AG19910506 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Hike Ruffin~ County Henager PaEe -3- process does not fairly or validly measure the performance of counties, l~hlla counties process 98,5~ of applications within required time limits, 881 of counties failed the monitoring. F. xtstin~ Situation The 1989 settlement agreement provided for modifications in the monitoring instrument an~ sanction plan by mutual consent of the parties (the Department of Human Resources and Legal Services). Beginning in November of 1990, the Association of County Co~mtssioners~ the Department of Human Resources and the Social Services Directors~ Association participated in neiotiattous vith North Carolina Legal Services re§ar/lng the possibility of making substantial modifications in the application processing, monitoring and sanctions systems. We were very hopeful that the negotiations would lead to simplification of the re~uletions and pape~rk process~ a moderation of escalatinl aiministra~ive cost, measurement of county perfo~ance on ~esults rathe~ than' compliance ~ith pape~ork requiremen~s~ and a lessenint of the threat of financial sanctions. As Ps,rice Roesler% memo points ou~, however, negotia~ions ~onE the par~ies have been te~inated, This action ~as taken by ~he Department of Human Resources ~th ~he concurrence o~ the Co~ssioners tssoclation and the $o~ial $e~tces Directors Association wheh it became that vhat Legal Semites is demanding apparent in ~chanEe for relief could be just as costly in tams of money and even more costly tn te~s oi principle as the cu~ln~ aonitorint and sanction plan. With this, the State began monitoring counties again t~edtately. ~e have learned that as of lpril 12~ ten counties had ~een monito~ed. Seven scored in Category I~ three in Cacego~ I~ and only one in Category I. Last year in the hold hapless ~onitozin/, onll three of these scored in Category III vith s~ scoring in Category II. Scores are thus ~ch vorse no~ than last year even vith all the counties* corrective action efforts. ~e t~e~endous increase in caseloads state,ge probably accounts fo~ ~ch of this. ~e understand the State is vorkinE to develop a basis for returning to court to seek relief ~ut have no more info~ation on this, ~r staff has been vorking very hard to ~eet all the ~eqvirements of the co~rective action plan ye ~de subsequent co last ~ovember% hold hapless ~nitoring. ~ have the 8~eatest coniidence in our staff. They have sat an outstanfling reco~d of accuracy in quali~y' control zevievs. Froa ~uly 1980 to Hatch.1991, they processed 99.5~ of the 3010 A~C and H~ticait applic~tions they took vithi~ processing time requirements. ~i11~ ~ am serio~sly conceded because of the e~e~lence ut other counties, that ye ~y face a sanction vhen ye are monito~ed a~ain. E~en though the staff is mak~E tremendous efforts~ is almost ps,feet in p~ocessinE applications vithin t~e requir~ents, a~d is ~ol~g its york vith remarkable accuracy, ye may fail. ~is Is because the monitozinE process goes not fal~l~ ~tas~re a county's periomnce. It uses an unfair and punitive 8raging system and focuses on the