State Executive Council / State & Local Advisory Team

DRAFT MINUTES September 3, 2009
STATE & LOCAL ADVISORY TEAM (SLAT)
COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES FOR AT-RISK YOUTH & FAMILIES
Dining Hall, United Methodist Family Services
3900 W. Broad Street, Richmond

Members Present: Randy Blevins, SLAT Chair, Association of Court Service Directors; Mark Hinson, Parent Representative; Vicki Hardy-Murrell, Parent Representative; Debra Pierce, CSA Coordinators Network; Becky China, CSA Coordinators Network; Kathleen Drumwright, VACSB; Penny Combs, VCOPPA; Judith Lemke, VCOPPA; Karen Tompkins, VCOPPA; Shawn Rozier; League of Social Services Executives; Paul Raskopf, DOE; Susan Cumbia Clare, DOE; Paul McWhinney, DSS; Janet Lung, Virginia Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services (DBHDS); Katharine Hunter, (DBHDS); Kim Barnes, VDH

Members Absent: The Honorable Sharon Will, Virginia Council of J & DR Judges; Catherine Hancock, DMAS; Scott Reiner, DJJ

Guests and OCS Staff: Chris Ruble, Jeannie Decker, Denise Gallop, Gail Schreiner, Karen Reilly-Jones, Tom Woods, Charlotte McNulty, Carol Wilson, Dawn Howard, Dave Nichols, Marsha Mucha

Call to Order: Randy Blevins, Chair called the meeting to order at 9:35 a.m. and asked for introductions.

Approval of Minutes: The minutes of the July 2, 2009 meeting were approved on a motion made by Mark Hinson, seconded by Paul McWhinney and carried.

Public Comment:
There was no public comment.

Executive Director’s Report (July/August 2009)
Charlotte provided members with a written update on recent opportunities she had to educate a variety of stakeholders about Transformation and CSA. Also included in the written update were opportunities where OCS staff and Charlotte in particular had collaborated with other stakeholders at the state and local level.

Paul McWhinney thanked Charlotte for her participation on several DSS workgroups and Penny Combs thanked her for meeting with the private provider community and VCOPPA.

CSA Coordinator Model Job Description
Carol Wilson reported that the idea of making available a model job description for the CSA Coordinator position had been suggested in recent years by JLARC and the Hanger Commission. SB 1181, passed by the 2009 General Assembly, requires the Director of OCS to develop and distribute a model job description for the position of CSA Coordinator.

Carol further reported that a small workgroup was convened to draft the job description. Because CSA Coordinators are utilized differently in each locality, the workgroup focused on creating an essential array of responsibilities and areas of duties that might fall under the purview of the CSA Coordinator. The areas of responsibilities are not necessarily areas where the CSA Coordinator would perform all of the duties themselves but they would fall under their supervision. Carol noted that the job description was drafted using the state’s Employee Work Profile (EWP) format.

During discussion it was noted that the job description should include additional language to enhance the importance of the CSA Coordinator’s role in ensuring family participation and engagement in the FAPT process. Once revisions have been made, the model job description will be distributed as legislatively required.

CANS Update
Carol Wilson reported on the CANS implementation. She noted her last report to SLAT was in March when RCR was in Richmond providing training and initial testing of the CANS on-line software which is known as CANVaS. Carol noted that even with a number of delays and missed deadlines on the part of VITA/Northrop Grumman, CANVaS became operational on July 1. Because of the delays and missed deadlines there were no opportunities to test the software on Virginia’s servers before it became operational. The first users in localities thus became testers, who identified issues and glitches as they used CANVaS for assessments. .

Carol reported that feedback has been generally positive on use of the online system. So far just under 1,000 on-line assessments have been completed and the software is working well. There have been some technical issues such as difficulty in printing the assessment which were addressed and information shared with localities through a FAQ document. RCR is providing help desk functions and setting up user accounts. RCR has been experiencing a backlog of users trying to set up accounts which is problematic so recently an on-line user account form has been developed to help speed up the process of setting up the new accounts.

A Policies and Procedures for Access to CANVaS document was developed and may be found on the CSA website under the CANS link. These procedures are in place. Super Users and/or Report Administrators verify the certifications for those individuals establishing case manager accounts. User agreements for case managers are signed off on by the Super User and/or Report Administrator in their locality. The Super Users/Report Administrators have access to all CANS data for their localities. Case Managers only have access to the assessments they enter into CANVaS. Carol thanked the many Super Users for their efforts and support in organizing their local CANS implementation.

Carol reported that CANVaS will be able to capture outcome data in the three categories as requested by the SEC. The SEC had charged the second CANS workgroup to work with Dr. Lyons to revise the CANS to measure data in three areas; improvement in level of child’s functioning, increased family involvement in planning and decision-making, and child’s success in school. OCS plans to provide some initial outcome data on these three measures at the SEC meeting in December.

Discussion centered on reviving the CANS workgroup in the near future to begin looking at what other types of outcome data, besides the SEC outcomes, should be developed. It was noted that Dr. Lyons has developed a residential algorithm for Virginia but it has not yet been piloted or installed in the software.

There was also discussing concerning the frequency of the administration of the CANS assessment instrument. The current frequency of administration was approved by the SEC for the initial year, and the CANS workgroup will revisit that topic as part of their work and advise the SEC of any recommended changes.

A message will be sent out over the CSA list serve that, any localities still using the paper CANS assessment form beyond July 1, 2009, will need to reenter those assessments using the on-line CANVaS software. Secretary Tavenner, the chair of the SEC, has requested that a full year of data be provided beginning July 1, 2009.

