ILNews

Centralized hotline and hiring more workers among issues on DCS study committee agenda

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The centralized hotline system is among the topics to be discussed when the Department of Child Services Interim Study Committee meets Nov. 8.

Committee co-chairman Sen. Travis Holdman, R-Markle, said he and the committee’s other co-chair, Rep. Cindy Noe, R-Indianapolis, will offer a framework to transform the central call center into a hybrid system.

Under their proposal, school officials, law enforcement officers, medical professionals, judges and mental health workers would be given direct access to the local child agency office in their communities. Calls from anonymous individuals and others would be routed through the centralized call center.

Separating the calls would help ease the workload at the local level by sending the higher substantiated information straight to the community office while allowing the central office to skim off the lower substantiated tips, Holdman said.

The co-chairs will also recommend the addition of more than 100 new DCS workers spread between the local offices and the centralized call center. Along with eliminating the wait time, Holdman said they believe more workers will improve efficiency and reduce turnover.

The senator is expecting to meet some resistance from the Democrats on the committee who want to abandon the centralized hotline altogether. He does not want to scrap the hotline because of the amount of the investment made in it and, by separating out certain calls, he believes the centralized system can maximize the time of a worker in the field.

Since August, the DCS interim study committee has met four times and is scheduled to meet twice in November. A meeting on Oct. 25 was cancelled.

Thursday’s session will be held in the Indiana Government Center South, at the request of Holdman. He wanted all the committee members to be able to sit at one table and look at each other while they discuss the issues and suggestions related to DCS. No outside parties will give testimony during this meeting.

Holdman and Noe have met several times with DCS officials to examine about 70 issues related to the agency. They have developed potential solutions to some of the issues and will offer those during the meeting.  


 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT