FAADs Agenda- May 17, 2006
744 P Street (Room 1125 Morning & Room 300 Afternoon)
9:00-3:30
Agenda Additions
Growth discussion. Bring the issue to Fiscal.
County Allocations – CDSS
Ø STOP – CDSS proposed change in methodology.
o Standard methodology allocates the funds 50% based on US Census data for children under 18 in poverty and 50% based on US Census data for population 0-17. Due to a change in the US Census methodology as of June 2004, the year to year data comparison has been erratic.
o CDSS proposal would allocate 50% based on one of the US Census components and the other 50% on expenditures so that the money goes where it is most needed.
US Census has changed how the numbers are reported which has now put a problem in this allocation. Want to give money to counties with a plan. The old methodology gives increases to those that do not spend and decreases those that do. This a major problem. Propose to use the population numbers of children under 18 only as the poverty numbers are erratic. Will put out planning allocation using 50% poverty and 50% expenditure and one with 50% population and 50% expenditure. This will be discussed at a Fiscal. State to get this data to CWDA within the week. Counties will then be asked to discuss on a conference call to give state direction ASAP.
Ø CAPIT – New methodology for 2006-07 or continue based on previous year?
o This program has been without a new methodology for 2 years now. In FY’s 04/05 & 05/06 was allocated based on the last year of the 3-year plan which ended in FY 03/04.
State has been without a method for two years. The three year plan needs to be looked at in terms of how it can change. Need to start this in Aug. Leave as is for now.
Ø CWS EA TANF – How to allocate with addition of CWS Hotline Shift
o There are the usual EA funds, and then a shift of funds to EA based on the CWS Hotline Shift. The regular EA was allocated in 05/06 based on the 04/05 expenditures once the 4th quarter data was made available.
Same as last year? Changes here would make major problems. Do we want to wait for 4th quarter expenditures? How does this work with a capped allocation? New estimate every year and the cap changes. We know the Hotline shift based on the survey. Can we use what was allocated last year then add the hotline shift numbers on top? Need to separate expenditures of hotline from the rest to see what the additional amount is. Problem was shifting expenditures to an existing PIN.
Shelters are calculated separately. How to handle the hotline? Letter coming out, in two weeks, that will show the updated allocation associated with the shift for FY05/06. Adjustments in close out will also be done. May revise calls out what is available for close out. For FY06/07 planning is based on the survey results and expenditures from FY04/05.
Ø Allocation Timing
o Last year we waited for 4th quarter expenditure data for our larger allocations which resulted in delays to the CFL’s. Due to staff shortages in the County Claims Unit, they are still well behind the normal time frame for making available the quarterly expenditures. Waiting for 4th quarter expenditure data will result in further delays in getting the CFL’s out.
State is expecting to sign the budget on time. CDSS now has 30 days to get allocations out. This will be difficult for state staff. They will put them out as they can as planning allocations then issue letters for final. Expenditure data is late in getting to estimates for use in developing the new allocations. The CalWORKs single allocation is the most difficult and we may want to ask the state to wait for 4th quarter numbers. CWS is another one with problems. Staffing issues at the state are the main problems as well as training curves. Methodology changes need to be examined before counties can voice an opinion.
May Revise- Cal Works-Graham
Ø Summary of various Cal WORKS efforts including current workgroups lead by CDSS and how it affects Fiscal-Graham
We will spend more in CalWORKs for FY05/06 but the May revise is shorting us by 179.8 million in FY06/07 base on the projected expenditures. Hand out of CalWORKs by component. Some new mandates but not sure what they are based on the discussions in the legislature. Trying to avoid budget conference. CWDA wants the same package in both houses. 114 million is reserved for TANF re-authorization. Discussion to take place soon. Legislature maybe inclined to add more to CalWORKs based on the new information being given to them. CWDA chart has been very helpful. Trying to make the components be more in line with spending is a political issue and state staff is not sure how to go about solving the issue. CWDA white paper addresses these issues. If we can get a total amount to cover all the expenditures then we are half way there. Participation rates are down which is the main reason that there is more money in employment and training. The base must be funded if TANF re-authorization is to work. Penalties are attached and we do not want to share in them if at all possible. Progress towards participation will reduce the share of the penalty.
Bottom line is that 47 million will be added back into CalWORKs due to the QRPB data.
Child Welfare package has more money but not sure where the politics will take it.
Revise Project Goals-All
Looking for direction from Fiscal based on the common hot topic of CalWORKs.
