HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03222011 - D.1RECOMMENDATION(S):
ACCEPT report from the County Administrator and presentations from the Sheriff, District
Attorney, County Probation Officer, Health Services Director, and Employment and Human
Services Director on the current status of the Governor’s budget and its potential impacts to
Contra Costa County programs and services.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This report is informational and will be used for planning purposes and budget
development. Recommendations regarding the County's budget will be presented to the
Board during Budget Hearings on April 12.
The Governor’s budget proposal, while a crucial stride towards keeping California solvent,
comes at a time when counties are struggling to maintain vital local services in a depressed
economy. County departments are anticipating significant local budget reductions for FY
2011/12 that will likely further diminish core County services. While the proposed
realignment of state programs to counties presents opportunities to develop and provide
programs that reduce recidivism and make communities safer, major program shifts to
counties will present challenges in the current strained environment.
APPROVE OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY
ADMINISTRATOR
RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD
COMMITTEE
Action of Board On: 03/22/2011 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Clerks Notes:
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
Contact: Lisa Driscoll, County
Finance Director (925) 335-1023
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and
entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: March 22, 2011
David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors
By: , Deputy
cc: Lisa Driscoll, County Finance Director, Department Heads (via Clerk of the Board), CAO
D. 1
To:Board of Supervisors
From:David Twa, County Administrator
Date:March 22, 2011
Contra
Costa
County
Subject:Discussion of Potential State Budget Impacts on Contra Costa County for FY 2011/12
The fundamental concern with all of the realignment proposals is funding, given the state's
financial troubles and the depressed economy. For example, the state is currently more than
$0.5 million in arrears in its payment to the County Sheriff for holding state parolees in
County detention facilities. Justice program realignment assumes two funding sources for
implementation and operation for the next five years: $1.4 billion from the continuation of
the 0.5 percent increment for the Vehicle License Fee (VLF) and $4.5 billion from the
extension of the 1.0 percent in sales tax, for a total of $5.9 billion. Just over $0.5 billion of
the realignment proposal relates to maintaining programs already operated by the County
for which the state allocates VLF revenue. Exhibit 1 shows the 2009/10 allocation for these
County programs and the amounts included for those same programs in the Governor’s
proposal for 2011/12. The Governor’s proposal optimistically relies on a 22% increase in
VLF over 2009/10 actuals or a commitment of State General Fund revenue to preserve these
County programs at current operational levels.
Exhibit 1: 2011/12 VLF Estimates Compared to 2009/10 Actuals
FISCAL IMPACT: (CONT'D)
2011/12 2009/10 2009/10
Summary State Proposed State Actual County Actual
Juvenile Probation (JP)$ 181,300,000 $ 125,155,849 $ 3,333,401
CalEMA (Local Programs)$ 57,400,000 $ 47,342,822 $ -
Small/Rural County Sheriff's $ 18,500,000 $ 15,255,831 $ -
Booking Fees $ 35,000,000 $ 25,951,464 $ 1,406,613
Citizens Option for Public
Safety (SLESF)$ 107,100,000 $ 88,301,411 $ 2,721,643*
Juvenile Justice Crime
Prevention Act (JJCPA)$ 107,100,000 $ 88,301,411 $ 2,437,705
CDCR $ - $ 24,251,796 $ -
Total $ 506,400,000 $ 414,560,584 $ 9,899,362
* 680,012 was allocated directly to Contra Costa County departments and the remainder was distributed to county law enforcement agencies. The Governor’s proposal does not include an alternative funding source or contingency plan if the extension of the sales and VLF tax increments
is not approved by the voters in June. Contra Costa County criminal justice departments currently receive approximately $7.86 million from this
revenue source. The loss of the VLF public safety increment without a funding alternative would likely result in the closure of the Orin Allen
Youth Rehabilitation Facility and the elimination or reduction of several juvenile community-based prevention, supervision and treatment
programs. Loss of the VLF public safety increment would also negatively impact front-line law enforcement within the Sheriff and District
Attorney department via SLESF (Supplemental Law Enforcement Services funding), which funds one Deputy District Attorney and one Sergeant
position, and part of the Sheriff’s helicopter program. Moreover, loss of the booking fee backfill, which is funded through VLF, would require the
County to drastically increase booking fees charged to local arresting agencies.
The state has a history of requiring counties to provide certain services and then not providing the funding to support those services. Historically,
these monumental realignment proposals actually have taken years – in the case of trial court realignment, a full ten years – to be completed and
to resolve all issues. Recall how grossly underfunded counties found themselves in the years following 1991 Realignment, prior to the recession; of
course, the recession only exacerbated that situation. County staff has estimated that the current justice realignment proposal will provide only a
fraction of the funding needed by counties to provide incarceration plus an array of custody alternatives, community supervision, support/re-entry
services, and treatment programs. Should the Governor and the legislature continue to pursue this realignment proposal, the proposed
Constitutional Amendment must ensure funding to counties commensurate with expected outcomes is absolutely essential to avoid degradation
and, possibly, the collapse of local justice systems. Moreover, funds allocated to realigned justice programs must be fully dedicated to those
programs and not redirected to other programs.
The California State Association of Counties (CSAC), the California State Sheriff’s Association (CSSA), and the Chief Probation Officers of
California (CPOC) continue to advocate for Constitutional Amendments to ensure that the new mandates contained in the Governor’s budget do
not come down to counties without adequate, protected funding or at least relief from the mandates should they be found unsustainable.
BACKGROUND: The Governor has proposed what can only be described as “massive changes” to the state’s criminal justice system regarding
the housing of convicted criminals as well as the supervision of those prisoners. The Governor’s January 10, 2011 budget may be a step in the
right direction but leaves many critical implementation questions unanswered and left to be negotiated. It remains to be seen whether or not all of
the stakeholders – the Democrat and Republican legislators, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), counties, and
the voting populace – can be persuaded to take the necessary actions to implement the proposals and whether or not all of the proposals will
deliver the expected cost savings and service outcomes. As of March 17, many of the specific details regarding implementation and funding
remain undefined and continue to be discussed. Consequently, we are unable to provide reliable estimates of operational and cost impacts for
Contra Costa County, particularly within the limited time constraint required by the adoption of the state budget and June ballot process, of just
three months. However, based on the information available to date, we can identify potential opportunities afforded by the proposals and potential
pitfalls and areas of concern.
There are four major aspects of the Governor’s proposed justice “realignment.” First, the Governor has proposed significant changes to the
Department of Juvenile Justice. Second he has also proposed that any criminal convicted of a non-serious, non-violent, non-sex felony (hereinafter
the “non/non/nons” or “lower-level offenders”) who receives a prison sentence be housed in a local facility, i.e., a county jail, for his/her term of
imprisonment instead of state prison. Third, the realignment proposal virtually eliminates state parole with the attendant parole supervision and
revocation of convicted felons, and transfers that responsibility to the county probation departments and local jurisdictions for all but the most
serious offenders. Lastly, the fiscal responsibility for providing court security would transfer to counties.
What follows is a summary of the impacts of the State Budget proposal on various County programs by department, and also of each element of
the Governor’s realignment proposal and our estimate of the local program, fiscal, and community impacts based on the information made
available thus far. Readers should bear in mind that the state realignment program has evolved significantly since its introduction and will
continue to evolve as negotiations with CSAC, CSSA, CPOC, and legislators proceed.
VETERANS SERVICES DEPARTMENT
The Governor has proposed a decrease of $9.9 million as a result of the elimination of State General Fund support for County Veterans
Services Offices and Operation Welcome Home. In Contra Costa County this equates to approximately $90,000 and one full time Veteran
Service Representative position.
EMPLOYMENT AND HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Additional details can be found in the attached letter from the Employment and Human Services Director.
Additional details can be found in the attached letter from the Employment and Human Services Director.
