05-15-2018 Work Session PKT
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
WORK SESSION
Tuesday, May 15, 2018 – 4:30 PM
Main Conference Room
County Administration Building, 1 Center Street
Chatham, Virginia 24531
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER (4:30 PM)
2. ROLL CALL
3. AGENDA ITEMS TO BE ADDED
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
For the citizens’ convenience, all Work Session and Committee Meetings are now being
recorded and can be viewed on the same YouTube location as the Board of Supervisor’s
Business Meetings. Please remember that the Board’s Work Session is designed for
internal Board and County Staff communication, discussion, and work. It is not a
question and answer session with the audience. Accordingly, during the Work Session,
no questions or comments from the audience will be entertained. Respectfully, any
outbursts or disorderly conduct from the audience will not be tolerated and may result in
the offending person’s removal from the Work Session. As a reminder, all County
citizens, and other appropriate parties as designated by the Board’s Bylaws, are permitted
to make comments under the Hearing of the Citizens’ Section of tonight’s Business
Meeting.
5. PRESENTATIONS
1. Proposed CDBG Project (Staff Contact: Gregory L. Sides); (Presenters: J.
Saunders/C. Stovall (PCCA)); (10 minutes)
2. CSA Consultant Report (Staff Contact: Richard N. Hicks); (Presenter: Gail Ledford);
(20 minutes)
6. STAFF, COMMITTEE, AND/OR CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICER REPORTS
a. Legislative Committee Report (Staff Contact: J. Vaden Hunt); (5 minutes)
b. Solid Waste Committee Report (Staff Contact: Richard N. Hicks); (5 minutes)
c. EMS Transport Update (Staff Contact: Chris C. Slemp); (5 minutes)
Work Session - May 15, 2018
d. Other Reports
7. BUSINESS MEETING DISCUSSION ITEMS
8. EXECUTIVE TRAINING SESSION (5:30 PM - 6:30 PM)
1. Dr. Faucette; Board of Supervisors Executive Training Session (Staff Contact: David
M. Smitherman); (Presenter: Dr. Faucette); (1 hour)
9. ADJOURNMENT (6:30 PM)
Board of Supervisors
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INFORMATION ITEM
Agenda Title: Proposed CDBG Project (Staff Contact: Gregory L. Sides); (Presenters: J.
Saunders/C. Stovall (PCCA)); (10 minutes)
Staff Contact(s): Contact: Gregory L. Sides, Presenter: John Saunders, Cedric Stovall
Agenda Date: May 15, 2018 Item Number: 5.1
Attachment(s):
Gunn Garland Letter
CDBG info
Initial Meeting
Reviewed By:
Mr. John Saunders and Mr. Cedric Stovall will be here to discuss a proposed Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) project in Pittsylvania County. The information presented
will be on the need for the proposed project, the application process, and the role for Pittsylvania
County.
5.1
Packet Pg. 3
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 4 Attachment: Gunn Garland Letter (1140 : Proposed CDBG Project)
5.1.b
Packet Pg. 5 Attachment: CDBG info (1140 : Proposed CDBG Project)
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: Initial Meeting (1140 : Proposed CDBG Project)
Board of Supervisors
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INFORMATION ITEM
Agenda Title: CSA Consultant Report (Staff Contact: Richard N. Hicks); (Presenter:
Gail Ledford); (20 minutes)
Staff Contact(s): Richard N. Hicks
Agenda Date: May 15, 2018 Item Number: 5.2
Attachment(s): Pittsylvania County-CSA Consultation Draft Report
Reviewed By:
The consultant that was hired by the County to conduct an assessment of the CSA system is here
to present his draft report.
5.2
Packet Pg. 7
P a g e 1 | 14
Review of Pittsylvania County’s Children’s
Service Act (CSA) System
Draft Report
April 9, 2018
Ledford & Cohen Systems Transformation LLC
Dr. Gail Ledford ~ mgledford@verizon.net
Dr. Robert Cohen ~ rocohen2641@gmail.com
P. O. Box 2842
Springfield, Virginia 22152
5.2.a
Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: Pittsylvania County-CSA Consultation Draft Report (1142 : CSA Consultant Report)
P a g e 2 | 14
Introduction: Based on discussions initiated in late October 2017, an agreement was entered on
January 22, of 2018 for Ledford & Cohen Systems Transformation LLC (the Consultants) to
assist Pittsylvania County (the County), Virginia. The purpose of this work is to (1) conduct an
initial assessment of the service delivery, administrative and fiscal components of the County’s
Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) system to determine the effectiveness and efficiency of the
current system of care and the extent to which it conforms to the core values, principles and
policies of Virginia’s CSA, and (2) provide guidance to the County on the system’s strengths and
areas needing improvement, as well as offer recommendations for enhancing performance, with
special attention to the overall costs of the program. Drs. Ledford and Cohen were engaged to
perform this work based on their decades of experience in policy development and
administration for services to children and families in Virginia and their particular expertise in
CSA issues.
Methods: The consultants obtained relevant information from Pittsylvania County through
phone calls, e-mail, an on-site meeting, and documents. A list of documents is provided in
Appendix A. In addition, the Consultants used online data reported by all of Virginia’s local
jurisdictions to the State Office of Children’s Services (OCS) for comparison of Pittsylvania
County’s child and case counts, program expenditures, and length of services with other counties
having similar numbers of children.
The primary conference calls and in-person meeting and the issues discussed are briefly noted
below:
1. Phone calls with Mr. Richard Hicks and Ms. Cheryl Boswell beginning in mid-October
2017 through February 2018 discussing the project scope and issues overview, and
discussion of information sources.
2. On-site meeting with Mr. Richard Hicks, Ms. Cheryl Boswell, Ms. Ann Cassandra, on
February 23, 2018 – Discussion of CSA functioning, challenges, and recent service
changes within the public-school system.
Based on this draft report, a final meeting is proposed with Mr. Richard Hicks and Cheryl
Boswell, and other local officials determined by the County to discuss the findings and
preliminary recommendations and receive feedback for the project’s final report.
Results: The results and observations are provided in sections corresponding to the questions
identified in the purpose as noted in the introduction.
5.2.a
Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: Pittsylvania County-CSA Consultation Draft Report (1142 : CSA Consultant Report)
P a g e 3 | 14
Initial assessment of the service delivery of the County’s Children’s Services Act (CSA)
system to determine the extent to which it conforms to the core values, principles and
policies of Virginia’s CSA.
An important component of assessing the Pittsylvania children’s service system is understanding
how the performance aligns with the principles and goals of the CSA legislation. Passage of the
1993 CSA statute was influenced by several factors. One of the most critical driving forces was a
study by the State Department of Planning and Budget (DPB) of the prevalence and cost of use
of out-of-home residential placements for at-risk youth. The DPB’s discovery that statewide,
5,000 youth were placed in residential settings at a cost of more than $100 million per year
shocked the leadership of the Commonwealth. The DPB study along with a strong desire to
create a comprehensive, coordinated community-based service system for vulnerable youth and
their families prompted then Governor Wilder to convene a planning council comprised of 145
stakeholders. The mission of the Council was to design a comprehensive community-based
system of care that provided individually-tailored, family-focused services in community
settings. The report of the Council, which served as the basis for the CSA legislation not only
addressed programmatic concerns, it also made recommendations for fiscal efficiency and
accountability, coordination and collaboration among agencies responsible for serving youth and
families; proposed local and state governance issues; and identified infrastructure required for
effective implementation.
It is worth noting that the CSA legislation incorporated a strong set of core values and principles
intended to guide practice. These guidelines were based on research and exemplary practice at
the time, and have continued to serve as the foundation for serving children and families in an
efficient and effective manner. From its inception, CSA has been concerned about achieving the
dual goals of serving children and families effectively in the least restrictive, appropriate setting
while also ensuring that costs are managed in a prudent and efficient manner. Policy makers and
administrators also wanted to reduce the fragmentation and inefficiency created by agencies
acting in a silo-like uncoordinated manner, and to support localities to tailor the service system to
the unique conditions of their community. The core objectives of the CSA legislation included:
• Ensure that services and funding are consistent with the Commonwealth’s policy of
preserving families and providing appropriate services in the least restricted environment,
while protecting the welfare of children and maintaining the safety of the public;
• Identify and intervene early with young children and their families who are at risk of
developing emotional or behavioral problems or both due to environmental, physical or
psychological stress;
• Increase interagency collaboration and family involvement in service delivery and
management;
5.2.a
Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: Pittsylvania County-CSA Consultation Draft Report (1142 : CSA Consultant Report)
P a g e 4 | 14
• Encourage a public and private partnership in the delivery of services;
• Provide community’s flexibility in the use of funds and to direct decisions, authority, and
accountability to communities who know best the needs of their youth and families
(Virginia Acts of Assembly, Chapter 837, § 2.1-745, April 1, 1992).
The CSA legislation provided a blueprint for an ambitious transformation of how services are
provided to vulnerable youth and families. The architects of this legislation understood clearly
that effective implementation was dependent on paying attention not only to the programmatic
objectives, but also to the contextual forces, including fiscal, organizational, governance, social
and cultural elements that shape service delivery. In assessing the performance of CSA
implementation at the local or state level, it is important to examine the extent to which
stakeholders at all levels, from government officials to direct service providers, understand and
embrace the core values, principles and objectives of the CSA legislation.
In discussions with County stakeholders and review of materials provided, the Consultants have
made several observations relating to the County’s conformance with CSA values, principles,
and policies.
1. Since its inception in 1993, the CSA legislation and its associated policies have been
amended in numerous ways to enhance service delivery, maximize funding source
opportunities, and clarify state and local requirements and responsibilities. Like in many
other Virginia jurisdictions, Pittsylvania has adapted its system to improve care for
vulnerable youth and families over the past 25 years, but there still is room for
improvement in the coordination of services across agencies to provide the least
restrictive and most effective services to children and families. Many factors are at work,
ranging from agency and professional cultures to workload and financial incentives and
disincentives.
2. The County experienced a significant OCS audit finding as detailed by the Auditor of
Public Accounts of the Commonwealth of Virginia in a November 2010 report. These
findings regarding policy compliance have had major financial implications. In April
2012 the OCS issued a Corrective Action and Quality Improvement Plan that identified
strategies and responsibilities, and a $2.5 million repayment obligation to the state. This
repayment was scheduled over a 10-year period, $250,000 per year. Although the County
has come into full compliance, the ongoing repayment obligation affects the County’s
financial resources available for services, particularly the County’s public-school system
due to the local decision that the public schools would be responsible for the local funds
required to repay the obligation.
3. Turnover among the County’s CSA program staff, other agencies staff and leadership has
required additional training, which only partly addresses the experience gap.
5.2.a
Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: Pittsylvania County-CSA Consultation Draft Report (1142 : CSA Consultant Report)
P a g e 5 | 14
4. The County has had difficulty obtaining providers who deliver sufficient high-quality
service at a reasonable cost, particularly within the school system.
5. The infrastructure for administering this complex, multi-component service delivery
system is not adequate to enable the County to actualize the core values and principles of
CSA.
a. The administrative reporting structure is fragmented with multiple persons
sharing responsibility and authority for what is supposed to be an integrated
system of care. The absence of a viable organizational hierarchy with impedes the
ability of the CPMT to exercise appropriate authority.
b. Critical program processes such as case review are not implemented in a uniform
manner and do not utilize data sufficiently to appropriately plan and evaluate care.
There is not a viable outcome measurement system.
Initial assessment of the administrative and fiscal components of the County’s
Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) system.
