Transcript CSAC Institute: Realignment Workshop

What We Will Discuss
Social Services Realignment
What programs were Realigned
How the funding is structured
Assessment for Social Services
Challenges and Implications
2010-11 May Revision
1
What Social Services
Programs Were Realigned?
CalWORKs Assistance,
Eligibility, Employment
Services
Foster Care
Child Welfare Services
Adoptions Assistance
In-Home Supportive
Services
County Services Block
Grant
County Juvenile Justice
Subventions (AB90)
County Stabilization
Subventions
California Children’s
Services
2
How Did County Sharing Ratios Change?
Old
Share
New
Share
(non-Fed)
(non-Fed)
CalWORKs Aid Payments
11%
5%
CalWORKs Eligibility
50%
30%
Foster Care
5%
60%
Child Welfare Services
24%
30%
Adoptions Assistance
0%
25%
CalWORKs Employment Services
0%
30%
In-Home Supportive Services
3%
35%
County Services Block Grant
16%
30% total
California Children’s Services
25%
50% total
Program
3
Purpose For Social Services
Dedicated
fund source
for changes
in
responsibility
Amounts
intended to
reflect
change in
county cost
since 1991
Not
designed to
replace prior
county
support
4
How is Realignment Funded?
½ Cent Sales
Tax and
dedicated
portion of
Vehicle
License Fees
(VLF)
Funds are used
first to meet base,
then to Caseload
Growth, and
lastly for
General Growth
Social Services
now receives
37% total funding
$2.2 Billion
initial funding
• $522 Million
(24%) Social
Services
5
County Approaches to Realignment
Different levels of
funding Different county
approaches
Counties with
additional county
General Fund
above realignment
Counties that use
Realignment as
only source for
program matches
6
Realignment as
Fund Source for MOE’s
Maintenance of effort for mandated social
services programs
 County GF reflective of priorities and
perception of sufficient realignment funding
 Funding changes driven by population and
caseload growth
 Placer County example

◦ Huge population growth and caseload demands
since Realignment
◦ Insufficient Realignment funding to cover
mandated program costs
7
Realignment Base Funding
Foster Care
example: changed
from 5% to 60%
County share
Intended to capture
the funding
necessary to reflect
increased county
program
responsibilities
Based on historical
levels of individual
County support
Initial adjustments
due to equity issues
Originally
Established in
1991-92 Based
on Formula
8
Realignment Caseload
Growth Funding
Reflects mandated growth in social services programs
Amount based on program expenditures, not caseload
Calculation based on change in County cost due to
mandated cost increases (i.e. growth in caseload)
• Determined by comparison of County specific costs from two
years ago compared to last year
• Increased cost generally translates to increase caseload growth
State Department of Social Services and Health Care
Services calculate draft amounts for each county.
Counties Review to validate amounts and recommend
adjustments.
9
Caseload Growth Issues

CalWORKs Caseload Growth Exception
◦ County share decreased (11% to 5%)
◦ Increased caseload = Decreased caseload
growth

Foster Care/Group Home Rate Increase
◦ 32% Rate increase retro to December 2009
◦ Higher rate = higher caseload growth

IHSS as Caseload Growth Driver
◦ Significant increased costs translate to significant
caseload growth over time
10
Realignment General
Growth Funding
Can apply to
Sales Tax
and/or VLF
funding
once base
and
caseload
growth are
fully funded
Sales Tax
general
growth now
primarily
benefits
social
services
VLF
general
growth
primarily
benefits
health and
mental
health
Has
occurred
only a few
times for
Sales Tax
since 1991
Has
occurred in
most years
for VLF
until
2007-08
11
Realignment Challenges
Mandated and
non-mandated
programs
competing for
limited funds
Two year
funding lag
even if sufficient
Sales Tax/VLF
Transfers
between
accounts – Who
Benefits?
12
Realignment Fund Transfers
1993-94
1994-95
1995-96
1996-97
1997-98
1998-99
1999-2000
2000-2001
2001-02
2002-03
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
Totals
Mental
Health
$ 3.9
$ -25.9
$ 2.2
$ -18.7
$ -10.4
$ -15.3
$ -10.3
$ -5.2
$ -4.9
$ -5.8
$ -1.4
$ 4.6
$ 5.0
$ 8.4
$ 5.9
$ 6.7
$ -$61.2
Social
Services
$ 5.9
$ 80.3
$ 7.9
$ 26.7
$ 12.6
$ 10.8
$ 4.7
$ -3.2
$ 21.2
$ 31.0
$ 11.3
$ 4.5
$ -.1
$ -2.9
$ -1.8
$ -.1
$ +208.8
Health
$ -9.8
$ -54.4
$ -10.0
$ -8.0
$ -2.2
$ 4.5
$ 5.6
$ 8.4
$ -16.4
$ -25.2
$ -9.9
$ -9.1
$ -4.9
$ -5.1
$ -4.4
$ -6.6
$ -147.5
Number of
Counties
10
13
14
21
18
19
16
11
19
15
17
13
15
17
9
12
13
Legislative Action

Changes to base funding and distribution
◦ 1992-93 Restoration
◦ AB1716 (2003) Restoration

CWS/Foster Care/Adoptions
◦ Increased program requirements

IHSS
◦ Expanded eligibility, collective bargaining, and
Personal Care Services Program (PCSP)


CalWORKs
Human Services Funding Deficit
◦ Funding shortfall leads to encroachment
14
Has Realignment Worked
for Social Services?
Over time, funding has
largely tracked
caseload growth
•Has not worked every
year
Current Realignment
picture is bleak but
better than alternative
Realignment as funding
backstop – with many
holes
15
Funding Implications
Base funding
has not been
met since 200607
Social Services
base currently
underfunded by
$248 million
Caseload
growth has not
been funded
since 2006-07
Total combined
underfunding is
$583 million
2009-10 Base
also on track to
be underfunded
Currently
underfunded by
$285 million
Underfunding
equals
permanent cut
to base funding
Additional
estimated $50
million due this
year
Underfunding
paid with future
year caseload
growth funds
Underfunding
squeezes general
growth to all
accounts
16
Funding Implications continued
17
Are We Out of the Woods Yet?
Sales tax showing
slow steady
improvement
VLF remains
highly volatile
Funding unlikely to
catch up for at
least several years
May Revision
Proposal
2010-11 Likely to
be improvement
over past few
years
18
2010-11 May Revision
Major changes to county
responsibility,
but no new funding.
County share changes:
Food Stamps
30% to 81%
Foster Care
Assistance
60% to 80%
Child Welfare
Services
30% to 80%
Foster Care
Eligibility
30% to 52%
Adoptions
Assistance
25% to 80%
19
2010-11 May Revision – How Funded?
Pocket to Pocket
funding –
It’s our Money!
One-time funding
for ongoing
changes
Redirects $257
million in “County
Savings” due to
IHSS reductions
Rips off $602
million in Mental
Health funds
Rips off $102
million Fed
Stimulus (ARRA)
funds
20
Questions
21