Minutes

Children Services Committee Meeting

February 12, 2003

•  Review Agenda, Approve Minutes and Set New Agenda Items

Present: John Shore, Brenda Jackson, Velvet Newman, Joyce Gardner, Rita Bland, Bertram Wilson, Sonya Toman, Denise Boyette, Joyce Edwards, Adgenda Turner, Janice Fisher, Angela Pittman, Cyndy Benson, Tom Brewer, Angela Pittman, Shellie Woodberry, Daren Hoyle, Daye Greene, Lisa Roberson, Faye Harris, Rodney Little, Monte Burroughs, Betsey Lindsey, Rebecca Brigham, Sue Cook, Fran Wozniak, Becky Kessel, Linda Galacci, Joy Jones, Sherry Bradsher, Diane Kane, Stoney Blevins, David Atkinson, Chris Sinha, Linda Cole, Denise Shaffer, Pam Grantham, Mike Herzing, Betty Kelly, Candice Britt, Karen Ellis, JoAnn Lamm

Conclusion: Approved minutes of January meeting.

Action Items:

•   

Person Responsible:

Deadline:

•  Update on Multiple Response

Discussion: JoAnn indicated that concerns have been raised about pace of implementation of MRS and advisability of opening up all the Child Welfare statutes during this General Assembly. Have had discussions with Directors about phasing in statewide implementation and handling through special provisions rather than opening up entire Child Welfare legislation. Question raised whether when a county is phased in it will be “full bore” or be allowed to move into it like the Pilot counties. Discussion among State staff is counties would have some time – probably 6 months – to fully implement. Having discussion with a group at Duke University to provide assistance in evaluation. One county stated a lot of concerns with front line staff and supervisors with MRS. Forsyth indicated continuing the training was real important to address staff concerns. Counties would be well served to begin looking at data on the number of neglect cases, type of cases, etc. MRS counties will be meeting soon with an agenda of identifying issues that implementing counties should look at.

Conclusion: Phased in approach will be taken to NCACDSS Board for their endorsement. (This was approved by the NCACDSS Board on 2-13-03 .

Action Items:

•   

Person Responsible:

Deadline:

•  Discussion of the Structure Intake Process

Discussion: JoAnn indicated that screening of intake has historically been issue as relates to consistency. What is accepted in one county would not be accepted in another. The State did research on standards used by national organizations. The then pulled a workgroup together who discovered real differences in how reports are handled. JoAnn went over a few changes that have been made to the document. Mecklenburg reported they have been using the new tool and liked it. Has increased referrals and takes a little more time to do the intake interview but not as long as they originally thought it would. Buncombe County reported they have implemented and like it. Strength based questions helped involve reporters in how to deal with family. Reinforces getting community involved in dealing with child abuse and neglect. Wilson County reported that was taking more time and getting more referrals. Cumberland County reported concern on impact on manpower. No target date for implementation. Training will be a big issue in implementing. A question of do we train supervisors and let them train intake workers? Most people feel this is the best approach but experience with the risk and safety assessment tools was that the training did not always make it to the front line workers. This issue will be on next month’s agenda. State was asked to try and quantify additional resources that implementation would require from counties (whether intake workers would have to be added and whether referrals would be greater resulting in additional cases).

Conclusion:

Action Items:

•  Place on March Agenda

Person Responsible:

John Shore

Deadline:

3-5-03

•  Discuss Testing Out of Pre-Service Training

Discussion: Issue of testing out of pre-service training was one of committee’s priorities for this year. The Training Evaluation subcommittee of the Training Advisory Committee had looked at the issue and made a recommendation not to allow a process that would allow child welfare staff to “test out” of Pre-Service training. They had identified “pros” of testing out to include allowing staff to begin working with clients immediately and saving county resources. “Cons” were identified as 1) statutes currently require the training; 2) most high-stakes occupations do not allow applicants to test out (public safety, medicine, law, nursing, etc.); 3) no other child welfare system in the nation allows testing out; and 4) it would be costly to develop and administer a valid test. Several spoke in support of required pre-service. Question raised as to whether pre-service could be restructured to allow the worker to do some work prior to having completed all 72 hours.

Conclusion: Committee overwhelmingly did not support testing out.

Action Items:

•   

Person Responsible:

Deadline:

•  Discussion of Division Monitoring Plan

Discussion: Stoney indicated that statewide monitor plan for DHHS was about done. Child Welfare would not change much from what currently doing. They did not see much impact for child welfare.

Conclusion: State’s monitor plan will have minimal impact on Children’s Services due to current monitoring procedures.

Action Items:

•   

Person Responsible:

Deadline:

•  Program Improvement Plan

Discussion: JoAnn and Rebecca went to conference on responding to Program Improvement Plans (PIP). The next Federal review will be in June 2004. JoAnn reported that North Carolina would be able to get out from under individual PIP items before then if we meet the benchmarks for two consecutive quarters. Three items: 1) implementing team decision making; 2) implementing a redesigned model of in-home services; and, 3) implementation of a system of care model, will take longer than the 2 year PIP timeframe.

Conclusion:

Action Items:

•   

Person Responsible:

Deadline: