State Allocations CGHSFOA Accounting Conference May 14, 2015 Brian Kenna Deputy Director Adams County Human Services Department Presentation Outline Principal Allocations The Allocation Committees Allocation Data and Formulas 2 The Principal Allocations Child Welfare Allocation Core Services Allocation Colorado Works (TANF) Allocation Child Care Assistance Program Allocation County Administration Allocation Adult Protective Services Allocation 3 Allocation Committees Two Committees are created in Statute Child Welfare Allocation Committee Child Welfare Services and Core Services Allocations Works Allocation Committee (TANF/Colorado Works) Other allocations are the responsibility of the CDHS Executive Director Operated through the PAC/Sub-PAC structure County Admin, APS, Child Care 4 Child Welfare Allocation Committee Works Allocation Committee Two separate committees created in statute with the same structure for membership Eleven Members on each Committee Eight members from Counties One from each (CCI) Region (5 Regions) Three from the CCI Large County Caucus (22 Counties) County with the largest caseload must be represented Three members from CDHS Executive level person, Program expert, Financial/Budget expert 5 Child Welfare Services Allocation 6 Child Welfare Allocation The allocation of Child Welfare Services appropriations has undergone many shifts and changes since its inception in SFY-1997-98, when it was first separately block granted to counties as a capped allocation. The current allocation methodology was first implemented to allocate “the second half” of the SFY-2013-14 funding and has since been used for full year allocations. 7 Child Welfare Allocation Allocation Model - Approximately $6.6 million (2%) of the total $328 million appropriation is “held out” for incentives. - The remaining $321.5 million appropriation is divided into seven categories, weighted for their relative significance toward predicting expenditures and to direct toward desirable outcomes, as identified by the Child Welfare Allocations Committee. 8 Child Welfare Allocation The Seven Categories (allocation data elements) Child Population (15%) Children in Poverty Population (10%) 3-Year Avg - Program Services Costs (40%) 3-Year Avg - Number of Foster Care Days Paid (15%) 3-Year Avg - Number of Congregate Care Days Paid (5%) 3-Year Avg - Number of Subsidized Adoption Days Paid (10%) 3-Year Avg - Number of New Adoptions (5%) 9 Child Welfare Allocation Incentive Calculation: Each County’s program performance in the three identified areas is assessed quarterly: Absence of Recurrence of Maltreatment Permanency Timeliness of Assessment Closure Incentives are calculated for counties who meet or exceed minimum standards of performance during any of the prior four quarters, proportionate to their level of performance and the size of the child population in each county. 10 Child Welfare Allocation Final Allocation Result: The resulting allocation amount calculated for each of the seven Data Categories and the three Incentive Categories are added together to arrive at each county’s “final” allocation. The final results may be modified by employing “Floors” and “Ceilings” to mitigate any significant year-to-year decreases or increases in allocation. 11 Mitigation Pool: - The final allocation amount as determined for each of the Balance-Of-State Counties is reduced by 4%, in order to establish a “Mitigation Pool”. This pool is used at close-out to cover unforeseeable expenditures that may be incurred through the year for Balance of State counties. - A Committee of Balance-Of-State Directors determines the extent to which each of the Balance-Of-State counties may draw from this pool, based on a variety of factors. 12 Core Services Allocation 13 Core Services Allocation The committee – CWAC Statutes are somewhat ambiguous about CWAC role Determination was made by the CDHS Executive Director to use CWAC as a group of advisory stakeholders for CORE allocations Allocation Model – Historical - Prior to SFY-13, the Core Services Allocation was based on the original amounts awarded to counties at the inception of the program, in the early 1990’s, plus additional allocations made at several points in time when additional funding became available. 14 Core Services Allocation Allocation Model – Current Beginning with SFY-13, the total available appropriation was divided between the Ten-Large Counties (~73%) and the Balance-Of-State Counties (~27%) in the same proportion as was used in SFY-12 The amount awarded to each county in SFY-12 for Evidence-Based Enhanced Funding Services, was allocated, in the same amounts, for SFY-13 The amount awarded to each Balance-of-State county in SFY-12 for Substance Abuse Services and Mental Health Services was allocated to each Balance-of-State county for SFY-13. 