SEC Policy Discussion
Pool Funds Carve Out
Charlotte reported that OCS would like to ask the SEC to develop a workgroup to study the possibility of developing a pool fund carve out option for localities to be able to develop new community-based services.

Charlotte noted that this was not a new concept but was done at one time and had been discussed by the SEC during 1995 and 1996. In October 1995, the State Management Team (now the SLAT) recommended to the SEC that it discontinue making contributions to the Trust Funds and make a limited amount of funds available through a “request for proposal” process. This funding would be considered a “carve-out” so that all localities could access pool funds as venture capital. The common complaint was similar to today’s complaint that the “per child” requirement to access CSA pool funds did and does not allow for the development of new programs that are less-restrictive treatment options. The SEC required the State Management Team (now SLAT) to establish a workgroup to develop policies and procedures for the program operation.

In May 1996 the SEC decided to table the issue until there was further discussion and decision about the Trust Funds and because of the new Virginia Juvenile Crime Control Act. Charlotte explained that the Trust Funds are no longer available and funding from the Virginia Juvenile Crime Control Act has been significantly depleted. The 2009 General Assembly did not provide funding for the Innovative Community Services Grants and a legislative proposal to carve out a certain percentage of pool fund allocations for localities to use to develop new community-based services did not pass the Session.

During discussion, SLAT members expressed their interest in asking the SEC to establish a workgroup to further explore a pool fund carve out option. Debra Pierce and Becky China volunteered to participate on a workgroup. Penny Combs also stated that VCOPPA would like to have a representative on the workgroup.

Use of Pool Funds for Children in Residential to Support Transition to Community
Charlotte called attention to the historical documents sent with the SLAT meeting materials on this issue. A position paper (January 1996) from the State Management Team (now SLAT) outlined the argument for the use of pool funds for services in an IFSP to support non-educational needs of children and families in order to keep them in their home school and out of more restrictive private day or residential placement. The paper ended with a statement of belief that this action would result in cost savings to the CSA system. The Attorney General was asked to provide an opinion (November 1995) as to the legality of the State Management Team recommendation, which he did stating “From a legal perspective, the Special Education report appears to be consistent with State and federal law.”

Charlotte explained that OCS would like to ask the SEC to consider (at their March 2010 meeting) that a workgroup be established to consider policy, implementation strategies and training regarding the local use of pool funds for IFSP services supporting children and families transitioning home from residential placements.

SLAT members endorsed asking the SEC to establish a workgroup. It was noted that the workgroup should be chaired jointly by OCS and DOE. Also, in development of any new policy, it is important to reiterate the requirement that children receive the education they need and sometimes that can not be achieved in the child’s home school. Judith Lemke, Vicki Hardy-Murrell and Mark Hinson expressed interest in serving on the workgroup.

Youth and Family Engagement
Charlotte reported that after discussion at the July SLAT meeting, it was important to revisit developing a family engagement model for CSA; one that is not necessarily tied to the VDSS or LDSS family engagement model. Charlotte provided background information on the statutory requirements for family engagement in the CSA system. The statute provides guidance for the roles and responsibilities for the SEC, CPMT and FAPT. It also provides specific guidance on several other important aspects of the programs, such as who has access to pool funds, the purpose of the pool funds, court involvement, etc.

Charlotte further explained that the statute does not provide strong language that provides guidance related to youth and family engagement, one of the basic tenants of the law. Several family engagement models exist. Each uses a trained facilitator to work with the family, youth, appropriate providers and any person who the family identifies as important to them in a supportive capacity. The result is a plan for the child and family that has the agreement of all parties. VDSS has already undertaken a significant effort to require that every LDSS adopt a structured family engagement model.

Charlotte reported that OCS would like to recommend to the SEC that a workgroup be developed to promulgate rules that further explain the intent of the CSA statute to require family engagement, and promote best practices in family engagement for any CSA child regardless of the referral agency. In addition, it is hoped that this process could decrease the burden on FAPTs. The promulgation of rules would not exceed the SEC’s statutory authority or intrude on local autonomy under the statute. The policy recommendations would be presented for the SEC’s consideration at their March 2010 meeting.

During discussion, Vicki Hardy-Murrell explained that this was really needed. It was also noted that this workgroup should not duplicate efforts underway by other workgroups (i.e. VDSS and DBHDS). It will be important to include members from those workgroups on this new workgroup. VCOPPA would also like to have a representative on the workgroup.

Use of Multidisciplinary Teams
Charlotte reported that OCS would like to have SLAT serve as the workgroup for exploring the process by which localities can request approval from the SEC for the use of multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) in place of FAPTs. Charlotte noted that she was very surprised that no locality had taken advantage of the request procedure since 2004 and she wanted to know why the process is not being used. Charlotte explained that legislation passed by the 2009 General Assembly requires that OCS develop and distribute guidelines, approved by the SEC, regarding development and use of MDTs to encourage multidisciplinary service planning and reduce FAPT caseloads so FAPTs can devote time to more complex cases.

Charlotte asked each SLAT member to see what they could find out about why the process is not being used. Initial discussion among the members reflected the perception that the statute requires and the SEC will not approve any MDT that does not have the same representation as FAPT. Past requests that have limited the number of participants have been denied. However, there are other ways to develop a flexible MDT which should be explored. A good part of the November SLAT meeting will be devoted to discussing what SLAT members have discovered. SLAT will then be in a position to make a recommendation to the SEC concerning the process that is currently in place and whether or not changes need to be made to that process.

Adjournment
There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 11:15 a.m. on a motion by Mark Hinson, seconded by Paul Raskopf and carried.