ILNews

DCS settles final issue stemming from 2009 suit over rate cuts

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Department of Child Services announced Tuesday that is has reached a legal settlement with IARCCA, an Association of Children & Family Services, over rates paid to cover additional staffing costs and cost-of-living expenses to residential facilities and foster care agencies that serve abused and neglected children.

The settlement says that DCS will primarily adjust cost-of-living rates to providers and pay for additional staff per child with providers. According to a statement released by DCS, the settlement agreement provides a one-year adjustment on rates for 2013. The state estimates the adjustment will cost $15 million.

In 2009, IARCCA filed a lawsuit after DCS said it would cut rates paid to the agencies that provide foster care placements and intensive residential treatment for children who are abused or neglected, beginning in 2010.

After changes in Indiana property tax law in 2008 shifted responsibility of payments for provider services to state government from county governments, DCS realized that there was a wide range of pricing of services among providers.

DCS contracts with IARCCA’s members to provide services to children as described in Title IV-E of the Federal Social Security Act.

Since the suit was filed, IARCCA and DCS have settled other issues cited in the suit. In 2011, the two reached an agreement regarding the reimbursement rate cuts. Stephanie McFarland, spokeswoman for DCS, said that the settlement announced Tuesday stems from a 2011 filing in the original lawsuit. Now that the issue over rates paid to cover more staff and cost-of-living expenses has been settled, no issues from the 2009 suit remain.

IARCCA Executive Director Cathleen Graham said in the statement that her membership is pleased with the settlement result. She noted that further work needs to be done, and IARCCA is “equally pleased that DCS agreed to meet regularly in partnership to enhance Indiana’s child welfare system. It takes both the public and private sectors working together to truly meet the complex needs of the abused, neglected and delinquent children and their families.”

For nearly three years, DCS has been trying to implement consistent rates for providers across the state based on actual costs incurred. McFarland said DCS is on course to achieve that goal.

“Although costs vary from region to region within the state, rates are tied to actual and verifiable costs, so the range of rates is not as large as what had been the case prior to 2009,” she said. “Administrative rules have been established regarding rates, and this settlement acknowledges those rules.”
 

IARCCA was represented by Faegre Baker Daniels LLP; James Payne, the named defendant in the suit and former director of DCS, was represented by Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP and Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP.

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. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  2. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  3. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  4. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  5. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

ADVERTISEMENT