Administrative components – Local administration of the CSA is a complex endeavor that
requires knowledge and experience in many domains to include multiple human services and
educational disciplines; service planning; program management; contract and vendor relations
management; budgeting; financial management; and federal, state, and local legislative and
policy expertise.
Given the comprehensive nature CSA’s system of care, the intent of the original CSA legislation
and subsequent developments, was and continues to be, engagement of a broad range of
stakeholders that share responsibility and accountability. At this time, most, if not all, local
jurisdictions have created a CSA Coordinator position/office to administer the CSA. Typically,
this position has significant accountability and responsibility regarding the performance of the
CSA system, yet limited authority to direct other key stakeholders who affect the system’s goals
and operations.
Authority and responsibility for administration of CSA at the executive level is currently divided
among several administrators, making it difficult to coordinate and streamline activities of the
multiple agencies involved.
Fiscal components - The Consultants examined data from the Virginia OCS (available at
http://csa.virginia.gov/OCSReports/Reports/DatasetReports) pertaining to Pittsylvania County
and other jurisdictions across the Commonwealth, in order to compare several variables: (1) total
child population, (2) children served in the fiscal year, (3) gross expenditures, (4) average per
diem costs, and (5) average length of stay (days of service). Unduplicated CSA child counts and
5.2.a
Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: Pittsylvania County-CSA Consultation Draft Report (1142 : CSA Consultant Report)
P a g e 6 | 14
unduplicated child population counts were used to calculate the number of children per 1,000
child population served by CSA. Examination of the data leads to several observations.
1. Pittsylvania County has high overall CSA expenditures compared to other jurisdictions
with similar populations, largely due to higher per diems and longer lengths of stay.
a. In 2017, the County had an unduplicated child count of 41,949. For initial
comparison purposes, the 32 Virginia jurisdictions (including Pittsylvania) with
child populations ranging from 20,000 to 60,000 were selected (see Exhibit B).
Of these, 23 had smaller and 8 had larger populations.
b. Pittsylvania had the highest gross expenditure on CSA services of the 32
jurisdiction sample, at $7,171,128. The group average was $3,922,876.
c. For these 32 jurisdictions, the median number of children served by CSA per
1,000 in the population was 4.98 and the range was 3.53 to 7.47. Pittsylvania
ranked the 29th lowest out of 32 with 4.05 per 1,000. The total number of
children served by CSA for the County was 170, close to the average of 162.2.
The higher costs could not be attributed to serving more children overall.
d. The average CSA per diem for Pittsylvania of $170.97 was the highest in the
sample, 46% above the average of $116.86 for these jurisdictions.
e. The average length of stay (days of service) for the County was fourth highest at
152.5 compared to a group average of 129.
f. The combined effect of higher average per diems and average days of service put
Pittsylvania at the top of this sample in terms of average cost per child,
$42,172.22 which is 75% over the sample average of $24,132.19.
2. The higher expenditures on CSA by the County are associated with different factors in
specific service programs.
a. In order to examine the program specific cost data, the Consultants selected nine
counties/localities (including Pittsylvania) from the earlier sample of 32, based on
rural rather than urban location and a closer match to child population size, four
larger and four smaller.
b. Program specific data were reviewed for these nine counties for the five “service
types” among a total of 42, where Pittsylvania County spent over $400,000 in FY
2017, Family Support Services ($806,232), Mentoring ($1,520,884), Private Day
School ($2,254,365), Residential Ed ($421,829), and Special Ed Related Services
($736,841). Comparative analyses across the nine selected jurisdictions are
shown in the figures below for the number of children (Count), per diem cost (Per
Diem), and days of service (LOS).
c. Family Support Services – Figure 1 shows that the main cost driver compared to
similar jurisdictions is the highest per diem of the group, in combination with the
5.2.a
Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: Pittsylvania County-CSA Consultation Draft Report (1142 : CSA Consultant Report)
P a g e 7 | 14
second highest count. The LOS is more in line with the sample, lower than three
other counties and higher than five.