IN-HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES:
1. IHSS – The Governor has proposed a reduction of 8.4% in service hours to IHSS recipients.
This proposal could result in a reduction of approximately 638,400 service hours in Contra Costa County, equivalent to a savings of
$1,385,587 in the County share of cost. This reduction is in addition to the 3.6% reduction in 2010/11. The combined reductions could result
in the elimination of approximately 912,000 IHSS services hours for County cost savings of $2,063,869.
This proposal has been eliminated from the conference committee budget proposal.
2. IHSS – Elimination of domestic and related services for adult recipients with care providers who live in the household as well as minor
recipients living with parents.
Currently, the County provides funding to 4,581 eligible recipients with shared living arrangements. The Governor’s proposal would
eliminate services to this population and reduce the County share of cost by $236,600.
This proposal has been eliminated from the conference committee budget proposal.
3. Adult Protective Services - A $17.7 million reduction to the Department of Aging for administration of the program.
This reduction will equate to a loss of approximately $176,809 which is used to contract with the County Health Services Department for
their Nutrition program.
4. Physician Certification – Physicians would be required to certify that an individual requires assistance with certain tasks to remain in
their own homes.
The conference committee revised this requirement to eliminate the limitation to physician. A health care provider could certify that
personal care services are necessary.
Fiscal impact cannot be determined at this time. Administrative burden will be minimal since process is already in place in Contra Costa.
5. IHSS – Reduce of State funding for the IHSS Advisory Committee to $3,000.
Over the past four years the Contra Costa IHSS Public Authority Advisory Committee has spent an average of $17,000 per year. An
allocation of $3,000 allows counties to draw down a federal match of about $3,000. The Committee would be required to adjust their
spending to stay within the new funding limit.
6. Caseload Savings – The Conference Committee has adopted caseload savings of $83.4 million statewide due to lower caseload estimates.
Minimal impact. Contra Costa County caseloads have been declining over the past two years.
7. Community First Choice Option – The Conference Committee has adopted a $121.1 million savings due to the expectation that the IHSS
program will qualify under the new federal Community First Choice Options.
Depending upon how the State decides to distribute FMAP revenue, the County could receive anywhere from $1.4 million to no savings at
all.
8. Unspecified Reductions – The Conference Committee adopted $128.4 million without specifying how this savings will be achieved.
Trailer bill language for proposals is being developed.
There is not sufficient information to estimate the impact this will have on Contra Costa County.
CalWORKS:
1. A 13% grant reduction would reduce the maximum grant for a family of three from $694 to $604 per month could result in a County loss
of approximately $9.2 million. This includes $200,000 in County General Fund savings and the loss of benefits to all program participants,
11,310 families and 19,394 children within the County. In addition, the CalWORKs Single Allocation funding for eligibility administration,
employment services and childcare would be reduced by $340,000 in State and federal funds.
The Conference Committee adopted an 8 percent grant reduction for a savings of $300 million. All CalWORKs families and children will
be adversely impacted. Contra Costa County reductions will total approximately $5.6 million of which $126,373 is County general fund. In
addition, the administrative allocation will be reduced by $206,400
2. Establishing a 48-month time limit to reduce the time limit for CalWORKs benefits from 60 cumulative months to 48 cumulative months
for most families with certain exceptions.
This time limit would impact 1,230 of the 1,595 total number of families receiving benefits and 2,996 children. Benefits would decline by
$10.5 million county-wide including $360,000 in County General Fund. In addition, State and federal funding for administration of the
program would be reduced by $2.7 million.
The Conference Committee adopted additional grant cuts to adults after certain time frames. Exact grant reduction and time is to be
determined.
The County would lose approximately $10.5 million in total assistance, of which $360,000 is County general fund. The administrative
allocation would be reduced $2.7 million. Other impacts cannot be determined without additional information.
3. Single Allocation Reduction and Welfare-to-Work Exemptions – The Conference Committee adopted an additional reduction of $427
million in addition to the $377 million adopted in 2009-10.
The additional reduction will result in an additional $1.3 million reduction to Contra Costa’s CalWORKs administrative allocation
4. Modify Subsidized Employment – The Conference Committee approved a proposal by the Legislative Analyst to expand the State’s
participation in subsidized employment from 50% to 100%.
Further analysis is required. However, additional funds would allow for the possible reinstatement of a subsidized employment program for
CalWORKs participants.
5. Reduce Funding for CalWORKs Substance Abuse Treatment and Mental Health Services – The Conference Committee reduced funding
by $5 million.
Approximately 2.3% of participants needing substance abuse and mental will lose access to service and could reduce administrative
allocation by approximately $100,000.
6. Cal Learn Program – The Conference Committee reduced funding for Cal Learn by $45 million
This reduction will essentially eliminate the program for approximately 1,000 pregnant and parenting teens. The administrative allocation
would be reduced by $606,213 of which $465,000 is for contracted services.
CHILDCARE:
1. CalWORKs Childcare Unallocated Reduction – The Governor proposed to reduce State funding by $577.5 million or 34.6% in all
programs except preschool and after-school programs. The Conference Committee adopted a 15% across-the-board reduction excluding
Stage 1 and 2 but including pre-school.
This proposal would reduce center-based childcare funding by $1.9 million and 212 slots plus a reduction of $210,000 to the CAPP
program.
2. Reduce License-exempt Provider Rate – The Conference Committee took action to reduce rates paid to license-exempt providers from
80% to 60% for a savings of $44 million.
Approximately 50% of families receiving State 1 services may be impacted. Child care slots in the community may be lost or limited. Work
Participation Rate may be negatively impacted as participants can be exempted from Welfare-to-Work for a lack of child care. Community
Services currently has 390 providers who may opt out due to lower rates or be required to care for more children.
3. Stage 3 Childcare – The Governor’s budget proposal includes the restoration of funding for Stage 3 childcare.
4. Eligibility – The Governor’s budget proposed to eliminate childcare services for all 11- and 12-year olds.
The Conference Committee adopted the Governor’s recommendation but protected services during non-traditional hours and exempted
children who are disabled, at-risk of abuse, or homeless.
It is estimated that 174 children (21% of the current caseload) will become ineligible for childcare services. This is the equivalent of an
$800,000 reduction in State and federal funding for services and program administration.
5. Childcare Eligibility – The Conference Committee reduced income eligibility requirements to 70 percent of the State Median Income and
increased the family co-pay by 10%.
This change will impact 11 currently enrolled children and 73 waitlisted families. The 10% increase in family fees could result in a $10,000
increase in fee revenue but families could potentially drop out of the program due to an inability to pay.
6. Reduce Title 5 Reimbursement Rate – The Conference Committee reduced the Title 5 Standard childcare reimbursement rate by 10%.
This reduction will result in a reduction of $1.3 million and the termination of childcare for 140 enrolled children.
CHILD SUPPORT:
Child Support Collections – The Governor’s budget proposed suspending the County share of child support collection and redirecting it to
the State. The Conference Committee approved this reduction.
The suspension will result in the loss of approximately $600,000 in revenue to the Department.
SSI/SSP :
SSI/SSP reduction in grants for individuals by $15 per month from $845 to $830 to the federal minimum will impact 2,082 recipients who
will become at risk of falling further into poverty.
MEDI-CAL ADMINISTRATION:
Medi-Cal Administration – The Governor continued the suspension of cost of doing business (CODB) increases for county operations and
provided the current (fiscal year 2010-11) level of funding. The Conference Committee approved this action.
With increasing caseloads, the continue suspension of a cost of doing business increase hinders our ability to adequately serve Medi-Cal
applicants and recipients. The budget projects the same level of administration funding as the current year, forcing the County to serve more
clients with the same or reduced staffing levels. The $23.6 million statewide reduction will result in a loss of funding of approximately
$700,000 in Contra Costa County.
