|
|
|
Minutes Children Services Committee Meeting 8/13/03 |
||
1. Review Agenda, Approve Minutes and Set New Agenda Items |
||
Present: Donn Gunderson, Brenda Jackson, Velvet Newman, Denise Shaffer, Rita Bland, Linda Cole, Pam Grantham, Bertram Wilson, Margaret Johnson, Chuck Harris, Adgenda Turner, Tom Brewer, Lisa Roberson, JoAnn Lamm, Stoney Blevins, Ann Barkley, Wanda Neidig, Judi Akers, Carole Thomas, Cyndy Benson, Karen Hoyle, Collen Turner |
||
Conclusion: The Minutes form the July 9th meeting were reviewed. Cyndy Benson moved that the Minutes be approved as mailed. Rita Bland seconded the motion which carried unanimously. For the Agenda it was requested that there be discussion of the recent series of articles in the Charlotte Observer that concerned child fatalities. |
||
Action Items: • Accepted |
Person Responsible:
|
Deadline:
|
2. State Maternity Home Fuund application--Vicky Church |
||
Discussion: The revised application and procedures had been considered at the July meeting and had been mailed with the agenda material. There were no suggestions for changes, additions or deletions to the policy or form. Vicky Church asked should the fund be renamed because the funds were no longer used exclusively for children in Maternity homes? There is some question with State Maternity Home Fund program being assigned to the State DSS Adult Services section that it may not stay at DSS. (Adult Services is moving to DOA). Vicky suggested the name "State Maternity Fund". |
||
Conclusion: Linda Cole made a motion that the policy, forms, and name change (State Maternity Fund) be approved. Karen Hoyle seconded the motion which carried unanimously. |
||
Action Items: • Issue policy and revised form |
Person Responsible: Vickie Church |
Deadline:
|
3. JoAnn,Leg Update, Stumbo |
||
Discussion: 1. Stumbo Court Decision: Chris Singha of the Attorney General's office reported on the history of Stumbo case and stated the Supreme Court's decision to send the case back to District Court was based not on the DSS worker access to the children and home issue but on the merits of the CPS referral as it had been introduced during the parental interference trial. The Court felt that the simple report of a child running naked in the yard did not rise to the legal definition of child neglect. JoAnn Lamm reported that the local DSS had more information about the circumstances reported in the initial referral that did warrant an investigation but that information was not introduced at the local trial because they were trying the case on whether the parents had interfered with the investigation, not the merits of the report. Chris stated that DSS lost case on merits of the referral and not on the 4th amendment rights of the parents. One judge suggested that rather than launch an investigation the DSS should have called the parents and alerted them to the fact that the child as running naked in the yard. JoAnn stated that since this was a part of one judges opinion and not the decision of the Court, that this did not suggest or give authority to local DSS's for conducting extended intake. It was suggested by the Committee that JoAnn get information out to counties on meaning of the Stumbo decision in layman's terms. 2. Worker Entry Bill: JoAnn stated that in only 1% of time would DSS workers likely not have the consent of the parent or caretaker. Discussion arose about who can give consent in the absence of the parent or adult caretaker? JoAnn stated that it cannot be a minor child or a baby sitter who is underage. She stated that an Administrative Letter will be issued to give guidance to counties. The question arose as to how this bill would apply to case management/case placement workers? JoAnn suggested that in these cases that the worker ask for and document from the parents the ongoing authority for drop in visits. JoAnn states that the legislation does not affect access to children at schools. It was noted that some school systems were using Stumbo as a reason for not granting access to children at school. JoAnn stated that this was an erroneous application of Stumbo. She stated that workers could only take photos of homes only with consent of the parents. Porch interviews are considered an allowable practice. 3.Charlotte Observer Articles: JoAnn reported that as uncomfortable as the articles might make us feel and as bad as some of the situations were portrayed, that we need to look at the situation as an opportunity. We now have the attention of legislators, advocacy groups, and the Governor. Its time to seek whatever improvements that can be made on things like better access to criminal records, more resources, turnover reduction strategies, caseload standards, etc. Donn Gunderson reported that he had attended the Director's Personnel Committee that morning and that the Office of State Personnel (OSP) was asking what it could do, including the possibility of a classification study for CPS workers. The Annual Survey on caseloads and turnover done by the Division in November was discussed. Donn reported that he had been appointed to a task force to work with JoAnn on a targeted survey based on the Division's survey form. He told the Committee to expect survey, as early as September. |
