Louisa County Seal, click for homepage Louisa County Seal, click for homepage
Contact    Sitemap    Search    

Menu
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
MARCH 10, 2009
5:30 P.M.



Board Members Present: Fitzgerald A. Barnes, Dan W. Byers, Willie L. Gentry, Jr., Willie L. Harper, Richard A. Havasy, P.T. Spencer, Jr. and Jack T. Wright



Others Present: Dale Mullen, County Administrator/County Attorney; Ernie McLeod, Deputy County Administrator; Jeremy Camp, Director of Community Development; Kevin Linhares, Director of Facilities Management; Bob Hardy, Director of Information Technology; Robert Dubé, Fire Chief; Jane Shelhorse, Director of Parks and Recreation; Sherry Vena, Director of Human Resources; April Lowe, Acting Office Manager, Administration; Zuwana Morgan, Deputy Clerk, Administration; and Brittany Shupe, Records Clerk, Administration


CALL TO ORDER

Chairman Harper called the March 10, 2009 meeting of the Louisa County Board of Supervisors to order at 5:30 p.m.  Mr. Wright led the invocation.

ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

Mr. Harper said he would like to add a resolution in support of VDOT abandonment of a 30 foot easement on primary Route 208 (New Bridge Road).  Mr. Harper said he would like add a closed session to the agenda.

On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Byers, which carried by a vote of 6-0,  with Mr. Barnes being absent, the March 10, 2009 agenda was adopted as amended.

PRESENTATIONS

PRESENTATION A System Approach to Caring for “Our” Children

Mr. David Nichols, Technical Assistant Coordinator for CSA, stated he was looking forward to coming before the Board.  

Mr. Nichols said CSA was put together because there were concerns about the rate that money was being spent on childrens services and the fact that it was increasing 20 percent year after year.  

Mr. Nichols read through the following slides;

Impetus for CSA
Department of Planning & Budgets Study of Childrens Residential Services (1990)

-        Costs increasing 22% annually in residential services (for foster care & special education youth mandated sum sufficient by law)

-        Annual state shortfalls (additional $14 million in FY 1990)

-        Complex funding structure 14 categorical funding streams

-        Over 14,000 children across 4 child serving agencies - 4,993 children

-        Over 80% involved with 2 or more agencies for residential services (social services, schools, court services units, community services boards)

-        31% with 3 agencies

-        19% with 4 agencies

-        89% emotional and/or behavioral problems

-        77% significant problems in school suspended, expelled, truant, drop out

-        50% problems with alcohol or substance abuse

Characteristics of Systems of Care Reforms

CSA System of Care Approach

Collaborative system of services & funding

-        Child-centered, family-focused, community-based & cost-effective

Preserve & strengthen families

-        Enable children to remain in homes, schools & communities whenever possible

-        Provide services in least restrictive environment appropriately meets needs

-        Protect welfare of children & maintain public safety

CSA System of Care Approach

Design individualized services

-        Provide services that respond to strengths and needs of children & their families

-        Increase family involvement & interagency collaboration

-        Encourage public/private partnership in service delivery

Pool funds & allocate to community teams

-        Consolidate categorical funding across agencies

-        Place authority & accountability for funding/service decisions with community teams

-        Provide communities flexible funds to purchase public/private services

-        Maintain each agencys responsibility for normal services

 Who is served under CSA?

-        18,195 children served in FY08

-        Demographics

¨        Average age:  12 years 8 months

¨        60% male;  40% female

¨        53% Caucasian;  41% African American;  5% unknown

¨        4% Hispanic

-        Primary reasons for services

¨        35% due to caregiver neglect, physical abuse, incapacity/absence

¨        17% for behavioral problems

¨        16% for special education issues

¨        16% for emotional, mental health, or substance abuse problems

¨          5% court involvement

¨          2% truancy

¨          9% other  

How are youth referred to CSA?

-        Children enter the system through different doors

¨        Local social services (61%)

¨        Schools (23%)

¨        Court service units (7%)

¨        Community service boards (4%)

¨        Other (5%)

What are the needs of CSA Children & Families?

-        Safety from abuse & neglect

-        Stable & permanent homes

-        Safely residing in community

-        Effective parenting skills

-        School attendance

-        Social & peer supports

-        Behavioral & emotional problem management

-        Substance abuse treatment

-        Independent living skills

What Community Services are Provided In Home & School?

-        Comprehensive assessments                

-        Crisis intervention & stabilization services

-        Natural family/community supports

-        Short-term emergency necessities

-        Family support/education

-        Respite care

-        Specialized treatment services

-        Intensive in-home services

-        Behavioral aides

-        School-based services

-        After school services

-        Supervised social/recreational services

-        Mentoring

-        Individual, group, family therapy

-        Substance abuse services

Community Services (continued)

-        Therapeutic day treatment

-        Vocational services

-        Independent living services

-        Medical management

-        Care coordination


What are the costs of CSA services?

-        FY08 Average Expenditures by Service Placement Type

Sorted by Average Expenditures per Child

Residential Treatment Facility32,986

SPED Day Placement

22,718

Therapeutic Foster Home

21,386

Group Home

20,777

Psychiatric Hospital

16,276

SPED Other Day Services

11,194

Independent Living

8,455

Specialized Foster Home

5,805

Community Based Interventions

3,614

Foster Care Maintenance & Other Services

2,197

Family Foster Care Maintenance Only

1,776

What are the drivers of CSA expenditures?

-        Costs driven by multiple factors, some beyond state & local control

¨        Number of mandated children in community

¨        Severity of problems

¨        Availability, type & duration of services  

¨        Service rates

¨        Availability of alternative funding sources  

¨        Local practices

¨        Policy changes

-        Cost of one child or family can unexpectedly place significant strain on a communitys budget.

-        Federal and state policy changes show trend to shift costs to local governments

-        Local service gaps can lead to increased utilization of more intensive services

What are the core beliefs that drive our outcomes?

-        Childcentered, family-focused, community based care

-        A safe environment

-        A system that engages families in the process

-        Serving children in family settings

-        Services that support permanent family connections

-        A system based on collaborative partnerships

What are desired state outcomes?

-        Increase proportion of children served in homes, schools & communities

¨        38.4% of children in FY05

¨        41.7% in FY06

¨        40.9% in FY07  

¨        40.1% in FY08

-        Decrease percentage of children who are in residential care

¨        25% in FY05

¨        25% in FY06

¨        23.3% in FY07

¨        23.7% in FY08

-        Decrease percentage of CSA expenditures on residential care

¨        46.9% in FY05 ($128.1 of $273.2 million)

¨        45% in FY06 ($132.6 of $295 million)

¨        42.4% in FY07 ($145.3 of $342.2 million)

¨        39.9% in FY08 ($155.2 of $388.6 million)

How do communities implement the CSA?

-        Community Policy & Management Team (CPMT)

-        Local Agency Management Representatives Jointly:

-        Coordinate long range community wide planning

-        Establish a multidisciplinary services planning team (FAPT)

-        Manage policies governing referrals and service provision

-        Provide quality assurance of program and fiscal utilization

-        Family Assessment & Planning Team (FAPT)

¨        Provide strength based assessments of children & families

¨        Pool resources of local knowledge to provide individualized plans

¨        Provide ongoing review of plans to adjust services for effective outcomes

Family Assessment & Planning Team
(FAPT) Members

-        Members of the FAPT are appointed by the Community Policy & Management Team.  They include:

-        Required representatives:  Community Services Board, Department of Social Services, Juvenile Court Service Unit, Parent Representative, and SchooL Representative.

-        They often include members of the Health Department, Private Providers, and other Community members.

Family Assessment & Planning Teams Responsibilities

-        Pool together their professional knowledge & skills as well as resources of their agencies

-        Engage the child & family as partners

-        Assess the strengths and needs of children & their families

-        Build upon family strengths & community supports

-        Develop an individualized plan that creatively tailors services & supports to meet needs

Community Policy & Management Teams (CPMTs)

-        Ensure decision making and oversight policies are effective

-        Oversee program evaluation and quality assurance

-        Develop clear procedures for care coordination and utilization management

-        Pool resources to maximize the use of funds across agencies

-        Promote a culture of collaboration among stakeholders

Current strategies for strengthening the CSA

-        Through the Childrens Service Systems Transformation, build a statewide system of regional collaborative to:

¨        Provide enhanced resources for foster care recruitment & retention

¨        Provide technical assistance and tools to develop community based services capacity

-        Improve utilization management functions

¨        Statewide roll-out of Intensive Care Coordination services

¨        Local strengthening of fiscal and utilization review functions

-        Improve child-specific assessment and planning

¨        Implementation of CANS (Virginia Child & Adolescent Needs and Strengths Assessment)

Data Observations on Louisa County

        FY04 through FY08

-        Demographics:

¨        Growth in mandated CSA census across categories with largest growth among white male 7 12 year olds

-        Expenditure Increases:

¨        Largest areas of growth in:

-        Non-Title IV-E Therapeutic Foster Homes and Congregate Care placements and

-        Special Education Day placements

-        Service Array:

¨        There appears to be little use of CSA funds for school based services to prevent out of school placements

-        Top Reasons for Referral:

¨        Neglect, Behavioral Issues, Court Involvement, Caregiver Incapacity and Emotional Issues

Data Observations on Louisa County
        FY09 Q2 Average Expenditures by Services Category

Service/Placement TypeChildServiceActual FY09ProjectedProjectedAvgAvg

CountCountExpendituresAddl. FY09Total FY09ExpendituresExpenditures

  YTD ExpendituresExpenditures/Child/Service

Alternative Day Placement/Special Education Private Day Placement

1414178,893314,054492,94735,21135,211

Therapeutic Foster Home

1717254,620305,927560,54732,97432,974

Group Home (Congregate Care Setting)

78177,34975,817253,16636,16731,646

Intensive In-Home

118,4056,40014,80514,80514,805

Residential Treatment Facility (Congregate Care Setting)

101295,04079,231174,27117,42814,523

Congregate Educational Services - for Medicaid Funded Placements

131445,491120,625166,11612,77911,866

Congregate Educational Services - for Non-Medicaid Funded Placements

3312,0938,26820,3616,7876,787

Family Foster Care Basic Maintenance Payments Only

5510,56514,36624,9314,9874,987

Foster Care Basic Maintenance & Basic Activities Payments

282841,99651,22593,2213,3303,330

Temporary Care Facility and Services (Congregate Care Setting)

224,37404,3742,1872,187

Community Service

343532,87524,17657,0511,6781,631

Specialized Foster Home

229340934467467

Services in Public Schools

11820828282

Totals

81142862,7171,000,0891,862,80622,99813,119


Data Observations on Louisa County

Image1

Image2

Benefits of Collaborative CSA System

-        Improves decision-making

-        Improves outcomes for children & families

-        Provides families, schools & communities support needed

-        Allows more children to stay in homes, schools & communities

-        Uses resources wisely

Resources for Information

-        The CSA Website at www.csa.virginia.gov contains a variety of resources, including training opportunities, statistical reports and profiles and the CSA Code.

-        Information concerning the Virginia Childrens Service System Transformation can be found at: www.vafamilyconnections.com

-        The CSA Manual may be accessed on the website or at: www.csa.state.va.us/html/manual_pubs/pubs_manual.cfm

-        General questions concerning CSA can be directed to David Nichols, Technical Assistance Coordinator at (804) 662-7451 or david.nichols@csa.virginia.gov. Mr. Havasy asked of the 63,000 per child how much of it was administrative.  Mr. Nichols said most administrative cost were funded locally.

