|
|
|
NCACDSS – Day Care Committee Meeting
Nicki Griffin Co-Chair Franklin Amy Pike Buncombe
Heather Thomas Randolph Susan Parrish Catawba
Vickie Jackson Wayne Ann Barkley New Hanover
Tracey Bryant Wilson Karenne Berry Durham
Della Sweat Cumberland Helen Kaleel Sampson
Algernon McKenzie Columbus Mary Stewart Caldwell
Nancy Wilson DCD Vimiller Simmons DCD
Natasha Adwaters DCD Mary Stankus DCD
Cookie Henry Wake Wanda Smith Durham
Kathy Snethen Orange Connie McAdams Chatham
Margaret Guess DCD G Morgan* Wilson
Mary Smith Guilford Amy Johnson Mecklenburg
Patti Stowe Mecklenburg CCRI Denise Hill Guilford
Carla Bass Robeson Linda Leggett Robeson
Tonja Hester Robeson Ron Byrd Harnett
Annette Johnston Onslow Terryl Simpson* Onslow
Cindy Tharrington Franklin Amie Barham Franklin
Penny Butler High Country COG Stephanie Leach Union
Sheila Hoyle Southwestern Child Ken Adams Mecklenburg
Kay Galloway Mecklenburg – CCRI Fay Lewis DCD
Dorothy Fields Scotland Heather Johnson Scotland
Cathy Dillard Vance Aliesa Bowman Iredell
Nancy Guy DCD Rob Kindsvatter DCD
Nicki Griffin called the meeting to order.
Attendees were advised to speak with their directors if they were not listed as a voting designee and believed it should be otherwise. Nicki Griffin explained that the Committee Chairs do not have the authority to list a designee for a county without notification from the agency’s director.
The August 13 th minutes were reviewed and approved with no changes.
Rob Kindsvatter conducted the presentation of the August expenditure report for the service month of July. The following state level spending coefficients were reviewed: Non-Smart Start 119%, Smart Start 79% and combined 113%.
Additional notes regarding the expenditures: July’s spending increased $550,000 over June’s, the Smart Start spending coefficient was based on the assumption that 60% of anticipated funding has been allocated to counties, and August expenditures are expected to drop by the end of summer.
The number of children served in July decreased from June but the increase in expenditures was due to the additional number of children receiving full time care through the summer. The number of children on the waiting list increased from 8,932 to 11,527.
Nancy Guy from the Division reported on the following topics as a part of the Division Report.
Nancy Guy reported that Nicki Griffin took the endorsement to adopt the reversion/reallocation process made at the August meeting of the Day Care Committee to the Association’s Executive Committee. The Executive Committee recommended that consideration be given to allow all counties that are exceeding the 106% target to receive an allocation. Nancy explained that available funding at the time of the reallocation process would be a key factor in proceeding with this recommendation. In addition, if this consideration is granted, it is only for the October process at this time and the amount to be considered for a ‘higher spending’ county would be equal to the amount awarded if the county were at 106%. Under either process, the need for additional for funds by counties spending over 106% would still be considered after all of the priority counties’ requests are fulfilled. A few Committee members expressed support of the Executive Committee’s recommendation.
Assurance was given that at the time of the first reversion/reallocation process, those counties with low spending coefficients would be contacted prior to a reversion of funds to clarify any unknown needs or information. In addition, counties whose spending coefficient is between 98-100% will also be contacted to inquire about their need for additional funds prior to determining the amounts of reallocations.
Nicki Griffin stated that the Division has indicated that the results and impact of the first process in November might be used to make adjustments for the February process if needed. Nancy emphasized that this process was established as a means to help counties know what to expect and to use caution in their spending patterns.
Nancy reported that the Division is issuing a Change Notice for the Subsidized Child Care Services Manual which will be mailed this week. The Change Notice includes the new income guidelines to be effective October 1, 2003. As required by state legislation, adjustments in the income limits are made every two years to reflect adjustments in the State Median Income.
The Division distributed a draft they are developing for county staff to use in helping the public understand the need for subsidy funding. A fact sheet will be created with county specific information for each county. The fact sheet includes the number of children eligible for subsidy services to support employment and the amount of funding needed to serve these children. This information comes from the Census data used in the subsidy allocation formula. The children included are those under age 11 with employed parents. The number does not include children who need child care to support child protective services, child welfare services or developmental needs or those parents are in educational activities. The Division plans to complete the individual sheets in September and will e-mail them to each county DSS. County staff can then copy and distribute the fact sheets as desired. County staff may also choose to add the contact information for their state and federal legislators. Committee members provided suggestions for changes to the fact sheet.
