Minutes

Children Services Committee Meeting

January 8, 2003

•  Review Agenda, Approve Minutes and Set New Agenda Items

Present: John Shore, Brenda Jackson, Velvet Newman, Joyce Gardner, Denise Shaffer, Rita Bland, Linda Cole, Pam Grantham, Bertram A. Wilson, Beckie Kimbrell, Sonya Toman, Joyce Edwards, Cyndy Beason, Janice Fisher, Lisa Roberson, Mike Herzing, David Atkinson, Linda Galacci, Wanda Bullard, Karen Ellis, Jane Shooter, Keith Davis, Belinda Simms, Chris Ollis, Ester High, Candice Britt, Joan McAllister, Stoney Blevins

Conclusion: Approved minutes of December meeting.

Action Items:

• 

Person Responsible:

•  Review Committee Scope of Work

Discussion:   Scope of Work as presented incorporated the priorities set at the last meeting.   In setting the goal from the Director’s Strategic Plan Priorities, it was decided that the recidivism rate for substantiated child abuse and neglect should decrease from 15% to 12% by June 2004.   This rate is for cases within 3 years of the initial substantiation.

Conclusion: Adopted the Scope of Work.

Action Items:

• 

Person Responsible:

•  Approve New Allocation Format for LINKS Funding

Discussion:   JoAnn Lamm indicated that statewide we have been under spending our allocation of LINKS funds resulting in money reverting to the Feds.   Staff was proposing that 6 months into the Federal fiscal year the spending rate of counties be examined and funds reallocated from counties that would not spend their funds.   The need to provide “best practice” examples to counties not spending their funds was discussed.   In discussing how it would be decided who would get the reallocated funds, it was suggested that the following serve as guides: 1) influx of kids, 2) outcomes and 3) counties overspending.   Attached to the minutes are handout provided by Joan McAllister.   It was suggested that DSS management needed to become familiar with this funding source to ensure that it is used.

Conclusion: Approved permitting reallocation as proposed.

Action Items:

• 

Person Responsible:

•  Update on Multiple Response

Discussion:   MRS counties present provided a status report.   Caldwell County said MRS is going well.   The only problem is setting up the first meeting with families.   Staff is excited about it.   Franklin reported, as they did last month, things are still going well.   They are struggling with the child/family team part and getting staff on same page with philosophy and practice.   Guilford County went countywide January 1.   They expect in 3 months to be completely implemented.   Shared parenting is beginning to be implemented.   Also focusing on tackling consistency in philosophy and practice.   Alamance is facing many of the same issues.   Child/family teams are a challenge.   They are looking at in-home services.   JoAnn reported Bladen is enthusiastic but has real problems with turnover.   Transylvania is more stable, so not having Bladen’s problems.   MRS counties agreed that they had differences in philosophy and practice before, but MRS makes it much more visible.   Non-MRS counties wanted details on staffing and implementation issues.   Discussion occurred on how to provide the “lessons learned” to the 90 counties that have yet to implement MRS.    JoAnn will discuss with the pilot counties.

Conclusion:

Action Items:

• 

Person Responsible:

•  Structured Intake Process

Discussion:   Gave out copies that will be discussed in February.   Workgroup that put this together was great!   They worked hard.    Structured intake form included that is proposed for use by all counties.   Requested that everyone look this over prior to the February meeting when it will be discussed.   Copy of the document is attached.

Conclusion:   Will be on February agenda.

Action Items:

•  Committee members review draft and be prepared to discuss in February.

Person Responsible:

All

•  Using Safety Assessment in Kinship Placement Cases

Discussion:   JoAnn provided handouts of a proposed policy change that would require that a safety assessment be completed for any kinship placements.   Asked for feedback from committee on logistics of implementing.   There was much discussion with questions raised as to the practicality and need of doing assessments when a relative from another county is coming after hours to pick a child up.   An example was given of a parent being put in jail without making arrangements for someone to take care of their child.   DSS is called for a dependency issue.   Meanwhile the parent decides that an aunt from some distance can keep the child and the aunt is on the way when DSS arrives on the scene.   Getting in touch with other counties CPS after hours can be problematic and the choice may be the aunt or foster placement.   DHHS attorneys say that there is a liability exposure for DSS at this point – you are involved and must make a decision as to the appropriateness of the aunt.   How can you do that without having an assessment done?   Spirited discussion among the committee as to when/how DSS becomes involved (do we need to make sure law enforcement has made effort to contact relatives prior to our being involved?), whether other counties would provide timely response, etc.   There was a somewhat grudging acceptance that we would have to accept this policy change to ensure safety of child.   It was emphasized that we will have to respond to other county’s request like we would want our request responded to.

Conclusion:   Committee accepted proposed policy change with an effective date of March 1, 2003.  

Action Items:

• 

Person Responsible:

•  Testing Out of Pre-Service Training

Discussion:   Not discussed.

Conclusion: Will be scheduled for a future meeting.

Action Items:

• 

Person Responsible:

•  Discussion of Reorganization by Sherry Bradsher

Discussion: Sherry Bradsher discussed what has happened since last General Assembly session and budget cuts.   She said that she wanted to talk about where the DSS Division, and specifically Children Services, was going.   There is no grand master plan for reorganization.   There have been good initial discussions and common themes seem to be emerging.   The Division wants to bridge current shortcomings – programmatic silos, lack of communication, etc.   Family-Net will serve as a foundation from a philosophy standpoint – family centered, customer focused, working across program lines.   Program outcomes will become more important – Children Services is already ahead on this.   Domestic violence will be a focus (Secretary Odum’s emphasis).   They will be seeking to breakdown barriers between divisions.   They are looking at many options.   One known is we will not have a section chief for Child Welfare – the position has been eliminated.   Sherry said that she hopes counties are getting communications, etc. from the Division.   They remain committed to progressing and supporting our needs.   Would like conceptual feedback from counties on cross-program communications, how can we better write policy, etc.

Conclusion:

Action Items:

• 

Person Responsible:

•  Faith Based Initiatives, etc.

Discussion: JoAnn handed out and e-mail on President Bush’s executive order implementing faith based program.   It was for information; there was no discussion.   No certain date on the Stumbo ruling – Division will be looking at some alternative plans in case the Court overrules our current practice and policy.

Conclusion:

Action Items:

• 

Person Responsible: