|
|
|
Minutes Children Services Committee Meeting 9/8/04 |
||
1. Review Agenda, Approve Minutes and Set New Agenda Items |
||
Present: Donn Gunderson, Brenda Jackson, Karen Hoyle, Velvet Perdue, Karen Thurman, Denise Shaffer, Rita Bland, Adrian Daye, Mike Herzing, Laura O'Neal, Cyndy Benson, Denise Boyette, Cathy Dixon, Bertram Wilson, John Eller, Eddie Wooten, Adgenda Turner, Lee Roberts, JoAnn Lamm, Jack Jones, Sara Mims, Keith Moon, Keith Davis, Esther High, Ruth Harrison, Janine Russell, Teresa Turner, Tracy Turner, Debra Jones, Sharon Williams |
||
Conclusion: Brenda Jackson asked if there were any additional items for the Agenda. JoAnn indicated that she wanted to discuss whether our Committee needed to review manual changes from manuals issued by other Divisions that affect Children's Services and she wanted to announce that the Family Services Case Plan policy would be late coming out. Brenda asked for additions, deletions, or corrections to the Minutes from the August 11, 2004 meeting. Hearing none she asked for a motion to approve the Agenda for the September 8, 2004 meeting and the Minutes from the August meeting. Karen Thurman so moved, Cyndy Benson offered a second and the motion carried unanimously. |
||
Action Items: • None |
Person Responsible:
|
Deadline:
|
2. MRS Update-JoAnn Lamm |
||
Discussion: JoAnn reported that 52 counties now in MRS with 10 being fully implemented. Nineteen (19) of the 42 counties who are not fully implemented have not implemented for assessments. |
||
Conclusion: The Committee needs to follow implementation. Training for the 42 newer counties remains an issue. |
||
Action Items: • None |
Person Responsible:
|
Deadline:
|
3. Domestic Violence(DV) Policy-JoAnn Lamm, Tracy Turner |
||
Discussion: JoAnn and Tracy reported on fine tuning-language changes that had been made at Tracy's suggestion and reported that the policy had been issued and is on the Division's website. A training schedule is being developed that will take into account those counties that went through the initial training sessions under the original policy. The DV Community leadership has been oriented on the changes to the policy. The policy will be phased in with the 10 original MRS going first. These counties are to track how much additional time the new policy generates for the line worker. While it is too late to develop a fiscal note on this policy, the 10 original pilot MRS counties can provide this information which can be used to further fine-tune the policy. Because many of the time consuming aspects of this policy have been made optional to counties, it is believed that the policy will have minimal time impact on workers handling cases with DV as a part of them. |
||
Conclusion: The Training Schedule and policy roll-out needs to be monitored by the Committee. There needs to be follow-up on the fiscal impact of this policy. |
||
Action Items: • None |
Person Responsible:
|
Deadline:
|
4. CPS Funding Allocation-JoAnn Lamm, Donn Gunderson, Brenda Jackson |
||
Discussion: It was reported that the Director's Ad-Hoc CWS Funding Committee had recommended to the State that the funding be allocated to bring the counties not at 1:12 caseload ratio to 1:12. With the remaining funding it was recommended that the funds be allocated to the 52 MRS counties to bring them up to a 1:10 worker to case ratio. It had been further specified that counties would have to agree in writing to actually create the positions before funding would be allocated. Further it was recommended that counties would to be using all of there available funding sources (TANF, SSBG, etc.) before funding could be awarded. The Division would be enforcing these recommendations through follow up contact with the counties to verify that requirements had been met. |
||
Conclusion: No specific action was taken. The plan is for the Division and the Social Services Consortium to go back to the General Assembly in the long session asking them to finish the job of funding the remaining counties so that they can properly implement MRS. |
||
Action Items: • None |
Person Responsible:
|
Deadline:
|
5. Upgrade From IV-E Funding Work Group-Donn Gunderson |
||
Discussion: JoAnn Lamm was asked about the IV-E Waiver expansion. She reported only 38 counties had expressed interest and that David Atkinson was in negotiation with the Feds to gain final approval. Donn reported that the Work Group had met and that they had no definitive answers about MRS and IV-E Funding. It appears that for three of the 10 pilot MRS counties, IV-E funding had siginificantly dropped. It appeared that in these counties, the MRS recommended policy of one worker-one case might be a factor. In these counties there was more coding to 210 (intake and investigations) and less coding to 215 (CPS Treatment). Code 210 cannot be charged to IV-E, while 210 can. Thus it is believed that in these three counties who had stayed with the one worker-one case practice the longest, the assessment workers were holding onto the case longer and were coding to 210. Since they were not doing CPS Treatment they were not coding to IV-E. The State is sending LBL's out to these counties to verify the theory. Factors for all counties around the loss of IV-E revenue could be the implementation of the new structured intake tool and the scare created by the federal IV-E Audit. |
||
Conclusion: The conclusions from the research done by the LBL's in the pilot Counties needs to be distributed to all current and upcoming MRS counties. This information should be a part of the implementation instruction and training for new MRS counties. |
||
Action Items: • None |
Person Responsible:
|
Deadline:
|
6. Upadte On the Child Care Policy Work Group-Brenda Jackson |
||
Discussion: Brenda reported that the group had finished its work and that the policies had been streamlined and refined. She reported satisfaction with the changes and reported that the policy would come to this Committee next month (October). |
||
Conclusion: |
||
Action Items: • None |
Person Responsible:
|
Deadline:
|
7. Child Welfare Training Issues-JoAnn Lamm |
||
Discussion: The General Assembly has reduced funding to the CWS training function in the most recent budget. JoAnn reported that none of the Regional Training Centers would be eliminated but that the Division wanted to look at the curriculum for streamlining and cost savings. They wanted a work group from the counties. |
||
Conclusion: Volunteers/Appointees from Children's Services were : Cyndy Benson (Catawba), Karen Hoyle(Alexander), John Eller(Swain), and Debra Jones (Greene) |
||
Action Items: • None |
Person Responsible:
|
Deadline:
|
8. 2005 Federal Program Review-JoAnn Lamm |
||
Discussion: JoAnn reported that the next Federal Review would occur sometime between the Fall of 2005 and the Winter of 2006-06. NC faces financial penalties if we fail the review. The passing threshold has been increased form 90% to 95%. The Division is developing a game plan to help counties identify likely problem areas. It is not known for sure which counties the Feds will pick except by rule they must go to the largest metropolitan county, which in our case is Mecklenburg. |
||
Conclusion: |
||
Action Items: • None |
Person Responsible:
|
Deadline:
|
9. Committee Work Plan For 2004-2005 -Co-Chairs |
||
Discussion: The work plan had been attached with the meeting mailing. |
||
Conclusion: John Eller moved that the plan be approved. Karen Hoyle seconded the motion which carried unanimously. |
||
Action Items: • None |
Person Responsible:
|
Deadline:
|
10. Manuals From Other Divisions-JoAnn Lamm |
||
Discussion: JoAnn reported that she had been approached by staff from other DHHS Divisions (primarily Aging) concerning policies and service codes used by CW social workers in the provision of services (Health Support Services, Transportation, Individual and Family Adjustment {330}, Housing Improvement but were now part of manuals which are the responsibility of other Divisions. Did we want mini-sections dealing with these services as they relate to CWS in the Children's Services Manual or could they stay in the other Division Manual? Did we want staff from the other Divisions to come before this Committee with any changes to these manuals? |
||
Conclusion: It was decided to table this discussion until next month thus allowing JoAnn time to consult with Suzanne Merrill of the Division of Aging and Adult Services to come up with a recommendation. |
||
Action Items: • Bring this back next month |
Person Responsible: JoAnn Lamm |
Deadline: 10/04 |
