HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02251997 - D1-D3 D. 1
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
DATE: February 25, 1997 MATTER OF RECORD
SUBJECT: Office of the County Counsel - Departmental Performance
Report.
The Board accepted both an oral and a written departmental
performance report from the Office of the County Counsel.
THIS IS A MATTER FOR RECORD PURPOSES ONLY
NO BOARD ACTION TAKEN
� r
OFFICE OF THE
COUNTY COUNSEL
1996 ANNUAL
PERFORMANCE REPORT
VICTOR J. WESTMAN, COUNTY COUNSEL
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
MARTINEZ,.CALIFORNIA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
A. COUNTY COUNSEL OFFICE
RESPONSIBILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
B. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1. General County Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Social Service - Probate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Courts - Public Protection - County Clerk . . . . . . . . 2
4. Miscellaneous County and Outside
Clients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
5. Public Protection - Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
6. Health and Sanitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
7. Risk Management - Self Insurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
II. RESOURCES . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
A. FINANCIAL RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
B. PERSONNEL RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
C. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
D. SICKLEAVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
E. STAFF DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
F. AUTOMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
III. CUSTOMER SERVICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
A. SERVICE DELIVERY SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
B. CLIENT PROFILE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
C. CLIENT RELATIONSHIPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
IV. ANNUAL PERFORMANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
A. PERFORMANCE INDICATORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
B. ACCOMPLISHMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Civil litigation-tort unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2. Juvenile Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
V. CHALLENGES AND NEW DIRECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
A. CHALLENGES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
B. NEW DIRECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
ii
1996 COUNTY COUNSEL. PERFORMANCE REPORT
I. OVERVIEW
A. COUNTY COUNSEL OFFICE RESPONSIBILITIES
The County Counsel's Office serves as civil legal advisor for County
offices, departments, boards and commissions, schools and other districts
in the County. The office's duties to be performed (as budgeted and
staffed) include filing and litigating civil cases, providing legal counsel
services to the Board of Supervisors, County departments, board-governed
special districts, authorities and agencies and as employed to schools and
autonomous special districts and agencies. Among particular functions
performed by the County Counsel's Office are its designation by the Board
of Supervisors to be the attorney for the Public Administrator, to handle
LPS proceedings involving persons disabled by mental illness, drug and
alcohol problems, and juvenile dependency matters. By agreement with
the District Attorney, many infraction violations of the County Ordinance
Code are prosecuted by County Counsel deputies.
When requested, County Counsel assists school districts with their
school bond issue proceedings. Also, in the absence of any conflict with
its duties for the Board of Supervisors, the County Counsel's Office
provides legal advise to and represents the County's judges and referees
should they be sued in their official capacities. Finally, the County
Counsel's Office by fee contract, provides legal services to the County
Superintendent of Schools, the County Board of Education, the Byron
School District, other school districts as requested, the Contra Costa
County School's Risk Management Authority, and the Delta Diablo
Sanitation District.
This office's legal services and statutory duties are provided and
performed consistent with and to implement Contra Costa County's
adopted Statement of Values.
B. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
The County Counsel's Office presently has 33 authorized full-time
positions. Of its authorized full-time positions, 22 are attorney positions as
illustrated on Attachment "A", which is this office's current organizational
chart. As space is available, the County Counsel's Office has endeavored
to keep its authorized positions filled so that it can fully address all of its
legal duties and requests for assistance.
The County Counsel's office divides its attorney staff into two
divisions (Business and Services) for the purposes of organization and
supervision. It also has a third Administrative Division to provide clerical
and related lay employee services to support its provision of legal services.
(See Attachment "A" - organizational chart)
The seven general program areas of the Office of County Counsel
are as set forth below and, to some extent, as shown on the Attach-
ment "A" organizational chart.
1 . General County Government. This general category is the
program area for the provision of legal services necessary for core County
departments and officers4e.g., Board of Supervisors, County
Administrator, Treasurer, Retirement System, etc.).
2. Social Service - Probate. This program category provides legal
services for the Social Service Department (administrative advice,
personnel matters, dependent children, general assistance, LPS, etc.) and
to the District Attorney-Public Administrator.
3. Courts - Public Protection - County Clerk. Covers legal
services provided to the courts and the County's justice system (Sheriff,
Public Defender, District Attorney, small claims advisory program, etc.)
4. Miscellaneous County and Outside Clients. This program
includes legal services provided to various Board of Supervisors' governed
areas (Libraries, Community Services Department, Private Industry
Council, CATV, etc.) and to non-Board of Supervisors' governed clients
(LAFCO, County Schools, Delta Diablo Sanitation District, etc.)
2
5. Public Protection - Community. Covers legal services provided
to protect the general public and enhance its environment by department
and agencies including Public Works, Building Inspection, Community
Development, Flood Control, Animal Control, Redevelopment, solid waste
(AB 939), and fire districts.
6. Health and Sanitation. Program includes legal services
necessary for the Health Services Department (public health, hospital,
HMO, Mental Health, Hazardous Materials, etc.) and the Public Guardian.
7. Risk Management - Self Insurance. This final category covers
legal service provided for assigned in-house tort litigation and to assist with
the supervision of outside tort litigation attorneys in conjunction with the
Risk Management Division of the Administrator's Office.
Program 7 above (Risk Management - Self Insurance) illustrates a
successful partnership and cooperative arrangement between the County
Counsel's office and the Risk Management Division of the County
Administrator's office. With the utilization of in-house attorneys for Risk
Management tort work, it has resulted in the average cost per hour of
handling in-house claims,at an approximately 35% lower rate than for the
employment of outside legal counsel. This use of in-house counsel also
has residual benefits of providing ongoing familiarity with particular tort risk
areas and the availability of in-house staff to provide counseling for County
departments when they are preparing to, or encounter such liability risk
circumstances.
II. RESOURCES.
A. FINANCIAL RESOURCES.
County Counsel's Fiscal Year 1996-97 adopted budget provides
funding for its programs, indicates expenditure transfers, revenues, and
shows net county costs as set forth below:
3
PROGRAMS ADOPTED 1996-97
BUDGET
General Government $ 652,846
Social Service/Probate 705,023
Courts/Public Protection 235,763
Outside Clients/Other 218,500
Public Protection/Commun 661 ,188
Health/Sanitation 258,000
Risk Mgt/Tort Unit 315,500
TOTAL $3,046,820
Expenditure Transfers 946,606
Revenues 1 ,405,545
Net County Cost 694,669
FTE (Staffing) 33
The County Counsel's Office budget is comprised principally of
salary and benefit costs for its staff of 94% of its FY 1996-97 budgeted
sum of $3,046,820. 6% of the budget is for services and supplies which
budget allocation does not include any earmarked funds for capital
expenditures. Approximately 83% of the County Counsel's office budget is
for salary and benefits for its attorney employees. The salary and benefits
for County Counsel's office employees are the same as those for similar
positions in the Public Defender and District Attorney offices.
B. PERSONNEL RESOURCES.
As noted above, the County Counsel's office has an authorized staff
of 33 full time positions. (See Attachment "A".) Over the past six years,
the only staff added to this office has been to develop its Risk
Management Tort Defense unit. With the employment of an attorney in
November, our Risk Management Tort Defense is staffed with three full
4
time attorneys and two supporting clerical assistance. This is inclusive of
all full time staff position increases in the County Counsel's Office during
the last six years. As noted, this Tort section handles this area at a
significantly lower hourly rate than previously employed private legal
counsel and now disposes of the majority of Risk Management cases.
Attachment "B" sets forth with some particularization the allocation of
County staff (FTE) for FY 1996-97 to the seven general program areas of
the County Counsel's Office.
C. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION.
The County Counsel office's goal continues to be to obtain and
employ qualified minority and female individuals at a minimum in proportion
to their availability in the California and Bay Area work force and whenever
the opportunity is presented to employ such individuals beyond their
proportion in the available attorney workforce. Presently, 43% of our
attorney work force is female and approximately 13% of our attorney
employee work force is minority. This office recognizes that African
Americans need to be targeted when recruiting for job openings in our
office and we will continue to seek out applicants to fill any vacancies in
our department. This has been and will be done by advertising in legal
trade journals and contacting any minority or female individuals known to
us at that time to solicit their interest in applying for employment. During
the last several years, this office has filled its few vacancies with one
African American attorney, two by Hispanics and one additional female
attorney.
D. SICKLEAVE
Over the six years prior to FY 1995-96, County Counsel's office sick
leave usage had been approximately 50% of available hours for each
involved year. This was significantly below the County-wide employee
usage of approximately 70 to 75% of available hours. For FY 1995-96,
sick leave usage was 76% of available hours. This increase was due to
the unusual circumstance that of out 32 full time employees during FY
1995-96 one employee exhausted accrued sick leave because of a deadly
5
illness, two employees utilized sick leave in conjunction with their maternity
leaves, and a fourth employee broke her ankle requiring surgery and an
extended recovery period before returning to work. We expect that our
sick leave usage for FY 1996-97 will be much closer to our historical
average of 50% of available hours.
This office monitors and reviews monthly all individual employee sick
leave usage to determine appropriate usage and to provide any necessary
counseling. Should any information be received concerning apparent
abuse, it is given immediate fair consideration.
E. STAFF DEVELOPMENT
Since the 1970s, County Counsel office's policy and practice has
been to require and perform yearly evaluations of its attorney staff. Three
years ago, we initiated yearly evaluations of all of the clerical staff
employed by this office.
The County provides a $350 per year education allowance to each of
the attorneys employed in this office to assist them with maintaining and
increasing their level of legal skills. In this regard, we encourage the use
of this allowance for specialized legal programs of significant benefit to the
County and this office. In addition, state bar rules require mandatory legal
training (approximately 36 hours every three years) which all of this office's
attorneys comply with. Also, the County Counsels' statewide association
sponsors numerous training programs during the course of particular year
which are regularly attended by this office's deputy county counsels.
The expertise of this office's attorneys has been recognized by their
being designated as lead attorneys for multi-county litigation, part of teams
of county attorneys staffing the defense of multi-county litigation and their
requested presentations at specialized legal education section meeting of
the County Counsel's Association. Examples of further recent recognition
are that an attorney from this office is the president of the School Law
Section of the County Counsel Association for FY 1996-97 and another is
presently serving on the Board of Governors of the Public Law Section of
the State Bar Association.
6
Finally, during the past year this office's tort litigation unit conducted
a number of County staff programs including providing legal advice on
issues of improper discrimination in public employment and its avoidance.
Also, this same unit has met with various County professional staffs (e.g.,
County Hospital physicians) to review with them the risks of professional
malpractice and possible ways to mitigate it.
F. AUTOMATION.
The County Counsel's office has been pursuing a policy of providing
to and strongly encouraging the use of computers by all of its attorneys as
soon as PCs are available for that purpose. Presently 20 of the 22
employee attorneys of this office have PCs. But, some of these PCs are
old models which do not have adequate capacity to properly run the
current office standard "WordPerfect for Windows". This office is
continuing to seek funding as available to equip all of its attorneys with
PCs with sufficient capacity to run contemporary software programs.
Earlier this year pursuant to a County Data Processing Office study,
this office completed the installation of a County Counsel Local Area
Network (LAN). This LAN system gives this office (among other benefits)
the ability to efficiently utilize CD-ROM legal research library materials, to
proceed with the standardization of its software and to allow all staff
participation in County intra- and inter-departmental electronic linkages
(networking, E-mail, etc.). As noted above, this office is continuously
seeking funding so that all of its professional staff will have PCs with
sufficient capacity to run the contemporary software programs allowed by
our LAN.
III. CUSTOMER SERVICES
A. SERVICE DELIVERY SYSTEM
Legal services provided by the County Counsel's office are for the
most part mandated by federal or state statutes, Board of Supervisors'
directions (e.g., ordinances, orders, etc.) or by contract. Within the office,
we have attorneys who specialize in the various client program areas this
office serves to maximize competence and familiarity with our public clients
needs for legal services. As with all law offices, we assign attorneys based
on their skill, experience and availability in relation to the complexity
involved with a particular legal problem or litigation matter. Whenever
possible, we try to assist our clients on an informal telephone or drop-in
basis. But, because of professional standards and the frequent difficulty
of obtaining accurate statements of pertinent facts, we must ask many of
our clients for written requests.
Finally, in connection with providing legal services to County
department heads or employees it must occasionally be pointed out to
them that from a legal point of view the County is similar to a corporation.
In other words, the County Counsel's true legal client to which it must
maintain an attorney-client relationship is the Board of Supervisors. For
this reason, legal directions must be obtained from the Board of
Supervisors for significant County matters.
B. CLIENT PROFILE
The County Counsel's office services as civil legal advisor to county
officers, departments, boards, commissions, agencies, authorities, school
and other special districts in the County. This office's services are
performed (as budgeted and staffed) by handling civil litigation cases and
providing legal counsel services to the Board of Supervisors, County
departments, board-governed special districts, authorities and agencies
and, as employed, to school and autonomous districts and agencies.
Pursuant to Board of Supervisors' adopted policy, this office only provides
legal services to autonomous districts and agencies when they agree to
pay for those services.
The number of public clients which the County Counsel's office may
provide legal services during any particular year are numerous.
Attachment "C" indicates virtually all of those possible clients on its pages
land 2. This attachment is a copy of the "County Counsel Timesheet"
which is completed on a daily basis by all County Counsel Office staff.
8
C. CLIENT RELATIONSHIPS
This office's goal is to always provide its public clients with timely,
accurate and reliable legal advice, assistance and representation. The
continuing demand for legal services from this office's public clients is
illustrated by Attachment "D" which shows the amount of legal service
hours which this office provided to its various public clients during FY
1995-96. Two things should be noted about Attachment "D". First, we
generally enter specific work tasks to the county department principally
charged with responsibility for the subject of the request. For example, if
the Board of Supervisors asked this office to work on a planning or zoning
matter, our provided legal service hours would be charged to the
Community Development Department on the attached timesheet (see
Attachment "C") and not to the Board of Supervisors.
Second, the extension of hours to Cost to Date Column simply
indicates what the monetary value of the legal service work provided would
have been if it had been charged out to each involved county department
or public client. Further, it should be remembered that a significant portion
of these dollar value cost sums were not directly charged out and for that
reason no revenues were collected. For FY 1995-96, the total revenues
received by the County Counsel's office were $3,120,000. The difference
between the $3,120,000 figure and total dollar value of our provided
services if they were billed out at $4,085,000 is $965,000. For the most
part, this difference figure represents the value of uncompensated overtime
worked principally by this office's attorneys during FY 1995-96.
IV. ANNUAL PERFORMANCE
A. PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
As a presentation of some of this office's performance indicators, we
have set forth before this office's latest "County Counsel's Office
Productivity Report" which indicates summary points for performance using
historical data to compare performances for the immediate past five fiscal
years.
9
FUNCTION/ACTIVITY FY 91-92 FY 92-93 FY 93-94 FY 94-95 FY 95-96
I. Civil Litigation`
A. New Cases Opened 218 302 224 148 214
B. Cases presently active 410 551 578 617 672
C. Avg No. Lit cases handled, per Deputy 33.7 38.3 37.3 37.6 42.3
D. Avg svc hrs per lit case, per Deputy 48.2 hrs 42.3 hrs 43.3 hrs 43.1 hrs 38.3 hrs
E. Total litigation hrs 19,744 hrs 23,293 hrs 25,053 hrs 26,557 hrs 26,131 hrs
-(EXCLUDES JUV&LIPS ACTIONS)
Il. Juvenile Services
A. Depend/Abandon Hearing Appearances 6,417 7,038 7,279 8,130 8,633
B. Avg No. Hearings Handled, per DCC 1,234 1,218 1,182 1,234 1,251
C. Avg Sery Hrs per Hearing Appearance 1.3 hrs 1.33 hrs 1.37 hrs 1.32 hrs 1.29 hrs
III. Conservatorship(LIPS)
A. New Cases Opened 281 281 347 372 366
B. Avg No. LPS Hearings, per DCC 433 613 605 849 687
C.Avg Service Hours per Hearing 3.8 hrs. 2.65 hrs 2.68 hrs 1.91 hrs 2.36 hrs
IV. Small Claims Advisory Service
A. Total No. Incoming Calls 9,675 9,336 9,208 9,599 8,872
B. Avg No. Calls Ret'd, per DCC 1 2,419 2,334 1,701 1,700 1,498
C.Avg Svc Minutes per Ret'd Call 10.04 min 11.9 min 18.04 min 15.1 min 19.2 min
B. ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Concerning the foregoing productivity report and to note County
Counsel Office performance accomplishments, we provide the following
comments:
1. Civil litigation-tort unit.
During FY 1995-96, this office's two-attorney Tort Unit handled more
than 60% of the County's Risk Management tort cases at an approximate
cost of 65% of the cost of utilizing outside-employed private counsel.
Because of the limited two-attorney Tort Unit staff, some complex cases
still had to be referred out. With the hiring of an additional third Tort Unit
attorney in November of 1996, we anticipate retaining a significantly
10
greater percentage of the County's tort litigation cases in-house. In part,
the cost of this Tort Unit as versus outside legal counsel has reduced by
the substantial performance of non-compensated overtime service hours
provided by this office's two-attorney Tort Unit staff.
2. Juvenile Services
As shown by the Productivity Report set forth in its section "II.
Juvenile Services" during FY 1995-96, County Counsel's Juvenile Unit's
staff has handled another significant increase of approximately 6% in the
number of juvenile hearings over the number handled in FY 1994-95. With
that 6% increase, the same staff has still managed to give each matter
approximately the same attention and time as in past fiscal years. In part,
this has only been possible because of the continued performance of non-
compensated overtime hours and service by this office's Juvenile Unit
staff.
It should be noted that a similar 11% increase occurred during FY
1994-95 over FY 1993-94. During the last four fiscal year period, no
additional attorneys have been added to this Unit.
V. CHALLENGES AND NEW DIRECTIONS
A. CHALLENGES
The most significant continuing major challenge facing the County
Counsel's office is the maintenance of its resources (staff, equipment, etc.)
to provide an adequate level of legal services to those county and
departmental operations which are funded by the General Fund or from
restricted funds for which no interdepartmental charges have been
authorized. Over the last five years, this office (together with all other
county departments funded to some significant extent by the General
Fund) has been provided decreased (or not sufficiently provided) net
County cost fund allocations to completely address General Fund area
duties and responsibilities. It is difficult as a professional organization to
be in the position where it is not always possible to provide
comprehensive, timely and adequate legal services to clients who need
them and will be effected should they not be provided.
1 �
The second challenge currently facing this office (but not of the
significance of the area noted above) is the complete computerization or
modernization of its physical facilities so it may compete on an even basis
with private law firms in the area of utilization of PCs, computerized data
sources (CD-Rom, etc.) and the provision of adequate space for its staff to
efficiently address the legal needs of the County and its other public
clients.
B. NEW DIRECTIONS
Future challenges which this office expects to encounter and
adequately address include:
1. With approval and adequate budgeting to develop and provide
sufficient hard and software computerized, modern word processing
systems and facilities to allow full staff participation in all available intra-
and inter departmental electronic linkages;
2. The development of an adequate automated legal research library
capability;
3. Developing a new and upgraded generation of its current
automated case and service management system including improved
calendar and billing systems;
4. Working within the County system to develop some sort of direct
county cost charge allocation to all county general-funded activities and
officers requesting or receiving legal services;
5. With the approval and Risk Management cooperation, assuming
direct legal service provision for almost all County tort litigations; and
6. Exploring and determining whether more revenue relationships
should be developed with non-county potential public clients.
H 1DF0T1 NEMOS\VJ W\CC-RPT.W PD
12
BUDGET UNIT 0030
FY 1996-97
x �,,,Ililllllll�il�lli!!M
Y:Uy:'" NN at
Office Manager County Counsel
Account Clerk
SEFFYICES DIVISION Bt]SINESS D1Y1S14)N
Assistant County Counsel Assistant County Counsel
Clerical f21 Clerical(51
Employee Relations/Retirement Public Works & General Services
Deputy County Counsel ll) Deputy County Counsel (2)
Health Services Building, Planning &
Special Districts
Deputy County Counse! (1J
Deputy County Counsel (2)
Social ServiceJSfierif#
Deputy County Counsel (1) Conservatorships
Dependent Children
Deputy County Counsel (4)
Deputy County Counsel (1)
Civil Litigation/Tort Tax, Finance & Auditor
Deputy County Counsel (3) Deputy County Counsel (1)
Clerical(1)
Clericat-Vacant (11 Smaill Claims
Deputy Co Counsel-PI. (%x)
Deputy Co Counset-P.I. (Y7)
General Assi nments
Deputy yCounty Counsel (1)
General Assignment
Deputy County Counsel (1)
N3GtaU6piwPwh+bRDOCUMENttTAe�E810RGCHR�FYH e7.WP0
ATTACHMENT "A" Rev 10196
COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE FY 1996-97
1. General Government
Description: To provide legal services necessary for the continued operation of
the County Administrator, Board of Supervisors, Auditor-Controller and other
basic County departments.
FTE: 4.9
Level of Discretion: Very limited and some discretion. General government
provides legal support for some mandated functions, including Merit Board,
Retirement System and Board of Supervisors.
Gross Expenditures: 578,043
Financing: 250,000
Net County Cost: 328,043
Funding Sources: Expenditure Transfers 2% $ 10,000
Property Tax Admin. 35% 226,101
Charges 12% 75,034
General Fund 51% 341,711
2. Social Service - Probate
Description: Legal services for Social Service Department activities (adoptions,
dependent children, assistance, etc.) and the District Attorney - Public
Administrator.
FTE: 5.3
Level of Discretion: Varies with service. County Counsel has very limited
discretion over dependent children legal services performed for the Social
Service department (Welfare and Institutions § 318.5).
Gross Expenditure: $705,023
Financing: 471,840
Net County Cost 233,183
Funding Sources: Expenditure Transfers 41% $287,000
Public Administrator
Estates 26% 184,840
ATTACHMENT "B"
1
General Fund 33% 233,183
3. Courts/Public Protection
Description: Legal services primarily for the courts and County's justice system.
FTE: 4
Level of Discretion: Varies with service. Revenues from Small Claims Advisory
Program is restricted to this program. The courts have the power to employ
private attorneys, even if more expensive.
Gross Expenditures: $235,763
Financing: 118,176
Net County Cost: 117,587
Funding Sources: Expenditure Transfers 30% $ 70,000
Court Fees 20% 48,176
General Fund 50% 117,587
4. Outside Clients/Other
Description: Legal services provided to public clients and departments including
Community Services, Housing Authority, Community Access Television,
Miscellaneous Districts; Local Agency Formation Commission, Library, Private
Industry Council, Schools, and Water Districts.
FTE: 2.9
Level of Discretion: Primarily discretionary programs.
Gross Expenditures: $218,500
Financing: 218,500
Net County Cost: 0
Funding Sources: Expenditure Transfers 13% $ 28,000
Charges to non-County 87% 190,500
Agencies
General Fund 0% 0
5. Public Protection/Community
ATTACHMENT "B"
2
Description: Legal services for programs designed to protect the general public
and enhance its environment
FTE: 8.2
Level of Discretion: Primarily discretionary programs.
Gross Expenditures: $661,188
Financing: 659,000
Net County Cost 2,180
Funding Sources: Expenditure Transfers, 53% $352,000
Fire & Misc Spec
Districts, etc.
Other 46% 307,000
General Fund 1% 2,188
6. Health and Sanitation
Description: Legal services provided to the Health Services department and
sanitation districts.
FTE 2.7 '
Level of Discretion: Varies with specific service
Gross Expenditures: $258,000
Financing: 258,000
Net County Cost: 0
Funding Sources: Expenditure Transfers: 100% $258,000
7. Risk Management/Tort Unit
Description: To provide tort litigation services in-house and supervise outside
tort litigation attorneys in conjunction with Risk Management.
FTE: 5.0
ATTACHMENT "B"
3
Level of Discretion: Some discretion as to service level.
Gross Expenditures: $315,500
Financing: 315,500
Net County Cost: 0
Funding Sources: Expenditure Transfers 100% $315,500
H:NGROUPS\DIANENBDGT-IOC WTTH-B.WP D
ATTACHMENT "B"
4
ATTACHMENT "C"
COUNTY COUNSEL TIME SHEET
NAME MONTH/YEAR -
TIMEKEEPER NO.
�CUM CODE
DATE CLIENT CODE CASE NUMBER SERV.CODE TIME
Administrate 003.'
Agriawts/Measures 335
Animal Control 336
Assmt Apps Board 862
Assessor 016
Auditor 010
Bail Bonds 1210.02
Board of Supvs 001
Bldg Inspection 340.'
