Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 04-01-1982 46&42 APRIL 1, 1982 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in special session on Thursday, April 1, 1982, at 7:30 P.M. in the Lincoln Center Board Meeting Room, Chapel Hill North Carolina. Commissioners present: Chairman Richard E. Whitted (who arrived at 7:50 P.M) and °commissioners Norm Gustaveson, Shirley E. Marshall and Don Wilihoit. Commissioners absent: Commissioner Norman Walker. The purpose of the meeting was a work session of the Board with the Orange County Human Services Needs Assessment Steering Committee and members of the Human Services Advisory Commission. Vice-chairman Gustaveson chafed the meeting while awaiting the arrival of Chairman Whitted. Vice-chairman Gustaveson introduced Ms. Peggy Pollitzer, Chair of the Needs Assessment Committee, who in turn introduced those members of the Needs Assess- ment Committee present: Wil Morse, Steven Caber, Linda Potter, Sue Baker, Dee Gamble, Martha Stucker, Dave Kiel, Ken COrnatzer, Debbie Nordlund, Belinda Jones, and Mary Rita Gray. Ms. Pollitzer gave a brief histroical review of the Human Services Advisory Commission and Needs Assessment Committee. Ms. Pollitzer summarized the findings of the Needs Assessment Study for the Board (the Executive Summary of the Study is attached to these Minutes on pages 10(.-111 of this bock). Chairman Whitted arrived during MS. Pollitzer's presentation and asked that Vice-chairman Gustaveson continue chairing the meeting. Following NES. Pollitzer's presentation, the Board made its statements and posed questions. Commissioner Marshall said she needed more information and wanted to know how this document addressed County programs. Commissioner Willhoit'Said he was gratified that the document found there was "no significant duplication of services" since that had been a goal of the County for some time. He added that maybe it would be better : the HSAC made recommendations. Commissioner Whitted said he felt increased olds- ' cussion was needed now of how current resources and programs (County) could be meshed to meet those needs. Commissioner Willhoit said it would be helpful to get specifics; he clarified that one of the needs ident-ified was unemployment and said Orange County had the lowest unemployment rate in the State; how may the County answer this need? Commissioner Gustaveson voiced two main concerns: 1)How to translate the document into County policy; and, 2) Taking into account the present and anticipated Federal cuts, how the County may begin to "forge" strategy for the County and the private sector to meet those needs. He paraphrased Cammias- loner Marshall, "How this document relates to the policy-naking role of the Board of Camnissioners in this area?" and thereby opened the floor for public cements. Mr. Dave Kiel: Said that local units often had programs designed from afar with little individual focus; this document says what the needs and desires are in Orange County. Ms. Martha Stucker: Said this was the opportunity for citizens to say, for example, that the "unemployment rate is still too high." She said this is an Orange County report, what the citizens want for the County. Mr. Wil Morse: Said that with regard to unemployment, on his committee, there were things they felt the Board of Commissioners could do: 1) have a CIA type program; 2) with the Employnent Service Commission moving to Durham, the Board of Commissioners could arrange a) for someone from that office in Orange County on a part-time basis, or b) transportation to Durham County for these who wished to visit that agency to look for wbrk, or c) get the Employment Security Connission back to this County. Ms. Pollitzer said that sane recommendations were on page twenty-eight of the report and that when the question of what the Board of Commissioners can do arose several things came to her mind; for example, active pursuit of industry and funding defined as the "ultimate policy decision." Ms. Stucker: Added that "barriers" or 'missing services" were examined; where programs were doing well they were not addressed. Commissioner Marshall said that she hoped the HSAC would look at "specifics," for example, when industry comes into the County, are people brought into the County to fill those jobs? She added that she felt there were "barriers to upward mobility" that may be specific to Orange County and these were the kind of specifics she would like addressed. Mr. Bill Baxter, Director, OPC Mental Health Center and Chair of the HSAC, said he thought the next step would be for the HSAC to make specific reconmendations to the Board of Commissioners about how to apply this report. Mr. Dick Taylor: Agreed with Mr. Baxter, saying this discussion was most helpful and that the HSAC needed to know what the Board wanted and expected. U634 MS. Pollitzer said that the Needs Assessment Committee had felt that the recommendations on service should come from the HSAC. Various members of the subcxmrmittees said they had not made recommendations because they had not thought this was part of their charge. Ms. PriscinaOtto : Said unemployment had been ranked high by her subcommdt because if the County could ease the unemployment rate some of the problems of these people, who tended to be County clients, would be erased. Discussion contined with members of the audience offering comments. Mr. Morse suggested better coordination of agencies delivering services. Commissioner Willhoit said the ways the mandated services restrict the County should be checked. He added the the County discretionary money was a;small part of the funding can- pared with that allocated to mandated services and was inadequate to meet all the needs; the County needs flexibility in the use of Federal and State funds but that resistance to withdraw all of the "strings" existed at those levels for fear that currently mandated services would be cut. Commissioner Gustaveson challenged the Board members to summargize their ideas for the press. Commissioner Marshall said she was particularly interested in how we might coordinate programs/services among the governmental and private agencies. Commissioner Willhoit said he would like the HUmans Services Advisory aommisF., to address these recommendation and to strive for a balance between the bro . issues, getting down to the specific proposals for the County to deal with so that we can see same tangible evidence of progress in addition to the broader picture. He aded that perhaps the Committees can be reconstituted later to provide for follow up and an evaluation of progress toward addressing the recommendations in the preset report. commissioner Whitted said he was interested in receiving more "specific data in terms of the level of service" and how that relates to the commitment of resources and where those resources are going. That is, what we are doing and what we sho 1 be doing in terms of those resources. Commissioner Whitted said such information would make the Commissioners more knowledgeable about issues or needs that we can't address and what the County is able to address in terms of better coordination and communication with legislators in Raleigh. COmmissioner Gustaveson said he was looking for ways for the County to employ a "variety of strategies" in order to coordinate a community-wide effort. He u0845 r ;r said the County may not have the financial resources available but it does possess the leadership role to nobilize various sectors of the community in order to address needs. Following some wind up remarks from the audience Vice-chairman Gustaveson thanked Ms. Pollitzer and her Needs Assessrrent Committee for its work. Mr. Baxter announced the meeting of the HSAC Steering Committee on April 8th at 8:00 A.M. and said he hoped to get the recommendations worked out to go to the full committee meeting On April 15th; a report with recommendations for the Board of Commissioners will follow that meeting. The seating,was adjourned by consensus. Norman Gustaveson, Vice-chair. Paulette Pridgen-Pond, Clerk 1 1 11.0;8,1 6 t EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Back-round and Process In April 1981, the Orange County Human Services Advisory Commission initiated this project by the appointment of a Needs Assessment Committee. This was as a direct result of the con- cerns and priorities expressed by boards and staff of human services agencies and elected officials at the fall 1980 Human Services Conference, and as a way of undertaking part of the ESAC's commission from the Orange County Commissioners to "study human service needs and resources of Orange County. " The project was funded by the ESAC and the County Commissioners. The County Commissioners requested that the needs assessment determine: how the current level of services fits the need; what are the priority needs in the view of a representative segment of the broad community; the availability of services for those need- ing them; duplication of services and gaps, if possible. An inventory of services currently offered, as well as profiles of human service agencies in Orange County, were requested and, have been provided to the County Manager. The Needs Assessment Committee which planned and executed the study was commrised of HSAC agency representatives, several Masters and Doctoral Degree candidates from the University of North Carolina, a professional consultant from the University, a part- time staff member to the committee, and in the initial planning phases, two county administrative staff. The study was designed to determine basic human services needswl:thin the county, and to determine priorities without con - ing services currently being offered. Using needs data and ser . L_, information gathered by the Needs Assessment Committee as a base, 80 citizens working in six age-group committees ranked priority needs, determined current levels of service, and assessed availabil- ity and adequacy. The members of these citizen groups were nomin- ated by a wide range of community organizations appointed by the Commissioners. They included consumers of services, agency staff, community leaders and local professionals. Each age group produced a detailed report on priority barriers affecting that group, with a rationale for their rankings. They assessed the adequacy and availability of services currently offered and although the citizen groups were not requested to make recom- mendations on services needed to fill the gap between needs and current services, most chose to do so. These have been included. Each age group selected representatives to meet in a summary session in order to reach a consensus on priority barriers and nee' across all age groups and to review the summary of group findings adequacy and availability of services. 