Child Welfare & 2011 Realignment

Transcription

1 August 28, 2013 By Isaac Menashe Goldman School of Public Policy Child Welfare & 2011 Realignment Presentation for the John Burton Foundation The author conducted this analysis as part of the program of professional education at the Goldman School of Public Policy of the University of California at Berkeley. This report was submitted in partial fulfillment of the course requirements for the Master of Public Policy degree. The judgments and conclusions are solely those of the author, and are not necessarily endorsed by the Goldman School of Public Policy, the University of California, or any other agency.

2 2 Information to Participate! Call-in number is (626) and access code is ! To submit live questions, click on the Questions panel, type your question, and click Send! Presentation, full report and audio will be posted at under past trainings.

3 3 Introductions! Amy Lemley, John Burton Foundation! Isaac Menashe, Report Author! Martha Matthews, Public Counsel! Reed Connell, Alameda County Foster Youth Alliance.

4 4 Agenda Promise and Risks Funding Allocation County Flexibility System Evolution Recommendations Questions This presentation is based on a June 2013 report entitled Looking After Our Kids: How the 2011 Realignment Changes the Funding, Oversight, and Evolution of the Child Welfare System in California.

5 Realignment! Governor Brown proposes: A vast and historic realignment [of government services in order to] ensure that local needs are met in the most sensible way [... and to] allow governments at all levels to focus on becoming more efficient and effective, facilitating services to be delivered to the public for less money.! Incentive for efficiency same service for less money?! Improve flexibility and innovation in program designs.

6 6 The Promise Funding Dedicated revenue stream (isolation from General Fund) County Flexibility Efficiency through flexibility Same level of service for less money System Evolution Policy and program designs innovate and improve

7 7 The Risks Funding Level of Supply Equity of distribution County Flexibility Money diverted from child welfare Fiscal incentives misaligned with best practices System Evolution Policy process excludes some stakeholders Experimentation without learning Does the structure of realignment contain adequate safeguards to mitigate these risks?

8 8 Recommendations Allocation of Funding County Flexibility System Evolution 1 - Add Criteria to the Allocation Formula for Growth Funding 2 - Create a Trigger for the Use of the Reserve Account 3 - Provide Enhanced Public Reporting Tailored to Realignment 4 - Strengthen the System Improvement Plans 5 - Continue State Oversight of Child Welfare Expenditures 6 Support County Stakeholders

9 9 Agenda Promise and Risks Funding Allocation County Flexibility System Evolution Recommendations Questions This presentation is based on a June 2013 report entitled Looking After Our Kids: How the 2011 Realignment Changes the Funding, Oversight, and Evolution of the Child Welfare System in California.

10 10 Realignment Creates a Block Grant for Child Welfare! How is child welfare funded?! Federal, state and local sources! Discretionary v. mandatory programs! Matching rates v. bock grants! Realignment* funds child welfare directly from sales and Vehicle License Fee (VLF) revenues.! Federal funds still match state expenditures for IV-E eligible kids, but the state sources are a fixed pot, to be spent flexibly, as in a block grant.! Fears about funding:! Will IV-E eligibility look-back mean gradual erosion of total funding base for child welfare under realignment?! Inadequate funding?! Inequitable distribution? * The legislation that enacted realignment were two budget trailer bills: SB 1020 (fiscal superstructure) in 2011, and SB 1013 (child welfare) in 2012.

11 11 Decreasing IV-E Eligibility

12 12 Is Revenue Adequate?! Funding level is based on FY usage (adjusting for recession cuts).! Now funding is protected from the General Fund with a dedicated sales tax and VLF revenue stream.! How will sales tax base compare to GF?! Is sales tax source more volatile than General Fund source?! Reserve Account: will any county actually use it?

13 13

14 14

15 15 Equity Should Be Addressed! Prior to realignment: matching rates based on caseloads, with adjustments for legislative priorities, cost of living, etc.! Wide differences in funding amounts: in CWS allocations alone the range was between $2,743 and $14,023 per case in FY ! Post-realignment: Uses FY distribution as the base.! but needs will change!

16 16

17 17 Equity Should Be Addressed! The Governor (DOF) and CDSS, in consultation with CSAC, have the ability to adjust the allocation formula.! So what will be the criteria for distributing funds now that caseload is not part of the equation?! LAO proposal: simple demographics! Appendix to the report shows that population of children in poverty who result in large shifts in funding towards the inland counties.

18 18 Recommendations Allocation of Funding County Flexibility System Evolution 1 - Add Criteria to the Allocation Formula for Growth Funding 2 - Create a Trigger for the Use of the Reserve Account 3 - Provide Enhanced Public Reporting Tailored to Realignment 4 - Strengthen the System Improvement Plans 5 - Continue State Oversight of Child Welfare Expenditures 6 Support County Stakeholders

19 19 Agenda Promise and Risks Funding Allocation County Flexibility System Evolution Recommendations Questions This presentation is based on a June 2013 report entitled Looking After Our Kids: How the 2011 Realignment Changes the Funding, Oversight, and Evolution of the Child Welfare System in California.

20 20

21 21 Monitoring: State-Only Funded Programs! Specialized Training for Adoptive Parents (STAP)! Supportive Therapeutic Options Program (STOP)! Transitional Housing Program Plus (THP+)! Options for Recovery! Kinship Support Services Program! Emancipated foster youth stipends in the Independent Living Program! SB 1013 requires public notice & action by the Board of Supervisors before any significant reductions in these programs.! CDSS annual report to legislature highlights county spending on these programs.