Clerk/Recorder 240.'
Commun Ovlpmnt 357.'
Commun Svcs Ad 588
County Counsel 030
District Attorney 242.'
Emergency Services 362
Employee Relations 034
Flre Districts 850.'
General Services 149
Grand Jury 238
Hllh Svcs(Consv) 450.'
Housing Authority 900
LAFCO 871
Library 620
Med Svcs(Hosp) 540.'
Mntl Hlth/Alc/Dr 655
Merit Board 036
Misc.Districts 800
Muni Cts.,Judges 210
Other 880
Personnel 035.'
Priv Indus Cnsel 583
Probation 308
Public Administr 242.02
Public Defender 243
Public Health 451.•
Public Works 650.'
Redevelop Agency 357.06
Retirement 145.'
Revenue Coll Off 003.04
Sanitation Dists golf.'
Schools 602.' SERVICE CODES:
Sheriff 255 I.Agree/Contract 8.Profes Educ/Stdy 16.Legal Research 24.TimekeepingfFABS
Small Claims 220 2.Court Time/Adm Hrg 9.Routine:DeptFile 17.Doc/Evid Review 25.Purchasing/Supplies
Soc Svc Allowable 500.• 3.Resolution/Ordin /Opn-ClsFls/Mail 18.Depo/Hrg Prep' 27.Small Claims Tmscpt
Soc Svc Unallowbl 502.• 5.0fc Admin/Supv /Demands/Calendr 19.Trial Prep 41.Mectings
6.Opinions/Lbs/Mem 10.Vacation 20.Dscvry Prep/Ntces 42.Conferences
SupCt Admin-Judgs 237
7.Pleadings:Atty(Non- 1 LSick Leave 22.Lg1 Secy/Paralegal 43.Telephone calls
Spec Defense 003.02 Court time) 12.Admin Leave Tsk/Ct Filg/Copy 52.Payroll
Treas/Yaz Collect 015 71.Pleadings:Secy 13.Personal Holiday Docs-Files/Annual 53.Asst w/Equip Prblms
'See reverse or addioena codes
(Type/Prf/Cpy/Pile) 14.1ury Duty/Other _1 23.13reak Time 62.Law Library Maint
ATTACHMENT UCr'
CLIENTS WITH SUB-ACCOUNTS
AM PUBLIC HEALTH SOCIAL SERVICE 2. Costs associated
Gemusc 003.00 Gen/Misc 451.00w with the Counsel or his
CAN 003.06 Solid Waste Enf 451.02 ALLOWABLE 500 staff discharging their
Ott Rev Codec 003,04 Rea Mated&Waste 451.04
Risk Mgt/Spec Defen 003.02 Haz Waste Coll 451.08general responsibilities -
The allowable costs of the
Emergency Svcs 362.00 as 'legal-officers of the
BUILDING INSPECTION County Counsel's Office are
Gen/Misc 340.00 PUBLIC WORKS++ subject to the following County. The Bureau
Enforcement 340.02 Admin/Personnel 650.01 general criteria: inteprets this t0 be the
AlrporttBuchan 650.02 advising of the Board of
CLK/ELECIRECORDER Airport/Byron 650.03 Supervisors or County
Clerk-Gen/Misc 240.00 AOB/MeasC/D4ta 650.05 1. Costs necessary and
Elections 240.02 Co Service Areas 650.10 reasonable for proper and Department heads on
Recorder 240.04 Engineerng SVc 650.06 efficient administration of theeg neral legal require-
Flood Cont Dal 650.08 grant programs. ments of their own
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Gas Tax 650,04 offices.
GentMisc 357.00 Mapping Services 650.07
AB 939 357.09 Rghl-of-Way Acq 650.09 2. Costs which are not a
Enforcement 357.10 general expense required to The unallowable costs
GMEDA 357.28 RETIREMENT would also include their
Haz waste Plan 357.12 Gen/Mise 145,00 carry out the overall res- proportionate
Redevelopment Agcy 357.06 Retort Board Minos 145.01 ponsibiiities of county administratishare o£
Resource Recovery 357.26 Retort 8d Opinions 145.03 government -
Solid Waste+ + 357.08 Disability 145,02 head Costs allocated in
SWAT 357.22 the County-Wide Cost
TRANSPLAN 357.18 SANITATION DISTRICTS 3. Costs, Whether al)O-
Allocation Plan.
TRAN5PAC 357.20 Genrtdiac 808.00 sated, direct-billed, or cost-
West Co Tins Comm 357.24 Delta Diablo 808.04 applied, must be included in
Doughrty Vally Shp 357.31 x5A 808,02 and supported by the EXAMPLE OF UNALLOWABLE
Doughrty Valy Wnd 357.32 x15 808.08 COSTS:
ale
808.06 County-Wide Cost Allocation
1. Legal expenses
DIST ATTORNEYIPUS ADMIN A19 - 808.10 Plan.
incurred in court pro-
Gen/Mist 242.00
Public Admin 242.02ceedings (as opposed to
scHoo�s 4. Allowable costs must be
Gen/Mist 602.00 allocated or charged on a administrative appeal
FRE o15TWCTS Acalanes 1"' 602.02 procedure) While chal-
Gen/Misc 850.00 consistent basis to all county
Bethel Island 850.02 Antioch USD GOZ.04 llenging a denial of grant
Brentwood USD 602.06 departments claiming
Brentwood 850.04 funds.
Byron USD 602.08 reimbursement far County
Byron 850.06 Canyon So 602.10
CCC Protec car 850.08 y Counsel Services.
Crockett/Carquinez 850.10 John Swett USD 602,12 it Costs ndaassociated Of
Danville 85012 Lafayette
SD 602.14 with the attendance of
Lafayette SD 602.16 5. Allowable costs must be counsel at Board of
East Diablo 850.14 Liberty SD 602,18 supported by complete time
Kensington 850.16 Martinez SB 602.20 SupBrviSOCS' meetings,
all
Moraga 850.18 records accounting for
Moraga sD 602.22 or other district board or
Oakley 650.20 activities on a daily asis b
Orinda 850.22 Mt. Diablo 54 602.24 committee meetings,
Pinole 850.24 OaklRy USO 602.26 land these original time
Riverview 850.26 Orinda USE, 60228 records must be retained for
Pittsburg USD 602,30 a minimum of five (5) years.) 3' Advising newly-
San Ramon 850.28 Richmond USD 602.32 elected officials or
WeTass Co 850.30 San Ramon VI 602,34
West CDUOLY 850.32 y newly-appointed depart-
Walnut Creek USD 602.36
CC Comm Coil Dat 602,38 gent heads on the
HEALTHSERvICEs SOCIAL SERVICE general legal require-
'1CNSERVATORSHPCODES} CCG'Supt Schools 602.40 g g
Gen/Mist 450.00 "`UNALLOWABLE" gents of their offices.
LPS 450.06 SOCIAL SERVICE 502
Meds Refus/Riese Hg 450.10 (ALLOWABLE):}: n VVof
Merrithew Hsp Wits 450.03 Dependencies
500.00 The following activities Office
Prvt Hospitals 450.04 Depenncies § 500,02 the County Counsel's Office
Dependenci s §38 6 500.04
Prvt Hospitals Writs 450.05 remain unallowable for giant Rev 8194
Dependencies §388 500.05
Public Guardian 450.08 Guardianship Juv 500.10 reimbursement purposes:
Regional Center 450.02 LPS 500.12
MEDICAL SERVICES (HOSPI Term §7800 CCP 500.06 1- Legal expenses involved
Term §7662 500.08
Gen/Mist 540.00 in prosecuting claims against
HMO 540.02 + +WORK ORDER AND the State and Federal
Replacemnt Hosp 540.04 AC I WITY NUMBERS ARE governments, When the
PERSONNEL REOUIRED! (See Ofc Mgr or County is plaintif.
Gen/Mist 03590 Acct Cik it necessary.t -
F,st Choice 035.01 _2
AUNTY COUNSEL CLIENT HOURS&CASTS ~FY-95-96' 1 June
Client Name Hours Costs
ADMINISTRATOR 70576.64 $516.882.55
General 625.65 $53,775.97
Self-Insurance Risk M mt 6,650.34 $444,691.48
CAN 97.85 . $8,293.72
ORC 202.80 $10,121.38
Crockett Cogeneration 0,00 $0.00
ADOPTIONS- see Social Service -Recov
AGRIC-WEIGHTS-MEASURES 1.20 $100.49
ANIMAL CONTROL 110A0 $9,125.36
ASSESSMENT APPEALS BOARD 26.20 $2,093-72
ASSESSOR 860.45 $76,931.66
AUDITOR-CONTROLLER' 136.65 $11,126.61
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 1,597.00 $141,288.04
BUILDING INSPECTION 412.80 $27,424.50
General 86.30 _ $5,262.60
Enforcement 326.50 $22,161.90
CLERK-RECORDER 661.20 $54,316-79
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 3,240.85 $234,438.41
General 1,343.80 $101,137.63
WaterAenc 172.75 $11,392.01
TRANSPLAN 25.00 _ $1,942.59
Redevelopment 356.65 $24,123.04
Solid Waste 1,179.85 $83,440.46
Resource Recovery 5.00 $160-16
AS 939 2.50 $69.25
Enforcement 67.70 $4,507.14
CC Transp Auth 7.10 $734.42
Haz Waste M mt Plan 3.60 $364.90
West CC Trans. Advisor 2.50 $200-70
DGHTY VLLY 36.80 $3,577.38
GMEDA 37,60 $2,788.73
'.OMMUNITY SERVICES 411 .60 $30,988.51
;OUNTY COUNSEL 19,778.48 $886,448.70
ATTACHMENT "D"
'ROV Y95-96\C(,-HR CO WB2 _i ni 4
COUNTY COUNSEL CLIENT HOURS &COSTS FY95-96'"July-June: .
