HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12151992 - 2.1 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS � - -
.
f •
FROM: Phil Bachelor, County Administrator Contra
Perfecto Villarreal, Social Service Director o; ,:a�;h
�C�osta
DATE: December 15, 1992 Courcy
C'�sr'4 COUIZ'�
SUBJECT: REDUCTIONS IN STATE FUNDING FOR CHILD WELFARE SER S
AND BUDGET REDUCTION PLAN - PHASE I
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND .AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION(S):
1. ACKNOWLEDGE the projected overall $3.17 million budget shortfall in the Social Service Department,
primarily due to late notice on reduced funding allocations from the State and/or inadequately funded
State program mandates for administration of Child Welfare Services (CWS), In-Home Supportive
Services (IHSS), Foster Care Licensing, Adoptions, Food Stamps and Aid for Families with Dependent
Children (AFDC).
2. ACKNOWLEDGE that the State's current estimated FY 92-93 and FY 93-94 budget deficit of $9 - 12
billion increases the likelihood of even further State cuts to Social Service programs, and consequently,
the need for additional budget reductions.
3. EXPRESS grave concern over the devastating impact of the $1.6 million State reduction in CWS funding
on children's services in Contra Costa County, including the magnified impact of receiving the reduction
5 months into the fiscal year.
4. REQUEST that the Employee Organizations join the County in objecting to the additional state-imposed
funding reductions; in urging distribution of the $7 million State CWS reserve to counties who received
allocation cuts; and in supporting revision of the allocation methodology to minimize the possibility of such
wide funding variations in future years.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _YES SIGNATURE: a ��
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR_RECOMMENDATION OF BO RD MMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON 1pembgr 15T199APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED'—OTHER XX
For Board Action, see Addendum 1.
For list of speakers; see Addendum 2.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
XX UNANIMOUS(ABSENT II, IV ) TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AND
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ON MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. `
Contact: Perfecto Villerreal, 313-1579 ATTESTED December 15, 1992
PHIL BACHELOR,CLERK OF
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
cc: CAO
Social Service Dept.
Personnel Department
BY ,DEPUTY
5. DIRECT the County Administrator and Social Service Director to continue to work with the State
Health and Welfare Agency, Contra Costa's Legislative Delegation and the County Welfare Directors'
Association on these CWS funding allocation issues, including the need for more timely action by the
State. (See attached letters from the County Administrator's Association of California and the County
Administrator)
6. ACKNOWLEDGE the need to take immediate actions to resolve as much of the $3.17 million shortfall
as now possible ($1.96 million) in order to minimize even further program detriment resulting from
delays; AUTHORIZE the Social Service Director to apply projected savings in the Categorical Aids
budget to help mitigate the $3.17 million shortfall; and DIRECT the County Administrator and Social
Service Director to report back to the Board as soon as possible with further recommendations,
necessary to balance the budget in fiscal year 1992-93.
7. RECOGNIZE that reductions in program overmatches are no longer an alternative to staff reductions,
due to previous budget actions, and that consequently, staff reductions are the direct result of actions
by the State to reduce the State budget.
8. In order to help mitigate the impacts of staff reductions:
0 ADOPT the attached resolution offering early retirement to the classifications of Social
Casework Specialist II, Social Worker, Social Work Supervisor I, Social Work Supervisor II,
Children's Services Aides and Deep-Class Clerk for the period December 21, 1992 to
January 8, 1993.
• ESTABLISH 10 additional Eligibility Worker positions in the Medi-Cal program effective
January 14, 1993, in order to utilize newly available state and federal revenue, and DIRECT
the Social Service Director to offer these positions to Social Workers and,Social Casework
Specialists affected by this budget reduction.
9. ADOPT the attached resolution reducing a total of 29.5 vacant and filled positions in the CWS and
IHSS programs, effective January 15, 1993 including reducing the number of caseworkers and
supervisors in Child Welfare Services from 157 to 142 (9.5%), which erodes Contra Costa's ability to
provide the most progressive children's services program in the state and reduces staffing levels at
only State funded levels.