d. Mentoring – The data on Mentoring (Figure 2) show that all three drivers make
major contributions to costs. Pittsylvania has, by far, the highest per diem and
LOS and the second highest child count in its Mentoring program, about four
times higher than the other seven counties.
e. Private Day School – For Private Day School (Figure 3), Pittsylvania ranked
second highest in count of children, second highest in LOS, and fifth in per diem
(four higher and four lower). The differences were not as large in any of these
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Figure 1. Family Support Services
Count
Per Diem
LOS
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Figure 2. Mentoring
Count
Per Diem
LOS
5.2.a
Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: Pittsylvania County-CSA Consultation Draft Report (1142 : CSA Consultant Report)
P a g e 8 | 14
measures as they are for some of the other programs. The cost per child is
$35,224.80, only10% higher than the group average.
f. Residential Education – In this program component, Pittsylvania has a higher
average per diem combined with a lower LOS (Figure 4). Multiplying these
numbers shows that the County has the second lowest cost per child ($16,872.89)
which is 15% lower than the nine county average of $19,792.05. The higher CSA
costs for the County are clearly not based on this component.
g. Special Ed Related Services- The data for this program component (shown in
Figure 5) are unusual. Pittsylvania has a relatively high child Count (ranking
number 3), a fairly low LOS, and an exceptionally high per diem ($1,387.65), far
higher than the number two county and 3.8 times higher than the nine county
average. Additional investigation should help determine if the Pittsylvania
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Figure 3. Private Day School
Count
Per Diem
LOS
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Figure 5. Residential Ed
Count
Per Diem
LOS
5.2.a
Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: Pittsylvania County-CSA Consultation Draft Report (1142 : CSA Consultant Report)
P a g e 9 | 14
County service array in this service category is substantially different than
services offered in other counties or if the data are handled differently.
3. Summary of program fiscal assessment – The primary drivers of high CSA expenditures for
Pittsylvania County appear to be large numbers and high per diems in Family Support Service;
large numbers, high per diems and long LOS in Mentoring; and large numbers and very high per
diems in Special Ed Related Services.
Initial assessment of the County’s CSA system to determine the effectiveness and efficiency
of the current system of care.
The Consultants were asked to provide an assessment of how well the current system of care is
performing, including its strengths as well as areas that need improvement, understanding that
children and their families’ needs cross the mandates of individual agencies. Thus, there is often
not one “driver” of either service planning or expenditures. Service needs are inter-related and
any examination of a locality’s service delivery system should be viewed from this perspective.
For example, a child’s daily living and social/emotional needs, educational needs, and health
needs, all affect and have implications for each other and must be addressed collaboratively for
the child’s healthy development. (see Exhibit B)
Additional observations regarding the effectiveness of services will require more feedback from
the County on available program implementation and outcome evaluations and case studies of
more versus less successful and more versus less expensive child and family interventions.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Figure 5. Special Ed Related Services
Count
Per Diem
LOS
5.2.a
Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: Pittsylvania County-CSA Consultation Draft Report (1142 : CSA Consultant Report)
P a g e 10 | 14
Recommendations. The Consultants’ recommendations are grouped under three major
headings: Structure, Administration, and Best Practices.
Structure:
1. The County should avail itself of OCS, other state agencies, and other localities’ training,
technical assistance, policy interpretation, and best practice approaches, to benefit the
County’s local service delivery model.
2. The County could benefit from and improve its CSA system by conducting an internal
review of its child serving system, including stakeholders from both programmatic and
administrative areas outside the traditional human services areas, e.g., the County
procurement office, budget office, County Attorney etc., to determine what additional
assistance can be engaged. A collaborative, inclusive strategic planning process with the
broad range of the County’s local stakeholders could identify specific gaps in administrative
processes across the child serving system and the actions necessary to fill those gaps. This
should include accountability expectations for staff at all levels, case management through
leadership level positions.
3. The County should evaluate its CPMT roles and responsibilities and ensure that relevant
stakeholders are engaged in the CPMT decision-making. The Assistant County
Administrator with responsibility for oversight of the County’s CSA program office should
be a full member of the County’s CPMT.