Client Name Hours Costs
DISTRICT ATTORNEY-PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR 305.00 $19,741.81
General 61.15 $5106.62
Public Administrator 243.85 $14,635.19
DISTRICTS- GENERAL 42.50 $3,614.42
EMERGENCY SERVICES 29.25 $2,957.11
EMPLOYEE RELATIONS 517.80 $46,834.70
FIRE DISTRICTS 834.25 $68,419.88
General 61.40 $4,504.64
CCCFPD 710.45 $59,951.19
Kensington 0.00 $0.00
Oakley 0.00 $0.00
Orinda 17.60 $994.41
Riverview 1.00 $17.19
San Ramon43.80 $2,952.45
GENERAL SERVICES 378.70 $27,826.14
General 160.70 $10,993.58
Construction Projects 217.50 $16,795.82
Lease Projects 0.50 $36.74
GRAND JURY - 59.90 $5,307.09
HEALTH SERVICES 1,466.35 $60,738.46
General 129.95 $11,416.95
Regional Centers 20.60 $773.37
Private Hospitals 21.00 $1,219.67
LPS (Conservatorship) 1,046.20 _ $35,591.42
LPS Med Refusals 6.00 $300.27
Public Guardian 136.10 $5,724.01
Merrithew Hosp Writs 55.50 $2,803.14
Private Hosp Writs 51.00 $2,909.63
HOUSING AUTHORITY 1,183.60 $76,528.05
LAFCO 346.85 $30,439.41
LIBRARY 94.85 $7,966.36
MEDICAL SERVICES 1,450.95 $128,647.09
General 1,209.10 $107,664.14
Re lacement Hospital 218.85 $18,898.86
HMO _-7-23 00 $2,084.09
ATTACHMENT "D"
PROTY95-96\CC-HR-CO.WB2 2nf4 - - _
-GUNTY COUNSEL CLIENT HOURS &COSTS FY 95-96.--July-Jun6 .*-
.CrientName Hours Costs
MENTAL HEALTH 38.60 $3,459.58
MERIT BOARD 32.15 $2,477.34
MUNICIPAL COURT - JUDGES 252.05 $14,872.03
MUNICIPAL COURT - BAIL BONDS 87.85 $4,291-99
OTHER 0.00 $0.00
PERSONNEL 232.80 $19,825.30
PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCIL 111 ,40 $5,555.74
PROBATION 308.25 $25,712.21
PUBLIC DEFENDER 0.80 $71.45
PUBLIC HEALTH 833.90 $70,567.57
General 200.00 $18,011 .28
Solid Waste Enforcement 73.40 $5,762.98
Haz Waste Collection 1.00 $119.75
Hazardous Materials & Vaste 559.50 $46,673-56
3UBLIC WORKS 3,667.52 $280,492.62
General 79,82 $6,447.97
Ai ort - Buchanan 175.40 $12,226.56
Airport - Byron 97.00 $7,020.80
Right of Way Activities 1,031.60 $72,962.82
AOB- Measure C 751,85 $58,492.49
Engineering Services 282,25 $23,128.94
Gas Taxes 24.15 $1,916.64
CSA (formerly CD) 7.00 $599.00
Mapping 5,50 $380.76
Flood Control 1,212,95 $97,316.64
ZETIREMENT 1,471.35 $108,584.95
General 453.55 $37,628.10
Disability875.60 $58,557.65
Board Meetings 108,20 $9,450.80
Board Opinions 34.00 $2,948.40
ATTACHMENT "D"
R0\FY95-96\CC-HR-00 W62 3 of 4
COUNTY COUNSEL- CLIENT HOURS &COSTS FY 95-96` July-June
Client Name Hours Casts
SANITATION DISTRICTS 715.85 $54,851.49
General 1.85 $96.51
Delta Diablo 620.95 $46,729.48
Sanitation District #15 18.00 $1,305.32
Sanitation District#19 75.05 $6,720.1 A
SCHOOLS 581.85 $38,896.98
General 18.60 $1159.20
Supt of Schools 460.15 $31,029.58
Antioch USD 16.00 $1,087.00
Byron USD 39.15 $2,387.20
Lafayette 0.10 $3.13
Mora a 0.10 $3.13
Mt.Diablo USD 0.50 $36.65
Mora a _0.10 $3.13
Orinda - - -- 3.00 $220.41
CC Community Colle e 0.80 $48.55
County Schools Insurance Group 43.35 $2,919.00
SHERIFF 1,140.85 $91,258.19
SMALL CLAIMS 1,914.20 $64,565.43
41
SOCIAL SERVICE ALLOWABLE 12,892.30 $674,648.26
General 591.60 $34,819.59
Dependencies 9,713.80 $543,300.49
Dependencies re Criminal 0.00 $0.00
7800 Terminations 38.50 $2,115.86
7662 Terminations 4.60 _ $160.14
Guardianships/Juvenile 98.40 $3,110.32
366.26 1,024.75 $40,983.63
388 298.60 $12,236.07
LPS/SSS 1 ,122.05 $37,922.16
SOCIAL SERVICE (UNALLOWABLE) 1,795.90 $131,106.27
SUPERIOR COURT- ADMIN-JUDGES 247.75 $15,471 .10
TREASURER-TAX COLLECTOR 113.20 $8,671.31
TOTALS 67,961.64 $4,085,562-54
ATTACHMENT "D"
'RO\f Y95-WCC-H R-CO W 62 4 of 4
D. 2
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra
/. c
FROM: Costa
Phil Batchelor, County Administrator o s
DATE: County
February 11, 1997 °'+ c ua
SUBJECT:
SECOND QUARTER BUDGET REPORT
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)& BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. ACCEPT this report and DIRECT the County Administrator to continue to monitor
the budget and implement corrective plans, where necessary.
BACKGROUND:
Since 1984, the County Administrator's Office has prepared quarterly reports which
analyze the status of the budget and highlight the budget units which deviate from the
budget plan in terms of expenditures and revenues. Actions which are necessary to
ensure a healthy budget by the end of the year are recommended as part of the quarterly
reporting process. Other items which have major fiscal impacts are also reviewed as part
of this period report. The Administrator's Office review of budgets over this six month
period indicated that the overall County budget is in a positive position. The
Administrator's Office is working with Departments to bring all Departments in compliance
with their budget authorizations. What follows is a discussion of seven key budgets for the
second quarter.
General County Revenue
At the half-year point, it appears that General County revenues, amounting to $156 million
spread over 55 accounts, will meet the budget target. Property tax revenue should be
slightly above targeted levels, after adjusting for city redevelopment agencies, no and low
city revenue losses, state mandated transfers to school districts, Board directed
distributions to Crockett and Rodeo, and the estimated impact of property tax refunds.
CONTI N U EDON ATTACHMENT: _YES SIGNATURE: jay-'
—RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR —RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
_APPROVE _OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON February 25, 1997 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
X ---------'
—UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
ATTESTED February 25, 1997
Contact: County Administrator PHIL OR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
CC: Sheriff's Office, Community Services PER FS AND COUNTY ADMI OR
Probation ,.
Coordinated Trial Courts
Health Services BY
Social Services
Page 2
The other major revenue sources are showing mixed results at this point in time. Motor
Vehicle license and business license fees are projected to be above targeted levels. On
the other hand, sales taxes, transient occupancy taxes and interest earnings are estimated
to be below targeted levels at this time. All estimates are adjusted for seasonal variations.
Sheri
The Sheriff-Coroner Agency is within acceptable expenditure levels for the second quarter
of fiscal year 1996-97. In the Patrol and Operations Division, gross expenditures were
47% while Detention has experienced a 45% expenditure level. The Coroner Division
experienced 45% gross expenditures for the reporting period and have met budgeted
revenue for the year thus far.
Actual revenues received through the second quarter of fiscal year 1996-97 were
$11,995,437 in the Patrol and Operations Division and $7,685,623 in the Detention
Division, 31% and 42% of budget respectively. Current revenues received exceeds the
levels of this time last year. Sales tax public protection revenue was budgeted Countywide
in the amount of $34,371,029 and is expected to be realized by year-end. The Sheriff-
Coroner Agency receives 82.6% of this revenue and the District Attorney receives the
balance. Contract city revenues, which historically lag, generate 27% of the Sheriffs
$38,258,018 budgeted in Patrol and Operations. These revenues, which are currently at
38% of budget, will be received by year end. The Department has maintained an
aggressive control of expenditures and is expected to achieve a balanced year-end
budget.
Probation
Probation Department expenditures are at anticipated levels for the second quarter of fiscal
year 1996-97. Actual revenues, however, appear low due to the customary lag time in the
receipt of state and federal revenues. For example, several grant revenues are received
late because of the need to submit reimbursement claims. However, all of these revenues
are anticipated to be received before the end of the fiscal year.
The Juvenile Hall population, which had for several years been an indicator of budget
problems, is currently at the budgeted level and is not expected to be a budget issue this
year. The number of juveniles in private placement is on the rise, however, compared to
the first quarter and may be a harbinger of budget problems if not controlled. Placements
need to be maintained at an average of 100 to adhere to budget constraints, yet the
current level of juveniles in placement is 122. The Department is making every effort to
ensure placement decisions are necessary and appropriate. The Department and the
County Administrator will continue to monitor this situation. With continued prudent fiscal
management, the Department is expected to end the year with a balanced budget.
The Probation Department was recently granted $48,300 in funds from the planning phase
of the Juvenile Crime Enforcement and Accountability Challenge Grant Program (SB1760).
The Department has hired a consultant to assist in the preparation of the Local Action Plan
which will be used as the basis for the application for up to $2 million in implementation
funds for juvenile probation programs. The Department pians to submit a proposal to
expand its Probation/Schools Partnership, currently being implemented as a pilot program
with three Deputy Probation Officers on school campuses. There has been an informal
discussion at the Board of Corrections that the formula for allocation of implementation
funds may be made more flexible than previously announced and that up to $1 million per
year for three years may be available for certain counties depending upon their
applications. We have yet to be advised of this formally.
Page 3
A hearing will be held on March 11 in the Federal Appeals Court on the earlier decision by
a Federal District County to uphold the change in interpretation of"emergency assistance"
which excluded probation services and resulted in the loss of millions of dollars to
California counties in Title IV-A Emergency Assistance funds. If the appeal is successful,
county probation departments may be able to recover Title IV-A revenues from January 1,
1995 through September 1995, when Title IV-A funds were combined into the Welfare
Block Grant program. The Contra Costa County Probation Department may be able to
recover up to $400,000 for this time period.
Coordinated Trial Courts
The Legislature finished the 1996 legislative session without acting on AB2553,
Assemblyman Phil Isenberg's plan to restructure trial court funding from the current
bifurcated county-state system to a consolidated state funding system. AB2553 was
essential in order to increase fines and forfeitures revenue to the County, cap the County's
fiscal responsibility to the courts and require the state to finance all future growth in court
operations costs. The state's failure to pass the legislation places in jeopardy several
millions of dollars necessary to fund this County's state-approved level of court operations.
Counties were hopeful that the new Legislature would give swift attention to this problem
when it convened in January, but as of this late date, counties know neither how much
funding will be available for courts statewide nor how the Judicial Council plans to allocate
the money among counties. Senator Lockyer introduced S139, a controversial rewrite of
AB2553 with some added labor relations provisions,which is slowly making its way through
the legislative process. Senator Lockyer also introduced SB21, an urgency measure to
distribute half of the $302 million in fines and forfeitures revenues needed by counties to
finance the courts, but there is speculation that this bill will be passed only if S139 gets held
up indefinitely. The situation is extremely difficult; some counties may be forced to shut
down courthouses because of insufficient cash flow unless swift relief comes from the
state.
Due to the state's failure to provide the necessary funding for the trial courts, the
Coordinated Trial Courts of Contra Costa County are technically insolvent, having a current
negative cash flow of more than $1 million. Total expenditures through December were
$14,312,078, offset by partial trial court funding revenues of $2,252,644 and general
revenues of $2,282,258, leaving a balance of $9,777,176, which exceeds the total
budgeted County subsidy to the courts by $1,175,259. Therefore, after applying the entire
fiscal year subsidy budgeted for the courts for fiscal year 1996-97 plus all court-related
revenues earned thus far, it is still not sufficient to finance the first six months of court
operations. Absent the promised state funding, the situation will worsen.
If we receive all trial court funding revenues included in the budget, which are based upon
last year's actuals, we still have a local funding problem of$2 million. Contra Costa County
is facing two budget problems - the local problem of $2 million and the state generated
problem. Counties are held hostage to the disagreements between the Governor,
legislative bodies and the State Judicial Council. As a result of this political impasse, we
do not know the current level of state trial court funding support. Any failure of the state
to provide court funding at last year's level only increases the current $2 million funding
problem. The courts have agreed to control expenditures by spending at last year's level.
The County Administrator's Office will continue to work with the courts, in controlling, to the
extent possible, court expenditures. In lieu of required state funding, the County
Administrator will work with the courts to prepare contingency cost reduction plans to
enable the courts and the County to act expeditiously to balance the courts' budget when
more information is known.
P,2
Page 4
Health Services
The $345 million adopted budget of the Health Services Department required it to absorb
a $5.8 million overall revenue shortfall. The revenue shortfall was primarily due to a loss
of one-time revenue, including a nonrecurring fund balance. It also did not take into
account any changes related to managed care or for employee COLAs or other benefits
negotiated with the employee organizations.
As of the first quarter report, the Department had made substantial progress in addressing
the initial shortfall, which at that time was estimated at $1.5 million. Cost of living
adjustments for employees and contractors will add to this shortfall. However, additional
revenues from the local managed care initiative and state funding under SB 1255 should
serve to reduce the shortfall. These revenue sources are discussed below.
• Local Initiative - medical managed health care will be phased in beginning
February 1, 1997. Medi-Cal patients will have the choice between the
County/Local Initiative or Foundation Health Plan, a private for-profit
provider. The Department has made major changes in its enrollment
processes and procedures in order to meet new state requirements. In
addition, the clinic system has begun a series of initiatives to increase patient
access, including same day appointments (Patient's Choice). The financial
impact for the fiscal year 1996-97 budget year is directly related to the
number of enrollees in the Contra Costa Health Plan. Approximately $5
million in gross monthly premium revenues is at stake.
• SB 1255 - Under SB 1255, certain voluntary transfers and donations are
utilized by the state to provide funds to disproportionate share hospitals to
assist them in enhancing or maintaining access to Medi-Cal beneficiaries.
These voluntary transfers are used to match federal dollars under the Medi-
Cal program, thereby increasing total revenue available for distribution.
Merrithew Memorial Hospital is one of the approximately 98 hospitals in
California eligible for reimbursement under this program. A round of
"voluntary" donations has occurred for the past six years. It is officially
unknown at this time if a round will be held for this fiscal year, but like the
past six years, it appears probable. No dollar amount has been budgeted
for this item. All collections would be available to address the shortfall.
The Department will continue its stringent cost control measures to ensure a balanced
budget by year end and will report back to the Board with information as available on the
Local Initiative, SB 1255 and other actions that may be necessary to achieve the balanced
budget.