OTHER PROGRAMS:
The Governor has proposed to use $1 billion in Proposition 10 funding to support Medi-Cal services for children including a shift of 50% of
the local allocation to the state on an on-going basis. The proposal requires voter approval. The Conference Committee adopted this as a
one-time shift but rejected the on-going funding shift.
First 5 Contra Costa Families and Children Commission will lose $23.4 million and will have to significantly reduce the level of funding
for contracted services. This will then impact a variety of services provided by both the Employment and Human Services and Health
Services Departments.
HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Medi-Cal – A $1.7 billion reduction to the Medi-Cal Program including a 10% reduction in provider payments, requiring Medi-Cal
beneficiaries to pay a share of costs for services, establishing annual dollar caps on services and eliminating Adult Day Health Care.
The provider payment reduction does not apply to the Department of Health Services as the rates are negotiated separately, however, there
may be an impact to the rates charged by CCHP if implemented.
Adult Day Health Care - The elimination of Adult Day Health Care Services was proposed by the Governor. However, the Conference
Committee adopted a reduction of $90 million with the intent to pursue a more narrowly-defined benefit under a new federal waiver.
This could result in a reduction of service hours with some benefits eliminated entirely. Until waiver rules are defined, the exact impact is
unknown.
Mental Health - $861.2 million one-time reduction in Mental Health Services Act (Proposition 63) funds to backfill the State General Fund
responsibility for the Early Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment; Mental Health Managed Care; and AB3632 Programs.
The Governor’s Budget does not contain sufficient information to determine the County impact at this time. While prior attempts to change
Proposition 63 required voter approval, according to the Administration, this proposal may be approved by a two-thirds vote of the
Legislature.
REALIGNMENT
PHASE I:
Criminal Justice Programs
Realignment of Adult Parole (Community Supervision)
The Governor's initial Realignment Proposal would have ultimately shifted $741.1 million from the State to counties for supervision of all
parolees, including sex and violent offenders, upon their release from State prison. The County currently has 1,700 adults on parole. However, the
current proposal would realign only those parolees convicted of a non-serious or non-violent crime, regardless of prior convictions. This would
leave 3rd-strike parolees, parolees with a current conviction for a serious or violent crime, or parolees classified as high-risk sex offenders, on
state-run parole, resulting in a bifurcated parole system. The proposal will provide counties $183 million statewide to manage the realigned
population once fully implemented in 2014/15.
Specifically, the proposal assumes community supervision and/or alternative custody costs (i.e. electronic monitoring) of $3,500 per offender for
12-18 months. (The State claims this funding level is equivalent to the cost to supervise and monitor a parolee at the state level.) It also assumes
annual treatment and/or programming costs of $2,275 per offender. This is based on the assumption that a percentage of offenders will be active
participants in drug treatment programs, job training programs, self-help and group support programs such as Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics
Anonymous, etc. The proposal provides for local administrative overhead costs of 10% of total supervision/ alternative custody costs.
To provide some perspective on the scope of this element of the realignment proposal, consider that there are currently 110,000 inmates on state
parole in California, 814 of which are currently on state parole in Contra Costa County. The latest figures provided to us show that 311 of these
fall into the lower-level offender category and would transfer to county jurisdiction. There are very limited alternative custody programs available
locally. An estimated 350 of the state parolees in Contra Costa County are currently on electronic monitoring with the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). The Office of the Sheriff currently has 488 of its own inmates assigned to its Custody Alternative
Facility. Those inmates are on Electronic Home Detention (185), Work Alternative (300), and County Parole (3).
While the primary focus has been on Probation and the Sheriff’s Office, we anticipate a workload increase for the offices of the District Attorney
and Public Defender. With a 70% State parolee recidivism rate, many parolees that would have otherwise reverted to State prison upon a parole
violation will now cycle through the County’s criminal justice system if they violate parole or commit a new offense.
Ongoing Concerns. Following are ongoing issues and concerns related to the proposed shift of state parolees to county jurisdiction:
• Transitional issues. Despite a natural "ramp up" of population due to prospective nature of proposal, shift of entire parole population
brings with it significant transitional issues. Counties will need time to hire and train personnel, build local capacity for parolee services, and
develop coordination/communication protocols with CDCR for discharge/handoff.
• Statutory construct. Need to further understand the process for what entity will set terms of parole.
• Long-term costs. Counties evaluating long-terms costs of including sex offenders within the revised parole population shift, with
questions in particular around lifetime GPS monitoring.
• Protocols for release. CSAC has been working with CDCR for over a year to develop a protocol and/or procedures for release of
inmates at the conclusion of their term who are returning to the community with significant medical and/or mental health treatment needs.
Thus far, that effort has produced better understanding of mutual roles and constraints, but no specific protocol. Counties will be seeking
statutory direction to require tight coordination with CDCR around the discharge process for parolees, with an expectation of advance
information and notification regarding the specific parolees.
Local Jurisdiction for Parole Violators (Revocation / Disposition)
Our County Probation Department has been so severely scaled down over the past few years that it actively supervises only a small percentage of
the County’s adult probation population. Thus, it anticipated that only a percentage of convicted felons released on parole will be actively
supervised; many will be placed on summary probation (in a banked computer database caseload). Thus, lacking active supervision, guidance, and
regular drug testing, these realigned parolees will be even more likely to re-offend, increasing the current recidivism rate of nearly 70%.
Additionally, parole revocations legally require a hearing on each violation. At that hearing, evidence must be presented to a hearing officer, and
the parolee is entitled to an attorney. Since the Governor’s proposal eliminates the State Board of Parole, there is no mechanism to carry out this
function. The Governor’s current proposal suggests that the superior courts will be responsible for conducting revocation hearings. If the District
Attorney is required to present the evidence, and the Public Defender is required to defend the parolee, and the local court is required to hear the
“case,” the potential costs will be significant.
To clarify the potential impact to Contra Costa County of parole realignment and local jurisdiction of parolees, consider that 66% of inmates on
state parole violated their terms and returned to custody in 2009. In 2010, the Office of the Sheriff transported 1,516 parole violators to San
Quentin. Based on a very rough estimate that it would require four hours by a Deputy District Attorney and four hours by a Deputy Public
Defender, on average, to review and handle a parole revocation from beginning to end, the resultant cost of legal representation for one parole
revocation hearing could be as high as $880 (8 hours X $110 per hour for fully benefited attorney = $880). Thus, based on an annual volume of
approximately 1,500 revocations, the estimated additional annual cost for legal representation at parole revocation hearings in Contra Costa
County is $1,320,000. This estimate does not include the possible costs to the Superior Court to process and adjudicate the cases.
Attached is a letter from the California District Attorney’s Association setting forth some of the concerns the statewide District Attorney
organization has with the Governor’s proposals. Also attached is a letter from Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley outlining his similar
concerns regarding the proposed realignment. He estimates his office will need an additional 40 Deputy District Attorneys and other staff, at a cost
of approximately $19 million per year.
In addition to the potential added costs of the parole revocation process is the cost of local confinement of parolees returned to custody. For
example, in 2010, 95 convicted felons from Contra Costa County were violated on parole and sent back to prison. Under the Governor’s proposal,
these inmates will henceforth be confined locally. While CDCR pays $49,000 per year to confine one inmate, the Governor proposes to provide
counties $25,000 per year per inmate on the assumption that counties would incarcerate these inmates for no longer than four months. (This does
not include the medical costs of aging prisoners and other unknown costs.) Of course, the proposal assumes that local governments will manage
this offender population differently than CDCR, by utilizing various lengths of flash incarceration and alternative custody within a funding level
of $3,500 per offender and/or diversion programs within a funding level of $2,275 per offender. These practices would lower the average length
of stay for these offenders and are expected to reduce costs overall. The proposal also provides for a 10% local administrative cost due to program
expansion.