15 Core Services Allocation Allocation Model – Current The remaining $38.5 million was attributed, based on the division of the total appropriation (above): $29.9 million for the ten Large Counties $8.7 million for the Balance-of-State Counties 16 Core Services Allocation Allocation Model – Current: - The remaining $29.9 Million for the Ten Large Counties, and the $8.7 million for the Balance-of-State Counties was divided into the following five cost driver categories (in two separate operations: A) Households Below 200% of Poverty (45%) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------B) Referrals (2.75%) (actually, 5% of remaining 55%) C) Assessments (5.5%) (actually, 10% of remaining 55%) D) Involvements (44%) (actually 80% of remaining 55%) E) Out-Of-Home Placements (2.75%) (actually, 5% of remaining 55%) 17 Core Services Allocation Allocation Model – Current The resulting calculations for each of the five Cost Driver Categories were added to the dollar-amount calculations (above) to arrive at each county’s preliminary allocation Each county’s allocation was compared to a “Floor” equal to: 90% for the Ten Large Counties (10% floor) 85% for the Balance-of-State Counties (15% floor) of the SFY-12 allocation or $25,000, whichever is larger. Counties whose preliminary allocation exceed this floor are reduced to bring those whose preliminary allocation does not meet the floor up to this level. 18 Core Services Allocation FOR SFY-14, the proportion of the total appropriation was adjusted, using newly added funding to: 75% for the Ten Large Counties 25% for the Balance –of-State Counties Weights are applied to preliminary allocation results for counties designated by CDPHE as “Rural” (110%) and Frontier” (115%) 19 Colorado Works (TANF) Allocation 20 Colorado Works Allocation The Committee – Works Allocation Committee The $150 million Colorado Works Block Grant appropriation is divided into six Cost Driver Factors (four demographic factors and two expenditure factors) and are weighted for their relative significance. The data to be used in calculating each of the six factors is to be the most recent available reliable data. 21 Colorado Works Allocation Allocation Formula Demographic Factors 50% of the total formula, divided evenly between the four factors: represent the population most likely to participate A) Child Poverty Population (12.5%) B) # of Children Enrolled in SNAP (12.5%) C) # of Children Enrolled in SNAP Whose Family Income is below 50% of the Fed Poverty Limit (12.5%) D) # of Children who Qualify for Medicaid/CHP# (12.5%) 22 Colorado Works Allocation Allocation Formula - Expenditure Factors 50% of the total formula Represent the economics of county expenditures A) County Expenditures in the Previous SFY on Basic Cash Assistance (BCA) and State Diversion (30%) B) County Expenditures in the Previous SFY on All Other Colorado Works Block Grant Activities (20%) 23 Colorado Works Allocation Allocation Formula Counties who expended greater than 70.9% of their total Colorado Works expenditures in the previous SFY on Basic Cash Assistance and State Diversion are awarded the greater of the amount calculated or a minimum allocation of 140% of the amount they spent on BCA and State Diversion. Counties are held to a maximum decrease of 5% from their prior year allocation and to a maximum increase of 25% over their prior year allocation. Counties with allocations less than $100,000 are kept from any allocation reduction. 24 Child Care Assistance Program Allocation 25 Child Care Allocation Formula developed by a Task Group formed under the Finance Sub-PAC early in 2011 Task Group has continued work annually SFY-2014-15 is the third year of the new formula, including minor changes each year (i.e. floor) SFY-2015-16 recommendations adopted by PAC earlier in May SFY-2016-17 has the potential for more significant change as new data under HB14-1317 is available 26 Child Care Allocation Allocation Model Each element is expressed as a percent of the statewide total. Demographics - weight: Children under 12 enrolled in SNAP 25% Child population under six years old, ≤ 184% FPL 30% Child population ages six to eleven, ≤ 184% FPL 20% Economic Indicator: Utilization of CCCAP – limited to 130% FPL 27 25% Child Care Allocation Utilization Factor Each County’s actual units of care provided/paid (CHATS) TIMES – Derived Average Market Rate