AG19911021 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Eike luffin, County Pegs -3- process does not fairly or velf61y measure the performance of counties. ~ile connties 98.5~ of applicatio~s ~ithin required ti~e li~its, ~61 of counties process failed the ~onitorin~. Extstin~ Situation The 1989 settlement agreement provided for modifications in the monitoring instrument and sanction plan by mutual consent of the parties (the Depart=eat of Htunan Resources and Legal Services). Beginning in ~ovember of 1990, the Association of County Covmissioners, the Department of Human Reso~:ces and the Social Services Dtrectcrs' Association participated i~ negotiations with ~orth Carolina Legal Sen, ices regarding the possibility of ~akini suh!tautial ~odifications in the application processing, monitorin§ aod sanctions systems. We vere very hopeful that the negotiations would lead £o simplifieat!on of the regulations and pape~;ork process, a moderation of escalating a~m!nis:rative measurement of co=nty petiole=ce o~ ~esults rather than compliance ~i=h pape~ork requirements~ and a lessening of the threat of Iintnci=l sanctions. As ?at~ice Roesle~'s =e~o points out, hovewer, ~e~otiations ~onE the have been salivated. ~is action vas tlken by the Depaztment oi Human Resources vith the concurrence of the Co.lasSos!rs tssociation a~d the Social Semites Directors tssociatto~ vhen it became apparent that vhat Legal Se~,ices is in e~change for relief could be just as :oltl~ in te~s of money tod even ~ore costly in te~s of principle ss the current monitoring and Sanction plan. ~ith this, the State bega~ =o=iccri~E counties again l~eiiately. Ne have learned that as el April 12, ten counties had been ~onitored. Se~en scored !n Category III, zhree in Category 2I and only one in Category I. Last year tn the hold ha~!ess =onitori~g~ only three of these ~core/ in C=telory Ill rith s~ scoring in Category ~I. Scores are thus ~ch vorse no~ than last year even ~ith all ~he counties~ corrective act/on etforts. ~e tremendous loc:ease in caseloads sc=te~i~e probably =ccounts lot much of this. seek =eliei b~t ha~e no =ore info~ation on this. correct~v~ action plan ~e ~ade subseque~ ~o last Kovt~be~*s hold bail,ss ~onitorln I have the greatest co~fide~ce tn our staff. ~ey have set an outsta~!ng record of accuracy in quality control reviews, Fro= July 1990 to Earth 1991, =bey processe~ counties that ~e nay face a sanction ~hen ~e 8~e uonito~ei atai~. Even though the staff is ~akini tremendous efforts, is almost perfect in pzocessi~ applicstions vithin time requirements, and is doin8 its work with remarkable accuracy, ye fail. ~is is because the monitorin8 process does not fairly ~easure a couaty*s perfo~snce. It uses an unfair a~t punitive 8radin8 system &~a ~ocuses on the