It should also be noted that the state currently pays many counties to confine parole violators on the state’s behalf. This revenue will become
forfeit should realignment come to pass. Contra Costa County currently receives and stands to forfeit approximately $750,000 of such revenue
annually.
Ongoing Concerns. Following are ongoing issues and concerns related to parole revocation:
• Revocation process. The revised proposal vests authority for revocations with the courts. More thought needs to go in to weighing the
benefits/risks of a court-centered approach and the role of county departments in such a construct.
• No Specific Funding Identified. While recent information from Department of Finance suggests that revocations costs for both the
court and counties will be covered outside of the realignment pot, no details have been provided.
Local Jurisdiction of Lower-Level Offenders
The Governor proposes to shift $1.802 billion from the state to counties and transfer, prospectively beginning July 1, 2011, the responsibility for
approximately 37,000 non/non/nons to counties to serve their terms locally either in jail for up to 36 months or on probation, rather than in state
prison. Serious offenders will continue to fall under state jurisdiction. The Governor’s original broad proposal has been narrowed to exclude from
local jurisdiction those offenders convicted of certain added crimes considered severe enough to warrant a state prison term, provides increased
resources for offenders that are sentenced for more than three years, and allows local jurisdictions to contract with the state (at a very high cost)
for the full cost of housing any such offender in a state facility. As with parole realignment, the proposal relies on counties to manage the
realigned non/non/nons more economically than CDCR by utilizing a hybrid of incarceration time or alternative custody and diversion programs,
and/or community supervision (probation) and treatment.
The proposal assumes a 24-month average length of stay at the local level for short term lower-level offenders, which includes parole, and
provides for incarceration costs of $25,000 per offender. The state offers to provide $3,500 per short term lower-level offender for community
supervision for 18 months, which it claims is equivalent to the cost to supervise and monitor a parolee at the state level. The state also offers to
provide $2,275 per short term lower-level offender for treatment and programming, and assumes local administrative overhead costs of 10% of
total incarceration, community supervision, and treatment/programming costs.
Many county sheriffs and probation officers are supportive of this proposal in concept, as counties are better positioned than the state to access
local, community-based resources to deliver social and rehabilitative services to the inmate population. Nevertheless, our County adult detention
facilities have very limited unused capacity and even less flexibility to manage that capacity due to the incarceration of special inmate populations,
such as sex offenders, mentally ill offenders, and gang affiliates. Although the County Sheriff has managed to avoid being placed under a federal
population cap through an aggressive cite and release policy and through custody alternative programs, a shift of state prisoners to the County may
necessitate the premature release of County jail inmates due to our limited bed capacity. Of the 1,643 adult inmates currently in County custody,
only 204 or 12% are sentenced and could be released if necessary. Depending on the volume of prisoners to be diverted to the County, the
displacement of current detainees being held under federal and state contracts could also result in a loss of revenue to the County on which the
current budget is predicated.
Under the Governor’s proposal, fewer convicted criminals would be sent to state prison. It is likely that fewer criminals will serve prison time
anywhere. There are myriad complexities attendant to this proposal. Because there is not room in the county jail to simply absorb this new
population of prisoners, the Sheriff may be required to release lower-level county jail prisoners to accommodate the non/non/nons in County
facilities. Statistics indicate that many of the released lower-level County prisoners will commit new offenses after early release from custody.
Putting aside the policy issues, the cost to house the non/non/nons will be significant. For example, over the past five years, Contra Costa County
has sent to the CDCR an average of 200 non/non/nons annually or 32% of the new commitments. Therefore, we can anticipate an increase in the
average daily population (ADP) at our detention facilities of approximately 200 for the first year. Because the inmates may be sentenced past the
current one year limitation for county jails, the second and third years are unpredictable until the impact of adjusted sentencing practices, and
length of custody alternative placements and parole programming determinations are made. However, we can logically expect that the ADP will
increase beyond 200 in years two and three.
The current daily cost to house each inmate in Contra Costa County is $77.17, as calculated by the state. The State will be paying the county a
stipend to house long-term and short-term non/non/nons. The State assumes that the average length of stay for a short term low-level offender is
24 months, which includes parole. The current proposal indicates an amount of $25,000 per ADP for any term served up to 24 months. It remains
unclear how these allocations will be calculated. Some calculate it to be a daily rate for a year, which is $68.50 per day, significantly short of the
County’s current daily jail rate. Others believe it to be a block grant of $25,000 per inmate to fund the entire sentence including incarceration,
custody alternatives, and parole.
Ongoing Concerns. Following are ongoing issues and concerns related to the proposed shift of lower-level offenders to county jurisdiction:
• Unacknowledged costs. The ADP allocations proposed by the state make no provision for medical costs. The legislation must
require the state to cover costs related to future changes in law that expand crimes in "non/non/non" category. Need to tie full range of
program shifts to funding
• Limitations on managing jail population. Sheriffs would need the flexibility to assign presentenced inmates to custody alternative
programs.
• Capacity development . Counties are conceptually interested in investing differently in the criminal justice system to produce
improved offender outcomes and address recidivism. Significant work needs to be done to identify the appropriate level of resources across
systems to adequately address offender populations' needs and produce desired outcomes. Flexibility will engender innovation.
• Population scope. Perceived need to further circumscribe eligible population for transfer. Potential ways to refine non/non/non
definition include (1): expanding "ineligible" criteria by adding specified crimes beyond serious/violent/sex; (2) setting cap for local
sentences; (3) measuring offenders' risk; and/or (4) excluding potential deportable population (who cannot be paroled or otherwise released
into the community in lieu of serving their sentences). Population must match both county role in criminal justice and current/future local
capacity; jails are not equipped to house offenders for long terms.
• SB 678 . Are there ways to sustain the probation incentive model in the context of a lower-level offender shift? Can we build on early
successes of 678 to weave in an incentive component for counties that demonstrate significant improvement in reducing recidivism?
• Philosophical shift. Realignment contemplates in the public safety arena a transfer of offender populations for local supervision,
management, and treatment. The underpinning of the population shift is, in large part, the notion that the status quo in the criminal justice
system is unsustainable – both financially and in terms of outcomes. It will take time for counties and partners across local criminal justice
continuum to arrive at a new construct for offender management.
Realignment of Juvenile Population
Prior to the realignment of juvenile justice, all juvenile offenders convicted of a serious offense were sentenced to the State Department of
Juvenile Justice (DJJ) at state cost; counties were charged only for committing lower-level offenders to DJJ.
The Governor's original realignment proposal would have eliminated the CDCR Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) by June 30, 2014 and shifted
$257.6 million from the State to counties to house, treat, and supervise all juvenile offenders. Counties have persuaded the state that this proposal is
uneconomical because it would require all counties to create capacity to manage a relatively small severely mentally ill juvenile offender
population within each county, rather than house them centrally with the state. The state’s response to this logic is to offer counties an “all or
nothing” option: a county may house all of its realigned juvenile population either locally or at DJJ, but all at county cost. The state advises that
the annual cost to incarcerate a youth at DJJ is $200,000. CDCR contemplates a three-year ramp up for the shift in DJJ population to counties on a
prospective basis. Some DJJ wards serving sentences in excess of the three-year phase-in would likely be placed in a non-county facility to
complete their sentences.
County Probation has been examining this proposal for some time as, effective February 1, 2011, the County became responsible for DJJ parolees
who will now be put on probation. In addition, the County also implemented the Youthful Offender Treatment Program in 2009, a state block
grant program, which diverted lower-level, non-violent offenders from DJJ to County juvenile detention.
By law, juveniles cannot legally be housed in a prison that houses adults. Thus, the County’s incarceration options will be house the inmate at
juvenile hall, pay some other agency to house the juvenile, or construct a new juvenile facility to hold the increased population.