0(184'; Summary of Findings The summary group listed barriers alphabetically within categories, such as "Highest Priority" , "Very High Priority" , etc. , in order to avoid any numerical ranking. It was felt that numeri- cal ranking of these most significant barriers would give a mis- leading impression that criteria and understandings of the problems were uniform from group to group or appropriate for all barriers or problems. Therewsm difficulty in weighing the relative importance Of the severity of a problem to an individual, as opposed to a problem that affects a large number. A. Richest Priority Barriers - Economic and Financial Problems/Living in Poverty Affects all age groups and was of high concern to all age-group committees. - Lack of Employment Opportunities Highest priority for 13-13; 19-25; 26-60; also relevant for 60+. B. High Priority Barriers These problems, though not consistently ranked highest across all age groups, were of high concern to 3 or more. - Handicapped/Disability and Incapacitating. Medical Condition - Housing Problems - Lack of Child Care - Lack of Transportation - Lack of Information and Referral C. Very High Prioritvfor Certain Age Groups These barriers were ranked by at least one age group as their first or second priority, but were either not of concern to the other groups, or were relatively low priorities. - Discrimination (0-6; 7-12) - Home Care (60+) - Lack of Training or Education and Low Skill Level (19-25) - Poor Parent-Child Relations 7-12; 13-18) The age groups went beyond these 11 high priorities to identify 16 other problems which they ranked in their top 10 or 11. Many more problem areas were identified for concern, but this study was aimed at identifying major concerns. The citizen groups did not identify any significant duplication of services. While services seem to be available to address many problems, there were many gaps identified in a variety of areas. This study indicates broad community needs, and provides a necessary first step to assist with further problem definition. Determination of the responsibilities for implementation among the public and private sectors is needed. r I - PR=ORITY BARRIERS A. Highest Priority Barriers Barrier Rationales Economic and Financial Of high concern to all age-group committees Problems/Living in . Affects all age groups Poverty . Entire summary group rated this high priority • This problem is basic to many other problems • Is a severe problem for those affected • Problem is orevalent and severe for 60+ (60+ committee est4mAtes 50% of age group affected) • Severe impact on groups at risk: low skilled/educated workers; low income; elderly; handloacoed; minorities and children • The problem has a particularly severe impact on children and affects the rest oE their lives • The problem is exacerbated by the uncertainty of the future economy Lack of Employment . Majority of sirrmAry group rated this high priority Opportunities . Number 1 priority for 13-18; 19-25; 26-60 • Large number of people affected • Severe problem for those affected • Is a factor in many other prnblem . Has a severe impact on groups at risk • Data, may not reflect those who desire jobs R. Very Hich Priority Barriers Handicapped/Disability . Cut across all economic levels and Incapacitating • Severe problem for those affected Medical Condition • Increases social isolation, disrupts fpoily life increases stress Community concern is high • There is a great fear of the occurrence of an incanaci- tating condition among older persons Housing ProblPm . Solving this problem is basic to solving other probiPm . Overcrowded housing more of a problem in Orange County (7% of households) than in North Carolina (6%) . Death, disease and interpersonal stress are caused by un- sanitary olumbing, overcrowded housing and lack of heat • There is a community concern about affordable, adecuate housing Lack of Child Care • Of high concern. to 0-6, 19-25, 26-50 age grouos • Day care is essential for parents to work . For poor children day care is essential preparation for education • Current community concern . Child care is a resource for stressed fqm4lies and abus and neglected children • Early detection of developmental and physical problems leads cc early remediazion and is cost effectiye B. Very Rich Priority