The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 06131995 - 1.33 i TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 1 3 5 L" Contra Phil Batchelor, County Administrator Costa FROM: i x; � z County � Zy DATE: June 8, 1995 r�`r+"raua SUBJECT: FEDERAL SOCIAL SERVICE BLOCK GRANT LEGISLATION SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION: OPPOSE inclusion of Social Security Act Title IV-E and IV-A funding in the pending Federal Social Service Block Grant legislation. In the event that is not possible, at least urge that Emergency Assistance be moved into Title II of. the Block Grant. BACKGROUND: ❑ The United States Congress is currently_ considering Social Service Block Grant legislation. ❑ The Probation Department is substantially funded through reimbursements from the current Title IV-A and Title IV-E of the Social Security Act for the services it provides to children. ❑ Emergency Assistance is a child welfare program which is a part of Title IV-A. ❑ Currently, Emergency Assistance is an open-ended entitlement program which requires a 50% local match. ❑ Emergency Assistance is currently a very flexible program where each State has wide latitude to define the programs for which Emergency Assistance will be used. ❑ Emergency Assistance is proposed to be placed in Title I of the new Social Service Block Grant. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: -RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURES : ACTION OF BOARD ON Tune 1995 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 'June 13, 1995 Contact: PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF cc: County Administrator UPE SORS AND COUNTY ADMI BATOR County Probation Officer y DEPUTY IL _ 3 3 -2- ❑ If Title IV-A and Title IV-E are left in the Social Service Block Grant, it is entirely likely that the funds will be cut, the programs themselves will disappear and the funds will be sent to the States in a block grant which the States will control . ❑ Title IV-A and Title IV-E currently fund about 18% of the Probation Department' s budget. ❑ The new Title I freezes funding levels for programs at the Federal. 1994 fiscal year level . ❑ By contrast, the new Title II of the Social Service Block Grant calls for a two-year maintenance of effort in funding. ❑ The current Title IV-E Child Welfare funds are proposed to be placed in Title II of the new Social Service Block Grant. ❑ In the 1994 Federal Fiscal Year, California used $155 million in Emergency Assistance funds . ❑ In the current [ 1995] Federal Fiscal Year it is estimated that California will use some $185 million in Emergency Assistance funds and that by the year 2000, California will be using $289 million in Emergency Assistance funds annually. ❑ Based on current levels of growth, it is estimated that in five years California will have lost $517 million in Emergency Assistance funds by having the funds capped at the 1994 expenditure levels . The County Probation Officer urges that the Board of Supervisors adopt a position opposing the inclusion of Title IV-A and Title IV- E programs in the Social Service Block Grant at all . If that position proves not to be acceptable, Emergency Assistance should at least be moved from Title I to Title II so the funding level is at least maintained at the current level for a two-year period. Both Supervisor Bishop and Supervisor DeSaulnier have asked that staff place this item before the Board as soon as possible. This office concurs with the Probation Officer' s position and we are, therefore, recommending that the Board of Supervisors adopt the position recommended above. TEL No . Jun 1 ,95 15=58 No .006 P .01 Post4t-brand fax 1ransrr Mal memo 7671 ax paper► , �,,.. _� ,f ]BOARD► OF SUPERVISORS ca CONTR.A,,COSTA CO •X a-Pt. Phan Y (' FOX I rYY GAYLE BISHOP 3lPEflY190R,1HIRD OlSfiilGT TO: Claude Van Marter FROM: Patricia A. Rosenberg ` DATE: June 1, 1445 RE: ]Letter from Gerald Buck,& Action Alert-Senate Bill 1290 Per the followiing letter from Gerald Buck,Gayle is asking that you expedite the County taking an active position on this issue. Gayle is interested in the Board's-supporting SB1290 (Tom Hayden). Please agendize SB1290 as an "S" item for board discussion for a fixture Board meeting. 