The District Attorney’s Office has the discretion to charge some juveniles as adults. Because DJJ may no longer be an affordable option for the
most violent juveniles, and because a stay in a county jail is not appropriate for some juveniles based on their crimes, it is possible that the DA’s
office would prosecute more juveniles as adults in adult court, resulting in additional prosecution time and cost.
Ongoing Concerns. Following are ongoing issues and concerns related to the proposed shift of DJJ population to county jurisdiction:
• Flexibility/Cost Neutrality. While counties believe that the revised proposal is far more acceptable than an outright elimination of
DJJ, additional work needs to be done to ensure that the implementing statute offers counties sufficient flexibility and cost neutrality while
providing sufficient certainty to the state regarding ongoing county demand for state placement options.
Court Security
The revised proposal to realign fiscal responsibility for court security from the state to counties will provide counties with $485 million (a
reduction from the original proposal of $530 million) and stipulates that the security will be provided only by county sheriffs. It seems that the aim
of the proposal is to eliminate administrative costs associated with the Administrative Office of the Courts’ (AOC) involvement in the transaction.
Under this proposal, funding and responsibility for court security would transfer to the counties, allowing courts and counties to negotiate service
levels and agreements locally.
The proposal is counterintuitive to the Trial Court Funding Act, which transferred responsibility for the court system away from counties and was
meant to cap counties’ responsibility for court system costs at 1995/96 levels. Growth in court system costs was meant to be the responsibility of
the state. Under the Trial Court Funding Act, court security is a state, not county, responsibility. The immediate concern with this proposal is that
it might be the first step in unraveling the fabric of the Trial Court Funding Act and establishing a precedent for transferring the current and future
costs for additional court system functions to counties. The Governor’s proposal for transferring court security to counties makes no provision for
cost escalation from inflation or court program expansion, and it begs the question of why the state is not using a competitive bid process to bring
down the costs of court security rather than transferring the responsibility and associated cost to counties.
The Governor's Budget does not contain sufficient information to determine net County impact at this time. The CAO will continue to work with
the Sheriff's Department and the Superior Court to determine the impact of this proposal as details are released by the Administration.
Ongoing Concerns: Following are ongoing issues and concerns related to the proposed shift of court security to county jurisdiction:
• Growth/out-year management. Need to develop a mechanism to account for changes in court facilities, new judgeships or other
changes that significantly alter court security needs. How will a statewide allocation based on historic funding levels adjust to future
changes?
• Cost containment. Need to identify mutually agreeable cost containment methods that balance court security needs against resources
now and in out years.
• Liability. As an indispensible party in the agreement for court security services, the courts must retain some measure of liability.
• Governance. The executive level of local government must have a role in the negotiations between the court and sheriff on service
provision.
• Precedent. Counties are wary about unwinding the division of court/county functions achieved under trial court funding reforms. Need
some recognition that this move does not signal an intent to revisit other redistribution of court/county responsibilities. On a positive note,
other counties see a benefit in a more direct allocation to county sheriffs.
Health and Human Services
Under phase one of the realignment proposal, the Governor has selected programs that fall under a broad definition of public safety. For social
services, it includes Child Welfare Services, Foster Care, Adoptions and Adult Protective Services.
Child Welfare
Generally, Child Welfare Services, Foster Care and Adoptions are federally mandated programs. For these programs, the State is the single
statewide agency, meaning that the State is the entity that the federal government directly deals with when it comes to programs rules, audits and
penalties, accountability and funding. Counties administer the programs on behalf of the State.
Phase I realignment would provide $1.605 billion statewide for the transfer of all Child Welfare Services and Foster Care program responsibilities
from the State to the counties. This amount corresponds to the existing State general fund amounts provided for these programs. There is no
information available regarding how these funds will be distributed to counties.
The Child Welfare Service programs were previously “realigned” via the 1991 realignment when the sharing ratios were changed. Adult
Protective Services is not federally mandated; but it should be noted APS seems to be heading toward being federally mandated with the passage
of the federal Elder Abuse Victims Act in 2009.
Adult Protective Services was not previously realigned because it did not exist as a statewide program until 1998.
Social worker caseloads in California are excessively high for a minimal level of case management for vulnerable children and families. In fact, a
recent study found that optimal caseloads would be about half of the current standards.
The State froze its contribution to the program in 2001. Child welfare services are underfunded by approximately $650 million statewide.
Adult Protective Services
Phase I realignment would provide $55 million statewide from the transfer of all the Adult Protective Services Program responsibilities from the
State to counties in the 2011-12 fiscal year. Full implementation of the transfer would not be completed until the 2014-15 fiscal year. There is
insufficient information regarding how this shift would occur or how funds would be distributed. However, counties would have flexibility to
determine the appropriate level of service and priority for their community.
Mental Health Services
Most community mental health services are administered by counties. Services are supported by funding provided in the 1991 realignment through
sales tax and vehicle license fees and Proposition 63-Mental Health Services Act funds. Under Phase I realignment, these programs as well as the
Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSDT) program, mental health managed care services, and mental health services for
special education students (AB3632), would be funded using Proposition 63 funds in the first year and through the extension of sales tax and
vehicle license fees.
Substance Abuse
The transfer of funding and responsibilities from the California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs to counties is included in Phase I. The
shift would transfer the responsibility for administering prevention, treatment and recovery services for alcohol and drug abuse Counties would be
provided with funding and the responsibility for inpatient and outpatient alcohol and drug treatment services. If counties are also provided program
flexibility they will be able to better utilize and prioritize funding to meet community goals. With program responsibility at the local level,
counties cold implement integrated services for the new probation population, those suffering from dual diagnosis of mental health and substance
abuse, and other low income residents.
The Governor’s Budget does not contain sufficient information to determine the County impact at this time.
PHASE II
Phase II of the Governor’s Realignment proposal assumes that the state will become responsible for costs associated with health care programs,
including California Children Services and In-Home Supportive Services, while the counties assume responsibilities for CalWORKs, CalFresh
(Food Stamps), and Child Support. There is still very little detail regarding these proposals. Responsibility will be transferred to counties for these
programs along with funding support. There is no guarantee that adequate funding will be provided to any of these programs. In fact, the increased
cost of doing business (CODB) for social service programs has remained unfunded since 2001. For the 2009-10 fiscal year, the CODB gap was
estimated at $621 million including $37.9 million in Contra Costa County alone.
Funding for the realigned programs relies on voter approval to extend sales tax and vehicle license fees. The Governor’s proposal does not include
an alternative funding source or contingency plan if the extension of the sales tax and VLF tax increase is not approved by the voters in June.
These funding sources have peaks and valleys and it is unlikely counties will get sufficient authority to manage programs within available
resources due to a variety federal and court mandates.
Overarching Concerns with the Realignment Proposal
• The realignment proposal was so hastily conceived that critical details were overlooked (such as the parole revocation process). The
proposal of this magnitude involving significant transitional issues cannot be thoughtfully contemplated and planned in the extremely
limited timeframe prescribed by the Governor. Counties are challenged to evaluate capacity to take on individual components of
realignment; it is even more difficult to evaluate a county’s collective capacity to take on all elements.
• Counties can only succeed under realignment by utilizing best practices and highly trained staff. The proposed realignment funding is still
not clearly defined and appears thus far to be woefully short of providing the necessary support. There is also great concern that the funding
will gradually go away and once again leave local government to pick up the structural costs of these programs.
• To ensure this process is not simply a transfer of jurisdiction but a meaningful and comprehensive alternative with a chance of success, a
significant fiscal commitment from the state and local governments must occur. Counties are being asked to fundamentally rethink
investments, strategies, and approaches in dealing with the offender population. In the limited time frame available, counties are struggling
to bridge the state's costing model/assumptions to a new local service design and determine what funding is needed to cover all costs
(programming, incarceration, electronic monitoring and other custody alternatives, legal representation, and enhanced staff training).