10. DIRECT the Social Service Department to discuss with all employee organizations the ramifications of
the staff reductions required by the reduced State funding.
11. DIRECT the County Administrator and Social Service Director to continue to explore alternatives for
reducing the budget shortfall and the need for further layoffs including:
• increased departmental cost-effectiveness by helping families become self-sufficient through
a multi-departmental service integration approach. I
• offering eligible laid-off employees positions in revenue-producing programs such as Medi-
Cal, as positions become available.
• continued negotiation with employee organizations on mandatory furlough, to save on net
county cost and preserve positions.
• continued use of voluntary furlough, part time , job sharing and leaves of absence in program
areas that will not cause a loss of Federal or State revenue.
• early implementation by the State of IHSS Title 19 personal care option funds to give the
counties access to federal funding (now anticipated in FY 1993-94).
12. MODIFY Resolution 92/624 relating to General Assistance (GA) staffing reductions to extend the
effective date from December 31, 1992 to January 15, 1993 to allow time for implementation of the
new transportation system for GA clients, to meet community concerns.
2
BACKGROUND
Social Service Department Budget Shortfall
The Social Service Department is currently facing a $3.17 million budget shortfall for Fiscal Year 1992-93:
Shortfall
(in(in milli
Child Welfare Services $1.604
County Services Block Grant $.787
(IHSS)
Foster Care Licensing $.143
Adoptions $.246
Food Stamps $•225
AFDC $•114
General Assistance $.054
Administration
TOTAL $3.173'
The projected shortfall is caused in large part by unexpected reductions in State funding allocations in
Child Welfare Services, Community Services Block Grant (CSBG), and welfare program
administration. Partly as a result of the very late adoption of the State Budget, the Department was
not notified of these funding reductions until very late in the fiscal year. For example, the State
Department of Social Services did not notify the Department of the $1.6 million Child Welfare Services
reduction or the CSBG reduction until November, five months into the fiscal year.
The Department and County Administrator have made concerted efforts through the County Welfare
Directors Association and the State Health and Welfare Agency to restore, partially or completely, the
Child Welfare Services funding. These efforts have not been fruitful, with the exception of the
probable release of an estimated $7 million in CWS funds now being held in reserve by the State.
This release could restore $210,000 for Contra Costa County.
In addition to the State funding reductions, the implementation of General Assistance Centralization
has been delayed from October 1992 to January 9, 1993, causing cost increases in General
Assistance administration. The target date was extended to allow the Department to address
community concerns related to transportation. The Department has issued a Request for Proposal to
private transportation companies to provide services to West and East County General
Assistance/Food Stamp applicants.
The Department proposes to begin addressing the budget shortfall through the Phase I actions listed
below:
Inmillions
Recognition of
Restored CWS funding $.210
Application of
Categorical Aids $.950
Surplus
Staffing Reductions $ 800
TOTAL $1.960
'This does not include a potentially significant audit adjustment for audit exceptions dating
back to fiscal year 1983-84.
3
This leaves a shortfall of $1.213 million to be solved. The County Administrator and Social Service
Director will continue to explore all possible alternatives to further staff reductions in order to resolve
the projected shortfall, including:
A. Increased cost-effectiveness of helping families in crisis through service integration.
B. Increased federal revenue through implementation of IHSS Title 19 personal care
funds now anticipated to be available in FY 93-94.
C. Further streamlining of General Assistance operations.
D. Streamlining the department's interactions with Juvenile Court.
E. Implementation of mandatory furlough, and continuation of voluntary furloughs, leaves
of absence and job sharing.
State Budget Reductions
This funding shortfall is part of the continuing fall-out from last year's record-setting State deficit of
approximately $11 billion. For fiscal years 1992-93 and 1993-94, the State is already projecting an
unprecedented budget deficit estimated to range from $9 billion to $12 billion. The State economic
outlook continues to be very dim, with unemployment increasing to 10.1% last month. As the State
begins to address its budget deficit, we can expect health and welfare programs to again be targeted
for reductions.
Staffing Reductions
During previous budget reductions, the Board has followed a policy of minimizing the impact of budget
reductions on children's services. The State's actions have rendered that goal unattainable for fiscal
year 1992-1993. Listed below are the positions which the department proposes to eliminate as part
of the first phase of budget reductions:
Classification CWS - CWS - IHSS/Referral Unassigned
Filled Vacant Filled Vacant
Social Casework 13 1.5
Specialist
Social Work 3 1
Supervisor
Social Worker 5
Parent Aides 3
Clerks a_ i
TOTAL 21 1.5 6 1
Comparative Management, Administrative, and Line Staff Reductions
The Department has previously reduced line administrative and managerial positions by almost 46
per cent since 1986-87. With the line services reductions included below, a net gain of 92.2 line
positions has occurred since that time.
4
STAFFING COMPARISON 1986-87 TO 1993
(Filled, Full-Time Equivalents)
Actual Proposed Percent Change from
1986-87 Current 1/15/93 2 86-87
Management' 37.00 21.00 20.00 -45.95%
Administrative 63.70 40.00 40.00 -37.21%
Line Supervisors' 90.00 96.00 91.00 +1.11%
Line Workers 693.90 805.00 786.10 +13.29%
TOTAL 884.60 962.00 1 937.10 +5.93%
Line Worker Subtotals
Clerical 242.8 216.25 209.75 -13.61%
Eligibility 252.10 356.60 365.60 +45.02%
Social Caseworkers 100.20 143.95 130.95 +30.69%
Social Workers' 70.30 73.70 68.30 -2.84%
Fraud Workers 7.50 6.50 6.50 -13.33%
Other? 21.00 8.00 5.00 -76.19%
TOTAL 693.90 805.00 786.10 +13.29%
Impact of Reductions on Programs and Service Levels
The staff reductions decreasesChild Welfare Services caseworkers and supervisors by 9.5%, from
157 to 142. This will impact Children's Services operations and program delivery with increases in
workload, up to State funded levels. These reductions will be implemented by taking immediate
action to reduce specialization within CWS in accordance with State regulations. This includes
consolidation of the Emergency Response Screening Unit; the specialized court unit; Children's
Residential Placement Unit, the Specialized Placement Program, the Lion's Gate Liaison Unit; the
Absent Parent Search function; and Parent Aides function. Many of the functions performed by
these units will now be performed by the caseworkers. However, this plan achieves and sustains for
the rest of the fiscal year the State-funded staffing guidelines for Child Welfare Services.
The reductions in the In-home Supportive Services program will mean an increase in average
caseload from 243 to 270 per worker which is consistent with caseloads in comparable;counties.
This will slow down the processing time for applications, increase the challenge of meeting the 30-
day timeline required by regulation, and will impact the ability of the Department to provide services to
the aged and disabled and to monitor appropriate payments to providers.
2Includes reductions effective 12/31/92 previously ordered by Board.
3Includes Director, Assistant Directors, Division Managers, Personnel
Officer, Systems Officer, Office Managers, Executive Assistants, EW Sup II, AAA
Director, Welfare Fraud Manager.
4Includes AAA Staff Assistants, Administrative Analyst series, Personnel
Analysts, Dept. PC Coordinator, Program Specialists and Program Analysts,
Systems Analysts, Appeals Officers, Secretaries, Data Operations Specialist,
Pre-Hearing Review Specialist.
5Includes Clerical, Eligibility, Welfare Fraud, Social Work, Vocational
Supervisors, Volunteer Program Coordinators.
6Includes Social Worker level positions and SSPA's.
Includes Assistant Volunteer Coordinators, Aide classes, former Storekeeper.
5
The Department reduction plan will have particular programmatic impact on Information and Referral.
The reduction in staffing from 1.0 FTE to .5 FTE in the Information and Referral service will mean a
reduction in generic social services referrals that can be provided to the general population.
The remaining $1.21 million budget deficit for FY 92-932 is being reviewed by the County
Administrator and the Social Service Department, who will return to the Board as soon as possible
with further recommendations for consideration.
