Children Services Committee
3/08/17
Raleigh, NC
Tri Chairs: Tracie Murphy, Heather Skeens, April Snead
In attendance: See sign in form attached.
By telephone (counties): Person, Caldwell, Guilford, Robeson, Johnston, Rutherford, Cleveland,
Lincoln, Catawba, Henderson, Alexander, Anson, Columbus, Edgecombe, Gaston, Chowan,
Rockingham, Stanly, Davidson, Beaufort, Guilford, Brunswick, Franklin, Davie, and Buncombe.
Approval of Minutes: Approval of February 2017 minutes. Karen Ellis from Cleveland County
moved and Sonya Toman from Beaufort seconded. Minutes approved.
Annie Francis, NC Commission of Indian Affairs, Efforts to Recruit American Indian
Foster Families: Last year the Commission received a grant with the goal to partner with private
agencies and DSS agencies to increase the number of licensed American Indian foster homes.
The current goal is to recruit 5-10 families by June 30, 2017 and the Commission is establishing
a protocol to increase numbers. Presently there are three members from the Commission who
are certified to teach MAPP and Deciding Together and they have worked with two counties to
train a family using the Deciding Together curriculum while the local DSS approves the home
and completes the licensing process. Another initiative is to support and retain American Indian
foster families. As a part of this, Ms. Francis is coordinating interviews with current and
previously licensed foster families to understand barriers. Ms. Francis would also like to hear
from DSS agencies about challenges. A third component of the grant is to expand training for
key stakeholders including DSS and families on understanding the cultural competency of nonnative placement providers. The Commission is advertising in tribal newsletters and at Pow
Wows. The Commission is also reaching out to key gatekeepers in tribes to build trust and
attending Tribal Council meetings to share information about American Indian children in care
and the availability of American Indian foster placements. Finally, the Commission is hoping to
do training and find American Indian youth who have aged out of foster care.
NCFAST Presentation, Nitya Genapathy, Dennis Ellis and Rick Thompson: Mr. Thompson
reviewed the schedule including an upcoming user checkpoint during the first three weeks of
May, user testing in July and a second release on schedule for December (see slides for
additional detail). Design activities are continuing with active engagement of pilot and phase I
counties on a weekly basis and have developed a high level conversion strategy. A
recommendation will be made to Executive Advisory Committee that will say that all new intake
reports will be keyed into NCFAST, that data be converted to support foster care cases (for pilot
counties starting on July 31st all case data will be documented in system), and all other cases that
will start life after July 31st will be in NCFAST. All other cases that began their life prior to July
31st will not be converted. The time estimate that started at 13 hours for conversion is now
reduced to 1.5 hours for conversion. The deadline for all information to be converted will be a
year after go live. Document management options are still under consideration. The two options
studied including a Northwoods approach (in Alamance) and File Net Solution (in Raleigh) that
will be taking place in upcoming weeks. It is expected that a decision will be made in April.
Materials are regularly posted in the Learning Gateway and counties are strongly encouraged to
sign up for Learning Gateway and the email distribution list.
Upcoming Events: CPR Project 4 System Review (March 14th)- full day review of NCFAST
Planning Workshops for Pilot and Group One Counties: March 28-30; April 11-13th
Statewide Director’s Meeting April 26-28th demos with hands on time with tablets
Second User Checkpoint: First three weeks in May
User Acceptance in June- July
Release 1 Pilot Go-Live: July 31
A question was asked about other platforms for mobile apps since Diona is only available with
Apple. Ms. Genapathy stated that they are evaluating other options and are planning for an RFP
for other apps and may be able to give more updates after the evaluation process. A question was
asked about the timeframe for this and a timeline is not available. The NCFAST team is working
with the contracting and budget office and Diona about the possibility of expanding however,
surveys indicated that most counties utilize Apple and Ipad while very few counties utilize
Android. Diona has another app that operates on Andriod and the NCFAST team may be able to
give a better update next time. Mr. Ellis indicated that the support infrastructure within counties
in terms using two different operating systems. It will need to be determined if counties have
capacity to support locally or if counties would prefer the state or a vendor to manage. An RFP is
underway for mobile device management at state level. Another consideration is the issue of
over-expanding and the NCFAST team wants to make sure things are working well before
expanding into other platforms.