22 22 Monitoring: Federally Ineligible Youth! Counties now have a very strong fiscal incentive to treat IV-E ineligible youth differently:! Is casework less intensive?! Are IV-E ineligible kids diverted more frequently?! Are outcomes changing?! In some cases, this is prohibited under law.! CWS/CMS doesn t differentiate between IV-E and non IV-E youth, and CDSS no longer reports out the shares on a county basis.

23 23 County Flexibility! Revenue is fixed, so incentive is to reduce caseload: Caseload falls, freeing up funds Entitlement growth squeezes out flexible funds Discretionary State funding Discretionary State funding Mandatory Mandatory ! Realignment is a policy choice to move the child welfare system in California towards family preservation.

24 24

25 25

26 26

27 27

28 28 How Do We Know? Monitoring and Oversight! AB 636! California Child Welfare Indicators Project (CWS/CMS)! System Improvement Plans! Realignment sets cycle to 5 years, instead of 3.! Fiscal Reporting! Transfer of funds between realignment accounts! Use of realignment reserve funds! Fiscal Reporting! Counties use the same claiming mechanisms using CEC (time-study) and CA 800 (assistance)

29 Monitoring: Mandatory Spending Reductions 29! Mandatory spending is the largest potential source of flexible funds.! Three mechanisms:! Reduce entries! Reduce time in the system! Reduce cost per case! Some of the C-CFSR performance measures capture the risks, others don t.

30 30 Monitoring: Mandatory Spending

31 31

32 32 Fiscal Data Outcomes? Performance Measurement Challenges:! Measuring abuse depends on discovering it.! Outcomes are only tracked for those who enter the system, while they are in it.! Empirical research is limited (few randomized control trials).! Multiple simultaneous interventions.! Child welfare interventions depend on outside factors.! Access to data from other spheres (education, health, etc.) is limited.

33 33 Fiscal Data Outcomes?

34 34 Example: Caseload Ratios! Should be a measure of intensity of services being delivered.! SB 2030 workload review says caseloads were too high.! CDSS provides no measures for this in the SIP! Labor relations concerns?

35 35

36 36 Recommendations Allocation of Funding County Flexibility System Evolution 1 - Add Criteria to the Allocation Formula for Growth Funding 2 - Create a Trigger for the Use of the Reserve Account 3 - Provide Enhanced Public Reporting Tailored to Realignment 4 - Strengthen the System Improvement Plans 5 - Continue State Oversight of Child Welfare Expenditures 6 Support County Stakeholders

37 37 Agenda Promise and Risks Funding Allocation County Flexibility System Evolution Recommendations Questions This presentation is based on a June 2013 report entitled Looking After Our Kids: How the 2011 Realignment Changes the Funding, Oversight, and Evolution of the Child Welfare System in California.

38 38 System Evolution! Child welfare is not on auto-pilot.! Role of the legislature:! Budget hearings! CDSS annual report! Future adjustments to address equity! Role of the Counties:! The action is now at the County Board of Supervisors.! Transparency of budget process varies widely.

39 39 Agenda Promise and Risks Funding Allocation County Flexibility System Evolution Recommendations Questions This presentation is based on a June 2013 report entitled Looking After Our Kids: How the 2011 Realignment Changes the Funding, Oversight, and Evolution of the Child Welfare System in California.

40 40 What Local Stakeholders Can Do:! Engage in your county s budget process:! Educate Supervisors about child welfare funding! Learn about your local agency s budget! Get involved in your county s System Improvement Plan:! Engage in the 5 year process! Ask for the annual update to CDSS! Request accompanying expenditure data! Review the CDSS annual report for fiscal information on your county! Always incorporate CCWIP measurement indicators! Share developments with state-wide networks like JBF

41 41 Recommendations Allocation of Funding County Flexibility System Evolution 1 - Add Criteria to the Allocation Formula for Growth Funding 2 - Create a Trigger for the Use of the Reserve Account 3 - Provide Enhanced Public Reporting Tailored to Realignment 4 - Strengthen the System Improvement Plans 5 - Continue State Oversight of Child Welfare Expenditures 6 Support County Stakeholders

42 42 Alameda County! Coalition of Coalitions - over 120 CBOs with programs or constituents affected by 2011 Realignment! Started early - first approach to BOS in Feb 2012 (pre Prop 30)! Community & stakeholder education! Two formal hearings before BOS committees - 5/12 and 3/13! Concrete requests! Differentiate Realigned programs within regular planning and budgeting processes! Realignment Dashboard! Community Advisory Board! Inclusive planning practices formalized in policy! Yearly reporting! Impact of anecdotes from other jurisdictions! Balancing accountability and planning

43 43 Los Angeles County! Outreach/Education realignment + waiver 101 presentation to large group of advocates, service providers, county agency staff and foundations (March 2013)! Working group ongoing monthly meetings, to develop goals, action steps and materials. (April 2013 present)! Engagement with Board of Supervisors and other key leadership on county-specific decision points and recommendations! Meetings with BOS children s deputies! Outreach to Blue Ribbon Commission! Outreach and presentation to Children s Commission.

44 44 4 Key Decision Points for Los Angeles County! How to ensure transparency and stakeholder input in child welfare fiscal and program decisions?! How to use fiscal and program flexibility in ways that actually benefit children and families?! How to protect the County from risk of future funding shortfalls! How to track outcomes and ensure system accountability?

45 45 Agenda To submit live questions, click on the Questions panel, type your question, and click Send Promise and Risks Funding Allocation County Flexibility System Evolution Recommendations Questions This presentation is based on a June 2013 report entitled Looking After Our Kids: How the 2011 Realignment Changes the Funding, Oversight, and Evolution of the Child Welfare System in California.

46 46 Resources! California Department of Social Services California Child Welfare Indicators Project John Burton Foundation Blog:

47 47 Questions! For the full version of the report, feel free to contact me directly: Isaac Menashe