Social Services
Overall, the Social Service Department projects a year end balanced budget. Projected
shortfalls in administration are expected to be offset by surpluses in other budget units,
reallocated prior year state funding and strategies that maximize claiming of state and
federal revenues.
Numerous items are difficult to predict at this time and could have a material impact on the
year end fund balance, including: welfare reform; impact of SSI eligibility changes and
welfare reform on General Assistance (GA) caseloads; and realignment revenue.
Realignment revenue is a large portion of the Department's county match for its programs.
This revenue is dependent upon the sales taxes and receipts were lower in December than
projected by the state.
Page 5
• Administration - With half the year gone, the administrative unit has
expended 78% of its general fund appropriation ($10.6 million) before any
adjustments. Part of this deficit is due to the employee salary and benefit
cost of living adjustments negotiated with employee organizations. In
addition, pay equity, which is tied to the COLA, will increase salary costs by
an estimated $600,000 for specified classes within the department.
To offset the projected shortfall in administration, the Department plans to
apply surpluses from other budget units. In addition, reallocated prior year
state program revenue which normally comes to the Department and
augmented current year allocations in areas of overmatch will help offset the
requirement for general funds.
Categorical Aid - Categorical Aid is projected to end the year with a slight
surplus, approximately $200,000. This is primarily due to decreased
expenditures in AFDC-FG/U and AFDC-FC, offsetting deficits in IHSS due
to unbudgeted minimum wage increases. The lower expenditure in AFDC-
FG/U is due to lower caseloads as well as the 4.9% cost of living rollback
effective January 1, 1997. In addition, AFDC-FC cases are in decline due
to greater efforts in adoptions and from Family Preservation activities that
prevent children from entering the out-of-home placement system. As
reported in the first quarter budget report, the IHSS shortfall is due to the
federally adopted minimum wage increase from $4.25 to $4.75 per hour,
effective October 1, 1996 as well as the California voter-approved increase,
which will take the minimum wage up to $5.00 per hour on March 1, 1997.
• General Assistance- At this time, General Assistance is projecting a surplus
due to the decline in caseload. This projection does not take into account
the potential caseload increases that could be triggered by welfare reform,
including the loss of eligibility for legal aliens and the fallout on GA of
individuals who lose their SSI eligibility based on substance abuse criteria.
General Assistance is probably the area of greatest financial uncertainty to
the Department, since it is 100% net county cost.
The Department will continue to closely monitor its budget and will report back to the Board
as necessary to ensure a balanced budget by year end.
Community Services
The Community Services Department ended last fiscal year with a $858,601 deficit, which
was absorbed by the General Fund. The budget and financial issues identified last fiscal
year and this fiscal year are the subject of a state fiscal audit currently underway. A report
of audit findings and recommendation from the state is expected in approximately 30 days.
The investigation being conducted by the Federal Department of Health and Human
Services Office of Inspector General regarding a former Head Start Delegate Agency is still
in progress.
Budget deficits in the Community Services Department have been presented to the Board
at various times including July 25, August 13, September 24, December 10 and January
28. Also the matter is on referral to the Finance Committee and the Community Services
Block Grant and Head Start portions of the Department budget is under review by the
Family and Human Services Committee.
Community Service Department budget problems continue as the Director of Community
Services estimates the fiscal year 1996-97 budget deficit approximately $300,000. This
estimate anticipates various audit disallowances and cost overruns, known at this time, for
cost incurred in this and last fiscal years and potential added expenses for Head Start.
Greater budget overruns were avoided in August when the Board approved the
recommendations of the Director to eliminate ten Departmental positions.
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS F&HS-03 ,. Contra
FROM: FAMILY AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE
Costa
County
DATE: February 10, 1997 , . .
SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF WELFARE REFORM IN
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
SPECIFICAF@68(r11?(j�C,t6A I�iN�S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
1..t(; ENDORSE the attached recommended technical and substantive changes to
Public Law 104-193, the Federal welfare reform legislation, prepared by the
County Welfare Directors' Association, and AUTHORIZE the Social Service
Director and others authorized by him to advocate for introduction and
enactment of any and all of those changes to existing law.
2. ENDORSE the attached recommended policy direction for implementation of
Federal welfare reform in California, as drafted by the County Welfare
Directors' Association and as amended by the CSAC Health & Welfare
Committee.
3. APPROVE the attached welfare reform agenda and timetable for
consideration by the Family and Human Services Committee, as modified by
this report, for consideration by the Family and Human Services Committee
and Board of Supervisors between now and the end of June 1997.
4. DIRECT the Social Service Director to provide concrete information on the
impact of the Governor's Welfare Reform proposal on Contra Costa County.
This should include estimates of the cost to implement the Governor's
adoptions proposal, the additional child care resources which will be needed,
the number and type of additional jobs which will be required to meet the
County's employment participation goals, and the number and type of
additional staff resources which will be required in order to implement the
Governor's Welfare Reform proposal (such as the number of job development
staff which may be required).
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: —YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _RECOMMENDATION OFBO D MMITTEE �
`APPROVE _5..._t OT�jH�EER
SIGNATURE(S): MARK DeSAULNIER ONNA GERBER
ACTION OF BOARD ON February 25, 1997 APPROVE S RECOMMENDED X OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
$ UNANIMOUS(ABSENT --- "-_. I AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
ATTESTED February 25, 1997
Contact: County Administrator PHIL HE ,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
cc: Social Service Director E S AND COUNTY ADMINI OR
Sara Hoffman, Senior Deputy County Administrator
BY T
�J
F&HS-03
5. REQUEST the Executive Director of the Private Industry Council to attend
meetings of the Family and Human Services Committee when welfare reform
is being discussed to insure that PIC'S input is considered in the actions which
are being considered by our Committee.
6. DIRECT the Social Service Director to report to our Committee again on
welfare reform on March 10, 1997, April 14, 1997, May 12, 1997 and June 9,
1997 as outlined in the attached agenda and timetable, as amended by the
following comments.
BACKGROUND:
On February 4, 1997, the Board of Supervisors approved a report from your
Committee which contained the following recommendations:
1. DIRECT the Social Service Director to review with our Committee on February
10,1997 the draft CSAC/CWDA Welfare Reform Redesign Proposal so the Board
of Supervisors can consider taking a position on it or portions of it.
2. DIRECT the Social Service Director to review with our Committee on February
10,1997,technical amendments to the Federal welfare reform law which should
be endorsed by the Board of Supervisors.
3. DIRECT the Social Service Director to present to our Committee on February
10, 1997,a timeline for reviewing individual issues having to do with welfare
reform so we can address the entire welfare reform package in a logical manner
over the next several months.
On February 10, 1997, our Committee met with the Social Service Director, John
Cullen, and Sara Hoffman from the County Administrator's Office and reviewed the
attached reports.
In terms of the timetable, Mr. Cullen outlined the following proposed schedule for
reviewing various portions of welfare reform:
March 1997:
Review a side-by-side comparison of the four competing proposals which are
currently before the Legislature and their impact on Contra Costa County.
April 1997:
Review the Social Service Department's Focusing on Employment redesign and
efforts being made both inside the Department and outside the Department to make
changes in the way the County deals with welfare clients and the need for a focus
on self-sufficiency.
May 1997:
Update on legislative progress and the need for advocacy in Sacramento as well as
current events on the Department's Redesign Project.
-2-
�3
F&HS-03
June 1997:
More specific information on the then-leading State legislative proposals and more
specific information on the local implementation issues. Set as timetable for future
discussions on welfare reform issues.
Mr. Cullen noted that the Legislature is convening a "Super Conference Committee"
on Welfare Reform which will consider all proposals. This is expected to be a long
process which will parallel the Legislature's schedule.
Supervisor DeSaulnier asked about the proposal to remove the 15% Federal cap on
administrative expenditures, Mr. Cullen responded that it is difficult to determine
what the implications of this requirement are since the Federal government has not
yet defined what "administrative expenditures" includes. The main concern is that
there be sufficient funds available in this area to cover legitimate costs which may
be included which are not traditionally thought of as "administrative" costs.
Mr. Cullen also noted that the only changes which are anticipated at the Federal
level are technical changes and minor substantive changes - not major
programmatic changes.
Supervisor Gerber noted her interest in receiving some more concrete information
on the impact of the Govemor's Welfare Reform proposal on this County. She
asked, for instance, about the cost in this County of the suggestion that the children
of teen-age parents be required to relinquish their children for adoption. She also
asked that we quantify the child care needs to achieve the employment participation
goals. Also, the number and type of jobs which would need to be available in this
County to achieve these goals.
Supervisor Gerber also asked that Mr. Cullen quantify the additional staff resources
which would be required to accomplish the Governor's proposal and the types of
jobs which would have to be created - such as job development specialists.
Supervisor DeSaulnier noted the need for PIC to be involved in these meetings and
discussions to insure that there is close coordination between the Social Service
Department and PIC.
We will continue to make reports to the Board after each of these meetings on the
progress and status of welfare reform implementation in California and this County.
-3-
Family & Human Services Committee
Welfare Reform Agenda
and Timetable
Feb. 10 ♦ Reco for Federal law technical cleanup.
♦ Support for CSAbCWDA Welfare Reform proposal.
♦ Adoption of Agenda and timetable for future FHS
Welfare Reform discussions.
March ♦ Comparison of major State proposals.
♦ Local programmatic issues and concerns regarding
legislative proposals.
April ! SSD Focusing on Employment Redesign update -
major issues and action items.
May ♦ SSD Redesign update - internal and external changes
and issues.
♦ Legislative update.
June ♦ Workshop on State program design and local impact.
♦ Local implementation plan.
♦ Future FHS Welfare Reform Agenda and timetable.
` CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Social Service Department
DATE: January 24, 1997
TO: Mark DeSaulnier and Donna Gerber
Family & Human Services Committee
FROM: John Cullen, Director
��
SUBJECT: Federal Welfare Reform Cleanup
The attached document, developed by the County Welfare Directors Association
(CWDA), provides analysis and outlines recommendations being made to federal
legislators for changes in the welfare reform law. 1 encourage the Committee's
endorsement of all the recommendations being made by the CWDA. Some of the
issues that have a significant impact for Contra Costa County are highlighted
below:
• Provide federal matching funds for computer systems to track welfare
caseloads and requirements.
• Allow adequate lead time for states to restructure programs and agencies,
before work participation rate increases take effect.
• Legal immigrants who are current SSI and Food Stamp recipients should
remain eligible for these benefits. Restrictions should be applied
prospectively to immigrants who are admitted under the terms of the new
sponsor support agreements.
• Increase Child Care Block Grant funds each year and establish linkage to
TANF work participation requirements.
• Expand the definition of work activities for 18 to 50 year-old Food Stamp
recipients to include job search activities.
• Delay penalties on states for failure to enforce cooperation with child
support collection requirements until the required systems interfaces of
support collection, disbursement, parent locators and state and national
directories of new hires are in place.
I'd recommend that the Committee endorse a Board letter to our Federal legislators
supporting the CWDA list of changes to Public Law 104-193.
JBC:sjb
WR-FHSC.rpt
1-6-96
COUNTY WELFARE DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA
RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO PUBLIC LAW 104-193
(Approved at 12110/96 Directors' Retreat)
As states begin implementing Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) and related
welfare reform programs, a number of significant obstacles #o responsible administration of the
new block grants have come to light. The purpose of this memo is to provide insight on what
areas of the law need to be "fixed."
One overarching concern is the need for .economic stimulus packages to ensure there is
sufficient work available. Some ways to promote job creation are through:
• credits and direct up-front subsidies to small businesses for hiring, training and retention of
welfare clients and the creation of full time job slots that pay health care, sick
leave/vacation and retirement.
• creation of a separate funding stream for low interest loans for the development and
expansion of small businesses in urban areas to promote entry level job growth.
• developing funding to encourage apprenticeship training slots in labor unions for welfare
clients.
• providing bonuses to states for job creation in any area where unemployment exceeds 6%.
The following numbered items represent the most critical areas of difficulty, as adopted by
county welfare directors at their December meeting.