Mr. Havasy said out of the $317 million how much of that was federal or Medicare funded.  Mr. Nichols said none come from the Federal government; the funds come from the General Assemblys General Fund.  Mr. Oswell said plus local funds.  Mr. Nichols said yes it was a State and Local match.

Mr. Oswell said there was administrative cost included in the $400 for the day placements.

Mr. Havasy said he thought there were more people helping that were in need and it seemed that the money was going on the wrong side of the curve.  Mr. Havasy said he really wanted to help the children, but when government gets involved it gets off.  Mr. Havasy said he hadnt heard how this was going to be modified.

Mr. Byers said he served on the study team and a lot of the data given this evening, he wasnt aware existed. Mr. Byers asked was there data available that showed how Louisa compared to the State or National average.  Mr. Nichols said they do an annual report, called the CPMT Management Report, and they had the ability to do customized reports.

Mr. Byers asked Mr. Nichols did he see any trend in reducing the number of children going into treatments because of the funding cuts.  Mr. Byers said when he went to review how Hampton ran their CSA, it seemed that they were able to send the children to services that were less expensive, he asked were they mandated services.

Mr. Nichols said you have to know if the child or the service is mandated.  Mr. Nichols said the Hampton community was very unusual because they have developed community based services for their children.  Mr. Nichols said they have specialty providers in their area.

Mr. Gallagher said Louisa was spending one percent of their CSA funding on foster care prevention.  Mr. Gallagher said the mandated programs were foster care and special education.  Mr. Gallagher said this community was spending less than any community he had seen and Hampton was spending a great deal of money on foster care prevention.

Mr. Byers asked if there was someone in the Commonwealth that made sure the proper services were provided.  Mr. Nichols said unfortunately no because of the difference in sizes.

Mr. Spencer said everything in the slides had to do with families and was the same thing from 1997.  Mr. Spencer said the county paid $57,000 last year for community based and home based counseling services and $1,650,000 for the rest.  Mr. Spencer said the Board was told it was court order and then they find out only five percent was court ordered.  Mr. Spencer said the county needed to get back to home based counseling and teach the parents as well.

Mr. Gentry said the five percent problem, the Judge, wasnt at the meeting tonight.  Mr. Gallagher said she had to go to Hampton and she was committed to where the program had to go.

Mr. Gentry said he heard that the school had revaluated the special education numbers and some of them have gone down.  Mr. Gentry asked were the classifications to loose.  Ms. Sara Bright said Louisa County was moving toward something called response intervention, which was a three tier intervention before an evaluation was given.  Ms. Bright said over time the numbers should go down.  Mr. Nichols said Statewide the criteria had not changed.

Mr. Byers said when the money was easy to get to, we tend to gravitate to it.  Ms. Bright said Louisa County has a strict criteria check list that they go by.

Mr. Gentry asked if the users were being tracked to see if the treatments were being effective and cost effective.  Mr. Nichols said this was the first year they have started collecting outcome data.

Mr. Gentry said if the program was different in every county, did that mean that no one had found the best way.  Mr. Nichols said it was a big problem and it was with other locally administered programs also.  Mr. Nichols said the State had no control over administering these programs in a uniform way.

Mr. McLeod said in the 90s the match rate was created, he asked Mr. Nichols to explained why Louisa County was higher than Henrico and Albemarle Counties.  Mr. Nichols said he could not do a good job of explaining, but he could get Mr. McLeod the information from their Business Manager.

Mr. Harper said he couldnt imagine having a program that didnt have a measure for success.  Mr. Harper asked when they started tracking would they also start tracking the accountability of the parent.  Mr. Gallagher said DSS was working very hard at holding parents accountable.  Mr. Oswell said the measures of success depended on what was trying to be accomplished.  Mr. Oswell said if a child was removed from a home and kept safe and the parents got to a point where the child could be taken back then that was success.

Mr. Harper asked was there a measure for the child to return to the home.  Mr. Nichols said yes the State had measures for that.

Mr. Nichols said if there were certain items the Board would like there were some reports through CPMT they could get.