||
Conclusion: |
||
Action Items: • Administrative Letters on Stumbo, Worker Entry, Caseload/Turnover Survey |
Person Responsible: JoAnn Lamm |
Deadline: ASAP |
4. CW Program Improvement Plan, JoAnn, Brenda, Donn |
||
Discussion: It was felt that Directors and county Program Managers and Supervisors may not be aware of the standards being used by Federal staff in their reviews of states or of North Carolina's Program Improvement Plan (PIP) and how it has driven policy development in NC. Structured Intake, standardized risk/safety assessments, Multiple Response (MRS), In-Home redesign, System of Care, Family and Child Teams, Biennial Review process changes all flow from the Federal Review and the PIP. JoAnn stated that North Carolina has met the bench marks set by the Feds during the review process, but that we are still struggling against federal standards. December of 2003 is deadline set by the Feds for achieveing federal standards. The Feds are pushing states hard to meet standards and financial penalties are a distinct possibility. Donn Gunderson stated that this Committee would be looking at results measures in Children's Services under the Leadership by Results (LBR) initiative, but noted that the Feds already have standards for Child Welfare. He passed out a listing of the standards with measures (Attached) He stated that at the local level we need to begin managing against these standards. Sara Anderson Mims of JoAnn's staff stated that she believed that in areas of standard such as that Stability in Foster Care placements, that may be coding errors made at the local level.She stated that this may be a training issue. JoAnn atated that the CPR's are aware of PIP and will help counties look at these issues in 2004 or 2005 as preparation for the for rederal re-review. Donn stated that we use the federal Standards as LBR results. Donn suggest that the State reissue the PIP plan to Directors. JoAnn stated that Cornerstone IV training will be about outcomes in Child Welfare. |
||
Conclusion: Local Directors and managers need to understand the federal standards, the federal review process and their potential impact. Directors and staff need to be re-familiarized with North Carolina's PIP. Local Directors and staff need to manage based on the federal outcomes. |
||
Action Items: • JoAnn to reissue the PIP to Directors • Sara Mims To explore local Coding changes 5094 system • CPR's to Focus on Federal Outcome Measures • Donn/Brenda to make Directors, LBR Task Force aware of Federal Outcomes |
Person Responsible: JoAnn Sara JoAnn/Staff Donn/Brenda |
Deadline: September 2003 |
5. Scope of Work- Brenda Jackson, Donn Gunderson |
||
Discussion: The Committee Scope of Work (attached) was a mailout and handout for the meeting. Brenda lead the group on a discussion of the role of the committee and how policy review would be accomplished. Brenda stated that the Committee is so large that it would be inefficient for the larger committee to serve the role of policy review body. It was sense of the Committee that subcommittees/workgroups,jointly appointed by the Committee Co-chairs would review major pieces of policy and make recommendations to the Committee. Donn Gunderson suggested that on major policy initiatives, attention be paid to the impact of the new policy on staff workloads and on the counties' ability to meet Federal outcome standards. |
||
Conclusion: The Committee was supportive of the Scope of Work and the operating procedures with a caution to the Committee to be supportive and respectful of the work of sub-committees and task forces. |
||
Action Items: • Submit Scope of Work to NCACDSS • Impact on workloads and Outcomes to be a part of Policy Review process. |
Person Responsible: Co-Chairs Jo-Ann, Co-Chairs |
Deadline: Immediate |
6. |
||
Discussion: |
||
Conclusion: |
||
Action Items: • |
Person Responsible:
|
Deadline:
|