Administration:
1. Given the County’s five year adherence to the expectations in the state’s 2012 Corrective
Action Plan, the County should engage its local and state elected officials to request that the
state OCS “forgive” its remaining five year, $1.5 million repayment obligation currently
assessed by the County to the Pittsylvania County to the public school system. This
“forgiveness” would allow the Pittsylvania Public Schools system to reinvest those funds –
approximately $250,000 per year – into internal school programming enhancements to help
avoid the need for more costly and restrictive services for otherwise CSA eligible youth.
2. Although all 42 state defined service categories need to be managed effectively, the County
should initially engage in a detailed analysis of the five “high expenditure” service type
categories detailed earlier in this report. They are: Family Support Services, Mentoring,
Private Day School Residential Education, and Special Education Related Services. This
review should include attention to the type and frequency of the specific components of each
5.2.a
Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: Pittsylvania County-CSA Consultation Draft Report (1142 : CSA Consultant Report)
P a g e 11 | 14
service type, and analysis of the progress youth are making toward goals identified in their
individual service plans, including progress on the CANS (Child and Adolescent Needs and
Strengths) score, and adjust the service plans accordingly. As an example, in 2017, the CSA
funded Mentoring Services for nearly half of its CSA population, and spent 20% of its CSA
expenditures on this service type. Understanding the benefits of this intervention and how to
optimize achieving them would result in better management and oversight of these services,
as well as an individually tailored intervention for each child and family, and reduced overall
costs for this service type.
Additionally, the Private Day School service type should be examined. Although the
February 21, 2018 public school memorandum discussing the CSA savings for Pittsylvania
County states that there has been a $1,192,160 “cost reduction for CSA funded services” due
to 16 students not being placed in private day school, the memorandum does not indicate
whether this savings is to the total CSA expenditures (combined state and local match) or a
local match-only savings. This should be examined further to determine the actual local cost
benefit. When reviewing the OCS data, on the Private Day School child count and total
expenditures for the first two quarters of FY 2017 when compared to the first two quarters in
FY 2018, the Consultants found that the Total Gross YTD state/local combined expenditures
were down by $96,852 (8.9% reduction),and child count was down three children (5.2%). It
would be important to understand the differences in these measures between the County’s
school system and the OCS reported data.
3. The County should contact surrounding localities to assess whether the localities can work
together to contract as a “region” with providers to increase the leverage to get better quality
and lower prices. The counties would have more clout as a consortium rather than acting as
individual localities.
4. The County should develop an outcome measurement system which utilizes relevant data to
enable administrators at all levels to assess current performance at individual, program and
system levels and plan for improvements. Such a system requires resources and will take
several years to fully develop. However, the County could begin by selecting priority
performance areas and developing measurement processes for these targets.
5.2.a
Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: Pittsylvania County-CSA Consultation Draft Report (1142 : CSA Consultant Report)
P a g e 12 | 14
Best Practices:
1. County CSA programs are given tremendous challenges and responsibilities. Integrating,
overseeing, and documenting services, costs, and outcomes across multiple agencies involves
leadership, training, communications planning, monitoring, and accountabilit y to meet
multiple reporting requirements. Respective agencies’ Case Managers are often working
under their own agency’s workload, service availability, financial, and reporting pressures.
The County should examine what resources and assistance may be available from the State
and from similar counties to meet these challenges.
2. Several principles of best practices most applicable to Pittsylvania County are:
Low-cost team building among CPMT members, and with case managers across
agencies.
Multi-year tracking of services and costs to determine trends.
Coordination between the County’s and public school’s case managers to develop
County-specific and regional service capacity to address the service gaps reported
annually to the state OCS.
Using a strengths-based approach, develop a plan to depict system-wide progress on
youth outcomes to share success stories with local appointed and elected leaders.