NAFS Overmatch-Graham
Shift is not showing against CalWORKs to show actual spending. Legislature is not seeing the true picture of CalWORKs. Maybe able to show the shift upfront using last years dollars as a place holder. Need to deal with county specific issues. Graham will do a basic chart of what is being spent for the state to use. Need a way to show accurate spending.
CalWORKs caseload/allocation -Terrie
Ø Comparisons between 2000-01 and 2004-05
CalWORKs eligibility administration allocation comparison. Hand out is compilation of data available. Cost of Doing Business increases hurts everyone. Declining case loads compound the problem. Suggestion is to drop all premise and start fresh with expenditures of FY04/05 as a base. Getting rid of the premises will require looking into the data reporting requirements at the state level. Legislature needs to recognize that we shift money to eligibility. Employment is the more popular part of the program.
PCAB Salary Comparison -Maile
Hand out of what is done in Santa Cruz. EDP costs not included due to the drastic changes that have taken place. This is a good way to judge the cost of doing business. Info off the DFA 453 and DFA 327.1, salaries from the pools page. Maile to share the spreadsheet. If you apply the FY00/01 cost per case to the current case load it is obvious that we are not being fully funded. This is due to all the negative premise they apply. Objective is to show the state that our unit costs have increased even though our caseloads are flat. If we get the PCAB back, we will have some work already going. Issues we want to address are: no increase in our unit costs, no CDB, no equity between eligibility and employment services allocations. Assembly has approved PCAB type trailer bill language for 07/08 and Senate will do so next week. The wording is such that funding be based on the actual costs of doing social service administration for the state. The current legislature does not have a clue at to what PCAB is or why we want to do it. Send data to Terrie.
Side note: CWDA is being asked to defend the Medi-Cal PCAB increases as salary increases. State feels that they should not have to pay for the counties decisions to increase local salaries. Benefits were exempted as there was not agreement to what should be included and what did or did not increase. Graham to send specific request for data – actual Medi-Cal budget worksheet for FY06/07, email to Graham.
Individual County assignment data-All
Additional data given for counties that did not reply in time. What does this tell us? CEC report 453 does not shift the FTE’s but the money is. We should provide this information to UC Davis as this is additional information for the Fiscal Training. The proper way is to correct the FTE’s in the PINs that shift, 614, 618,663 to PAFS, 615 shifts to Medi-Cal. We need a memo to clarify what we want and how to get it. Memo to be sent with corrected instructions on how the numbers are to be shifted. The fully loaded costs should be higher. Connie to send out new template. Send data to Terrie. Due by May 26th.
1st draft of project paper and next steps-All
Project paper - not there yet.
Next steps are the two worksheets mentioned above.
Report Out
CAPE – Too many unanswered questions. See below.
Compiled caseload data can be shared.
CalWORKs is the hot topic. FAADS data needs to be incorporated into the main discussion. Summary not ready to be shared as we need to correct it first. Share the issues around the data collection. Have not reached any conclusions, more analysis is ongoing.
Allocations after state report.
Cape training/instruction – DSS is confused on who is responsible for what. Training was useless. Too many questions unanswered. Need state to clarify what is being asked for and who to pose what questions to. Major change is that all counties must do a CAPE. It is hoped that the CAPE will expedite the APD process. Submission dates have been moved up to meet Federal requirements for releasing of money. The state annual report did not include county detail which means that all APD’s from the counties had to go to the Feds. If the county information is not included in the state report then some things may be denied. Is there any room for moving the due date as some counties have never done this before? State has a September due date. June 1 the data entry is blocked. All EDP costs must be included if there is any allocation at all to CWS/CMS. Estimates are for two years. If any project does not get done, then county needs to be prepared to tell the state why not. If a project is decided on, but not in the CAPE, then it must be submitted to State and then to the Fed’s for approval as an add-on project. Estimates need to realistic. APD’s that are pending should be in the CAPE. Questions on definitions to project staff. Questions about what is included in a CAPE should call project first they will forward the question to appropriate office. Resources and contact info on the WEB site. Time extension will have to be negotiated within the state agencies. Counties that have never done this before may need more time. Counties should be working with the SPOC and county SSE. Tiffany 916-263-3914 George – 916-263-1111 Rene 916-263-1453. State time line is tight. FAQ’s are being updated daily on the CWS/CMS web site under projects. Next year the information will come out much earlier.