71hank you in advance for your attention to these issues. 18 CROW CANYON COURT 8120 - SAN RAMON,CALIFORNIA 94583-1868 • TELEPHONE(510)820$683 • FACSIMILE(510)820-6627 Probation Department C�11t1'a Gerald S. Buck } County Probation Officer Administrative Offices Costa 50 Douglas Drive,Suite 201 v Martinez,California 94553-8500 County S (510)313-4180 (510)313-4191 FAX s•.•..._ May 15, 1995 n` CONTRA COSTA COUNTY a=�-... S RECEIVED ST'4 COUtl'�, Phil Batchelor; MAY 1 71995 k County Administrator 651 Pine Street, 11th Floor OFFICE OF Martinez, CA 94553 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RE: Federal Revenues/Block Grant Funding/Title IV-E and IV-A Dear Phil, As you know, Congress and, in particular, the Senate is currently _ considering Social Services Block Grant legislation. As you also know, Probation is substantially funded via reimbursements from Title IV-A and IV-E of the Social Security Act for our services to children. These funding sources are currently uncapped entitlements . If the block -grant legislation is enacted, these programs will cease to exist, funds will go to .the State and will be capped and controlled by the State. Should this occur, you may be reasonably certain our revenue stream will either dry up or disappear, leaving about 180 of the Probation Department ' s budget unfunded. Emergency Assistance (Title IV-A) is a child welfare program which is only 7% the size of AFDC and 10 the size of Medicaid. In California, however, $517 million is at stake, $140 million of which comes to- County. Probation Departments . Title I of the block grant bill freezes funding levels to FFY 94 amounts, but California could absorb all of Emergency Assistance funds into AFDC leaving nothing for Probation. In Title II of the block grant bill Child Welfare Services call for a two year maintenance of effort . Title IV-E programs are in Title II, but Emergency Assistance isnot at present . I strongly urge Contra Costa to take an active advocacy position against inclusion of Title IV-E and IV-A in the block grant bill at all, but short of that, advocate moving Emergency Assistance into Title II . Phil Batchelor May 15, 1995 Page 2 I 've enclosed a data fact sheet compiled by the Institute of Human Services Management for your information. Please suggest to the Board of Supervisors that they write to California' s Senators and Congressmen urging their support to save Title IV-E and IV-A from being absorbed and lost as a resource for children' s services at the County level . Sincerely, GERALD S . BUCK COUNTY PROBATION OFFICER GSB:ds Enclosure CC: Members, Board of Supervisors Clerk of the Board C. Van Marter Bob Hoffman, Acting Director, SSD j12/bgfund.wp WHY TITLE IV-A EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE SHOULD NOT BE BLOCK-GRANTED ✓ Since 1992 Emergency Assistance (EA) has become primarily a child welfare program. It is a critical part of the children's safety net in 44 States. ✓ Block-granting the EA program at 1994 levels will destroy significant recent innovations in many States and plans in others to re-target EA from natural disasters to emergencies occasioned by child abuse/ neglect, domestic violence, and family crises. ✓ Stave need for EA will grow if primary support programs are curtailed (AFDC, Food Stamps, Housing Support, Energy Assistance). ✓ EA has proven to be a critical safety-net program during state and county fiscal crises. ✓ EA is already as flexible as a block grant; States define: What emergencies are covered What clients are covered What services/ assistance are provided. ✓ Coverage is already limited to one episode per year. ✓ EA has an incentive for state fiscal control: a 50% match is required for all assistance, services, and administration. ✓ The federal EA program is relatively small, only 7% the size of AFDC, only 1% the size of Medicaid. STATES SHOULD URGE CONGRESS TO RETAIN THIS CRITICAL, FLEXIBLE, SAFETY-NET PROGRAM IN ITS CURRENT FORM. EFFECTS OF BLOCK GRANTING EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE • Block grants are proposed at "capped" levels lower than projected expenditures under current law. • If EA is capped at the 1994 level, States will lose $2.3 Billion in federal EA funds by FY 2000. NEW YORK will lose $1.2 :Billion in federal EA funding. CALIFORNIA will lose $517 Million in federal EA funding. INDIANA and MASSACHUSETTS will each lose over $50 Million in federal EA funding. ARIZONA, COLORADO, CONNECTICUT, D.C., GEORGIA, ILLINOIS, KANSAS, MICHIGAN, MISSOURI, and NEW JERSEY will each lose between $20 Million and $50 Million in federal EA funding. SIX OTHER STATES will lose more than $10 Million each, and TWENTY MORE STATES will lose between $1 Million and $10 Million. * Assumes each State's share is proportional to its FFY 1994 share. Total EA Program is projected to grow to $1.3 Billion in FFY 2000. TITLE IV-A EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE IS A CRITICAL CHILD WELFARE PROGRAM ■ 44 States use Emergency Assistance for costs of care and services to abused and neglected children: ALABAMA KENTUCKY OHIO AREZONA LOUISIANA OKLAHOMA ARKANSAS MARYLAND OREGON CALIFORNIA MASSACHUSETTS PENNSYLVANIA COLORADO MICHIGAN RHODE ISLAND CONNECTICUT MINNESOTA SO. CAROLINA DISTRICT OF C. MISSOURI SOUTH DAKOTA DELAWARE MONTANA TENNESSEE FLORIDA NEBRASKA TEXAS GEORGIA NEVADA UTAH HAWAII NEW HAMPSHIRE WASHINGTON IDAHO NEW JERSEY WEST VIRGINIA ILLINOIS NEW MEXICO WYOMING INDIANA NEW YORK KANSAS NORTH CAROLINA NORTH DAKOTA ■ Since 1992 most growth in EA has been associated with child weli:are, including foster care and family preservation services. ■ 19 States use Emergency Assistance for domestic violence and other family crises. , States ■ 12 States use Emergency Assistance for juvenile services. ■ 29 States use Emergency Assistance for housing emergencies and natural disasters. ■ 12 States use Emergency Assistance for health, mental health, injury, and accident emergencies. SOURCE: Federally-approved State EA Plans as of December 1994. .Illy v`') r "r HOW STATES USE EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE EFFECTIVE: * EMERGENCIES: * AL 12-1-93 AM J * A Child Abuse/ AR NA * Neglect AZ 10-1-93 A H >J Y AR 1-1-93 AM >J * AM Ch Abuse/Neg' CA 10-1-93 AM J >►L * Missouri CO 10-1-93 AM J L * Model CT 10-1-93 A H V M DC 7-1-93 A H. F Y * D Death DE 1-1-94 A H >J F Y M >►L * i FL 1-1-93 AM H N * F Family GA 4-1-92 A H F Y U M Z * Crisis HI 3-15-94 AM ID 10-1-93 A h * H Housing IL 10-1-93 A H N F V * Homeless IN 7-1-93 AM IA NA >AM >J * I Illness RA 4-1-93 AM H N V * Injury RY 3-1-94 AM J LA 7-1-94 AM >J * J Juvenile ME 10-1-93 H N F Y M * Justice MD 1-1-93 AM H N F Y MA 9-24=93 A H N * L Mental MI 10-1-91 A H N Y U D Z * Health MN 10-1-93 A H N >J D MS NA * M Medical MO 10-1-92 AM >►I, MT 7-1-93 A H N J F Y D I * N Natural/ NE 7-1-93 AM H * Civil NV 4-1-94 AM * Disaster NH 1-1-94 A 'H Y NJ 4-18-94 A H N F V * U Unemployment NM 2-17-94 A NY 10-1-82 A H N >J F I * V Domestic NC 1-01-95 AM J * Violence ND 1-1-94 AM J OR 10-1-85 A H N F * Y utilities OR 1-1-94 A H N J F U D I * Appliances OR 4-1-93 AM H N F Y V Z PA 4-1-94 AM J F U * Z Health PR 10-1-82 N. F Y M Z * Hazards RI 1-1-93 AM SC 10-1-92 A SD 4-1-93 AM >J TN 1-1-94 AM J I, * > (Planned) TX 1-1-94 AM IIT 10-1-93 AM H J VT 1-1-83 H N F U M D VA 10-1-82 >AM N >J U VI 12-1-84 N U WA 7-1-94 AM H J F V WV 7-1-93 A H N F Y V M *' WI 8-12-93 H N Y V WY 7-1-92 AM * STATES USING: 46 26 20 21 17 13 8 7 7 6 5 4 3 * SOURCES: State Plans obtained 12/94 under Freedom of Information Act. Some Plans updated through IHSM contact with individual States. Planned changes as reported in APIWA/CSSP survey 9/94. EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE: LOSSES IN FEDERAL FUNDS (in $Millions) ASSUMES FUNDING FROZEN AT EACH STATE'S LEVEL IN. FFY 1994 94-% 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 5YR TOT AL 0.54% 1.49 2.17 2.65 2.98 3.25 12.54 AR 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AZ 0.97% 2.68 3.90 4.78 5.36 5.84 22.57 AR 0.22% 0.61 0.89 1.09 1.23 1.34 5.17 CA 22.24% 61.44 89.45 109.47 122.81 133.93 517.09 CO 1.85% 5.11 7.44 9.10 10.21 11.14 42.99 CT 1.37$ 3.78 5.50 