*Mr. Wright left at 6:55

PRESENTATION- Louisa County  CSA Cost Containment and Efficiency Study Repot

Ms. Gail Proffitt said Judge Whitlock wasnt here because she was in court. Ms. Proffitt said there were guidelines the Judge had to go by to remove children from their homes and it was for the safety of the children.  Mr. Spencer said what about the grandparents.  Ms. Proffitt said the grandparents were the one who raised the parents.

Mr. Jack Gallagher, Coordinator of the Louisa County CSA cost containment and efficiency study, said he thought it was very smart of the county to do this study.

Mr. Gallagher said his presentation would consist of the following;

•        Acknowledgements

•        Terminology

•        Reason for the Study    

•        Study Goals

•        Study Methods

•        Study Outcomes

•        Louisa County CSA Strengths

•        Causes/Needs Improvement Areas

•        Solutions/Recommendations

Acknowledgements

•        Study Advisory Team  (SAT)

•        Louisa County  

•        Office of Comprehensive Services (OCS)

•        Charlottesville/Albemarle  CCF

•        Fluvanna County  

•        Hampton         

Image3

Reasons for CSA Study

•        Rising Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) costs

•        Expanding Foster Care and CSA Caseloads

•        Limited Evaluation, Planning, and Resource Development

•        Successful Studies by Other Communities

•        State Requirements and Expectations

•        Desire to Reduce Costs and Improve Efficiency

•        Better Serve Louisa County Children/Families

Image4
Mr. Gallagher said the percentages were only the set cost of the placement, which didnt include employees driving to Richmond, Roanoke and everywhere else.

Image5
Image6
Mr. Gallagher said Louisas CSA Coordinator spends half her week on CSA and of the one half he was willing to bet she spent 80 percent of her time on data entry and organization. Mr. Gallagher said Louisas CSA Coordinator was more of a data entry employee, she kept things together, scheduled meetings and did documentation.  Mr. Gallagher said Louisa has more children and was providing less support.  

Mr. Gallagher said Hampton puts in $300,000 for their CSA administrative costs.  Mr. Gallagher said the State gives $12,500 to each locally to manage CSA.  

Mr. Spencer said when the CSA Coordinator position was under the County Administrator the position looked up the Residential Homes and made sure the Medicare forms were correct.  Mr. Spencer asked was this being done now.  Mr. Gallagher said she was doing that.

Mr. Spencer said  the county approved two CSA caseworkers and there hadnt been any change.  Mr. Oswell said DSS received one Foster Care Worker and one CPS Worker.  Mr. Oswell said at this point DSS was expecting the CSA cost to be $100,000 less than FY 08.  Mr. Oswell said things could happen by the end of fiscal year.


Mr. Gallagher went over the following chart;

Image7
Mr. Gallagher said if the county was spending this amount of money why didnt they start their own residential program in the Bunting House.  Mr. Gallagher said four of the 19 children would be able to stay in the county and less money would be spent.  Mr. Gallagher said the county had to invest wisely and do things differently.

Ms. Laurie Cooper said the Schools doesnt place all the students.  Mr. Spencer asked were the parents paying a co- pay.  Ms Cooper said if it was an IEP placement the parents didnt have to because they were entitled to free public education.  Mr. Byers said the county had to be creative and proactive.

Ms. Julia Williams said she would like to see everyone get on the same page of what was happening today.  Mr. Gallagher said it was a benefit for Mr. Byers and Mr. Wright to be apart of the study.  Mr. Gallagher said he didnt see any slackers, everyone was working hard but not working smart.

Mr. Gallagher said family does play a part; however, there were children in the program that were completely out of control.

Mr. Harper asked Mr. Gallagher did he say if the county added one position it could double its money back.  Mr. Gallagher said by keeping two or three children out of a private treatment and hiring someone to treat them locally, the county could save and reduce overhead.

Ms. Bright said she agreed we as a community needed to do more to change the structure of the services.  Ms. Bright said just hiring a special teacher would not necessary handle the problem because the child was placed in a day placement because it couldnt be handled at school.