• There continues to be too much uncertainty regarding the formulas for allocating funds to counties for the various elements of
realignment. For example, will the allocations be calculated as daily rates or as a block grant based on ADP?
• Foundation of services not presently in place, especially in current economic climate and in face of consecutive years of staffing and
programmatic reductions across systems (Sheriff, Probation, Mental Health, Substance Abuse, etc.)
• How will the increased number of inmates impact classification issues within County detention facilities?
• What are the funding guarantees for future? Will there be mandate relief if the funding is or becomes inadequate?
• Does the Federal Receivership that CDCR is under for their medical issues affect the counties? Currently the CDCR is under a Federal
Court Order relative to medical treatment. There is a concern that the Order will remain in place for these inmates even if they are housed in
county jails.
• Will the state provide funding to address the cost of medical services for the realigned inmates?
• Will the state pass on the responsibility and under-funded federal reimbursement for housing criminal illegal aliens?
CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: None. This report is informational for discussion purposes only. CHILDREN'S IMPACT
STATEMENT: None. CLERK'S ADDENDUM
Supervisor Gioia expressed a desire to see an item placed on the next agenda for the Board of Supervisors to indicate its support for a June
ballot measure to extend the California temporary additional sales tax increase. All Supervisors indicated their support for the consideration
of this item on their agenda. Speaker: Rollie Katz, Public Employees' Union Local 1
ACCEPTED report from the County Administrator and presentations from the Sheriff, District Attorney, County Probation Officer, Health
Services Director, and Employment and Human Services Director on the current status of the Governor’s budget and its potential impacts to
Contra Costa County programs and service.
ATTACHMENTS Ltr from EHS Director re 2011/12 State Budget Impacts Letter from CA District Attorney's Assoc Ltr from LA County District
Attorney
State Budget: FY 2011-12 Contra Costa County Impacts
Draft: 3/15/2011
A B C D E
Issue Area Governor's Proposal Contra Costa County Impact Conference Committee Action Contra Costa County Impact
IHSS
Across the Board Service
Reduction
Reduce services to all IHSS recipients by
8.4 percent across-the-board for GF
savings of $127.5 million. This would be
on top of the existing 3.6 percent cut and
result in a total reduction of 12 percent.
The overall service reduction
of 12% in IHSS expenditures
proposed by the Governor
could result in the elimination
of approximately 912,000
IHSS service hours for County
cost savings of $2,063,869
Adopted an additional savings
target of $128.4 million GF (for
total GF savings of $486.1
million) with placeholder trailer
bill language for proposals to
achieve savings to be
determined.
Currently, the 8.4% across-the-board
reduction in IHSS service hours has
been eliminated from the conference
committee budget proposals. No
information available yet on what the
additional reductions would be.
Elimination of Domestic and
Related Services to Certain
Recipients
Eliminate domestic and related services
to minor children with a parent who is
able and available (for savings of $4.8
million ($1.5 million GF)) and to recipients
living with others in a shared-housing
situation (for savings of $714 million
($235 million GF)).
Currently, the County provides
funding to 4,581 eligible
recipients with shared living
arrangement. The Governor’s
proposal would eliminate
services to this population and
this would reduce the County
share by $236,600
Adopted an additional savings
target of $128.4 million GF (for
total GF savings of $486.1
million) with placeholder trailer
bill language for proposals to
achieve savings to be
determined.
Currently, the proposal to eliminate
domestic and related services for
various living arrangements has been
eliminated from the conference
committee budget proposals. No
information available yet on what the
additional reductions would be.
1
A B C D E
Issue Area Governor's Proposal Contra Costa County Impact Conference Committee Action Contra Costa County Impact
Physician Certification Establish a new state-issued physician
certification form to be required of all new
and existing IHSS recipients to be eligible
for the program for savings of $366
million ($120 million GF). The form would
require the physician to certify that an
individual requires assistance with certain
tasks to remain in their own home.
Insufficient information
available to determine impact.
Adopted a requirement for IHSS
recipients to have certification
from a health care professional
(i.e., not just limited to a
physician) that personal care
services are necessary to
prevent out-of-home care for GF
savings of $120.4 million.
Contra Costa County currently requires a
physician's evaluation for all new IHSS
applicants. For renewal evaluations, we
require a physician's evaluation once
every three (3) years. If there are recent
changes in a client's condition, we may
ask for an updated evaluation. Some
physicians (smaller offices) charge $7.50
per evaluation, while the larger
corporations (Kaiser, CCHP) provide
them at no charge. The proposed state
evaluation form is likely to be more
lengthy and detailed. For some
physicians, it may mean they will
increase their fee for that service. Fiscal
impact is difficult to determine at this
time. Administrative burden will be
minimal since we already have this IHSS
requirement as standard operating
procedure.
Eliminate Funding to IHSS
Advisory Committees
Eliminate the mandate and funding for
local IHSS Advisory Committees for a
savings of $3.1 million ($1.6 million GF).
Currently, Advisory
Committee activities are
funded with 53% federal
dollars and 47% IHSS State
allocation dollars. The
total allocation (state and
federal) has been $52,964
annually, however, our IHSS
Advisory Committee has
spent an average of $17,000
annually over the last 4
years. Counties have the
option to continue the
advisory committees at
their own expense and will be
eligible to draw down 53%
federal matching funds
Eliminated the mandate and
reduced funding by $1.4 million
GF, leaving $3,000 for each of
the 56 Public Authorities to
support continued operation of
the Advisory Committees.
An allocation of $3,000 would allow
Contra Costa County to draw down an
additional federal match of
approximately $3,000. The IHSS Public
Authority would adjust it's level of
support for the IHSS Advisory
Committee to live within this amount.
2
A B C D E
Issue Area Governor's Proposal Contra Costa County Impact Conference Committee Action Contra Costa County Impact
Caseload Savings None.Adopted caseload savings of
$83.4 million GF due to lower
caseload estimates in 2010-11
and 2011-12.
Contra Costa County IHSS caseloads
have been steadily dropping over the
last 2 years, so the impact should be
minimal.
Community First Choice
Option
None.Adopted $121.1 million GF
savings due to expected
approval of six percent increase
in federal financial participation
as a result of IHSS qualifying
under the new federal
Community First Choice Option.
The budget proposal is not specific
about how the Community First Choice
Option will be implemented and
documents to research this are not
available at this time. Based on the fact
the State included counties in their
current FMAP increase, using a similar
proportional sharing, we estimate we
would receive the lower side of $1.4
million. Depending on the State's
decision to distribute the FMAP, we
could realize no savings at all.
Unspecified Reductions to
Achieve Savings
None.Adopted an additional savings
target of $128.4 million GF (for
total GF savings of $486.1
million) with placeholder trailer
bill language for proposals to
achieve savings to be
determined.
Not able to determine CC County Impact
at this time.
3
A B C D E
Issue Area Governor's Proposal Contra Costa County Impact Conference Committee Action Contra Costa County Impact
CalWORKs
Grant Reduction Reduce CalWORKs grants by 13 percent,
effective June 1, 2011, for savings of
$13.9 million 2010-11 and $405 million in
2011-12.
All 11,310 CalWORKs
families and all 19,394
children will be adversely
impacted with this proposed
grant reduction taking an
average cash aid grant for a
family of 3 from $694 to $604.
Reduction in grant size will
result in a $9.2 million dollar
reduction in CalWORKs
assistance expenditures, of
which $200,000 is County GF.
However, our CalWORKS
Single Allocation would be
reduced by $340,000.
Adopted an 8 percent grant cut
effective June 1, 2011, for
savings of approximately $300
million.