Mr. Thompson reviewed costs including tablet computers, tablet computer accessories, primary
work computers, scanners, telecommunications, network, staffing/workforce, and document
management system. He reviewed computer requirements. Every social worker will need a
primary computer that could be a desk top, laptop, or hybrid (e.g. Microsoft Surface). The
hardware requirements will be the same as other NCFAST programs. There are several options
for devices working outside the office. Option one is a mobile tablet (i.e. Apple Ipad) that will
have a user interface to support field work but is not intended to be used for all job duties. These
support both connected and disconnected use and syncs data behind the scenes without the social
worker needing to do this. Devices could be individually assigned or pooled and assigned on a
check-in/check-out basis. As a reminder, the Diona App is not able to be used on the iPhone due
to design of the interface. Option two is a laptop/hybrid. These would require an internet
connection and the user interface in NCFAST is not optimized for use in client interactions. This
option may make sense for use at the courthouse and between home visits to complete
paperwork without having to travel back to the office. A mobile App for Microsoft Surface is
not planned at this time. Option three is not using any computing devices. Social workers would
use the current process in the field (i.e. notepad) and everything would be entered once the
worker returns to the office.
A question was asked about the difference between accessing forms like a safety assessment
using option one v. option two. Mr. Thompson stated that the office interface is designed for
printing and signing while option one is designed to be able to do in the field. Ms. Murphy
clarified that one of the things counties have asked for is not to do double work and option one
represents not having to do this. A question was asked about the capability to do electronic
signature in the desktop option and Mr. Ellis stated that this is not designed for electronic
signature.
Mr. Thompson reviewed other options including an external keyboard and recommended getting
a good keyboard that can tolerate heavy use. These will cost approximately $150 and
encouraged counties to try out different versions at the office supply store. There are big
differences in a stylus costs. The $10 is not very precise but the Apple pencil costs $95 and is
much more precise (this only works with the iPad Pro at this time). Other accessories include
charger ($35), a USB charging station that is a caddy with short connectors that can charge
everything at one spot ($45 plus the short cable connectors). A car caddie for the iPad is
approximately $35 (will need to support a heavy iPad and needs a screw mount). This would
allow for mapping on the iPad. Also screen protectors and power stations might be other
accessories to consider based on your county needs.
Rick reviewed the basic specifications for the primary work computer (see slides for details). He
also reviewed scanners. For counties who have document management, then no additional
scanners would be needed. For counties who are not using document management, most office
copiers have scanning capability. Another consideration is to look at scan volume as there are
flatbed scanners (slow) or document scanners. Price points vary dramatically. The examples
provided range from $279 for a light duty scanner to $845 for a heavy duty scanner (e.g. this
would be for shared use). Fujitsu is recommended by Northwoods and is often used.
Mr. Thompson also reviewed costs for data. Data plans range from $40 for 6 GB to $70 for 12
GB but 10 GB would likely be sufficient. This pricing is based on individual user and counties
could probably realize significant cost savings by pooling plans among staff. Wireless
connectivity will be needed if counties do not already have this. A Wi-Fi hotspot costs about
$250 with a mid-range router. There is a spreadsheet in Fast Help that will tell you what network
capacity is needed.
There are a number of considerations for capacity required for NCFAST implementation. Prior
to go-live, data cleansing, and general county readiness prep will be needed. On-site support will
be needed during training time. Other impacts on employee time include general training time,
on-site support time, impact of learning curve on productivity, and case conversion (will take
approximately 1.5 hours per foster care case).
Rick Thompson reviewed document management. DHHS should have clarity around document
management system (DMS) strategy in April. Other cost impacts include scanners, storage) on
state-level document management system. Counties would need to determine if they plan on
storing non-NCFAST documents like child support, HR records, and board packets. The storage
of NCFAST related case documents are to be paid by the state. Storage of non-NC FAST
documents is optional. The only cost for non-NCFAST documents would be storage
(approximately $15K per GB of storage). A county cost estimation spreadsheet has been
developed so that counties could enter their information and understand the cost that might be
incurred. Once this is approved, it will be sent out to directors and the Learning Gateway. The
Learning Gateway can be accessed at https:ncfasttraining.nc.gov. There is a slide that shows the
number of users who have registered for the Learning Gateway on the slide deck.
[email protected] to sign up for the email distribution list. Questions
may also be sent to this email address.
Linda Clement and Phil Lassiter, ESSA: Ms. Clement provided information about the ESSA
legislation to address questions raised by counties. She reviewed the legislation (see slide for
more detail). ESSA should apply across state lines since it is federal legislation and states are in
various phases on implementation. There is no way to guarantee that you will have collaboration
across state lines. This applies to all public schools (including charter and alternative schools).
The legislation indicates that a best interest determination be made prior to a school change. In
NC this will be a Best Interest Determination (BID). If there is a disagreement then it will be
made by School Superintendent and DSS Director with the ultimate decision being made by
DSS. Ms. Clement reviewed transportation procedures including that educational and county
agencies must provide and fund school of origin transportation. Even if the educational agency
does not transport other students, transportation must still be provided for these students. If a
child has an IEP counties should be looking at Title I funding to use this to fund cost of
transportation. If transportation cannot be covered by any other funding then the school system
and DSS will need to develop an agreement re payment. Statewide sessions were well attended
with an average attendance of 50. School systems and DSS agencies were seated at the same
tables to facilitate planning. In order to estimate costs, counties will need to look at number of
children who have been historically impacted by this.