Image8
Mr. Gallagher said CPS has to be provided, but there needed to be more creativity to get the numbers down. Mr. Gentry asked who was responsible to come up with the creative ideas. Mr. Gallagher said CPMT and the Board.

Mr. Spencer said he could not see the CPMT person deciding who would drive the child where they had to go.  Mr. Spencer said it should either be county staff or DSS staff.  

Mr. Gallagher said the goals of the study were the following;

Study Goals

•        Identify causes of rising CSA costs

•        Review the efficiency of the existing LC CSA system Strengths/Needs Improvements

•        Establish a 5 year trends approach to data collection, evaluation, and planning

Mr. Gallagher said he only got 1/3 of the data he asked for.

•        Encourage a more active public/private agency and governmental partnership

•        Provide recommendations for reducing costs and improving service delivery

Mr. Gallagher said they used the following methods to establish the study;

Study Methods

•        Establish a Study Advisory Team  (SAT)

•        Observe LC CSA System FAPT/CPMT

•        Review Louisa County Statistics

•        Conduct an Anonymous Staff Survey

•        Interview CSA and Interagency Staff

•        Individual Case Reviews

•        Visit to Hampton Systems of Care

•        Final Report and Presentation

Ms. Bright said there was a lot more background history put into the case review, it didnt start where the case review started.

Mr. Mullen said he was surprised to see Louisa County was spending $400 a day to house a child whose root problem was truancy.   Mr. Mullen said it made him wonder how many more were like that.  Mr. Mullen said if Louisa County was removing more children from their homes that may just need in-home services why was that happening.

Mr. Gallagher said they looked at a two year window in a childs life who came in the system at 12 and was now 14 and had been in six to eight different facilities.  Mr. Gallagher said at the end of the case review they realized they may had made things worse.  Ms. Bright said there was more to the case than truancy and the family had been worked with for ten years.
 
Mr. Mullen said putting too much emphasis on one when studying a system was a dangerous thing to do.  

Mr. Gallagher said the strengths of Louisa County CSA were;

•          Experienced/Caring Staff    75% 11+   55%  21+

•          Positive Relationships   FAPT/CPMT

•          Creative Individual Family Services Plans

•          Self Examination Initiative (Paul, LC, and SAT)

•          Improvements in CSA FAPT Scheduling

•          Foster Homes   6 in 2002    26 in 2008

•          Improved Focus on Cost Containment

•          Study Advisory Team/Board of Supervisors         

Mr. Gallagher said the following were some of the causes of CSA cost increases;

•        Lack of Local Services and Resources

•        Lack of Awareness of Local Services                

       72% Not Aware of Local Services
       67% Not Aware of Pre CSA Funds
       46% Have Not Used CSA Directory

•        Significant Increases in CSA and Foster Care Caseloads (Agency Overloads)

•        Inadequate Evaluation and Planning

Mr. Gallagher said he didnt think there were enough people and too much work was being contracted out.  Mr. Gallagher said he would recommend a study to do a cost analysis if the county were to hire someone or contract the position out and play out the cost.  Mr. Gallagher said everybody was talking about change, but no one was taking the lead to do it.

Mr. Spencer said he heard one of the hold ups at the Bunting House was the sidewalk.  Mr. Spencer asked for Mr. Linhares to look into it. Mr. Mullen said he would take care of it.

Mr. Gallagher said the causes of CSA cost increases were the following;

•        Lack of Specialized Foster Homes

•        Cost Shifts  Federal State Local

•        Older Teens/More Difficult To Serve Children and Families  46% 2008 CSA

•        FAPT/CPMT  Decision Making/Process

Mr. Gallagher said the county spent money on him to do a study on a specialized Foster Care Program.  Mr. Gallagher said he did a study on an electronic file two years ago and the county doesnt have any specialized foster homes.