6.73 7.55 8.23 31.79 DE 0.04% 0.11 0.16 0.20 0.22 0.24 0.92 DC 1.15% 3.18 4.64 5.67 6.37 6.94 26.81 FL 0.81% 2.24 3.26 3.99 4.47 4.88 18.83 GA 1.06% 2.93 4.26 5.22 5.85 6.38 24.64 HI 0.04% 0.11 0.16 0.20 0.22 0.24 0.93 ID 0.33% 0.92 1.34 1.64 1.84 2.01 7.74 IL 1.68% 4.63 6.74 8.25 9.25 10.09 38.96 IN 2.87% 7.93 11.55 14.13 15.85 17.28 66.74 IA 0.13% 0.35 0.51 0.62 0.70 0.76 2.93 KA 0.87% 2.40 3.50 4.28 4.80 5.23 20.21 RY 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 LA 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ME 0.11% 0.30 0.44 0.54 0.61 0.66 2.56 MD 0.73vd 2.02 2.94 3.60 4.03 4.40 16.99 MA 2.73% 7.54 10.98 13.44 15.07 16.44 63.46 MI 0.88% 2.44 3.55 4.34 4.87 5.31 20.50 MN 1.09% 3.02 4.39 5.37 6.03 6.57 25.38 MS 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MO 1.08% 2.99 4.35 5.32 5.97 6.51 25.14 MT 0.03% 0.08 0.11 0.14 0.15 0.17 0.64 NE 0.07% 0.18 0.26 0.32 0.36 0.39 1.52 NV 0.05% 0.13 0.19 0.24 0.27 0.29 1.12 NH 0.08$ 0.23 0.34 0.42 0.47 0.51 1.96 NJ 1.44% 3.99 5.80 7.10 7.97 8.69 33.55 NM 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NY 51.165 141.36 205.82 251.87 282.56 308.14 1,189.75 NC 0.57% 1.58 2.30 2.81 3.16 3.44 13.29 ND 0.12% 0.34 0.50 0.61 0.68 0.74 2.87 OH 0.55% 1.53 2.22 2.72 3.05 3.33 12.85 OK 0.07% 0.20 0.30 0.36 0.41 0.44 1.71 OR 0.46% 1.28 1.87 2.28 2.56 2.80 10.79 PA 0.41% 1.14 1.66 2.03 2.28 2.48 9.58 PR 0.01% 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.29 RI 0.14% 0.40 0.58 0.71 0.80 0.87 3.35 Sc 0.06% 0.15 0.22 0.27 0.31 0.33 1.29 SD 0.11% 0.32 0.46 0.56 0.63 0.69 2.66 TN 0.148 0.38 0.55 0.67 0.76 0.83 3.19 TX 0.25% 0.70 1.02 1.24 1.40 1.52 5.88 IIT 0.03% 0.09 0.13 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.76 VT 0.07% 0.19 0.28 0.34 0.38 0.42 1.61 VI 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 VA 0.01% 0.01 0.02 0.03 0'.03 0.03 0.12 WA 0.42% 1.15 1.68 2.05 2.30 2.51 9.69 WV 0.40 1.10 1.60 1.96 2.19 2.39 9.24 WI 0.24% 0.66 0.97 1.18 1.33 1.45 5.59 WY 0.31% 0.86 1.25 1.53 1.72 1.88 7.25 GUAM 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL 100.00$ 276.29 402.29 492.29 552.29 602.29 2,325.47 EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE: FEDERAL $ IN 000'S - E'ROJECTED FROM 1994 SHARES ACTUAL PROJ PROD PROD PROD PROJ PROJ 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 AL 3,762 4,507 5,252 5,932 6,417 6,741 7,010 AR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AZ 6,771 8,111 9,452 10,675 11,548 12,130 12,615 AR 1,552 1,859 2,166 2,446 2,646 2,780 2,891 CA 155,142 185,861 216,579 244,597 264,609 277,951 289,069 CO 12,899 15,454 18,008 20,337 22,001 23,110 24,035 CT 9,538 11,426 13,315 15,037 16,268 17,088 17,772 DE 278 332 387 438 473 497 517 DC 8,042 9,635 11,227 12,680 13,717 14,409 14,985 FL 5,650 6,769 7,887 8,908 9,637 10,122 10,527 GA 7,392 8,856 10,320 11,655 12,608 13,244 13,774 HI 278 333 388 439 474 498 518 ID 2,324 2,784 3,244 3,664 3,963 4,163 4,330 IL 11,689 14,004 16,318 18,429 19,937 20,942 21,780 IN 20,023 23,987 27,952 31,568 34,151 35,873 37,308 IA 879 1,053 1,227 1,386 1,499 1,575 1,638 RA 6,062 7,263 8,463 9,558 10,340 10,861 11,296 KY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ME 769 921 1,073 1,212 1,311 1,378 1,433 MD 5,097 6,107 7,116 8,036 8,694 9,132 9,497 MA 19,041 22,811 26,581 30,020 32,476 34,114 35,478 MI 6,152 7,370 8,588 9,699 10,492 11,021 11,462 MN 7,615: 9,122 10,630 12,005 12,987 13,642 14,188 MS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MO 7,542 9,036 10,529 11,891 12,864 13,513 14,053 MT 193 231 270 305 329 346 360 NE 456 546 636 719 777 817 849 NV 337 404 471 532 575 604 629 NH 589 706 823 929 1,005 1,056 1,098 NJ 10,067 12,061 14,054 15,872 17,171 18,036 18,758 NM 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 NY 356,958 427,636 498,315 562,778 608,824 639,521 665,102 NC 3,988 4,778 5,568 6,288 6,802 7,145 7,431 ND 861 1,032 1,203 1,358 1,469 1,543 1,605 OH 3,854 4,617 5,381 6,077 6,574 6,905 7,181 OR 514 615 717 810 876 920 957 OR 3,238 3,879 4,521 5,105 5,523 5,802 6,034 PA 2,875 3,444 4,013 4,532 . 4,903 5,150 5,356 PR 86 103 120 135 146 154 160 RI 1,006 1,205 1,404 1,585 1,715 1,802 1,874 SC 387 463 540 610 660 693 721 SD 799 958 1,116 1,260 1,363 . 