2 . 1
A D D E N D U M 1
to Item 2 . 1; December 15, 1992
Following the presentation of the Social Service Director
and comments from the public, the Board discussed the potential
impact of the reductions in State funding for child welfare
services .
Supervisor Torlakson recommended that the Board schedule a
special Finance Committee meeting to discuss this matter.
In expressing agreement with Supervisor Torlakson' s
recommendation, Supervisor Powers requested the Social Service
Director to submit information on the ratio of administration to
line workers, the cost of centralization of the General
Assistance Program, the feasibility of reducing service hours
and/or closing all non-essential offices between December 23 and
January 4, and the possibility of redesigning forms to streamline
the paper flow. Supervisor Powers indicated that more
information is required on the foster parents situation. He
advised of the respect he has for the Social Service Department
staff for the level of services they provide with dwindling
resources . He commented on the need to reorganize as well as to
live within the budget . supervisor Powers expressed a desire to
work closely with the employee organizations in seeking
resolution to this problem.
Supervisor Torlakson requested that staff contact the
County' s legislative delegation to have a representative from the
offices of Congressman Miller, Congressman Baker, Senator
Boatwright, Assemblyman Campbell, Senator Petris, and Assemblyman
Rainey to advise them firsthand the impact on Contra Costa County
and to enlist their help.
There being no further discussion, IT IS BY THE BOARD
ORDERED that this matter is REFERRED to the Finance Committee for
consideration at a special meeting on December 22 , 1992 , 8 :30
a.m.
A D D E N D U M 2.
to Item 2 . 1; December 15, 1992
The following persons spoke :
Jim Hicks, AFSCME, 1000 Court Street, Martinez;
Kagey Dorosz, SEIU, Local 535, (no address given) ;
Charleen Raines, SEIU, Local 535, 235 Sunset Drive,
Hercules;
Damita Davis-Howard, SEIU, Local 535, 661 27th Street,
Oakland;
Kirby Surprise, 4672 White Sands Court, El Sobrante;
Rosemary Frazier, 435 Center Avenue, Martinez;
Pam Parker, 400 Kahrs Avenue, Pleasant Hill;
Dorothy Reez, (no address given) ;
Judy Karetky, (no address given) ;
Steven Peavler, 30 Muir Road, Martinez;
Steve Varga, Foster Parent Association, P. O. Box 2896,
Antioch;
Cherie Tolley-Moore, 4120 Sandra Circle, Pittsburg;
Glenda Edwards, 2520 Ryan Road, #85, Concord;
David Aleguire, 3045 Research Drive, Richmond;
Marjorie Nault-Baba, 6101 N. Arlington Drive, San Pablo; and
Ruben Santiago, 3402 Gregory Drive, West Pittsburg.
All persons desiring to speak were heard.
ATTACHMENT A
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
RE: Abolishing Positions and )
Laying Off Employees in the Resolution No.
Social Service Department )
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors in all of its capacities as the governing body of
this County and of the Districts and Agencies of which it is the governing body, RESOLVES
THAT:
1. The Board has considered the financial impact in the Social Services Department of State
revenue reduction, and has considered the staff retention plan submitted by the
Department.
2. In order to keep expenditures within available funding to the extent possible, it is
necessary to abolish the positions described in the lists attached hereto in the interest of
economy or because the necessity for the position (s) involved no longer exists, and to lay
off employees accordingly. Said lists are incorporated herein by reference, and said
positions are hereby abolished effective on the dates indicated thereon.
3. The Director of Personnel shall prepare lists showing the order of lay—off for affected
employees.
4. The County Welfare Director shall issue layoff or displacement notices, as the case may
be, and give notice to the affected employees of the Board's action.
5. The Employee Relations Officer shall give notice of this Resolution to recognized employee
organizations representing employees impacted by this action.
6. To the extent that the subjects of this Resolution are within the scope of representation
under the Meyers—M i I ias—Brown Act(Government Code Section 3500 et seq.), this Board
offers to meet with any recognized employee organization upon request concerning this
Resolution.
7. Recognized employee organizations may submit to the Employee Relations Officer written
requests to meet and confer on specific proposals with respect to the Resolution or any
resulting layoffs. This authorization and direction is given without prejudice to the Board's
right to reduce or terminate the operations and services of the County and of Districts
governed by this Board and to eliminate classes of employees or positions as involving
the merits, necessity, or organization of services or activities of the County or districts
governed by the Board and not within the scope of representation.
8. This action is taken without prejudice to pending consulting, meeting, and meeting and
conferring with employee organizations.
Passed unanimously by the Supervisors present.
Attachment A
Page 2
BE IT BY THE BOARD RESOLVED that the fallowing positions be canceled effective
January 15, 1993 at the close of business.
Class No. Vacant/
BU Department Oru# Code Classification Pos. # Canc. Fill—ed
0500 Social Serv. 5400 JWXB Clerk-Exp Level 02119 1 V
5400 JWXB Clerk-Exp Leve. 00450 1
5300 JWXB Clerk--Exp Level 01934 1
5204 XDWB Child.Svc. Aide 01804 1
5300 XDWB Child.Svc. Aide 01702 1
5400 XDWB Child.Svc. Aide 01698 1 .5
5400 XDWB Child.Svc. Aide 01700 1 . 5
5300 XOHA Soc.Wk.Sup II 01572 1
5200 XOHA Soc.Wk.Sup. II 00120 1
5204 XOHA Soc.Wk.Sup.II 00114 1
5204 XOHB Soo.Wk.Sup.I 00123 1
5400 XOVB Snc.Casewk.Sp.II 01413 1 V. 5
5400 " " " 01944 1 'V
5204 " n " 01949 1
5204 " " " 01951 1
5400 " " " 01849 1
5400 't n tr 02005 1
5202 " " " 02002 1
5400 " " " 01690 1
5204 " 00312 1.
5300 n " 't 00933 1
5300 n it u 01946 . 1
5300 " " " 00315 1
5400 " it " 00207 . 1
5300 n tt tr 01950 -1
5202 XDWB Soc.Casewk. Sp. 1 00910 1
5204 XOVC Social Worker 01142 1
5300 XOVC Social Worker 00936 1
5204 XOVC Social Worker 00934 1
5201 XOVC Social Worker 01904 1
5300 XOVC Social Worker 00157 1
NOTE: Positions listed are full-time unless otherwise noted.
b Rev, sect a. r
ATTACHMENT B
Adopted this Order on by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN•
SUBJECT: EARLY RETIREMENT RESOLUTION NO. 92/
The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County RESOLVES THAT:
I. By Ordinance 76-63 the Board of Supervisors has adopted the
provisions of Government Code section 31641. 04, permitting
early retirement service credit.
II. Because of an impending change in the manner of performing
certain services in the Social Service Department, and in
order to achieve savings in money and other economic benefits 1
for the County, the best interests of Contra Costa County will
be served by permitting additional service credit for certain
members of the Contra Costa County Employee's Retirement
Association (members) as follows:
a. The provisions of this resolution are applicable to all
members employed in the department in the job
classification(s) designated on the attachments of this
resolution which are incorporated herein by reference.
b. Every eligible member who retires between December 21, 1992
and January 14, 1993 shall receive two additional years of
service credit for Contra Costa County service.
C. Upon demand by the Retirement Association, the County Auditor
shall transmit to the Retirement Fund the amount(s)
determined by the Retirement Board to be the actuarial
equivalent(s) of the difference(s) between the allowance(s)
the eligible member(s) receive(s) after getting the
additional service credit hereunder and the allowance(s) the
member(s) would have received without such credit.
d. On later re-entry into County employment under circumstances
otherwise requiring or permitting membership in the
retirement system, any member who has received additional
service credit hereunder shall forfeit such additional
service credit, and the County's payments hereunder shall be
refunded, unless the re-entry is the result of a temporary
call-back limited to the maximum hours of service in any one
calendar or fiscal year as provided by State law.
e. Provided, nevertheless, that the provisions of this
Resolution are not applicable;
1. To any member otherwise eligible if such member
received any unemployment insurance payment within
six months prior to January 14, 1993 .
2 . To any member if the member is not eligible to retire
without additional service credit under this Resolution.
Orig. Dept: Social Service Department
cc: Director of Personnel
Retirement Board
County Auditor-Controller
County Administrator
County Counsel
RESOLUTION NO.
k
Early Retirement December 21, 1992-January 14, 1993 Attachment B
Page 2
Department: Social Services Department
classifications:
XDWB Childrens' Services Aide
JWXB Clerk (Experienced Level)
JWXC Clerk (Senior Level)
JWXD Clerk (Specialist Level)
XOVB Social Casework Specialist II
XOVC Social Worker
XOHB Social Work Supervisor I
XOHA Social Work Supervisor II
X4SJ Social Service Pre-Hearing Review Specialist
RESOLUTION NO.
County Administrator Contra Tom PowwoardtS"pe`viso�
c Ters
County Administration Building Costa 1st District
651 Pine Street,11th Floor Nancy C.Fanden
Martinez,California 94553-1229 County 2nd District
(510)646-4080 Robert I.Schroder
FAX:(510)646-4098 3rd District
E c Sunne Wright McPeak
Phil Batchelor ?_ �t=°• 4th District9
County Administrator - '
Tom Torlakson
5th District
s,A•ciiud`n
November 12, 1992
Russell S. Gould, Secretary
State of California
Health and Welfare Agency
1600 Ninth Street, Room 460
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Mr. Go d:
I am writing this letter to express my serious concern over the negative impact of the
proposed FY 92-93 Child Welfare Services (CWS) allocation on our ability to operate an
effective children's services delivery program.
We received notification of a $1,600,000 reduction in our overall CWS allocation from the
previous year. This reduction, coming five months into our fiscal year, would have a
disastrous impact on Contra Costa County's Child Welfare Services program. If one looks
at the State General Fund share, which is capped with no entitlement funding, our total
reduction is 22%.
At the same time, Contra Costa County's allocation was cut, counties which accumulated
surpluses in 91-92 were given significantly higher allocations in FY 92-93. In reviewing
the county case counts that drive the allocations, it is apparent that the growth patterns
of the CWS components vary significantly from county to county. To the extent that the
latitude allowed in program practice will impact case counts, then the likelihood that this
variance in case counts is a reflection of differing program practices as opposed to
demographically related growth or decline, these counts would have been artificially
skewed. It is incumbent on the State to insure that data upon which these case counts
and allocations are based are consistently and equally derived throughout the State.
J
Russell S. Gould
page 2
November 12, 1992
A related issue is the potential impact the implementation of SB 1125 (effective in
September, 1992) will have on county operations,. particularly as cases were previously
categorized as ER, FM, FR and PP. The entire basis upon which the allocation is
predicated will be completely changed three months into the fiscal year. Despite the
disclaimer in the DSS overview, there is bound to be some impact on the "mix" of case
counts, both within a county and from county to county. It does not seem prudent or
appropriate to totally ignore this impact by applying or overlaying an outdated allocation
criteria on what is essentially a new program.
As a means of alleviating the inconsistencies and minimizing the damage done by the
proposed allocation process, I strongly urge you to consider the modification of this
formula by the following features:
• A stop loss/gain be applied to minimize loss and limit increases received by
counties. This would be applied in the form of some percentage - ten or
fifteen percent.
With this modification, counties that are caught on the down side of a
formula change would have some time to prepare a more orderly downsizing
of personnel and cost. Likewise, counties receiving large windfall increases,
who are probably not in a position to spend their funds, would be able to
more effectively plan and implement an expansion program. This stop loss
has been used in prior CWS allocations and is currently part of the FY 92-
93 Licensing and Adoptions allocations.
• There needs to be a certification process whereby a county guarantees it
will expend a level of funds generated through an allocation. This will
identify any level of surplus not earmarked for expenditure by any county
that is unable or unwilling to expend a certain level of allocation. Statewide
surpluses may then be set aside for redistribution to counties needing
additional funds as identified through their certification. It is important that
this process occur as early as possible within the fiscal year.