TITLE I TANF: WORK PARTICIPATION RATES
1. In order to provide adequate lead time for states to restructure programs and agencies,
allow one year from the date the state. legislature enacts its TANF program befQire work
participation rate increases take effect. Example: ti
Year Current Proposed Year Current Proposed
1997 25% 20 hrs 25% 20 hrs 2000 40% 30 hrs 35% 25 hrs
1998 30% 20 hrs 25% 20 hrs 2001 45% 30 hrs 40% 25 hrs
1999 35% 25 hrs 30% 20 hrs 2002 50% 30 hrs 45% 30 hrs
Rationale: The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunities Reconciliation Act of
1996 (PRWORA) requires state legislatures to adopt a plan for implementation of welfare
reform. A number of state legislatures, including California,_ will not have had the
opportunity to deliberate the relevant legislation before January 1, 1997. Additionally, in
order to meet the requirements of the law, counties must develop automated systems to
track work participation, develop and train new jab skills to program staff, and locate work
activity resources in their communities in order to responsibly move people from welfare to
work. Because these steps will take a substantial amount of time, the states and counties
should be given a reasonable chance to meet the work participation rate increases in the
1-6-96
law. One year should provide ample time for states and localities to have the tools in
place to begin working toward the goals of the law.
2. Extend the time limits for completion of the initial assessment of employability of the
existing caseload to within one year of the implementation of the state's TANF redesign.
(Statute allows up to 180 days)
Rationale: This administrative simplification allows alignment of the initial assessment
with the annual redetermination of benefit eligibility for the existing caseload.
,3., !_ink the calculation of the work participation rates to available child care funds so-that '
states are not fiscally penalized for failure to meet the requirements when child are -
capacity is exhausted. M
Rationale: The Congressional Budget Office predicts the Child Care Development Block
Grant will have a.$1.8 billion nationwide shortfall if all states meet their work participation
requirements. If additional child care funding is not provided to establish new child care
facilities, train new providers and fund new slots, then states should be held harmless
when funds are exhausted.
4. Make the two-parent work participation rate the same as the single parent work
participation rate.
Rationale: The two-parent work participation requirement is unrealistic and unattainable.
It may also serve as a perverse incentive, as parents may separate or commit fraud in
order to work less hours or be discouraged from marriage or spousal reconciliation.
Maintaining two separate work participation rate tracks for single and two parent families
will complicate documentation and automated systems' programming and development.
5. Apply the work activity requirement to only one parent of a two parent household so the
second parent can provide child care to the family at no cost to the state child care block
grant. This would apply to families with children under 12 years of age or with children
who are disabled or have special needs.
6. Permit states to treat two-parent families where one parent is incapacitated as a one-
parent family, subject to the work participation requirements of a single-parent family. -
7. Job searches should be extended up to 12 weeks. GAIN experience demonstrates longer
job searches are productive, given the length of typical application processes (written
exam, oral interviews)and delays between job offer and actual start date.
8- Increase the exemption for"no available child care" to include single parents with children
under the age of 12 years (current statute is 6 years).
Rationale: Requiring single parents to work outside the home when child care is not
available for children age 6 to 11 years will increase the number of unsupervised
"latchkey" children. Rates of child neglect referrals and juvenile delinquency reports will
2
--
1-6-96
increase. Many available jobs will require work hours when child care is not normally
available (i.e., swing shift, graveyard shift, etc).
9. Remove the single parent, with children under the age of 12 years, (6 in current law) who
has been determined to have "no available child care" from the calculation of the work
participation requirements and exempt this parent from the 60 month time limit for any
month child care is not available.
Rationale: Child care is essential to employment of mothers with young children. This
population, if unable to access child care, should be excluded from required work
activities to ensure parents will not risk the safety of children left unsupervised to meet
work participation requirements. These single parents should also be exempt from the 60
month limit for any month child care for a child under 12 is not available so they have an
opportunity to become self sufficient within a 60 month period of child care.
10. Change the work participation calculation of "hours per week" to a monthly average of
hours worked. Allow states to employ`a measurement of the wages earned instead of
hours worked for workers who are employed in industries and agriculture that use piece
work as a measure of productivity.
Rationale: Many businesses operate on two week or longer employee schedules. An
employee can have 19 hours one week and 21 hours the next and only meet one week of
the work participation requirement. A monthly average is a more accurate measurement
of work activity. For piece work, use the minimum wage rate X the minimum number of
hours required to compare gross earnings for a monthly WP rate.
11. Allow states to count applicants who they have successfully diverted from TANF into
unsubsidized employment when calculating work participation rates.
Rationale: The current work participation requirements acts as a disincentive to up front
diversion or promotion of full self-sufficiency which is the goal of TANF. The work
participation requirements focus on process measurement rather than outcome
measurement. The performance measurements must focus on moving recipients from
welfare to work and then off welfare.
12. Redefine these allowable work activities:
• Job search activity should count as work participation per episode of unemployment to
include a laid off TANF recipient when looking for a new job.
• Any provision of child care should count as work participation. Eliminate the clause that
limits qualified child care provision to participants in community service programs.
• Vocational education should be extended to 24 months (from 12 months) to align with
the 24 month limit on receiving TANF benefits without work participation. This change
will ensure more TANF clients find permanent employment leading to self-sufficiency,
rather than recycling back through the program.
3
t-6-96
• Include basic educational training (remedial math, literacy and English skills) as an
allowable work activity, given the fact that many TANF clients have very limited job
skills.
• Exempt teen parents from the 20% limit on vocational education or teen parent
schooling as allowable work activities. (Law states that only 20% of those in eligible
work activities can be teen parents attending school or vocational education students).
The limit on teen parent school attendance and vocational education may prevent teen
parents from attending job training courses and thereby prevent self-sufficiency.
• Allow adult education and job skills training to count•in the first 20 hours of work activity
participation. There is a direct correlation between attainment of"a GED and wages
that lead to self-sufficiency.
TITLE I: TANF TIME LIMITS
1. Allow states to continue TANF benefits�to families who have reached the 60 month limit
when the parents are working at least 40 hours per week in either subsidized or
unsubsidized employment if the families otherwise would be eligible. These full-time
working families, who are in full compliance with TANF but not yet self-sufficient, should not
be counted in the 20% hardship exemption. Provide states the option to continue some
TANF funded assistance for children whose parents are time limited from TANF.
Rationale: States could have the option to operate subsidized work programs for time-
limited families, thereby retaining a minimum.safety net for children and still be eligible for
federal funds. This would reduce any incentive for states to shift the children's safety_net
from TANF to federal foster care when issues of abuse/neglect are not present.
2. Allow a hardship exemption to the requirement that all TANF adults engage in work activity
by the 24th month of aid, similar to the 20% exemption from the 60 month limit on TANF
benefits.
Rationale: The same kinds of families that will need the 20% exemption at 60 months due
to disability, domestic violence, etc.,will need to be exempted from work requirements at
24 months.
3. Increase the hardship exemption from 20% to 25% of the TANF caseload.
Rationale: This would give states the flexibility to provide a better safety net for children
whose parents cannot achieve self-sufficiency due to areas of high unemployment or
limited funds for job training/placement services.
4. Exempt needy caretaker relatives from the work participation requirement, during any
months the state or county determines that care by the relative is in the best interests of
the child and that such care is diverting the child from foster care, Such caretakers shall
not be counted in the numerator for the work participation rate (WPR) calculation. (The
relative caretaker's benefits clock would run independently from the child's.)
4
Rationale: Relatives frequently take into their home children whose parents are
incarcerated, hospitalized, disabled or otherwise unable to parent. These relatives have no
legal obligation to support the children and are low income themselves. Many are
grandparents and not in the job market. Non-parental caretakers should not be required to
work and should remain eligible for TANF as long as the children remain in their homes.
Otherwise, these children will be shifted to federal foster care in a stranger's home.
5. Allow states to transfer up to 10% of TANF funds to the Social Services Block Grant
directly.
Rationale: Current law requires $2.00-transferred?to Child Care block grant for every
$1.00 transferred to Social Services. States need the flexibility to transfer funds without
linkage to child care in order to respond to safety net issues as they arise.
6. Add foster care, adoption assistance, and child welfare services to the categories of
services exempted from time limits in Section 403(c).
7. Eliminate the 15% cap on administrative expenditures.
Rationale: States and local governments need maximum flexibility to utilize TANF funds in
the most effective manner. The new emphasis on employment services will blur the
traditional distinction between benefit administration and client services, rendering
application and interpretation of this administration cap very difficult.
TITLE IV: IMMIGRANTS -
1. Legal immigrants who are current SSI and Food Stamp recipients should remain eligible for
these benefits. The PRWORA restrictions should be applied prospectively to immigrants
who are admitted under the terms of the new sponsor support agreements.
Rationale: States and counties cannot absorb financial responsibility for these populations
who are legal residents under federal law. The SSI population is extremely vulnerable and
unemployable . Loss of this income may force many Into more costly nursing care,which
would,in turn, fall back on the federal government through increased Medicaid costs.
2. Clarify the state's Maintenance of Effort (MOE) requirement so that state expenditures on
TANF-equivalent benefits for legal immigrants ineligible for federally-funded TANF benefits
count towards the satisfaction of the state's MOE requirement
Rationale: If states choose to aid legal immigrants not eligible for federal TANF benefits,
such expenditures should be treated in the same way as state expenditures for TANF-
equivalent benefits for other populations not eligible for federal TANF benefits, such as
families that have exceeded their five-year lifetime limit.
3. Clarify that the 40 quarters needed for qualified immigrant status includes non Social
Security covered employment.
Rationale: Immigrants who work for some federal, state, city and school districts may
have 10 years of work, but were not covered by Social Security.
5
1-6-96
4. Use the same quarters of work for disabled legal immigrants (20 out of the last 40, or 6 out
of the last 13 quarters for young workers) that Social Security uses to qualify disabled
workers. The 20 out of 40 or 6 out of 13 calculation would be based on the period
preceding the onset of the disability, as is the case in the Social Security law.
Rationale: A person who is disabled does not have the same ability or opportunity to earn
40 quarters. For equity reasons, these legal immigrants should only be required to meet
the same standards that Social Security uses for disabled persons.
5. The state option to eliminate non-emergency Medicaid benefits- to hon-citizen,= qualified
legal immigrants should be eliminated.
Rationale: Basic medical care for the poor is a prerequisite for good public health for all.
6. Allow non-qualified legal immigrants to receive payment as foster care or adoptive parents
on behalf of Title IV-E eligible children.
Rationale: By precluding the participation of certain PRUCOL immigrants as foster and
adoptive parents, counties could lose a valuable resource in trying to meet the needs of
abused and neglected children. Many of our immigrant foster and adoptive parents are
relatives of the foster or adoptive child, which most often reflects the best interest of the
child. Foster Care/AAP is not a public assistance benefit for adults, but a reimbursement
for the costs of providing out-of-home care and permanent homes to abused and
neglected children. It is to the states and children's benefit to have full flexibility to pay
foster care/AAP to the family most appropriate for the child's placement regardless of the
family's immigrant status.
7. Repeal the requirement that welfare'departments report- to the INS any "known"
undocumented immigrant.
Rationale: Welfare departments are intended to aid impoverished families in need and
should not be required to serve as immigration police. These requirements will discourage
undocumented parents from seeking necessary medical care, nutrition and housing for -
their citizen children, which could pose a threat to the health and safety of the community.
8. Include prenatal care as one of the benefits allowable for illegal immigrants, by defining
prenatal care as an emergency medical service.
Rationale: The small cost of prenatal care will far offset the costs of caring for citizen
children bom with birth defects, sexually transmitted diseases and other preventable health
problems.
9. The federal government should reimburse the state or county for assistance paid during
the INS naturalization process to legal immigrants who qualify for citizenship and, except
for their immigration status, would have been eligible for federal benefits.
Rationale: Current Social Security law requires the federal government to reimburse
counties for assistance paid during the application period for SSI. This standard should
6
1-6-96
also apply to individuals who are denied assistance initially, due solely to a delay in the
naturalization process, but are deemed eligible once the process is completed.
TITLE Vi: CHILD CARE
1. The data collection requirements must be sufficiently scaled back to a "need to know' level
and sampling must be allowed.
Rationale: The new data collection requirements are unnecessarily detailed and pose
insurmountable barriers ;to administration of the program. States do not have the
infrastructure to collect these data. Data should be collected to support clear performance
goals only. Sampling methodologies provide evaluators the breadth of detail needed in a
cost-effective manner.
TITLE Vlll: `FOOD STAMPS
1. Allow states the option of applying the Simplified Food Stamps program requirements to
non-TANF assisted households.