Mr. Spencer asked whose job was it to find these foster homes.  Mr. Gallagher said technically it was DSS.  Mr. Gallagher said this project needed to be finished and this was just an example of projects floating around and no one picking them up to do anything with them.

Mr. Gallagher said the older children were harder to serve.

Mr. Gallagher said the following were CPMT and FAPT Goals;

CPMT

•        Coordinate Long Range Community Planning

•        Establish a Multi-Discipline Services Planning

•        Team (FAPT)

•        Manage Polices Regarding Referrals and Service

•        Provision

•        Provide Quality Assurance of Program and Fiscal

•        Utilization    

FAPT

•        Provide Strengths Based Assessments  
•        Pool Resources of Local Knowledge IFSP         
•        Provide Ongoing Review of Plans To Adjust Services        

Mr. Gallagher said following list were causes of CSA cost increases;

•        Inconsistent Pre CSA Decision Making

•        Louisa County Population Increases  14%

•        Louisa County Match Rate    44%  

•        Limited Family Ownership/Involvement

•        Inadequate CSA Training  

63%  Unsatisfactory Orientation
50%  Not Aware of CSA Goals/Methods

Solutions/Recommendations

1. Improve Evaluation, Planning, & Resource Development                                                         

•         Hire a F/T Family Services Coordinator (FSC)

Mr. Gallagher said if he had only one recommendation it would be to hire a FSC and the position would report to the County Administrator.  The position would be equal to a Department Head and would be able to move the system along.  

Mr. Gallagher said he did the study for Fluvanna and recommended them hiring a part-time Data Entry position and they did it right way.  Mr. Gallagher said the position ended up turning into something more like this.  

Mr. Spencer asked did Fluvannas CSA Coordinator report to the County Administrator.  Mr. Gallagher said yes.

Ms. Southall said Fluvannas cost were high and if Louisa was talking about cutting cost she wasnt sure if Fluvanna was a good comparison.  Mr. Gallagher said over time their cost have come down.  

Mr. Spencer said when the position was under the County Administrator, the cost were down and when it over to DSS the cost went up.  Mr. Oswell said more children have come into care.

•         Redefine FAPT/CPMT Roles & Process
•         Develop a Family Services Planning Council  
•        
Develop 5 Years Statistical Trends Approach

Mr. Gallagher said the data needed to be kept and someone needed to keep up with it.  Mr. Gallagher said the agencies should give some outcome data.

•         Document Evaluation and Planning Efforts

Mr. Gallagher said the Family Services Coordinator would do the following;

•        Develop and Maintain LC Family Services Guide

•        Oversees 5 Year Trends and Statistics Process

•        Chair FAPT/CPMT & Annual Planning Retreats

•        Case Reviews/Cost Containment Planning

•        Facilitate Family Services Council  (SAT)

•        Grant Writing and Project Development

•        Annual Report to BOS  (Strengths/Needs)

•        Coordinate with all LC Youth/Family Services

•        Keep Locality Informed on State Youth Initiatives

•        System Evaluation/Planning/Recordkeeping

Solutions/Recommendations continued

2.  Identify, Document, and Share Information on Louisa County Family Services and Resources: Strengths and Needs 0 18

•        Develop a Web Based Family Services Guide
•        Publicize the Guide/Educate the Community
•        Identify Service Gaps/Priorities/Action Plans
•        Utilize Community Resources to Develop New Services and Resources  ($/Volunteers)                


3. Simplify and Improve CSA Process

•        Develop Pre CSA Checklist/Cost Containment
•        Develop Client Summaries vent/Outcome
•        Consult with OCS, Hampton and Charlottesville
•        Do Periodic Client Case Reviews      
•        Do Regular Outcome and Process Evaluation
•        Do Periodic Anonymous Staff Surveys

4. Improve Staff Training, Support, and Acknowledgement        

•        Develop an Interagency Training Manual/Video
•        Clarify Role Expectations and Responsibilities  
•        Acknowledge Creative and Responsible Staff
•        Reduce Caseworker Indirect Client Activities
•        Solicit Staff Input on System Improvements

Mr. Gallagher gave the following suggestive action steps;

•        Define Role of FS Coordinator

•        Explore Funding Options

•        Hire FS Coordinator

•        Identify Services Continuum (and Gaps)

•        Redefine FAPT and CPMT Roles

•        Establish Family Services Council  

•        Explore Truancy Position/Day Treatment  

•        Invest in Foster Care Prevention

Mr. Gallagher said the county would be getting a work plan from him in the two weeks.

