Children Services Minutes - June 11, 2003

Minutes

Children Services Committee Meeting

June 11, 2003

 

•  Review Agenda, Approve Minutes and Set New Agenda Items

Present: John Shore, Brenda Jackson, Colleen Turner, Sue Kerns, Velvet Newman, Denise Shaffer, Rita Bland, Linda Cole, Pam Grantham, Bertram Wilson, Beckie Kimbrell, Joyce Edwards, Cyndy Denson, Margaret Johns, DaDonna Coulter, Keith Davis, Lisa Roberson, Shellie Woodberry, Wanda Bullard, Linda Galacci, Connie Oxendine, Sandra Sink, Sany Brookshire, Tom Brewer, Karen Hoyle.

Conclusion: Approved minutes of March meeting.   Members expressed interest in discussing the following issues:   Cross County issues (work group still working on); HIPPA; advocate for Medicaid coverage for undocumented children; the need to include DV in kinship care assessment; E-mail reports – how to respond with results of investigation.   Brenda Jackson announced these would be used to set the scope of work for the Committee at the next meeting.

Action Items:  

Person Responsible:

Deadline:

•  Division of Social Services Re-Organization

Discussion:   Ester High passed out new organizational chart for Div. of Social Services.   Both Work First and Children’s Services report to JoAnn now.   This is State organization reflecting the tie between the two programs.

 

Conclusion:

Action Items:

• 

Person Responsible:

Deadline:

•  Legislative Overview and Update

Discussion: Ester High passed out pending bill which could affect Children’s Services: SB 421 which makes technical corrections to Child Welfare laws; HB 126 which clarifies the law governing evidence in certain juvenile hearings; and, HB 1048 which makes recommended revisions to the juvenile code.   There is an attempt being made to tack HB 402 that would restrict social worker access to homes onto SB 421.

Conclusion:

Action Items:

• 

Person Responsible:

Deadline:

•  LINKS Allocation and Work Group

Discussion: Joan McAllister handed out materials about Education Training Vouchers.   This provides up to $5,000 per year for educational vouchers for kids aging out or adopted after 16.   Kids can receive until through age 23.   The State can use part of its current Chaffee grant to start the program now.   Joan wants committee approval to proceed.   Orphan Foundation of America is willing to administer the scholarship program for 9% of the grant.   Also needs committee approval.   Motion to approve the immediately proceeding with the program and to allow OFA to administer.   Approved.

Joan suggested work group on maximizing LINKS spending and allocation process.   Brenda will put out on list serve to get volunteers.

Conclusion: Authorized proceeding with program and allowing Orphan Foundation of America to administer.

Action Items:

  • Use listserv to solicit volunteers for a work group on LINKS spending and allocation.

Person Responsible:

Brenda James

Deadline:

July 9

•  Review State Mental Health Plan

Discussion:   An overview of the State Plan was presented.   Are children in juvenile court population a target group?   Yes.   Concerns about local capacity to provide needed services.   Children can get treatment but what about parents?   Will it slow us down in moving children to permanence due to difficulty in getting parents treatment?   Some counties already have to pay private providers to testify in court.   Will more of this occur with costs shifting to local DSS?   With Medicaid payment driving system, lots of adults not covered.   How do we treat families?

Conclusion: Counties are encouraged to provide comments on the State Plan be the June 20 deadline.

Action Items:

• 

Person Responsible:

Deadline:

•  Program Improvement Plan

Discussion:  

There is an interest in looking at the Program Improvement Plan resulting from the Federal audit and how different initiatives fit into our response to the plan.   JoAnn Lamm was not present so this discussion was postponed.   We did look at the following specific initiatives:

  • MRS – Caldwell County has all 5 teams doing MRS.   They have reassigned duties to create more assessors.   Biggest problem is balancing caseloads.   Alamance County implemented countywide to start.   Difficulties in transitions caseloads from old system to new.   Instituted shared parenting with successes and challenges.   Contracted for 4 facilitators to do Family Group Conference.   Craven also had difficulty in transition.   Mecklenburg implemented in 2 of 5 districts.    Guilford implemented countywide but also experiencing transition issues.   Any county looking at implementing MRS should look at their case planning cases and close as many as possible.   Attention should be paid to not keeping such cases open too long.
  • MRS Evaluation – UNC has expressed interest in joining Duke in doing evaluation.   Discussions are on going.
  • Structured Intake Training – Problems.   Training got out-of-control in some locations.   Groups too large and trainers not properly prepared.   Workers don’t see big picture and how pieces fit together.   Line staff feeling overwhelmed.   Need to tell folks what is difference and why it is different.   Discussion centered on how to better promote change and timing of change so as not to overload frontline staff.
  • MRS Stakeholders Advisory Board – Suggestion has been made to create a MRS Stakeholders Advisory Board at the State level to more closely tie in Children’s Services stakeholders to the system changes.   Committee agreed on desirability of such a group.

Conclusion:

Action Items:

• 

Person Responsible:

Deadline:

Wilson

Old report form, minimum of 15 minutes on the phone with reporter, sometimes longer depending on nature of the report.   Initial completion of new report form 30 to 45 minutes, sometimes longer.   Currently app. 30 minutes to complete, as with old intake can take longer depending on situation.  

When call volumes are high, we have had to back up the intake worker.   I do not think this would necessitate an additional staff person for our agency, but for some counties this might be an issue.  

Because of the program improvement plan this is difficult to say.   We have accepted more reports since piloting this form; it is difficult to determine the variable.   Statewide the number of accepted reports has risen.  

More information is gathered on the new form, therefore it is expected that a better screening is received resulting in more acceptable reports.  

There is a structure to the intake process.   When used correctly it gives enough information to accurately screen a report.   Thoroughly breaks down every issue that might be a risk factor to children.   It also gathers specific information that might have been missed in the last Intake form.

Have not used the screening decision flow charts, which is expected to increase reports.

Frustration of reporters sometimes due to length of the report and type of questions asked.  

Sometimes calls get backed up or additional staff manpower is needed to take referrals causing work delays.

The report itself is not user friendly; need to work with automation to find some shortcuts to manage this issue.  

Much more paper involved for copying and storing the document.

With the roll out of MRS, the increase in number of CPS reports and the use of the new form, Structured Intake should be monitored to determine the impact on Intake and the manpower needed to ensure accuracy and timeliness in child protection.