Rationale: Eligibility simplification is crucial to TANF administration. Even with. one
eligibility process for TANF and Food Stamp recipients, the non-assisted Food Stamp
caseload will require separate staff training and paper trails. One eligibility process will
allow correct application of regulations and reduce the potential for errors created with
multi-eligibility rules.
2. Amend the Food Stamp eligibility rules to allow the exclusion of one vehicle regardless of
value.
Rationale: This will align the Food Stamps vehicle allowance with Medicaid standards.
This also is consistent with promoting the goal of self sufficiency for the working poor who
need viable transportation to obtain and sustain employment.
3. Restore the lack of available child care as a good cause reason for failure to participate in
work.
Rationale: This aligns Food Stamps sanctions with TANF sanction standards to promote
eligibility simplification.
4. Expand the definition of work activities for the 18 to 50 year-old Food Stamp applicants to
include job search activities.
Rationale: Persons willing to work should be supported by Food Stamp benefits.
5. Expand the definition of"high unemployment"from 10% to 6% for areas in which the 18 to
50 year-old Food Stamp recipients can remain eligible for more than 3 months out of 36
months when unable to find work.
7
1-6-96
Rationale: The 5% unemployment rate of a "strong" economy does not count many under-
employed, part-time workers or discouraged workers. These single adults will also be
competing for the same jobs TANF recipients are being referred to. Persons who lose
Food Stamp benefits will usually be unable to pay rent. This could increase homelessness
and crime in areas where jobs are limited. '
6. Eliminate the three months of eligibility in three years restriction for able-bodied
unemployed adults.
Rationale: The able-bodied work requirement does not take into account seasonal
employment, such as agriculture or construction, when rto work is available due to timing or
weather. Seasonal workers and any worker receiving unemployment insurance should
remain eligible for Food Stamps. For older workers, over 35, there are increasing
employment barriers. These-persons still need to eat and will fall on local governments
and local charities who do not have the capacity or resources to absorb the costs.
There may also be procedural issues that further complicate the three-month ban. Welfare
administrators will not know until the third month is over whether or not the client failed to
meet the requirement. Considering the requirement that ten day advance notices must be
issued before reducing benefits, a fourth month of benefits will be issued. The law needs
to either recognize this fourth month of benefits or rescind the 10 day advance notice
requirement.
7. Remove the cap on the excess shelter deduction.
Rationale: The single greatest cost to most families is shelter, a fixed expense. The cost
of providing shelter varies in any given area of the country. To provide equity for families
in high cost areas, the cap on excess shelter reduction should be removed.
9. Temporary Food Stamps eligibility should be established for legal non-qualified
immigrants who are not subject to the new affidavits of sponsor support.
Rationale Food Stamps should remain a safety net for non-citizens who are temporarily
unable to support themselves due to circumstances beyond their control, such as plant
closure or severe illness.
10. IEVS and SAVE verification should be made optional for TANF to be consistent with Food
Stamps. (See automated systems below.)
Rationale: Simplification between programs is essential to achieve the goals of TANF.
IEVS and SAVE systems should be upgraded to ensure timely entry of data and on-line
responsiveness. INS's SAVE system is already overburdened and unable to respond to
the increased verifications needed to implement the legal immigrant terminations from SSI
or Food Stamps. The newly enacted bans on assistance to immigrants who recently
arrived to the United States will increase the burden/reliance on these systems. Applicant
and recipient rights need to be protected pending receipt of verification from INS.
11. Hold states harmless for one year for failure to meet the new Food Stamp requirements.
8
1-6-96
Rationale: P.L. 104-193 requires states to implement certain Food Stamp provisions
(e.g., work requirements, denial of benefits to legal immigrants) without clear federal
regulations. States should not be penalized for making an effort to implement the taw
without federal instructions.
CHILD WELFARE ISSUES
1. Modify the lifetime ban on TANF and Food Stamps for persons convicted of a drug-related
felony if that person is in a drug treatment program or has successfully completed a drug
treatment program.
Rationale: The lifetime ban could create significant barriers to family reunification services
intended to return foster children to parents who have overcome their drug problems. It
forces more children into foster care and creates a significant barrier to paroled felons who
are in recovery centers, trying to re-enter the job market and maintain sobriety. Residential
drug treatment centers and out-patient clinics may no longer be accessible to convicted
and released persons in recovery due to`income barriers.
2. Moderate the SSI Child Disability standards to ensure children with disabilities remain
eligible. Include consideration of a combination of impairments
when determining disability
Rationale: There is little evidence that children were "coached" to fake illnesses, or that
abuse occurred in this program. Loss of income and medical assistance may result in
these children being placed in more costly foster homes or nursing care.
AUTOMATED REPORTING
1. Provide enhanced funding outside the TANF Block Grant(as in CWS-AFCARS
reporting system) to fund state efforts to create a data collection/reporting system
that is uniform between states.
Rationale: States do not have automated tracking systems to compute spells of welfare
within states much less across state lines. 'INS's SAVE system is inadequate for all the
new immigration verification required. There is no mandate or funding to support
nationwide tracking systems needed to administer all the TANF requirements. States also
do not have current automated tracking systems for the TANF data elements and will have
significant barriers in meeting the reporting duties.
2. IEVS and SAVE verification should be made optional for TANF to be consistent with Food
Stamps,
Rationale: Simplification between programs is essential to achieve the goals of TANF.
IEVS and SAVE systems should be upgraded to ensure timely entry of data and on-line
responsiveness. INS's SAVE system is already overburdened and unable to respond to the
increased verifications needed to implement the legal immigrant terminations from SSI or
Food Stamps. The newly enacted bans on assistance to immigrants who recently arrived
9
1-6-96
to the United States will increase the burden/reliance on these systems. Applicant and
recipient rights need to be protected pending receipt of verification from INS.
3. TANF full reporting requirements by the states to the Secretary and from the Secretary to
Congress should be delayed to FY 1999 - 2000, rather than requiring full reporting in FY
1998.
Rationale: Many states will require most of FY 1997 to design and implement their TANF
plan. Without additional resources, states will be unable to design and program new
automated systems to collect the required work participation information at the same time.
4. Provide assurance of funding for automated systems already approved or'currently in
development, separate from the TANF block grant.
Rationale: Continued funding for systems already approved and underdevelopment is
needed. However, without separate funding, outside of the TANF block grant, funding for
such projects must come from monies which could otherwise be spent on client services.
TITLE III: CHILD SUPPORT
1. Restore and fund the federal match for the $50.00 child support income disregard.
Rationale: Most states have statutes that require this disregard, which means that eligible
clients will retain the disregard and states will lose their federal match.
2. Allow some good cause determinations, as established by the state, for TANF applicants
who are fearful of paternity establishment because of rape, incest or violence.
3. Delay penalties on states for failure to enforce cooperation with child support
collection requirements until the required information systems interfaces of support
collection, disbursement, parent locators, and state and national directories of new hires
are in place.
Rationale: Current welfare reform law includes language requiring the HHS Secretary to
reduce the state block grant for the next fiscal year by up to five percent.if states do not
enforce child support penalties for non-cooperation.
10
DRAFT #3s
California State Association of Counties
County Welfare Directors Association
Welfare Reform Redesign Proposal
Federal welfare reform presents California with the challenge of developing an improved system
of social support which fosters personal responsibility and self sufficiency. The California State
Association of Counties (CSAC) and the County Welfare Directors Association (CWDA) believe
that any reforms to our system of delivering public social services must be designed in the
context of the following requirements:
■ It must insure that children will be cared for.
■ It must enable families to build the capacity to care for themselves.
■ It must require personal responsibility on the part of both parents to support and care for their
children.
■ It must reinforce the message that welfare is temporary assistance intended to help families
during emergencies when they are unable to completely support themselves.
■ It must include a shared responsibility and accountability among all levels of government and
non-governmental sectors, including the state, counties, cities, education and the private and
non-profit sectors.
■ It must provide counties with adequate resources and flexibility to operate integrated social
services programs in a way that meets local needs and circumstances.
■ It must provide sufficient lead time for planning and re-engineering current resources and a
phase-in period that is commensurate with available resources.
While we believe government has a responsibility to provide support for families, families also have
a responsibility to take whatever action is necessary and within their capabilities to achieve
independence. This partnership between government and families who are in need of government
assistance is in effect a"contract"which includes the specific services and assistance to be provided
and specific expectations to be met by the recipient.
Counties propose the following policy directions for California's welfare system:
ELIGIBILITY
As a governing principle, basic eligibility requirements and grant levels and structure should be
established at the state level. The counties, however, should have the authority and flexibility to
design welfare-to-work systems that best meet local needs and conditions.
With respect to eligibility, counties recommend that California's welfare redesign should:
M Radically simplify and align eligibility rules and requirements across all major aid
programs, including TANF, Food Stamps, and other appropriate need-based
programs. California should take maximum advantage of the flexibility within current
Page 1
January 19, 1997
DRAFT #3s
law to simplify and align program rules. California should aggressively lobby for
changes to federal law or regulation when federal rules conflict with a simplified
system.
■ Eliminate "deprivation" (i.e., the requirement that a child be deprived of parental
support) as a condition of eligibility.
■ Adopt simple income and assets tests.
■ Institute a common eligibility process for all applicants, including General Assistance.
■ Aid current legal immigrants on TANF and Medi-Cal.
■ The state should retain the eligibility of legal immigrants for In-Home Supportive
Services (IHSS) and provide a state-funded safety nest for indigent aged, blind, and
disabled legal immigrants who lose SSI.
■ Ensure that the state and federal government fund any cost shifts to county
programs as a result of benefit restrictions on legal immigrants.
■ Establish a state sponsorship enforcement assistance program to assist sponsored
immigrants and service providers in enforcing the sponsorship agreement.
■ The state and federal governments should establish a program to identify, refer, and
provide supportive services to legal immigrants subject to SSI and Food Stamp
benefit termination in order to assist them in obtaining citizenship.
■ Aid kinship care providers of children in the dependency system in the Foster Care
program and not in TANF. Kinship care providers of non-dependent children at risk
of entering the dependency system should be aided up to a threshold income level.
■ The state should opt out of the federal TANF provision which precludes persons with
a prior felony drug offense conviction from eligibility for TANF benefits. In its place,
state policy should specify that individuals with felony drug convictions for possession
or use may only be eligible to TANF if they have successfully completed a drug
treatment program and are drug free or actively enrolled and fully complying.in a
clearly defined substance treatment program. This flexibility is necessary to assist
recovering adults to attain self-sufficiency and to provide for their children. Without
this option, increasing numbers of children will enter and remain in costly foster care.
BENEFITS AND BENEFIT STRUCTURE
Counties believe that all children must be guaranteed a minimum adequate level of care that
protects them from hunger, destitution and abuse. Specific benefit and benefit structure
recommendations are as follows:
■ Grants should continue to vary on family size at application, but should not increase
for additional children born while recipient is on aid, as per current law.
Page 2
January 19, 1997
DRAFT #3s
■ Income disregards should be simple and encourage work. Prospective income
disregards should be used to calculate grant adjustments quarterly. Provisions for
income loss adjustments and voluntary termination must be included for recipients
with very substantial changes in their income levels that occur between grant
recalculations.
■ Regional cost of living difference adjustments should be continued. California should
explore different options to improve the regional grant structure, such as a regional
shelter care allowance or other methods to account for regional differences.
■ Grant level differences based on "exempt" and "nonexempt" status under current
waivers would be eliminated.
■ Voucher, vendor, or third party payee systems must be flexible and discretionary at
the county level.
■ Recipients'ability to accumulate savings, such as for starting a business, purchasing
a home, or paying for education should be continued.
■ Grant levels do not change for recipients who do not get un-subsidized employment
and are placed in public service jobs.
■ A recipient who must accept a subsidized job due to expiration of their welfare-to
work period (see "welfare-to-work" section), would not be eligible for the earned
income credit or any income disregards.
WELFARE-TO-WORK SERVICES
California's wetfare-to-work system should be designed within the context of improving the state's
broader workforce development system. A system which serves all job seekers in California will be
inherently stronger than one which focuses solely on welfare recipients. Workforce development
system design should be integrated, customer-focused, performance-based and comprehensive.
With respect to welfare recipients, we recommend the following framework for moving recipients
from welfare to work:
Sfep One- Welfare Diversion
■ California's welfare-to-work system should be augmented with an up-front
diversion/prevention approach that would be county option, unless funded by the
state. Counties could design a variety of diversion approaches, such as the Utah
model, where applicants could opt to receive up to three months of a grant to resolve
the condition that led to the application for assistance. Recipients that choose this
option agree that they would not apply for assistance for three months. If they do
apply for assistance, they agree to repay the diversion "loan" over the next several
months. Counties could also develop diversion models where community-based
agencies that provide family support are funded to provide services to recipients who
choose to be diverted to the community-based agency in lieu of coming on
assistance.