5.2.a
Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: Pittsylvania County-CSA Consultation Draft Report (1142 : CSA Consultant Report)
P a g e 13 | 14
Exhibit A
1. Signed Contract between Pittsylvania County, Virginia and Ledford & Cohen Systems
Transformation, LLC (received January 22, 2018)
2. Pittsylvania Public School Division Director Memorandum dated February 21, 2018
Regarding CSA Savings
3. IFSP Fillable Case Manager PMT Approved 6-26-14
4. IFSP Fillable FAPT-Updated
5. UMUR Form-Electronic
6. CPMT January 24, 2018 CPMT Long Range Planning Goal #2
7. Goal #3 January 25, 2018 Report
8. Gail #4 January 25, 2018 Update
9. Pittsylvania County Long Range Goal #1, 1-25-18
10. PC-CPMT 1-25-2018 Minutes
11. PC-CPMT 12-14-2017 Minutes
12. Final [OCS] Audit Report dated April 4, 2017
13. OCSPA-05 Quality Improvement Plan Observation 1
14. OCSPA-05 Quality Improvement Plan Observation 2
15. OCAPA-05 Quality Improvement Plan Observation 3
16. Vendor Letter [Contract-related From CPMT] FY 2017-2019
17. Vendor Contract FY17-18 and FY18-19 [Agreement for Services]
18. Vendor Contact Information Form
19. FAPT Parent ]Satisfaction] Survey Results October to December 2017
20. October – December 2017 [Vendor Satisfaction Results]
21. State Office of Children’s Services (OCS) Website-Statewide Statistics-Various Reports
22. Report: “Review of the Comprehensive Services Act for At-Risk Youth and Families
Program in Pittsylvania County, Virginia”, dated November 2010 – Auditor of Public
Accounts, Commonwealth of Virginia
23. Memorandum from OCS to Pittsylvania County Attorney – J. Vaden Hunt, dated April 24,
2012 [Regarding Corrective Action and Quality Improvement Plan and repayment
agreement]
24. On-site Meeting on February 21, 2018 among Richard Hicks and Cheryl Boswell
(Pittsylvania County), Ann Cassandra (Pittsylvania Public Schools), Bob Cohen and Gail
Ledford (Consultants)
5.2.a
Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: Pittsylvania County-CSA Consultation Draft Report (1142 : CSA Consultant Report)
P a g e 14 | 14
Exhibit B
Locality*Unduplicated
CSA Count
Unduplicated
Child Count
CSA
Youth per
1,000
Total
Gross
Average Per Diem Average
LOS
Arlington 213 46,828 4.55 $6,816,945 $32,004.44 $145.57 115.34
Augusta**206 43,337 4.75 $4,999,955 $24,271.63 $115.37 122.08
Bedford**150 30,244 4.96 $3,040,487 $20,269.91 $100.53 124.46
Campbell 133 23,976 5.55 $2,545,521 $19,139.26 $106.17 119.88
Carroll**121 23,048 5.25 $2,045,565 $16,905.50 $88.75 119.42
Culpeper 231 44,268 5.22 $3,979,282 $17,226.33 $89.89 134.96
Fauquier 188 36,868 5.10 $4,140,457 $22,023.71 $112.30 123.3
Fluvanna 119 25,559 4.66 $3,217,160 $27,034.96 $125.87 146.05
Franklin**294 59,336 4.95 $5,240,930 $17,826.29 $88.33 125.45
Frederick 138 25,184 5.48 $3,371,966 $24,434.54 $133.89 115
Hanover 122 28,141 4.34 $3,963,839 $32,490.48 $140.86 135.29
Loudoun 225 45,750 4.92 $6,617,912 $29,412.94 $144.65 119.76
Louisa 126 23,776 5.30 $2,928,984 $23,245.90 $123.19 120.08
Lunenburg 87 22,332 3.90 $1,155,944 $13,286.71 $51.76 199.39
Madison 102 25,034 4.07 $3,346,417 $32,808.01 $133.67 111.76
Orange 131 26,734 4.90 $3,111,659 $23,753.12 $116.39 116.74
