X hits on this document





20 / 41

Chisago County Citizen Review Panel Activities (continued)

Chisago County Citizen Review Panel, in conjunction with the other Minnesota Citizen Review Panels, studied the following documents which related to Child Welfare Financing in Minnesota.

  • The Task Force for Financing the Future of Child Welfare in Minnesota's report, Child Safety in Minnesota, Outcome-Driven and Performance-Based System, September 25, 2006

  • Office of the Legislative Auditor, State of Minnesota evaluation report summary, Human Services Administration, January 2007

  • Minnesota Association of County Social Service Administrators (MACSA), Association of Minnesota Counties (AMC), Minnesota Inter-county Association, proposal fact sheet and summary regarding Child Safety Financing

  • Financing the Future Child Safety Proposal Fact Sheet.

The examination of Child Welfare Financing also included a panel discussion at the Seventh Annual Celebration of Minnesota’s Citizen Review Panels (this includes all Minnesota Citizen Review Panels). Child Welfare Financing Panel members included state and county officials. Chisago County Citizen Review Panel reviewed and agreed with the recommendations of the task force and Legislative Auditor's Report, which include:

Task Force Proposal:

  • Child Safety System to support outcome driven and performance based accountability for safety, permanence and well-being for all Minnesota Children.

  • Child Safety Fund to establish a balanced funding structure in which the state shares more equally in financial participation with counties in ensuring the safety of children.

  • Opportunities for tribes to participate in the Child Safety System and Child Safety Fund.

Legislative Auditor's Report Recommendations:

  • The Legislature should establish working groups to (1) streamline human services program requirements, and (2) consider changes in human services funding policy.

  • The Legislature should grant the Department of Human Services (DHS) additional authority to act when counties do not meet performance benchmarks.

  • The Legislature should clarify the statutes that define local human services governance duties.

  • Through statutes or financial incentives, the Legislature should more strongly encourage smaller counties to jointly administer their human services agencies.

  • The Legislature should authorize pilot projects in which DHS assumes responsibility for some county duties.

  • DHS should develop better performance information and share it regularly with county officials.

  • DHS should focus more oversight and assistance on counties struggling to deliver the full range of human services.

  • County boards should improve their oversight of local human services agencies.


Document info
Document views117
Page views117
Page last viewedTue Jan 17 13:23:01 UTC 2017