|
|
|
DSS Directors Day Care Committee
March 12, 2003
Nikki Griffin Co-chair – Franklin Bill Scarlett Co-chair – Cumberland Helen Kaleel Sampson Bobby Cagle Graham Kathy Snethen Orange Jack Daulton Caldwell Susan Thompson Forsyth Wanda Smith Durham Karenne Berry Durham Beverly Mercer Pasquotank Cathy Dillard Vance Terry Keene Johnston Algernon McKenzie Columbus Tonja Hester Robeson Angela Keith Pender Lisa Worley Pender Connie McAdams CCN Chatham Ron Penney DCD Della Sweat Cumberland Mary Smith Guilford |
Gloria Cook Wake Pinkie Moore Craven Cindy Tharrington Franklin Amie Barham Franklin Ron Byrd Harnett Kay Galloway CCRI Mecklenburg Cathy Gurganious DCD Vimiller Simmons DCD Natasha Adwaters DCD Penny Dickens DCD Vickie Jackson Wayne Karatha Scott Northwest Child Development Lois Slade NCPC Carla Bass Robeson Linda Leggett Robeson L????? Jones SWCDC Nancy Guy DCD Rob Kindsvatter DCD Denise Hill Guilford Patti Stowe CCRI Mecklenburg
|
The North Carolina Association of County Directors of Social Services Day Care Committee met at DCD on Wednesday, March 12, 2003 at 9:30am.
Bill Scarlett, co-chair, opened the meeting with a moment of silence. He thanked all in attendance for their faithful participation in the important work of this committee.
Two copies (an original draft, and a corrected copy) of the minutes from the February 12, 2003 meeting were distributed. In the interest of time, Committee members were asked to review the minutes before the next meeting, so that action can be taken on approving the corrected minutes at the April meeting.
Ron Penney summarized the expenditure report which had been distributed to the group. The statewide SCC spending co-efficient for the January ’03 service month is 94%. This represents a spending increase of about 1 million dollars from the previous month. The 102% Smart Start co-efficient also represents an increase from last month. However, the overall spending co-efficient of 96% remains about the same. DCD is still projecting a remaining balance of a little less than $19,000,000 at the end of this fiscal year. Ron also reported that the total number of children on the waiting list has dropped by about 700 children since last month. The number of children served has increased. The recent reallocation amounts are included in this report. Ron pointed out that the last page of the report is new. It shows Smart Start subsidy spending which is not reported through the DCD reimbursement system but is captured in the Smart Start Reporting System. This spending has consistently been in the $1,000,000 range for several months.
Nancy Guy reported on the recent waiting list survey. She distributed a handout which shows that the waiting list information from the most recent survey was similar to the information collected in the previous survey. However, there was a much higher percentage of families who reported receiving assistance from other sources. Nancy commented that we don’t know exactly what those “other” sources are. There were suggestions that DCD might consider some clarifying questions on the survey to help determine what “other” sources are being used, as well as finding out how many families are taking children to work with them in lieu of using child care.
In her Child Development report, Nancy Guy announced that the February Reversion/Reallocation process has been completed. She said that e-mails would be sent out in the next few days asking counties for updates related to current funding needs resulting from the Reversion/Reallocation process. Some counties have already contacted the Division with specific requests for funding but Division staff need to determine if there are other needs. In April separate funding authorizations will be sent to counties who need additional funds to cover the Market Rate increase which becomes effective April 1, 2003.
Nancy Guy also reported that a Change Notice for the Subsidized Child Care Services Manual will be issued soon. It will provide clarifying information and examples related to the implementation of the new market rates. There will also be a revised Q&A related to the More at Four Program which includes clarification of current policy, but no changes. The Change Notice will also include policy changes related to the payment of child care provided by relative providers and foster children.
The Committee was asked for feedback related to how many providers charge parents the difference if their actual rates are higher than the market rate. Thirteen counties indicated that some providers do indeed pass those charges on to subsidy parents.
Nancy Guy also asked the group for feedback about any problems with the current subsidy policy when serving military families. There was some indication of problems with income eligibility. DCD is interested in considering the possibility of creating exceptions to current policy if that is needed in order to serve children of military families more effectively.