Pittsylvania**170 41,939 4.05 $7,171,128 $42,177.22 $170.97 152.51
Pulaski**208 36,989 5.62 $3,629,843 $17,451.17 $98.13 123.3
Roanoke Co**237 50,213 4.72 $6,900,694 $29,116.85 $137.43 133.55
Rockingham 217 47,142 4.60 $5,653,012 $26,050.75 $119.91 125.38
Russell 116 23,283 4.98 $1,911,907 $16,481.96 $82.12 118.19
Shenandoah 154 27,137 5.67 $3,158,945 $20,512.63 $116.41 122.24
Stafford 179 37,229 4.81 $6,135,677 $34,277.53 $164.81 143.19
Wise**179 23,950 7.47 $1,833,445 $10,242.71 $76.55 81.46
Alexandria 229 47,308 4.84 $7,159,418 $31,263.83 $151.34 122.88
Danville 160 28,617 5.59 $4,235,056 $26,469.10 $147.99 102.57
Hopewell 92 26,063 3.53 $2,688,560 $29,224.46 $103.16 217.19
Petersburg 126 29,332 4.30 $4,037,444 $32,043.21 $137.65 151.98
Portsmouth 123 31,615 3.89 $2,941,244 $23,912.55 $93.03 157.29
Staunton 115 21,913 5.25 $2,641,101 $22,966.10 $120.53 108.48
Waynesboro 121 22,740 5.32 $2,354,967 $19,462.54 $103.56 121.6
Winchester 177 25,884 6.84 $2,556,569 $14,443.89 $98.77 97.68
* 32:Based on child population count between 20,000 and 60,000
** 9 Highlighted in yellow and based on child count and more rural vs. urban setting
Comparision Jurisdictions*
5.2.a
Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: Pittsylvania County-CSA Consultation Draft Report (1142 : CSA Consultant Report)
Board of Supervisors
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INFORMATION ITEM
Agenda Title: Legislative Committee Report (Staff Contact: J. Vaden Hunt); (5 minutes)
Staff Contact(s): J Vaden Hunt
Agenda Date: May 15, 2018 Item Number: 6.a
Attachment(s):
Reviewed By:
Mr. Hunt will be present to give an update about the Legislative Committee Meeting.
6.a
Packet Pg. 22
Board of Supervisors
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INFORMATION ITEM
Agenda Title: Solid Waste Committee Report (Staff Contact: Richard N. Hicks); (5
minutes)
Staff Contact(s): Richard N. Hicks
Agenda Date: May 15, 2018 Item Number: 6.b
Attachment(s):
Reviewed By:
Mr. Hicks will be present to give an update about the Solid Waste Committee Meeting.
6.b
Packet Pg. 23
Board of Supervisors
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INFORMATION ITEM
Agenda Title: EMS Transport Update (Staff Contact: Chris C. Slemp); (5 minutes)
Staff Contact(s): Chris C. Slemp
Agenda Date: May 15, 2018 Item Number: 6.c
Attachment(s):
Reviewed By:
Mr. Slemp will be present to give an EMS Transport Update.
6.c
Packet Pg. 24
Board of Supervisors
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INFORMATION ITEM
Agenda Title: Other Reports
Staff Contact(s):
Agenda Date: May 15, 2018 Item Number: 6.d
Attachment(s):
Reviewed By:
6.d
Packet Pg. 25
Board of Supervisors
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INFORMATION ITEM
Agenda Title: Dr. Faucette; Board of Supervisors Executive Training Session (Staff
Contact: David M. Smitherman); (Presenter: Dr. Faucette); (1 hour)
Staff Contact(s): David M. Smitherman
Agenda Date: May 15, 2018 Item Number: 8.1
Attachment(s):
Reviewed By:
Dr. Faucette will be present for the second of four (4) sessions in our effort to create a strategic
vision for the Board of Supervisors.
8.1
Packet Pg. 26