1,432 1,489 TN 957 1,146 1,335 1,508 1,631 1,714 1,782 TX 1,764 2,114 2,463 2,782 3,009 3,161 3,288 IIT 227 272 317 358 388 407 424 VT 482 577 672 759 822 863 898 VI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 VA 36 43 50 57 62 65 67 WA 2,908 3,484 4,059 4,584 4,959 5,210 5,418 WV 2,772 3,321 3,870 4,371 4,729 4,967 5,166 WI 1,678 2,010 2,342 2,645 2,862 3,006 3,126 WY 2,174 2,605 3,035 3,428 3,709 3,896 4,051 GUAM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 697,707 835,853 974,000 1,100,000 1,190,000 1,250,000 1,300,000 L. PCHIEF PROBATION OFFICERS of CALIFORNIA May 12, 1995 Senator Barbara Boxer 1700 Montgomery Street, Suite 240 San Francisco, CA. 94111 Dear Senator Boxer: The Chief Probation Officers of California are extremely concerned about the possibility that funds currently received through the Social Security Act under Title IV-A Emergency Assistance and Title N-E Foster Care will be lost to individual counties, shou!d these two entitlement programs be absorbed into the block grant concept for administration through State government. Currently, all California Probation Departments receive emergency assistance and foster-care funds in order to support vital juvenile justice programs. California Probation Departments suffered massive reductions over the last several years, and serious juvenile crime has increased. Title iV-A and iV-E funding have allowed most probation departments to continue vital juvenile programs and, at the same time, retain much-needed adult probation activities. Without this funding, each probation department. would be forced to make choices between juvenile and adult programs in an environment where both activities are under-funded and should not be pitted one against the other. If Probation Department programs are to continue to provide substantive activities as partners in the criminal justice system, they need to be supported now more than ever. The Chief Probation Officers of California need your support in one of two ways. First, if at all possible, we would ask that Title iV-A and IV-E Programs be exempted from the block grant concept. This would allow revenue to continue to the individual probation departments, as they are able to justify individual claiming for appropriate programs. Without this revenue, California Probation Departments will be forced to severely curtail juvenile justice programs. If it is not possible to exempt Title IV-A and N-E Programs from the block grants, we would ask your assistance in attempting to move the Title IV-A entitlement program for Emergency Assistance into Title li of the Personal Responsibility Act. It is our understanding that currently, Title IV-A is being considered for placement under Title I of the Personal Responsibility Act. This would severely limit revenue available to California Probation Departments, whereas Title 11 of the Personal Responsibility Act would allow for a gradual increase over several years. Senator Barbara Boxer -2- May 12, 1995 1 cannot impress upon you strongly enough the potential negative impact of these issues to California Probation Departments. Timing could not be worse, in that as local funding continues to diminish to support juvenile justice programs, the possibility of losing Federal revenue, which had allowed local probation departments to maintain some credibility in juvenile activities, will be the final blow toward making the juvenile justice system in California a "paper tiger." On behalf of the Chief Probation Officers of California, let me thank you in advance for your consideration of our concerns. Should you need more specific information or clarification of our issues, please do not hesitate to contact me. I, and or any Chief Probation Officer in the State of California, will be available to you for information and clarification as needed. This is an extremely important issue for us, and we are hopeful that your interventions will have a positive outcome. Very truly yours, Gene A. Roh President Chief Probation Officers of California GAR:mk cc: Chief Probation Officers of California