All 11,310 CalWORKs families and all
19,394 children will be adversely
impacted with this proposed grant
reduction taking an average cash aid
grant for a family of 3 from $694 to $638.
Reduction in grant size will result in a
$5.6 million dollar reduction in
CalWORKs assistance expenditures, of
which $126,373 is County GF. In
addition the CalWORKs Administrative
Allocation will be reduced by $206,400.
4
A B C D E
Issue Area Governor's Proposal Contra Costa County Impact Conference Committee Action Contra Costa County Impact
Establish 48-Month Time
Limit and Reform Safety Net
Establish a 48-month time limit for
CalWORKs families. Any month of aid
received by any member of an assistance
unit would be counted toward the 48
month time limit, retroactive to 1998.
Child-only benefits would continue
beyond 48 months for unaided adult
SSI/SSP recip and non-needy caretaker
relatives, plus families fully meeting
federal work participation rate
requirements. Effective July 1, 2011.
$698.1 million savings.
An estimated 1,595
CalWORKS families and
2,996 children would lose
CalWORKS services unless
the adults were fully meeting
their work participation
requirements. Given the
current high levels of
unemployment, it's estimated
that only 365 families could
meet this requirement
resulting in 1,230 families
losing their benefits. The
county would lose $10.5
million in total CalWORKS
assistance expenditures, of
which $360,000 is county
general fund. The
CalWORKS administrative
allocation would be reduced
by $2.7 million.
In addition to approval of
Governor’s proposal to cut
CalWORKs from 60-months to
48-months for adults effective
June 1, 2011, without altering
policies regarding those adults'
exemptions as already adopted
by the Senate and Assembly
budget committees, adopted
additional grant cuts to cases
without aided adults after certain
periods of time on aid for
savings of approximately $100
million. The exact amount of the
grant cut and the time on aid
when the cut would be effective
is to be determined.
An estimated minimum of 1,595
CalWORKS families and 2,996
CalWORKS children would have their
grants reduced and lose CalWORKS
services. The county would lose
approximately $10.5 million in total
CalWORKS assistance expenditures, of
which $360,000 is county general fund.
The CalWORKS administrative
allocation would be reduced by $2.7
million. Until there are additional
legislative determinations made on the
proposed additional grant cuts to cases
without aided adults, additional
reductions (based on CC action) in
assistance expenditures and
administrative allocation reductions
cannot be projected.
5
A B C D E
Issue Area Governor's Proposal Contra Costa County Impact Conference Committee Action Contra Costa County Impact
Single Allocation Reduction
and WTW Exemptions
Maintain the $377 million Single
Allocation reduction in 2011-12 that was
originally taken in 2009-10, as well as
flexibility to use CalWORKs Mental
Health/Substance Abuse funding for
other CalWORKs program components.
Temporary WTW exemptions for families
with young children enacted in 2009
would expire June 30, 2011.
All 4,825 Welfare-to-Work
families will be adversely
impacted as a result of
reduced supportive services.
With many services being
reduced or eliminated through
previous budget processes,
transportation and ancillary
supportive services are crucial
to the success of the Welfare-
to-Work clients. These
families will encounter more
difficulties in meeting basic
needs while trying to engage
in job search, and other
employment and education
activities necessary to
obtain/maintain employment.
As a result, they will fall
further into poverty.
Adopted a reduction to the
Single Allocation of $427 million
with extension of the statutory
changes and exemptions (with
possible expansion of the
exemptions) for parents of
young children that were
enacted in 2009-10.
All 4,825 Welfare-to-Work families will
be adversely impacted as a result of
reduced supportive services. In
addition, the Department will have
significantly less funds to contract with
community based organizations and
other departments for welfare to work
services. Specifically, contracts for work
experience services; education, training,
and assessment services; legal record
expungement services; services to help
CalLEARN youth complete their
education; Domestic Violence
Prevention Services; and substance
abuse and mental health services. This
will increase the number of CalWORKS
participants who are unable to overcome
barriers to employment. The additional
statewide reduction of $50M will result in
an additional $1.3M reduction to our
CalWORKs administrative allocation.
Modify Subsidized
Employment (AB 98)
None.Approved the LAO proposal to
expand the state's participation
in subidized employment from
50% percent of the Maximum
Assistance Payment Level
[MAP] to 100% of the MAP or
50% of wage, whichever is
higher.
While further analysis is required to
accurately determine impact, any
additional State funds made available to
provide for subsidized employment will
allow for the possible reinstatement of a
subsidized employment program for
CalWORKS Welfare-to-Work
participants.
6
A B C D E
Issue Area Governor's Proposal Contra Costa County Impact Conference Committee Action Contra Costa County Impact
Reduce Funding for
CalWORKs Substance
Abuse Treatment and Mental
Health Services
None.Reduce funding for CalWORKs
Substance Abuse treatment and
Mental Health Services by $5
million.
It is projected that approximately 2.3% of
the CalWORKs participants needing
substance abuse and mental heath
treatment will no longer be able to
access these services causing them to
fall further into poverty and preventing
them from moving to self sufficiency.
This could result in a $100K reduction to
our CalWORKs MH/SA allocation`.
Reduce Funding for Cal
Learn program
None.Reduce Cal Learn by $45 million
in 2011-12.
A $45 million reduction statewide in the
Cal Learn program would essentially
eliminate this program impacting
approximately 1,000 pregnant and
parenting teens who would no longer be
provided assistance in staying in school
and obtaining their high school diploma
or equivalent. As a result, they will lose a
key opportunity to successfully reach
self sufficiency. Reduction to the
CalWORKs Administrative Allocation of
$606,213 of which $465,000 is
contracted services.
Stage 1 Reduction to Reflect
Other Child Care Actions
Adopted savings of up to $69
million for Stage 1 child care
conforming to actions taken in
the child care package (see
descriptions below of child care
actions taken).
Please reference Stage 1 impacts below
CalWORKs - Child Care
7
A B C D E
Issue Area Governor's Proposal Contra Costa County Impact Conference Committee Action Contra Costa County Impact
Unallocated reduction Reduce state funding by $577.5 million,
reflecting an unallocated 34.6 percent
reduction in all child care programs
except Preschool and After-School
programs
A 34.6% reduction will result
in a loss of $3,106,402 to the
Department's Child
Development Program.
Childcare services will be
eliminated for approximately
346 children ages 0 to 5.
Adopted a 15 percent across-the-
board reduction to all contracts,
excluding Stage 1 and Stage 2
but including pre-school, for
Proposition 98 savings $267
million.
Center-based State contract impact:
$1.9 million, the elimination of
approximately 212 slots , or 60% of slots
currently subcontracted to childcare
partners in the community and the
reduction of 5 FTE staff.CAPP
Program:a total reduction of $210,00
Reduce license-exempt
provider rates
None.Reduce license-exempt provider
rates from 80 percent to 60
percent, to achieve savings of
$44 million.
WFS Bureau response: At least 50% or
227 CalWORKs Stage 1 families
receiving services for approximately 313
children may be adversely impacted with
this rate reduction as these families
currently use license-exempt child care
providers. This reduction will result in
the loss or the more limited availability of
child care slots. Children may be placed
in more risky child care arrangements
and increased child care expenditures
could result as families opt to utilize
more expensive licensed child care. The
Work Participation Rate will be
negatively impacted as participants can
be exempted from Welfare-to-Work for a
lack of child care.CSB response: CSB
currently has 390 exempt care providers.
Reduction will require a higher caseload;
providers may opt out due to the lesser
rate which will directly impact the centers
with more families needing center-based
care. Providers may be required to care
for more than 3 children to meet
minimum wage requirements.