Nancy distributed a sample of a subsidy allocation report and asked if county staff are using the report. The majority of counties, for varying reasons, are using the allocation reports. These will continue to be distributed, but only once per month instead of twice as it has been. The suggestion was made by a Committee member that the Division consider the feasibility of posting this information on the DCD web site instead of e-mailing it to all county DSS agencies and state level contractors.
Nancy reported that two work groups have been established to address the issue of scholarships, one in the East and one in the West. A Subsidy Services Consultant is chairing each group. The Consultants are expected to report on the work of their group at a Division meeting the first of October. The group in the West met prior to this meeting. Committee members who are participants in this work group expressed the difficulty in identifying all of the different components and issues involved. No recommendations have been agreed upon at this time.
Waiting List Survey
Nancy informed the Committee that it was time to survey all of the families on the waiting list. All families that have been on the waiting list over three months need to be contacted in October or November to determine if they still need services. The forms to use for the purpose of contacting families and reporting to the Division will be e-mailed to county staff by Nancy later this week. Responses are due in November.
Criminal Records Check
At the last meeting, Bobby Cagle expressed his concern regarding the lack of a federal criminal record check for all individuals working in child care and had asked that someone from the Division speak to the Committee about this issue. Discussion regarding this issue will occur at the October meeting.
Non-Licensed Providers
Ann Barkley of New Hanover County DSS expressed concern about the lack of regulations and requirements for non-licensed providers, specifically relatives. Nancy Guy addressed two binding factors regarding this issue that would prohibit the ability to change policy. First were the licensing laws. The licensing regulations allow relatives who are only caring for relative children to provide care without being licensed. The second factor is the Federal regulations for the Child Care and Development Fund which is a major source of funding for subsidy services. The regulations indicate that states must allow parents to choose from a variety of options, including relative care. In addition, the regulations indicate that relatives are exempt from the health and safety requirements that are required for non-relative providers.
Nancy further discussed how the Program Compliance Staff are making visits to non-licensed arrangements and are finding few errors or problems. In addition, only 1.9% of the children served with subsidy funds attend a non-licensed arrangement and only 1% of subsidy expenditures are spent with non-licensed providers.
Several counties contributed suggestions they are using to increase the quality of these arrangements. These suggestions include using the Checklist for relative placements and promoting education and training to the providers.
On a related matter, Nancy Guy shared that the Child Abuse and Neglect Task Force is discussing the issue of CPS background checks for individuals working in licensed child care settings. Nicki Griffin pointed out that a statutory change would be required in order for this to occur.
Rule Changes
Nancy Guy stated she has received little input regarding the expansion of policy to serve displaced workers as discussed at the last meeting. Some of the options that were submitted to her included revising the rules to allow additional families to be served for job searching activities and to extend the 24 month education limit to allow families time to be retrained in other fields. She added that she is aware of the concerns that changing the policy without new funds will mean some counties will have to choose which families to serve but does not want the funding limitations to totally guide policy decisions.
Other Discussion
More at Four
Patti Stowe of CCRI in Charlotte indicated that they have confronted some situations regarding the More at Four Program which lead to questions regarding the sharing of confidential information, the matter of children leaving four and five star centers to enroll in More at Four Programs, matching funds, payment percentages, and reporting requirements. Nancy indicated that she is scheduled to meet with staff from the More at Four State Office in the near future and she will discuss these questions with them. Other Committee members indicated they have encountered similar issues. It was determined that more discussion would be needed once additional information was obtained.
Fraud
Amy Johnson of Mecklenburg County DSS indicated that their agency attorney is doing some research on the fraud pay back requirements for LPAs. Amy reported that the attorney is looking at the federal regulations and the state policy. She also indicated that she understood that child care fraud had been a topic of discussion at the August meeting of the Special Investigation Advisory Committee (SIAC). Nancy indicated that Vi Simmons from DCD attended that meeting and would be responding to some questions asked by the Committee members
Note: The next meeting is scheduled for October 8 th at 9:30 a.m. in Room 300 of the Division of Child Development. There will not be a meeting in November 2003
Respectfully submitted,
Susan Parrish
Catawba County DSS
