the 30% mandated monies from Smart Start be taken into consideration in this proposed formula? Nancy stated that the formula does take into account at least 30% of the Smart Start funds available to meet the need of preschoolers in the county and that these funds are included when determining the amount of subsidy funds needed in each county to serve eligible children.
Question – What happens when the census that was used for this formula gets older? Rob answered that the census would be re-done and that the Office of State Budget does provide population projections each year.
Nancy stated that this new allocation formula now gives us a need figure. The old formula did not give us those figures. In addition, the old formula counted moms and the new formula counts working parents which could include grandparents. This formula also counts children. The second factor of the proposed formula also limits how much a county can lose.
Terry Keene stated that this looks like a Hold Harmless. Ron Penney stated that it is a Hold Harmless.
Bill Scarlett asked – if counties will get less money, what is the amount that will be moving? Rob stated that they would have to run the figures.
Nicki stated that this Committee met 4 times, and they were very intense meeting, and that they tried to be fair and equitable.
Nicki Griffin then reported on what the Committee Charter’s Scope of Work that was distributed to members is. Motion was made to adopt this scope of work through June, 2003. Motion approved to adopt this Scope of Work. This will be updated at the first meeting of the new fiscal year. Bill Scarlett thanked Nicki for her work regarding this Scope of Work.
Carl Breazeale, Program Consultant with the Division of Social Services was asked to attend the meeting to answer questions from the previous month’s meeting about the use of TANF FUNDS for child care subsidy services. Carl spoke about families who would be eligible for TANF funds. Carl stated that this is a Work First Service, and that we have to take care who we provide services to under TANF. There has to be an ongoing need. Carl distributed Notes On Providing Child Care as a Work First Service. The notes are as follows:
There are three ways in which a family may be determined eligible for Work First Services:
• Families who are receiving Work First Family Assistance (cash). If the child who needs day care is included in an active case in EIS that has the “AAF” aid program and category code with a payment type of “1” or “2”, that child is eligible to receive Work First services. No further eligibility determination is required. Child care may be provided for these families for any of the reasons allowed in the Child Care Subsidy Program.
• Families with income at or below 200% of poverty. Instructions for determining and documenting eligibility for these families are in the Work First Manual, Section 102. These families must have a case opened in SIS. Child care for these families must be to support the parent/caretaker’s employment or it must be addressing a specific episode of need that does not exceed four months (e.g. temporary unemployment between jobs).
• Non-custodial parents of children who are receiving Work First Family Assistance. Instructions for determining and documenting eligibility for these families are in the Work First Manual, Section 102. These families must have a case opened in SIS. Child care for these families must be to support the parent/caretaker’s employment or it must be addressing a specific episode of need that does not exceed four months (e.g. temporary unemployment between jobs.)
Once a family has been determined eligible for Work First services, child care that is provided to them must comply with the policies of the Subsidized Child Care Program issued by DCD. For further details refer to DCD Administrative Letter No. 2-02 dated 10/28/02.
Notes about Program Codes in SIS:
Program Code “9” means MOE funds
Program Code “R” means TANF 100% federal funds
Program Code “W” means DSS non-reimbursable funds
The fund source for TANF funds is 71. You must key a DSS-5027 to open a program in SIS for use of TANF funds for day care. This must be reported in the 1571.
Question asked – Must we determine if the client is eligible for Work First funds?
Carl stated that the Work First Manual 102 has a worksheet to help verify funds. The signature of the client is adequate documentation for eligibility. The client must meet citizenship requirements. A statement of kinship is acceptable. You must do both a DSS-5027 and a child care application. For child only cases, check with the Work First worker. Terry Keene asked what the purpose of the 5027 is? Carl answered that it is to collect data and maintain information.
Denise Hill asked if there is a way to make this procedure easier than having to bring the family back in to sign the 5027 just to change a code? Can we apply the day care application to this? Carl stated that we cannot combine cases.
Nicki thanked Carl for his time and effort regarding explaining TANF funds.
Nancy Guy then updated the committee on the Subsidy Services Funding Survey. Only 16 counties had money to revert. This resulted in $2.1 million to re-allocate. The need is $9.6 million.
Rob stated that we could either ask counties that are underspending to volunteer to revert funds, or the state could force them to revert funds. Rob reviewed a plan that described a method for using the funds from the underspending counties who volunteered to revert funds and giving the highest overspending counties a pro-rata distribution. Input was requested from the Committee regarding the option of using the $1.9 now to give it to the counties that are in most need of it.
Question was asked if the spending co-efficiency included the new Smart Start allocation? Answer is yes.
Nicki Griffin asked if we are still providing more money to overspending counties? Ron Penney answered that yes we are due to the fact that these counties are terminating services for children.
Question was asked if counties were forced to revert funds, and then needed additional funding, would it be available? Ron Penney stated that if by reverting funds, we hurt a county too much, we will come back and help.
Terry Keene asked why overspending counties were receiving more money?
Nicki Griffin stated that if the state contacted underspending counties and asked them why their spending co-efficiency is low, then the state should also contact overspending counties and ask if they have a plan in place to stop overspending. Is it not more fiscally responsible to look at counties that continually overspend and not to offer them more money right away?
Denise Hill stated that if the money was not given to these counties, that children would end up in unregulated care.
A suggestion was made that the funds that counties volunteered to revert be given to the counties spending between 100% & 110%. A second suggestion was made to give all overspending counties a pro-rata share of the funds available from reversions. The third suggestion offered was that the Division wait until next month to make a decision.
A question was asked about the new market rates. Nancy Guy stated that Division was considering implementing new market rates for counties in which providers are charging more than that county’s market rate; however, a decision has not been approved yet. There will be more information on this at the next meeting. Nancy stated that she would know before the end of January if this would be approved.
A motion to made and approved by the Committee to request that the Division delay making a decision on what to do about re-allocating funds until the February meeting to be held on 2/12/03.
Nancy Guy updated the Committee on the latest communication from the federal funding agency about child care fraud. She reported that the latest communication did not provide any information. It was suggested that the counties work with the state to work out a plan with the feds to give the state the ability to permit the counties to payback funds when funds are recouped. This is needed to avert compromising the integrity of the Subsidized Child Care Program and it is hoped that the feds understand the dilemma for the counties. Any other demands on repayment would place counties in an impossible position.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:30.
Respectfully submitted,
Christine Degeberg
