|
|
|
NCACDSS – Day Care Meeting
Nicki Griffin Co -Chair Franklin Amy Pike Buncombe
Heather Thomas Randolph Susan Parrish Catawba
Vickie Jackson Wayne Della Sweat Cumberland Helen Kaleel Sampson Algernon McKenzie Columbus
Nancy Wilson DCD Vimiller Simmons DCD
Cookie Henry Wake Kathy Snethen Orange Connie McAdams Chatham Mary Smith Guilford
Patti Stowe Mecklenburg CCRI Denise Hill Guilford
Carla Bass Robeson Linda Leggett Robeson
Tonja Hester Robeson Amie Barham Franklin
Annette Johnston Onslow Heather Johnson Scotland
Cindy Tharrington Franklin Rob Kindsvatter D MH
Fay Lewis DCD Lisa Worley Pender
Dorothy Fields Scotland Angela Keith Pender
Aliesa Bowman Iredell Liz White Forsyth
Nancy Guy DCD Betty Hamby Craven
Lois Slade NCPC Regina Watkins DCD
Linda Allison Alamance Claudia Catlin Catawba
Sandra Tillman Moore Terry Keene Johnston
Lula Jackson Anson R. Patrick Betancourt Franklin
Susan Mitchell DCD
Nicki Griffin called the meeting to order.
February 2004 minutes have not been distributed. They will be sent via email within the next couple of days and reviewed at the April meeting.
Rob Kindsvatter began by announcing he has left the Division of Child Development to accept a position at the Division of Mental Health. In addition, he introduced Susan Mitchell from the Division's Adminstration Section. Susan will be handling the expenditure report and answering questions in the interim.
A review of January's expenditure report followed. There was an approximate $500,000 drop in expenditures from the previous month. This correlates with the Waiting List escalating to 24,446.
The following state level spending coefficients are as follows: Non-Smart Start 101%, Smart Start 99% and combined 101%.
Nancy Guy addressed the Reversion / Reallocation proposal that was issued March 5. Counties had until March 9 to report if the amounts were sufficient to prevent the termination of children or if the additional funds would not be needed. She heard from less than 10 counties.
Rob then explained the reversion / reallocation process. Counties subject to reversion were those with a spending coefficient under 94% with a waiting list or those under 98% without a waiting list. Based on DCD calculations, there appeared to be about $4 million available to revert. After contacting all counties subject to reversion, the amount available dropped to $3.2 million.
The counties eligible to receive the additional allocations were those with a spending coefficient between 94 and 100% that had a waiting list. The general amount received by each county was an amount that allowed a 2% increase in spending for the remainder of the year. Additional amounts were granted to those counties that had a greater need.
Several counties were just over 100% and did not receive a reallocation with this process. In addition, counties that previously received additional funding to prevent the termination of children were given different consideration. The spending level at this time was considered and not the overall spending coefficient.
A question arose regarding waiting lists being a factor when it wasn't in the original guidelines. Nancy Guy explained that the guidelines were meant to be flexible and that the Division thought it was necessary to consider allocating funds to counties only with a waiting list due to the fact that funding was needed by so many counties.
The Child Care Development Block Grant and the TANF Reauthorization have been extended until June at the same funding level.
The Division distributed a draft of the Proposed Requirements for Child Care Subsidy Business Plan. Counties were asked to review this for discussion at the next meeting. This is a document that each LPA would complete within 30 days of receiving the official allocation for the Fiscal Year. It requires each LPA to specify what measures are in place to monitor spending. It addresses what monitoring tool is used, when a waiting list is imposed, when children are added from the waiting list, etc.
The Business Plan will be used as another tool to assist the Division understand the LPA's local circumstances: Year round schools, More at Four, Head Start, Smart Start Bonuses, use of MOE funding, etc. It is also being developed to assist the LPA establish procedures since it is no longer safe to assume funding will be available for overspending counties.
Nancy Guy reported on a proposal that is being considered to help address the need for subsidy services for school age children during the summer. She explained that 4% of the Child Care and Development funds received by the Division must be spend on activities to improve the quality and accessibility of child care. One activity that is funded in this way is a school age care initiative handled by the North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, Department of 4-H Youth Development at NC State University. The Division is considering adding some available CCDF quality funds to the contract with NCSU for the upcoming summer. The funding will be distributed by the contractor and not through the subsidy program. A survey will be issued for counties to inquire about the number of school age children that may be at risk of not being served due to lack of subsidy funding. Nancy explained that the focus will be on counties with a waiting list and a large number of ‘summer only' children. It was requested later in the meeting that a county be given consideration even if there is not a current waiting list. Assistance with the summer could alleviate a waiting list further in the year.
A motion was made but subsequently rescinded due to confusion regarding the current policy. Clarification will be presented at the April meeting by DCD staff regarding what is countable in these situations.
If the committee supports a change in policy, it will require a change in a rule adopted by the Social Services Commission. Changes in rules require a public notice period and an opportunity for concerned individuals to provide comments to the Commission. Approval could take up to one year.
A Change Notice is being issued for minor changes in the Provider Agreement. The revised version is available on-line. There are no other pending changes to defer completion of annual enrollments.
The question was asked about whether county staff should utilitize their supply of old forms when revised ones are issued. Nancy indicated that you should always use old forms first unless the Division states they need to be discarded.
Multiple Response System
Patrick Betancourt led a presentation on the Multiple Response System. There are currently 52 counties transitioned to this manner of approach in Child Protective Services. All counties will eventually use this method.
Investigations in child care settings will continue to be conducted in the traditional manner.
Items for next month's meeting:
Clarification of Direct and In-Kind contributions
Report on available funding to serve school age children
Report from March 24 th Subsidy Advisory Committee Meeting about subsidy payment rates
Discussion of Proposed Business Plan
Respectfully submitted,
Susan Parrish