Page 3
January 19, 1997
DRAFT #3s
■ All applicants will be required to immediately cooperate with family support agencies,
unless they demonstrate good cause not to, such as domestic violence.
Step Two - Initial Labor Market Test and Employability Assessments
■ Upon application, every non-deferred applicant (who does not opt for welfare
diversion) should participate in an initial labor market test consisting of employment
orientation and job search activities. Counties would have the flexibility to design
their individual up front labor market test approaches, such as job search, and on-
the-job training (OJT).
■ Full employability evaluations and employability case plans would be developed for
those applicants needing more intensive services and those unable to obtain
employment as a result of intake job search activities.
■ Counties could design the employability assessments for recipients who do not get
a job in the private sector through the initial up-front labor market test, but all
assessments must include some accounting of a minimum set of factors, such as
labor market experience, educational level, and local employment opportunities.
■ California should exercise its authority to opt out of the requirement for community
service after two months on aid, as it is inconsistent with the overall welfare-to-work
approach outlined herein. However, community service should be one of the optional
service components in a county's welfare-to-work system.
■ The following applicants would be excluded from the welfare-to-work process (though
they could volunteer):
a. Pregnant women in the third trimester;
b. Disabled and unable to work(medically verified);
C. Primary caregiver for someone who is disabled when caregiving precludes
other work;
d. Non-needy caretaker relatives;
e. Single parent families with children under age one (due to lack of affordable
infant care);
f. Victims of domestic violence when participation would be detrimental.
In addition, counties would have the authority to defer a specified additional
percentage of their caseload from the welfare-to-work process. This percentage
would vary by county based on demographic and local economic conditions.
Step Three - Welfare-to-Work Services-Executing the Employability Plans
■ Counties must have the maximum flexibility to provide both traditional (e.g., work
experience, community college training) non-traditional welfare-to-work services.
Non-traditional services might include provision of equipment necessary for self-
employment, repairs to an automobile necessary for employment, or transitional
support services, such as mental health and substance abuse treatment.
Page 4
January 19,1997
DRAFT #3s
■ The flow and mix of services should be a part of the recipients' employability plan.
State law should require that counties address certain minimally required
components in a county welfare-to-work plan (like the GAIN plan). State law should
NOT prescribe exactly how each county will address those components, nor should
the state dictate Flow and sequence of services.
■ Sanctions for non-compliance and non-cooperation should be immediate, sure,
predictable, and provide an opportunity for corrective action.
Step Four- Employment Retention Services
■ California's welfare-to-work system should provide for post-employment retention
services. Counties could address specific approaches in their Welfare-To-Workplan.
Provision of employment retention services would be a county option, unless it was
fully funded by the state.
■ Employment Retention services could include any legitimate activity necessary to
assist recipients in retaining employment, such as counseling, crisis intervention,
transportation assistance, additional job training, and child care assistance.
TIME LIMITS AND SUBSIDIZED WORK
Counties support the concept of time-limited welfare-to-work assistance as a means of
converting AFDC to a transitional, work-oriented program. Specifically, we recommend the
following:
■ All recipients who are not deferred (see prior section) and who do not find a job
through the initial labor market test will have a limited period of time to receive
welfare-to-work services that are specified in their employability plan. The length of
time for welfare-to-work services would be two years, with the option for the county
to extend services for another six months if it is likely to result in an un-subsidized
job.
■ Should a recipient not receive an un-subsidized job after his/her welfare-to- work
period, he/she will be placed in some type of subsidized work, which, when combined
with job search equals 40 hours per week. Subsidized work options would include
public work, sheltered workshops, grant diversion, community work experience, and,
OJT. These subsidized work options may also be components of the employability
plan prior to a time limit.
■ Recipients in subsidized work would not receive EITC or income disregards in order
to maintain incentives to find unsubsidized employment.
■ Recipients in subsidized work would periodically be required to engage in a job
search for un-subsidized employment.
Page 5
January 19, 1997
DRAFT #3s
■ Counties would have the ability to sanction recipients for failure to accept and
maintain an appropriate subsidized or un-subsidized job.
FOOD STAMPS
■ Counties meeting unemployment and job availability requirements may request that
the state seek a federal waiver exempting the county or areas within the county from
Food Stamp restrictions for single adults aged 18 to 50. If all requirements are met,
the state must submit the waiver request to USDA.
■ The state may initiate requests for waivers from Food Stamp eligibility restrictions for
counties that meet federal unemployment and job availability requirements without
first receiving a formal request from a county. If it is received, the counties must
implement the waiver.
■ Barring a statewide waiver, the state should provide funds for counties to offer
minimal workfare necessary for recipients to avoid the benefit cut-off.
TEENAGE PARENTS
Counties support a comprehensive case management approach for pregnant and parenting
teens, similar to Cal Learn and RFLP Programs. Given the effort that has been undertaken
to establish and implement Cal Learn, the state should opt to continue with the current Cal
Learn Program in lieu of the new federal requirements.
SAFETY NET
■ Counties strongly oppose further cost shifts to counties. Indigent assistance should
be included as part of a comprehensive state basic public support program. We
recommend that General Assistance (GA) become a state program with statewide
eligibility, grants and program structure. Ideally GAwouid be incorporated with TANF
to the fullest extent possible. All unemployables (GA and TANF) could be treated in
a similar fashion, preferably in a system other than the welfare system, such as a
state disability system. Employable GA recipients would be incorporated in the TANF
process for employable TANF recipients, though the benefit levels and available
service mix may differ based on whether the recipient has dependent children in the
household. Counties understand that such a system would require a county
contribution based on some percentage of past expenditures, However, such
contribution must be lower than current county spending levels. Counties could opt
to supplement grant levels or eligibility with county funds.
■ Given the large number of parolees on GA, the Corrections system should have the
responsibility for providing for the subsistence needs of indigent parolees for three
years after release.
Page 6
January 19,1997
DRAFT #3s
CHILD CARE
Counties recommend that the child care system should include broad state-set policy
parameters, which provide communities with local flexibility and control to operate the
programs. The system must respect parental choice and maintain, support and acknowledge
the multiple roles of child care including family self-sufficiency, child development, and child
safety. Finally, the system should ensure sufficient funding to meet the national and state
goals of welfare reform which should promote family self-sufficiency, protect children and
preserve families.
Elipfbie Families
■ Counties believe that universally available child care for low income families working
or seeking work is a critical component of successful welfare-to-work programs. All
TANF eligible recipients looking for work would receive subsidized child care, as
would all low income working families with incomes up to some threshold level, such
as 200 percent of poverty.
■ All families shall pay a fee based on a sliding scale based on income, indexed by
region per child, and paid directly to the provider.
■ If funding is not made available to support the system described above, the following
should be the method for localities to establishing priorities for service: Children in
the Child Protective Services(CPS)system should continue to be the first priority for
child care. Priority for the remaining families on the list should be determined locally
(see governance). Remaining eligible categories that would be prioritized locally
would be: (1) low-income families whose parents, caretaker, or legal guardian are
working or seeking work; (2) teen parents; (3) families that are experiencing short-
term crisis that is locally defined (i.e. avoidance of homelessness or medical
emergencies); (4) from low-income families whose parents, caretaker, or legal
guardian are engaged in approved activities leading to employment.
Governance
■ The local governing structure should be established through a joint agreement
between the County Boards of Supervisors and the County Boards of Education.
However, County Boards of Supervisors must have a primary role in establishing the
local governing process and increased authority in establishing priorities for child
care funding.
■ There should be established a local planning commission comprised of community
stakeholders who would have a broad-based advisory role. Counties could choose
to utilize an existing community advisory body that oversees family and children
policy issues. The local governing structure should be configured to minimize
conflicts of interest.
Page 7
January 19, 1997
DRAFT #3s
■ The local governing structure should have flexibility in the planning process as well
as in the prioritization of resources and resource development.
■ The state must provide funding for the administration of the local governing
structure.
Other Policies and Procedures
■ The application process should be kept as simple as possible and consistent
between programs. Statutes and regulations should be streamlined to create
efficiencies in the child care system.
■ CPS children should be served without regard to income but if the child is residing
with his/her parents, there should be a co-pay fee paid directly to the child care
provider.
■ If an absent parent exists, the custodial parent must register with family support.
■ The state should fund the ability of localities to develop voluntary training
opportunities for families in need of child care and for exempt providers.
PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION AND FUNDING
Successful conversion from an income maintenance system to a self-sufficiency system will
require redirection of a large portion of our current administrative resources. Counties will
need time to redirect their resources, re-engineer their business processes and retrain staff.
Conversion will require a phased-in implementation process that is commensurate with
viable resources and is based on realistic time lines.
In light of the tremendous changes involved, we recommend the following:
■ Counties are the presumptive deliverers of the TANF assistance system.
■ Counties may wish to contract out different aspects of their family self-sufficiency
systems, but with no state mandate. The state should not contract directly with
service providers. There should be no restrictions on county contracting with other
county agencies.
■ Regional administration should be permitted.
■ Income Assistance and welfare-to-work programs must continue to be funded based
on the workload demands placed on counties as a result of welfare reform.
■ Counties should have the flexibility to blend TANF and GAIN funding.
■ State legislation should create opportunities for demonstration programs. Counties
that are interested in rapidly moving to an outcome-based system in exchange for
additionally flexibility in program design and funding should have that option. The
Page 8
January 19, 1997
DRAFT #3s
specific outcomes that these counties would be accountable for would be mutually
negotiated between the state and the counties within parameters set in state law.
■ The state must continue its current commitment to state welfare automation,
including the expedited development of a statewide electronic system of delivering
benefits.
■ The state must re-engineer its policies and regulations across agencies and
departments and develop new, integrated approaches to oversight, auditing, and
allocation of resources to counties. The state must also develop the automated
capability to interface TANF data with CPS, child care, housing, and other human
services.
■ The state should meet at least 100 percent of TANF MOE in order to remain eligible
for the federal contingency fund. Maintaining at least the current level of state
spending is essential to ensure job creation resources and other services are
available.
■ County Boards of Supervisors must continue to have the flexibility to decide which
county department has responsibility for anti-fraud programs.
ABSENT PARENTSICHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
Absent parents should be required to support their children, and in the absence of that, be
required to participate in employment and community work programs in much the same way
we expect custodial parents to participate. We support the establishment of mandatory
guidelines for child support and court orders not only to set levels of financial support but
also to require community work and participation in employment programs for those absent
parents unable to pay support due to their unemployment. The activities would be funded
from additional child support collections they generate. Finally, we support sanctioning
parents for delinquent child support.
SUPPORT FOR THE WORKING POOR
Social service programs must be designed to support and encourage un-subsidized
employment rather than subsidized unemployment. it must be more lucrative to work than
to be on welfare, at all times, so that persons entering the system will always be able to
make the choice of work over welfare. The public policy goal of encouraging work must
ensure that full-time employment, at any level, will lift families out of welfare. The following
recommendations will help further these goals:
■ A State Earned Income Tax Credit - A state EITC should be created to move
California further to the goal that full time work at any wage provides an income
sufficient to lift one out of welfare. Initiatives need to be undertaken to provide
outreach and education as well as simplified methods for both employers and
employees to provide individuals with monthly advances of the EITC.
■ Medical Benefits - CWDA believes that health insurance programs should be made
Page 9
January 19, 1997
DRAFT #3s
available to families who work, up to a certain percentage of poverty, without regard
to deprivation requirements.
■ Child Care for all working poor families - discussed above.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
The ultimate success of a proposal to time-limit welfare hinges on our ability to transition
most recipients into un-subsidized employment. The strength of the economy and the
number of new jobs created for welfare recipients is critical to the success of time-limited
welfare. Regional variations in unemployment and available resources further compound the
challenge of achieving full employment.
■ State policy makers must examine ways to expand programs aimed at job creation,
which must include job creation for TANF recipients.
■ Local economic development practitioners must work closely with the evolving one-
stop career center systems (DTPA, EDD, GAIN, community colleges, etc.) to access
every possible incentive for business to hire TANF recipients.
■ Business development programs at the local and regional level must have additional
funding and capacity to meet the expectations of aggressive job creation for TANF
recipients.
Page 10
January 19,1997