Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Foster Care Policy topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Tazewell County CPMT adopts foster-care funding request log, removes multiple-signature requirement

Tazewell County Community Policy and Management Team (CPMT) · March 1, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Tazewell County Community Policy and Management Team voted Sept. 25 to add a Foster Care Maintenance Funding Request Log to its local CSA policy and to remove the CPMT member signature line so the chair’s approval suffices.

Tazewell County’s Community Policy and Management Team voted Sept. 25 to include a Foster Care Maintenance Funding Request Log in the local CSA policy and to remove the line requiring multiple CPMT member signatures on that form, streamlining approval for foster-care maintenance funding.

The coordinator told members the draft log had been emailed for review Sept. 11 and that no emailed edits were received; the CPMT reviewed the form at the meeting and, on a motion by Shanna Plaster, unanimously approved adding the log to the local policy and procedure manual. During review of an individual Foster Care Maintenance case, Lori Gates-Addison questioned why “eleven forms with eleven signatures” were required and said the chair’s signature had previously been used to document approval. "The Maintenance Funding Request Log should be processed in the same way," Gates-Addison said. The CPMT voted unanimously to remove the CPMT member signature line after a motion by Gates-Addison and a second from Jeff Brintle.

The manual edits emailed to CPMT and FAPT Sept. 18 clarify that CPMT approval is required to access CSA funds and that foster-care-only cases (those requiring only foster maintenance as defined by OCS and VDSS) are exempt from FAPT staffing but still require CPMT authorization for funding. The coordinator provided a hard copy of the updated page for the manual in the meeting packet.

The actions taken are internal procedure changes intended to align documentation practice with existing approval workflows; no change to eligibility criteria or funding formulas was recorded at the meeting. The CPMT did not set an implementation date beyond approving the edits and amended form.