2008 Annual Child Support Training Conference & Expo LOCAL BUDGET ISSUES AND PLANNING

SPEAKERS: Kathy Sokolik, Director Santa Cruz-San Benito Regional DCSS Rita Figueroa, Deputy Director Los Angeles County CSSD Lynn Titialii, Deputy Director San Diego County DCSS

Short-Term Planning Budget Versus Allocation Setting Priorities Real-Time Monitoring

Budget Versus Allocation Current Year Budget Cost of current program versus historical data Increasing costs – Salaries and benefits, leases, county overhead, and so on.... Assume no increased funding for increased cost of doing business Educating staff

Setting Priorities Where should the resources go? Fixed costs versus discretionary spending Vacancies “Wish” lists

Real-Time Monitoring Spreadsheets and More Spreadsheets What You Know “Run Rates” What You Guess

Long-Term Planning Why Do It? Setting Priorities Assumptions Expect the Unexpected

Getting Creative Working With Other County Departments Working With Other LCSAs Budgeting at the Regional Level End-of-the-Year Process “Edging” Toward Securing County General Funds

Challenges – Budget vs. Allocation Choices – Setting Priorities County – General Fund Participation CEO – Advice/Strategies From Another Perspective

Challenges – Balancing the Budget Budget shortfall Costs for operating the child support program are increasing every year, such as increases in salaries and employee benefits, leases, county overhead, etc. Flat line allocation Based on historical funding, no adjustments for increased costs of doing business since FY

Choices – Setting Priorities Fixed Costs vs. Discretionary Purchases Timing of Purchases Claiming Requirements Hiring Decisions Salary savings Use of over time, GAIN workers, temporary services contracts

County – General Fund Participation 1.Level and History of Participation 2.Arguments Used to Secure Local Funding 3.How Dollars are Used 4.Managing Local Funds

1.Level and History of Participation Needs for Federal Financial Participation (FFP) fund The reduced and flat Administrative Funding Allocation The ever-increasing cost of doing business:  New labor union contract agreements  Lease renewals and office relocations Improve Performance

Admin Funding Allocation vs. Level of FFP Participation Administrative Funding Allocation Los Angeles County FY Baseline AmountChange % of Change 01/02152,451,778 02/03151,811,887(639,891)-0.42% 03/04141,736,009(10,075,878)-7.11% 04/05142,238,515502, % 05/06142,238, % 06/07142,238, % 07/08142,238, % 08/09139,552,000(2,686,515)-1.8%

Admin Funding Allocation vs. Level of FFP Participation History of Federal Financial Participation (FFP) Los Angeles County County Funding % of Change FFP Match Local+FFP 03/041,360,0002,640,6944,000,694 04/051,400, % 2,717,6474,117,647 05/062,100, % 4,076,4716,176,471 06/072,172, % 4,216,9176,389,917 07/084,578, % 8,886,70613,464,706 08/099,604, % 18,643,05928,247,059

A. Cost Increases that are Beyond the Department’s Control Specific Examples: In FY08/09, the Department projected the following cost increases: $7.8 million in salaries and employee benefits resulting from the new labor union contracts; $2.36 million in office relocation and lease renewals; 2. Arguments Used to Secure Local Funding

B. Save County Money - Cost Avoidance Provide local match fund to enable CSSD to procure child support related services from departments primarily funded by County General Fund. Example 1: Assistance to Prisoners with Child Support Orders Project Collaboration with the Public Defender’s Office (PD) to provide assistance to prisoners with existing child support obligations for the purpose of modifying current child support orders to prevent the accumulation of arrearages. Net impact: Supports three attorney and three paralegal positions for the PD’s Office. Will save County $546,000 (with $281,000 County General Fund).

Example 2: Assistance with Investigative Services Collaboration with the District Attorney’s Office to proactively service arrest warrants to uncooperative parents who evade their child support obligations even after arrest warrants have been issued. Net impact: Supports 7 DA Investigators, 1 Lieutenant DA, and 1 Senior Typist Clerk. Will save County $947,000 (with $500,000 County General Fund).

C. Improve Performance Imaging and Archiving Project View case records in real time. Easy access and immediate retrieval of documents. Decrease in workload. Reduce space needs due to decreased filing/storage. Re-allocation of clerical staff to more core mission functions.

3. How Dollars are Used Uses Sources CountyFFPTotal Cost increases in doing business$6.82 M$13.24 M$20.06 M Public Defender (assist prisoners with child support orders) $0.28 M$0.54 M$0.82 M DA Investigation (Arrest Warrants)$0.50 M$0.97 M$1.47 M Imaging and Archiving Project$2.00 M$3.88 M$5.88 M

4. Managing Local funds Secure New Funding Enter into contractual agreements with collaborative partners and vendors Enter into MOU with the State for FFP Secure New Funding Notify the State and identify the local funds in the CS356 claims Monitoring FFP Funding Track costs through monthly internal estimated/actuals

Conclusion Los Angeles County’s success in securing and using County General Fund can partially be attributed to the following: 1. Marketing the value of services 2. Working closely with the Chief Executive Office 3. Getting buy-in from the Board Deputies 4. Being proactive and creative in securing funding 5. Forming a collaborative network with other departments

Business Process Reengineering A team approach to review current state processes and identify changes to increase efficiencies and improve customer service.

Legal Division Business Process Reengineering BPR Decision Process Organizational Structure Use of Technology Cost of Doing Business “Current State” Process Maps Legal Code, Federal And State Requirements

What Was Accomplished? Developed process maps of the current state. Include detail; staffing, classifications, time per activity, number of documents. Developed process maps of the current state. Include detail; staffing, classifications, time per activity, number of documents. Brainstormed about the current state with no restrictions. No such thing as a dumb idea! Money is no object! Brainstormed about the current state with no restrictions. No such thing as a dumb idea! Money is no object! Documented everything. Documented everything. Information gathering and review. Information gathering and review. Discussed and reached consensus on recommendations for change. Discussed and reached consensus on recommendations for change.

Recommendations Fell Into Four Sub-Categories Customer Related Actions Customer Related Actions Court Appearances, Stipulations, Continuances, Motions, and Filings Court Appearances, Stipulations, Continuances, Motions, and Filings Workplace Efficiencies – Processes and Paper Workplace Efficiencies – Processes and Paper Workplace Efficiencies – Staffing and Workload Workplace Efficiencies – Staffing and Workload

Provide court orientation in a group setting vs. individually. One Time Costs:$ 48,000 Annual Projected Savings:$140,000 Annual Staff Time Savings: 3,573 Hours

Phase 1 of transition to a paperless litigation file. Decreased the number of copies per file from 53 to 18. Projected Annual Savings:$253,000 Projected Staff Time Savings: 9,228 Hours

Customers are responsible to bring three (3) copies of documents with them to court. Pay copiers are provided by DCSS in the courthouse. Projected Annual Cost:$ 7,200 Projected Annual Savings:$ 57,010 Projected Annual Revenue:$ 31,000

Conclusion There are always ways to improve a process, or new ideas to save time. It takes a team process to provide the detail needed to discover how things are really being done and improve on that process. Mapping, recording information and keeping an open mind is the key.

Q U E S T I O N S ?