Allocation - Colorado Government Human Services Financial

advertisement
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
[email protected]
303-227-2727
40
Download