National Innovations in CWS Funding: What’s Working? Michael Lawler Co-Director, Center for Public Policy Research and Director, The Center for Human Services UC Davis Extension University of California, Davis

Study Methodology Internet document review Telephone interviews with state and local agencies Interviews with national experts Data gathered Sep-Nov 2006

Child Welfare Budget Methodologies in Selected States StateWho decides how much money is spent by your CWS System? What is the methodology? ColoradoThe budget is based on caseloads and other funding requests. State decides the block allocation through an annual budgeting process. Budget drivers include caseloads, cost of out- of-home care, core service expenditures, and adoption assistance for all 64 counties. DelawareBudget methodology is based on CWLA standards. State decides how much money to spend on the child welfare system. In 1997, the legislature passed the Child Protection Act, which requires state to hire additional staff as needed to meet standards. MinnesotaCounties create budgets based on local property taxes, with 60% of child welfare funds coming from these taxes. State provides 13% of total funds by statute. There are major discrepancies across counties based on property taxes. NevadaThree-tiered budget process: base, maintenance, and enhancement. Base: budget for prior fiscal year. Maintenance: Maintain level of services at current demand (adjust for caseload changes). Enhancement: new initiatives or higher levels of service. State provides CPS and child welfare services in all but two large counties. Large counties are responsible for CPS; the state is responsible for child welfare. The legislature meets every 2 years and approves 2 one- year budgets. New JerseyLegislature appropriates funds based on requests from commissioners of social service departments. New YorkState and local governments share costs, 65%-35%. OhioState provides a block grant of $57.5 million, not tied specifically to workload, caseload, or placement costs. Counties fund an average of 52% of child welfare through a dedicated child welfare property tax. State and federal reimbursements fund the rest.

Texas Reorganized and consolidated a number of human services Using private contracts and new public programs to address CFSR Basic CWS budget formation similar to California Sixth highest child poverty rate in the US (23%)

New York Changes driven by consent decrees (Marisol cases) Reduced caseloads, increased training, configured services by neighborhoods Focus on prevention 3 major CWS funding components: uncapped services reimbursement, foster care block grant, quality enhancement Outcomes: Decrease in foster care, increase in adoptions Moving toward incentive based funding in NYC

Illinois Major reductions in caseloads due to consent decrees and CFSR Home of Relative Reform legislation to help pay for kin care rather than creating dependants Focus on caseload reductions with some private contracts Caseload standards: 15:1 for placement, 12:1 for investigations Reduced number of foster children from 52,000 to 18,000 while steadily increasing CWS budget

Minnesota Strong reputation for innovation Focusing on comprehensive assessment program to prevent maltreatment and placement Sophisticated monitoring system similar to California CFSR outcomes among the best

Florida Using private agencies to provide much of CWS Low salaries and high caseloads leading to high turnover of CWS staff (30%) Funding for state’s data reporting system has been suspended

California strengths Excellent quarterly monitoring system (CWS/CMS and UCB) Relatively stable and educated workforce 2030 standards for workloads Hold harmless approach

Summary of Fiscal Models Wide variation across states Changes driven by CFSRs Not all states have county input Some rely on competitive bidding "Hold harmless" approach unique to California Some states (e.g., New York) moving to incentives and outcome based budgeting

Bottom line All states want flexible funding to reward and support improved outcomes Most states still use a caseload driven formula for budgeting Jury is still out on private contracting and performance based budgeting