Mr. Harper thanked Mr. Gallagher for his presentation.  Mr. Harper said there was a lot to consider and he would like to keep the dialog going.  Mr. Harper said he appreciated everything that everyone had done to this point.

Mr. Spencer said he appreciated them coming.

Mr. Byers said the county had a core group that provided services and everyone needed to be involved to make CSA more cost efficient.

Mr. Gentry said this was a community problem so the community had to work together to get it solved.

Ms. Southall said it was a community problem.  Ms. Southall said in the 90s most of the children were much older and now they were coming in so young.  

Mr. Byers said it was critical to have Judge Whitlock and Dr. Pettit at the next meeting.

Resolution In support of VDOT Abandonment of a 30 foot easement on primary Route 208 (New Bridge Road)

Mr. Gentry explained his handout on the abandonment.

Mr. Byers asked how did lot one get to Route 208.  Mr. Gentry said lot one bordered Route 208.

Mr. Byers asked was there anyone against the abandonment.  Mr. Gentry said no.

Mr. Spencer asked how much land was in number four.  Mr. Gentry said 30 feet.

Mr. Gentry said because it was a primary road, the Board was just voting to support the abandonment.

Mr. Spencer said he would like another Whereas to be added to say all property owners approved.

Mr. Byers said he appreciated the level of details provided.

        On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which was carried by vote of 5-0, with Messers Barnes and Wright being absent, the Board adopted a resolution in support of VDOT abandonment of a 30 foot easement on primary Route 208 (New Bridge Road).

CLOSED SESSION

On motion of Mr. Byers, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 5-0, with Messers Barnes and Wright being absent, the Board voted to enter Closed Session at 8:28 p.m. for the purpose of discussing the following:

1.        In accordance with §2.23711 (A) (1) VA Code Ann., for the purpose of discussion, consideration, or interviews of prospective candidates for employment; assignment, appointment, promotion, performance, demotion, salaries, disciplining, or resignation of specific public officers, appointees, or employees of any public body; and evaluation of performance of departments where such evaluation will necessarily involve discussion of the performance of specific individuals.

REGULAR SESSION

On motion of Mr. Byers, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 5-0, with Messers Barnes and Wright being absent, the Board voted to return to Regular Session at 8:39 p.m.

RESOLUTION - CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION

On motion of Mr. Byers, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 5-0, with Messers Barnes and Wright being absent, the Board voted to adopt the following resolution:

PRESENTVOTE
Willie L. Harper Yes
Richad A. Havasy Yes
P.T. Spencer, Jr. Yes
Jack T. Wright Absent
Fitzgerald A. Barnes Absent
Dan W. Byers Yes
Willie L. Gentry, Jr. Yes

WHEREAS, the Louisa County Board of Supervisors has convened a Closed Meeting this10th day of March 2009, pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and

WHEREAS, §2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Louisa County Board of Supervisors that such closed meeting was conducted in conformity with the Virginia Law.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED on this 10th day of March 2009, that the Louisa County Board of Supervisors does hereby certify that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting to which this certification resolution applies, and (ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the closed meeting was heard, discussed or considered by the Louisa County Board of Supervisors.

RECESS

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Byers, which carried by a vote of 5-0, the Board voted to recess the March 10, 2009 meeting at 8:40 p.m. until March 11, 2009 at 6:00 p.m.


BY ORDER OF
________________________________
WILLIE L. HARPER, CHAIRMAN
LOUISA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
LOUISA COUNTY, LOUISA, VIRGINIA