Group counties based on similarity in the Self-Sufficiency Standards Use average market rates for providers in those counties A Matrix of rates across child ages and provider types, and full- part-time Add up all the derived amounts for each county EQUALS – Derived dollar total, by County Convert this to percent of State 28 County Administration Allocation 29 County Admin Allocation Utilizes the framework of a Workload Study done by Deloitte in 2007 Activity-Based Costing (ABC) Methodology Structure of Primary Activities to represent workloads Average number of minutes to complete each activity Uses data from CBMS – number of activities, by County Examples: Completed application intakes, Failed Interactive Interviews, Redeterminations completed, Denials/Discontinuations issued, Inter-county transfers Also uses county-reported data regarding EBT activities Allocates funds appropriated to CDHS and HCPF 30 County Admin Allocation Allocation Model Data from CBMS and County EBT data to count quantities of activities completed, by County Multiply count of each activity times the minutes it takes from the Workload Study Sum each counties total “minutes”; convert to percent of State total minutes Each counties is allocated the percent of available appropriation If the above does not calculate at least $105,329 for a County, that County’s allocation is elevated to that number (Base Allocation) 31 County Admin Allocation County Admin Allocation at Close-Out Cross-close out with Adult Protective Services allocations – by county Surplus Distribution – unspent allocations are moved to overspent counties Federal Pass-thru – Any remaining county deficits after Surplus Distribution are eligible for federal pass thru reimbursement. Federal Revenue earned but unmatched during the year and at close-out is calculated A proportionate share of the remaining deficit shall be reimbursed with these federal funds only with no state match 32 Adult Protective Services Allocation 33 Adult Protective Services Allocation Formula developed by a Task Group formed under the Finance Sub-PAC - Spring of 2013 Initial allocation followed County Admin method SFY-2014-15 is the first year of an independent formula SFY-2015-16 recommendations adopted by PAC earlier in May Other data from the CAPS system will be used in the future (hint for your program’s system users!) 34 Adult Protective Services Allocation Workload Data 40% of Allocation Data extracted from the CAPS system Screened Out Reports Screened in Reports Cases Closed with minimal or no client interaction Total Cases (Ongoing open cases + cases closed following some intervention) Demographic Data 60% of Allocation Data from the American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau) Population 55 years and older and under 300% FPL 35 Adult Protective Services Allocation Allocation Model Two Segments of funding – Administration and Client Services Both segments use the same basic formula: 60% Demographics – All persons age 55 and older, under 300% Federal Poverty Level 40% APS Workload data – four data elements, as a percent of State For The Administrative Allocation: 5% floor - County allocation cannot decrease more than 5% from year-to-year No minimum allocation for APS Admin For the Client Services Allocation: No Allocation Floor $2,000 minimum base for all Counties 36 Adult Protective Services Allocation Close out of APS Administration “Horizontal” close within each county (both directions) with that county’s County Administration allocation Closeout of the client services funding is “vertical” Essentially, a Surplus Distribution between counties Unspent Client Services funding statewide is reverted 37 Other Funding Child Welfare Collaborative Management (“1451”) Allocations to participating counties Option to retain General Fund savings Employment First Title XX Training Chafee Independent Living Promoting Safe and Stable Families Single Entry Point Contracts SafeCare HCPF – Medicaid Outreach and Development Grants Project or Goal-Oriented Grants Child Support Services – retained collections and incentives Recoveries – retained collections and incentives 38 Other County-based funding And, also ….. General Allocation Parameters Task Group Will be publishing a document that summarizes all allocation formulas Will be delivering a set of recommendations that address common factors and practices for allocation formula development State-based data systems are used for producing data that drives allocations; accurate and complete data recording is essential !!! 39 Questions? Brian Kenna BKenna@adcogov.org 303-227-2727 40