Barriers, contd. " Barrier Rationales Lack of Child Care, . Lack of child care is a major reason for teen mothers not contd. comoletinc school . There are increasing numbers of single parent families with concomitant increased economic stresses . Nutritious meals and nutrition education orovided in quality day care can help offset problems caused by poverty Lack of Transportation . limits access to health care, child care, handicapped services, education, recreation, medical services, emoloy- ment, etc. . Is linked to several other barriers--economic problpmc and social isolation . Community concern exists . Solving this problem is preventative Lack of Information . Majority of srmmA-y group rated this high priority and Referral . Mentioned in all but one age group (7-12) as a significant factor in access to existing services . Is a significant need due to high mobility and rapid growth of Population; high rate of agency staff turnover; and rapid changes in resources . Significant number unable to find appropriate service can add to severity of ProblPol • Has a direct impact on all other barriers • Of concern to the communizy C. Very High Priority Barriers For Certain Age Groups Discrimination . Number 2 priority for 7-12; important for 0-6 • Produces unequal access to services for total population . Discrimination against school-age children because of their age, sex, race, religion, national origin or handicap has adverse effect on a sicnificant number • Is all-pervasive in home, school, public agencies and individuals . Services are not equally dist--4'nuted throuchput the county t'orr. Care Is a Burden . Ranked number 2 by 60.. age group • The problem is prevalent and cuts across all economic levels • Solving this problem would prevent oroblems associated with institutionalization • Economic uncertainty heightens the concern about this prob- lem Lack of T-aining/Educa- • sigh priority for 19-25 and 26-60 age groups tion/Low Skill Leval Severe problem for those affected • Impact on other barriers and problems Poor Parent-Child • High priority for 7-12 and 13-13 age grouos; moderate Relations priority for 0-5 and 19-25 : — l :' •• .'-..s '•-•:::, .,,L , , . . . 00850 , Z . Very Hich Priority Barriers For CertaihAge Groups, contd. Barrier Rationales Poor Parent-Child . Is a cause of other problems later in life . Relations, contd. . Major problem for young children because of their vulnez bility • Eigh mobility results in lack of extended families and support networks . Relates to other barriers • Lack of parenting skills increases this problem RANKINGS OF BA.R=RS BY AGE GROUPS (LIST= ALPHABETICALLY) * indicates barrier mentioned in report, but not ranked as significant Range: I through 11, with 1 being the highest A. Hichest. Priority Barriers --- . Barrier Age Group 0-6 7-12 13-18 19-25 26-60 60+ - ________-__------------ Economic and Financial Problems/ 8 6 -----I -1 -------- ---- Living in Poverty 5 4 T 4 7 - 1 Lack of Employment Onmortunities - - . 1 1" 1 10 1 I 2 - • ---L------ ------- B. Very High Priority Barriers . i Barrier Age Group 0-6 7-12 13-18 19-25 1 26-60 60+ i ------- I Bandicapoed/Oisability and 3 - - - * 3 I Incapacitating Medical Condition --- Housing Problems/ 7 1 - - - I 2 • Unsanitary Livinc Conditions 7 I . Lack of Child Care i ' * - 3 * - , . Lack of Information and Referral 2 - 10 11 * ' * i •--------- __--- i ----- I Lack of Transoortation t - - I - * 5 I . . ...- --- C. Very Rich Priority Barriers for Certain Ace Groups r-• . . --- Barrier ----------......„.... Age Group 1 0-6 1 7-12 13-1B 119-25 26-60 I 60+ --T---H- Oiscrimination 10 1 2 - ; I some Care Is A Burden 1 - I - - I - * 2 I 2 f _ 0051 , I J Li Very Hich Priority Barriers fox- Certain Ace Grout's, contd. . / Barrier Age Group 0-6 7-12 13-18 19-25 26-60 1 60+ Lack of Training/Education/ - . - - - 3 1 - I Low Skill Level r7.---.1._:-_-1---:------72----7-7--:_., Poor Parent-Child Relations: 2 - - B 1 1 10 Parenting Skills . — . li D. Barriers of nigh Concern to Certain Ace Groups ___ ----------,---- . Barrier Age Group 0-6 1 7-12 13-18 ] 19-25 26-60 60+ — ----------- - Abuse and Neglect of Children 9B 6 - - - - ——-—. Difficulty Obtaining Medical 9A - - - * 4 Services - — Family Crisis * 10 5 - * 9 I Low Self-Esteem - 3 F 9 * -_—_,----- 5 * Lnadeanate Nutrition 6 9 - * 6 11 Psychological Stress - * 7 5 4 7 ----- . --,--- — School Problemc - 7 6 * - - • ---- -----, Unolanned Pregnancy - - * 4 - ------ --- E. Barriers of Concern to Certain Age Groups 1 Barrier Age Group 0-6 7-12 13-18 19-25 I 26-60 60+ 1 -------------- ___ I I 1 Difficulty Getting Parents Invol- - 8 * - - I ved in Children's Education - I ----------------- 1 I Lack of Bealth Education - - - .1. ----4 Lack of Life Skill Preparation - 5 - - - - 1 ----------- -- Marital Problemc - - - 8 1 * t - i 1 i , 1 Problems with Institutionalization - - - - - 6 i --- ---1- Single Parent Household * - - I 9 1 - I - I .---._———— --------- , , I Substance Abuse - - I 3 * * . ,----------- _ I Environmental Health - - I - - —.——---. ---- •