There was an explanation of the Data Warehouse System which has already been implemented for several programs including child support and food stamps. It is currently being applied to the subsidy system. All information from the Subsidy Reimbursement System is being loaded into the warehouse. This will allow DCD and LPAs to do reports and queries. There will be training for county staff, probably in April or May. The Data Warehouse System for subsidy should be ready for use by the end of the current state fiscal year.
Nancy Guy explained that the Division is considering issuing new guidelines to counties for the next state fiscal year regarding the reversion and reallocation process. She requested input from the Committee regarding their suggestions about the process for reverting and reallocating subsidy funds. Nancy was asked to explain how the recent reversion/reallocation process was handled. Rob Kindsvatter explained that DCD identified counties whose spending co-efficient was less that 91.5%. They also considered whether or not counties had a waiting list. Counties who were spending over 102% were brought to the 102% level. Counties with co-efficients between 98% and 102% were funded at the 98% level. Nancy reminded the group that this was the first time the Division had allocated reverted funds to counties who were not overspending at a high rate but had a waiting list and the idea had been well received. She talked about the possibility of adopting this criteria for use in determining who should receive reallocated funds in the coming state fiscal year versus giving all or the majority of the funds to the counties with high spending coefficients. The question was asked about the amount of funds recently distributed to counties who were in this category. Nancy responded that of the $7.7 million that was reverted, $6.1 million went to the counties with a spending coefficient of 102% or greater and only $1.5 million was allocated to the counties with a spending coefficient between 98% and 102% with a waiting list. Ron Penny reminded the group that when we completed this recent reversion and reallocation process, the overall spending coefficient was at 95% and asked the group to think about how this would have worked under different circumstances. For example, how should DCD handle the process if the overall spending co-efficient is at the 106% level?
The discussion about this topic included the following issues:
⊘ Prioritizing counties who are “good managers”
⊘ How to be a “good manager” with fluctuating and unpredictable changes
⊘ Insufficient funding to cover total need
⊘ Dilemma about kids on waiting list versus taking kids out of care
⊘ Bailing out overspenders
⊘ Whether or not to include Smart Start allocations in the reversion/reallocation process
This discussion will be continued at the April meeting to allow those attending the meeting to talk with staff in their counties and to give other counties an opportunity to comment. Nancy indicated that she would like to have the new guidelines established by the time the Division issues the initial allocation to counties for the 03-04 SFY. The goal is that the guidelines would be explained to all counties in the letter to counties and state level contractors that accompanies the allocations.
There was a review of previous conversations about the effects of Federal fraud policy on the subsidy program in North Carolina. Nancy Guy said there was no new information. Bill Scarlett stated that it appears that DCD recognizes the problems with the current policy. Nancy indicated that DCD has talked with the staff in the Child Care Bureau about the possibility of requesting amendments to the federal policy at the time of the re-authorization of the Child Care and Development Fund. Bill indicated that there is concern that the current policy can compromise the integrity of the child care program in North Carolina. He also reported that Gary Fuquay, in the Controller’s Office, has indicated that the Department is looking for funds at the state level that could be used to reimburse the federal government while counties are in the process of collecting repayments.
Bill Scarlett asked for comments and feedback related to the proposed new allocation formula. He asked for an explanation of the hold harmless clause in the existing formula. Nancy Guy explained that there is a hold harmless clause in the current formula that resulted from the discontinuation of FSA entitlement policy in 1996. The current formula and the proposed new formula use entirely different approaches to calculating allocations. If the General Assembly approves the new formula during the current Session, it will be used for determining allocations for the 2004-2005 fiscal year. It may also be used for allocations of new money during the 2003-2004 fiscal year. Nikki Griffin read from minutes of the final meeting of the Allocation Advisory Work Group which showed that the Allocation Work Group had recommended using the new formula as soon as it is approved for reversions/reallocations during the 2003-2004 fiscal year. Bill Scarlett indicated that he was interested in including language in the new formula that would prevent wide swings (increases or decreases) in county allocations from year to year.
Items on the agenda for the next meeting include continuing discussion of the reversion and reallocation process, serving military families, and a budget update.
The meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Connie McAdams