8
A B C D E
Issue Area Governor's Proposal Contra Costa County Impact Conference Committee Action Contra Costa County Impact
Restore CalWORKs Stage 3 Set aside $52.6 million to fund Stage 3
servcies for April 1 - June 30, 2011. For
2011-12, provide $200 million in ongoing
funds to continue Stage 3 program
services in the budget year.
Restores Stage 3 services.Approve restoration of Stage 3.The restoration of Stage 3 Child Care
will have a positive impact as families
can remain employed and not have to
return to CalWORKs to receive cash aid
and supportive services.
Eliminate Eligibility for 11
and 12 year olds
Eliminate eligibility for subsidized child
care for 11- and 12-year old children, to
achieve savings of $93 million ($34
million Stage 1, $38 million Stage 2/3,
$21 million General child care and AP).
174 children (or 21% of the
Department’s Child Care
caseload) will lose child care
eligibility creating employment
issues and potential of
unemployment for their
parents. There will be a
$800,000 reduction to the
CalWORKs Single Allocation,
which is used to pay for the
services and administration of
Stage 1 Child Care. Parents
may choose to leave their
children at home in an unsafe
situation or in other unsafe
conditions, placing them at
risk and endangerment. This
could result in an increase of
services needed through the
Children and Family Services
Bureau
Adopted the elimination of
services for 11- and 12-year olds
during traditional hours, while
protecting services during non-
traditional hours, and exempting
children who are disabled, at-
risk of abuse, or homeless, for
Proposition 98 savings of $38.5
million.
A maximum of 174 children (or 21% of
the Department’s Child Care caseload)
will lose child care eligibility putting
these children in potentially more risky
child care arrangements and creating
continuity of employment problems for
the parents as well as the potential for
job loss. This will result in a reduction to
our CalWORKs Child Care allocation,
which is used to pay for staff and child
care services, in the amount of
$800,000.
Other Child Care Cuts Reduce income eligibility for
subsidized child care from 75%
of State Median Income to 70%.
Increase the family co-pay by
10%.
The decrease in SMI will impact 11
currently enrolled children and 73
waitlisted families. The 10% increase in
family fees will result in an additional
$10,000 in fees collected each year; an
increased hardship on families already
struggling; families potentially dropping
with a balance due based on inability to
pay fees.
9
A B C D E
Issue Area Governor's Proposal Contra Costa County Impact Conference Committee Action Contra Costa County Impact
Reduce the Title 5 Standard
Reimbursement Rate by
10%.
Reduce the Title 5 Standard
Reimbursement Rate by 10%.
The 10% cut will result in $1.3M funding
reduction and the termination of
childcare care services to 140 children
currently enrolled in the program.
Child Support
Suspend County Share of
Collections
Suspend the county share of child
support collections in 2011-12 and
redirect county share to the GF for GF
savings of $24.4 million.
The suspension will result in
an increased cost to EHSD of
approx. $600,000 in FY 11/12.
Approved.The suspension will result in an
increased cost to EHSD of approx.
$600,000 in FY 11/12.
10
A B C D E
Issue Area Governor's Proposal Contra Costa County Impact Conference Committee Action Contra Costa County Impact
SSI/SSP
Reduce SSI/SSP Grants Reduce SSI/SSP grants for individuals by
$15 per month to the federal minimum for
savings of $14.7 million GF in 2010-11
and $177.3 million GF in 2011-12.
2,082 SSI/SSP recipients or
18% of the CalWORKs
caseload will be further
negatively impacted and less
able to meet their basic needs
becoming more at risk and
falling further into poverty
Approved.2,082 SSI/SSP recipients or 18% of the
CalWORKs caseload will be further
negatively impacted and less able to
meet their basic needs becoming more
at risk and falling further into poverty
Medi-Cal Administration
Suspend CODB for 2011-12 Do not increase Medi-Cal admin by $23.6
million ($11.8 million GF) to reflect the
suspension of COLA in 2011-12.
Approved.Contra Costa will not receive additional
Medi-Cal funding to cover our increased
Cost of Doing Business (CODB). We
will have to serve an increased number
of Medi-Cal applicants/caseload with
less funding. The $23.6 statewide
results will result in a loss of funding in
the amount of approximately $700,000.
Adult Day Health Care
Services
Eliminate ADHC for ongoing GF savings
of $176.6 million.
Adopted reduction of $90 million
GF and elimination of ADHC as
a Medi-Cal optional benefit and
provided $85 million GF with
budget bill language expressing
the Legislature's intent to pursue
additional legislation to create a
more narrowly-defined ADHC
benefit under a new federal
waiver.
A more narrowly-defined benefit could
equate to a reduction in service hours
with some benefits eliminated entirely.
Until the waiver rules are defined, the
exact impact is unknown. With any
reduction of hours or elimination of
services, caregivers will become
overburdened with the stress of
caregiving, will require absences from
their jobs and it will further degrade the
ability of the family unit to remain
healthy, independent and productive.
Realignment
11
A B C D E
Issue Area Governor's Proposal Contra Costa County Impact Conference Committee Action Contra Costa County Impact
Public Safety Realignment Realign $5.9 billion worth of public safety
and health and human services programs
to counties. HHS programs to be
realigned include: CWS and Foster
Care, APS, Drug and Alcohol Programs
(Drug Medi-Cal, Drug Courts and
perinatal services), EPSDT, Mental
Health Managed Care, AB 3632 services,
and existing community mental health
programs. The realigned programs would
be paid for through adoption of a
proposed June ballot initiative to extend
an existing 1.15 percent rate for the VLF
and 1 percen in sales tax that would
otherwise expire at the end of the year.
CSAC has done a detailed
analysis of the potential
opportunities and risks
associated with this
proposal.Social services
programs need base
augmentations and counties
need constitutional
protections against the
revenues not performing and
future state, federal, and
judicial costs to make
realignment proposal viable
Adopted the framework of the
Governor's revised realignment
proposal to dedicate $5.9 billion
in revenue to fund public safety
programs. Adpted the
constitutional provision that
allows the realignment of local
programs to occur and dedicates
the revenues to that purpose,
with an understanding that the
Constitutional language is still
under negotiation. Also adopted
placeholder trailer bill language
to implement the realignment,
including implementation issues,
allocations, and funding levels to
be determined trhough future
Legislative deliberations.
More information will be needed before
we can assess the local impact. We
support CSAC's analysis of the risks and
opportunities.
Other
Proposition 10 Fund Shift Use $1 billion in Proposition 10 Fund
reserves ($50 million from state reserves
and $950 million from local reserves) to
support Medi-Cal services for children
aged 5 and under in lieu of GF in 2011-
12, and shift 50 percent of the local
allocation to the state on an on-going
basis. The proposal requires voter
approval and a June ballot initiative is
proposed.
Adopted a one-time shift of $1
billion that includes $950 from
Local Commissions and $50
million from the State
Commission, but rejected the on-
going 50 percent transfer from
the Local Commissions. 50% of
each Local Commission's fund
balance as of June 30, 2010 is
included in this redirection. Local
Commissions will be required to
shift these reserves to the State
by June 30, 2012. The
redirected funds will be used for
Medi-Cal services for children
under 5.
The Local First Five Commission will
lose $23.4 million by this action, and will
have to significantly reduce the level of
funding that it uses to contract for First
Five services.
12
A B C D E
Issue Area Governor's Proposal Contra Costa County Impact Conference Committee Action Contra Costa County Impact
Pending Federal Funding
Cuts: Head Start and Early
Head Start
The House is proposing 15% cut to EHS
and HS base funding in 2011, which
would result in reduction of $1.5 million,
160 directly operated slots and 24
teaching staff; or the elimination of all
HS partner contracts. The President is
proposing a slight increase in base
funding from 2010 level to include the
continuation of ARRA funding; Also at
possible risk is the Early Head Start
expansion at $2.7 million, 170 slots and
25 teaching staff, or all EHS partner
contracts and EHS home based slots.
13