Phil Lassiter, LBL, discussed reimbursement. Counties must budget for this to be able to pay for
it and while it may be difficult to estimate, counties should look at what is being done and what
might be done in the future and use these numbers to budget. Impact on counties will likely vary
widely. There are a couple of funding options. Maintenance costs for children in family foster
homes who are IV-E eligible and IV-E reimbursable (i.e. licensed home) where the payment is
being made to the foster parent, can be claimed on 5094 and receive 66% reimbursement. For
children who are state funded this can still put on 5094 however counties will not get
reimbursement since there is no maximization of cost. If agency staff are providing the
transportation and the child is in IV-E placement then code 251 Z if state then 251 X. Another
option is to contract the service out. A full contract would be required (not an MOA unless a
school system or other governmental entity). This cost would be claimed on the 1571 on Part IV.
Children with trust accounts could be used to help pay transportation and would be a county
decision. A conversation should be had with director, fiscal staff and program staff so there is
consensus about how this will be paid for and claimed.
A question was asked about what came up at a session where it was said that all children if in
foster care could be considered Title I. In Wake County, they are planning to use IV-E and Title
I funding. Ms. Clement clarified that while she heard the same thing, that school systems may
not have budgeted enough Title I funds. In one of the sessions, a county was successful in
working with DPI to get additional Title I funds after flooding significantly increased
transportation costs for children who were homeless.
Transportation Disputes: If educational and child welfare agencies are unable to reach
agreement on funding after 30 days, then the disagreement can be referred for state level Points
of Contact for DSS (Betty Kelly) and DPI (Jan Moore with Serve organization). If state POC are
unable to reach agreement then the educational and county child welfare agencies must split the
cost. Discussion was had regarding cross county disputes. In one county there is a 10 mile
transportation need but the school system will only transport in a school bus with a fee of over $3
a mile. Ms. Clement recommended reaching out to Jan Moore in these types of situations.
A question was asked about why Title I funds couldn’t be used across the board since all
children are Title I. Ms. Clement agreed to take this back to Jan Moore to get clarification. A
question was asked about whether or not Title I is capped and Ms. Clement said that it is,
however, counties have been able to ask for additional funding. Wake County agreed to use IVE first when it could be and then Title I for all non-IV-E children as there is cost associated with
drawing down Title I funding.
The state will not be specifically designing an MOU, however there are two online and can be
found at http://center.serve.org/hepnc/fostercare.php at NC Foster Care Education and the Legal
Center for Foster Care and Education
http://www.fostercareandeducation.org/AreasofFocus/EducationStability.aspx
A question was asked about children who return home but are still in custody if funding could
still be used. Ms. Clement clarified that it applies to any child in physical custody until custody
is returned. Schools are strongly encouraged to let children remain in the school until the end of
the year even after custody is returned.
Ms. Clement reported that there is a possibility that ESSA will be overturned, however,
Fostering Connections Act still requires this. On February 7, 2017 the US House of
Representatives voted to overturn ESSA and the US Senate will possibly vote as soon as this
week to overturn the regulation. President Trump has indicated his willingness to sign it.
A question was asked about using Title I if ESSA is overturned and Ms. Clement will obtain
clarification on this.
A decision was made to postpone the Adoption Promotion Discussion until the May
meeting due to lack of time.
PIP Update Arlette Lambert: Representatives from counties are serving on workgroups and
may have heard about consultants working on Capacity Building for States. Children’s Bureau
had National Resource Centers set up to provide technical system to states, courts and tribes. NC
has utilized these in the past. Children’s Bureau has moved away from National Resource
Centers to Capacity Building for States (there are three now, one for states, courts and tribes).
NC has entered into a contract (non-financial) to provide ongoing technical assistance for the
Program Improvement Process using subject matter experts. For example, one expert is a social
work professor and another is a former state child welfare director. The policy, training and
technical assistance workgroups are using expertise of the consultants which has been invaluable
information from the outsider’s perspective. It is anticipated that the Division will be using their
services for the duration of the PIP. There is also a family partner expert that is helping with the
Family Leadership Model group. This expert is a parent who was involved in child welfare
system and has been very successful in implementing parent models in her home state.
Ms. Skeens reminded everyone that a meeting will not be held in April and Ms. Murphy
reminded counties to participate in their assigned PIP workgroups.
Meeting adjourned 12:43 PM.
Minutes respectfully submitted by:
Heather Skeens, Director, Guilford County
Tracie Murphy, Director, Davie County
April Snead, Director, Scotland County
Jennie Kristiansen, Director, Chatham County & Kim Harrell, Director, Yadkin County
(apprentices)