The above recommendations are not new concepts and have been and are still being
used with success in ongoing allocations. I believe they should be an integral part of any
allocation methodology that produces significant year-to-year swings in funding via the
application of a purely caseload driven formula.
At this time, to stay within the numbers justified by the proposed allocation, we
would have to make in excess of a 20% reduction in our CWS workforce. A
reduction of such magnitude will result in a serious disruption of service. On the
other hand,it does not seem realistic to expect that counties that experience huge increases
Russell S. Gould
page 3
November 12, 1992
in their allocations and resultant authorized staffing levels will be in a position to hire and
have on board such a large number of staff in the remainder of the fiscal year. While
recognizing that surplus funds are eventually allocated,this process occurs after the close
of the fiscal year. Due to the uncertainties involved in a county not knowing,ahead of
time, what the collective surplus will be, we cannot afford to gamble with maintaining a
higher level of staff that may or may not be covered by an after-the-fact reallocation of
surplus funding.
I urge you to seriously consider these recommendations as a means of correcting what
I consider to be a flawed allocation formula. I am certain that it is not your intent to place
undue hardships on counties that experienced severe loss of revenue by this proposed
allocation. We simply cannot operate from year to year not knowing the extent to which
our allocation may or may not be reduced in a subsequent year. Also, I urge you to
restore the proposed reduction of $1,600,000 to our CWS allocations for this fiscal year
to avoid very damaging impacts on the operation of Contra Costa's Child Welfare Services
Program.
Sincerely,
Phil Batchelor
County Administrator
cc: County Board of Supervisors
Eloise Anderson, Director SDSS
Charlene Chase, President CWDA
Frank Mecca, Executive Secretary-CWDA
Perfecto Villarreal, County Welfare Director
State Legislators
h27 gould.ltr
�MdNISTFL4 i trcati i i
A Cfo UntJ c- Li t
U N
• ogjdoalatton o Caft owta
Q'
*ON OF
December 10, 1992
Russell Gould, Secretary
State Health & Welfare Agency
1600 9th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Secreta`rqould:
At their Annual Meeting last week, the County Administrative
Officers Association of California (CAOAC) voted unanimously to
authorize me to express to you their dismay at the manner in which
the development of the 1992-93 Child Welfare Services funding
formula was handled by the Department of Social Services.
It is our distinct impression that the 1992-93 formula was
developed unilaterally, with no advance consultation with the
counties. Counties were not even advised in a timely manner of the
impact of the formula. It was only several weeks after the State
Budget was adopted and at least one full quarter of expenditures
were incurred by counties that our Social Services Directors were
advised, in effect, that many counties were going to receive
substantially less Child Welfare Services funding for 1992-93.
Most counties had just completed or were in the final stages of
adopting their own budgets and making massive reductions to their
programs, including laying off hundreds of employees. To complete
,that most painful process and then be told - again without any
prior notice or consultation - that the Child Welfare Services
allocation to the county would again be reduced is simply
inconceivable.
Russ, this is not the type of process we have come to expect from
you and we hope you were unaware of the manner in which this
notification was being provided to the counties . We would ask that
you look into what happened in this case, determine whether
anything can be done to reverse this decision and then let us know
how this happened and what, if anything, you are able to do about
it. We have great confidence in the sensitive, candid and
forthright manner in which you have dealt with counties in the
past. We look forward to some explanation of what happened and
1100 K Street, Suite 101 O Sacramento,CA 95814 O (916)327-7500 O FAX (916) 441-5507
Russell Gould
December 10, 1992
Page 2
what could be done by our oipganization to undo the damage which
will otherwise be done to nearly every county Child Welfare
Services program in California if this decision is not reversed
immediately.
Very truly yours, !'
Phil Batchelor, President
County Administrator, Contra Costa County
PB:amb
phi112-5 _
cc: Steve Swendiman, Executive Director
California State Association of Counties
4