Child Support Directors Association of California in partnership with California Department of Child Support Services Annual Child Support Training Conference & Expo October 5-7, 2010 | Orange County, California

State Tools in the Local Budget Process Moderator: Cheryl Stewart, Regional Administrator Panel: Linda Adams, Chief Financial Officer State DCSS Keith Johnson, Administrative Services Manager, Santa Cruz-San Benito

Topics for Discussion ■$25 Fee ■Capital Expenditures ■ARRA Funds ■CS 921 ■EDP M&O Budget ■EDP Tech Refresh ■CA CS Website ■A-87 ■Audits ■Advances ■Performance Improvement

$25 Fee The Federal Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 requires states to charge families that have never received TANF a $25 annual application fee if at least $500 is collected annually on their behalf. Under Federal law, fees may be recovered from the custodial party, the noncustodial parent or the state (using state funds).  Prior to Federal Fiscal Year 2011, the State elected to pay the fee using state funds  Beginning with FFY 2011, the State will continue to pay the fee but will then recoup the fee from the custodial party out of the next collection.

$25 Fee (Continued)

Capital Expenditures ■Administrative and EDP ✷ Policy in CSS Letters and ✷ Contracts and Purchase orders over $1m require prior Federal approval, allow 90 days for approval ✷ All automation products and services planned for purchase using EDP or Administrative non-EDP funds require prior approval Including personal computers, servers, printers, integrated voice response units, imaging systems, new and existing software, and web contracting service ✷ Relocations, remodels, new property, or increases in property values require prior approval

ARRA Funds ■What is ARRA? ✷ American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ✷ Provides for matching federal funds on incentives ✷ Time period is October 1, 2008 – September 30, 2010 ✷ Letters: LCSA and ✷ Funds must be reported on county SEFA form

ARRA Funds (Cont.) ✷ Per Title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 176, Subpart D, LCSAs are notified that the Federal award number for ARRA funds is 1004CA4002 and the CFDA number for ARRA funds is ✷ LCSAs are reminded that they are required to separately identify the expenditures for Federal awards under the Recovery Act on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) and the Data Collection Form (SF–SAC) required by OMB Circular A– 133.

CS 921 ■LCSA letter requests budget data for upcoming state fiscal year ■Due date February ■Entered via form on LCSA Secure web site ■Detailed administrative budget information used to display: ✷ FTEs ✷ Average salaries ✷ Expenditures ■Data used for various reports ✷ Legislative report ✷ Various internal reports for DCSS’ use

EDP M&O Budget ■EDP Initial allocation released via LCSA letter in the Spring ■Web form available for distributing costs between recurring and non-recurring accounts ■LCSAs must stay within allocation unless specified in letter ■Final allocation with account numbers released once state budget is passed

EDP Tech Refresh ■Tech Refresh for BP deployed equipment scheduled to begin in SFY 11/12 ■Tech Refresh will be handled at state level through vendor contract ■DCSS has a tech refresh group working on schedule – release date expected by end of year ■LCSA allocation of equipment may go up or down based on analysis of county needs ■Change in allocation of equipment may impact EDP M&O Allocation in future years

CA Child Support Central – LCSA Fiscal Administration ■To access the LCSA Fiscal Administration page: ■Information contained on the page includes links to: ✷ Claiming Instructions Claiming Instructions ✷ Federal Financial Participation Federal Financial Participation ✷ Allocations Allocations ✷ Forms Forms ✷ Presentation Presentation ✷ Fiscal Officers Forum Fiscal Officers Forum ✷ SCO Claiming Rules SCO Claiming Rules ✷ Frequently Asked Questions Frequently Asked Questions ✷ Collections Reports Collections Reports ✷ Handbooks Handbooks

CA Child Support Central – LCSA Fiscal Administration

CA CS Website

A-87 ■Definition: Plan your county submits to the State Controller with the schedule of indirect costs for all departments in the county ■Periodically review the plan and percentages attributed to Child Support ■SCO approved schedule is sent to DCSS ■DCSS Accounting enters the annual amount approved into an AEC table ■LCSA claims ¼ of cost each quarter

Audits ■Authority ✷ OMB A-87 aka 2 CFR 225 ✷ A-133 ✷ CFR and ✷ CSS Letter ✷ LCSA Letter History and process in this letter ■Keep supporting documentation for at least four years and four months ■Three most common audit findings ✷ Accrual vs. cash basis accounting ✷ Interest or program income not abated on Administrative Expense Claim ✷ No prior approval for capital expenditures

Advances ■LCSA Advanced 1/12 of Admin and EDP allocation ✷ True-up adjustments occur every quarter and may change the actual amount of the following month’s advance ■Used to report monthly advance and quarterly adjustments ■AA190 has 3 sections: ✷ Section 1: Regular Monthly Advance ✷ Section 2: Offsetting expenditures and advances (Current Claim) ✷ Section 3: Supplemental claims and other (in-house claims etc.) ■The total remittance on the AA190 is the amount of a warrant issued by State Controller’s Office.

Performance Improvement ■CSS Letter – Cost Effectiveness ■LCSAs are expected to attain a cost-effective- ness ratio of at least $2.25. Any LCSA with actual FFY 2009 performance below $2.25 is required to develop strategies to meet or exceed this goal. ■Further, once actual performance data for FFY 2010 becomes available in December 2010, any LCSA with performance below $2.25 in FFY 2010 will also be required to develop such strategies.

Performance Improvement (Cont.) ■For the purposes of this requirement, the impact of shared services will be factored into the calculations for LCSA cost effectiveness for FFY 2010 and thereafter. ■In addition, federal funds will not be provided to any LCSA for any expenditures above the LCSA’s administrative allocation in state fiscal year , if that LCSA’s cost-effectiveness ratio is below the average for its size grouping at the end of FFY 2011.

Performance Improvement (Cont.) ExpendituresCollectionsCost Effectiveness Large (10) Fresno 22,785,593 83,213, Santa Clara 36,343,119 90,100, Kern 20,645,137 66,777, Alameda 26,073,447 79,365, Contra Costa 18,271,459 58,971, San Joaquin 15,624,594 51,395, Tulare 14,974,024 38,053, Stanislaus 15,399,014 46,564, Ventura 19,760,072 50,891, San Francisco 14,154,197 28,802, Total 204,030, ,136, Cost Effectiveness Performance Measure Based on Table 1.5 Comparative Data for Managing Program Performance Sample Data

Performance Improvement (Cont.) 9/2010 End of FFY 12/ C/E Determined 9/2011 End of FFY 12/ C/E Determined FFP Allowability Determined 6/2012 End of SFY 11/12 FFP Determined Cost Effectiveness Measure Time Line

Questions??? ■If you have questions about anything not covered today, please call your LCSA Budget Analyst. ✷ Trudy Lehane at ✷ Anne Allen at ✷ Donna Kruger, Manager, at ✷ Kim Sharp, Branch Manager, at Or ✷ Linda Adams, CFO, at