1 / 42

Options for Allocating State Child Welfare Dollars to Wisconsin Counties

Options for Allocating State Child Welfare Dollars to Wisconsin Counties. Prepared for the Wisconsin Department of Children and Families Christine Durkin Adam Hartung Sara Kock Jennifer Russ Paul Waldhart. Problem.

hamlin
Download Presentation

Options for Allocating State Child Welfare Dollars to Wisconsin Counties

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Options for Allocating State Child Welfare Dollars to Wisconsin Counties Prepared for the Wisconsin Department of Children and Families Christine Durkin Adam Hartung Sara Kock Jennifer Russ Paul Waldhart

  2. Problem • Current formula may not match resources to need as effectively as it could • To form our alternatives: • Literature review • Surveys • Interviews • With other states • With Wisconsin counties

  3. Overview • Current policy • Alternatives • Recommendation • Cross-county collaboration

  4. Background • State supervised, county administered system • Differences in demand for services 10 Lowest Poverty Counties 10 Highest Poverty Counties

  5. Background • Funded with state and local dollars • Declining state revenues • Limiting property tax levy

  6. Current Policy In 1986, Wisconsin allocated child welfare money based on: • Total population • Residents enrolled in Medicaid • Property values State Child Welfare Dollars 2011 1986

  7. Alternatives • We examined two alternatives: • Risk Factor: More risk = More $ • Workload: More demonstrated need = More $ • We considered but eliminated: • Updating the current formula • Percent-For-Service: DCF reimburses counties a percentage of service costs • Performance-Based Contracting: DCF purchases outcomes, counties sell outcomes

  8. Alternative #1: Allocation based on Risk Factors Step 1 County need for child welfare services = β1Number of children in single parent families + β2Number of children living in poverty + ԑ(error) Step 2 County risk number = 0.33(Number of children in single-parent families in county) + 0.67(Number of children living in poverty in county) β1 / (β1+ β2) = 0.33 and β2 / (β1+ β2) = 0.67 0.33 + 0.67 = 100%

  9. Alternative #1: Allocation based on Risk Factors Step 1 County need for child welfare services = β1Number of children in single parent families + β2Number of children living in poverty + ԑ(error) Step 2 County risk number = 0.33(Number of children in single-parent families in county) + 0.67(Number of children living in poverty in county) Step 3 County allocation = (County risk number / Sum of risk numbers for all counties) x Total CFA funding available

  10. Alternative #1: Allocation based on Risk Factors Step 1 County need for child welfare services = β1Number of children in single parent families + β2Number of children living in poverty + ԑ(error) Step 2 532= 0.33 (400) + 0.67 (600) Step 3 $866,400= (532 / 35,000) x $57 million

  11. Alternative #2: Allocation based on Workload • More cases and/or more labor-intensive cases = More $ • Children’s Research Center developed a framework • DCF would: • Calculate time spent on each service area per case • Use eWiSACWIS to determine the number of cases • Calculate county workload (time per case x # of cases) • Allocate funds based on county’s proportion

  12. Goals • Effective • Matches need with resources • Minimal potential for cheating • Equitable • Measures need regularly • Equal spending per person

  13. Estimated County Allocation per Person, by Percent of County Population Living in Poverty CURRENT POLICY

  14. Estimated County Allocation per Person, by Percent of County Population Living in Poverty CURRENT POLICY RISK FACTOR FORMULA WORKLOAD METHOD

  15. Goals • Effective • Matches need with resources • Minimal potential for cheating • Equitable • Measures need regularly • Equal spending per person • Lower Additional Cost to DCF • Acceptable to Counties • Methodology • Magnitude of gains & losses • Number of gainers & losers

  16. Magnitude of Changes in County Allocation, by Percent of County Population Living in Poverty RISK FACTOR FORMULA WORKLOAD METHOD Highest Poverty Counties Lowest Poverty Counties Highest Poverty Counties Lowest Poverty Counties Percent of County Population Living in Poverty

  17. Changes in County Allocation, by Percent of County Population Living in Poverty RISK FACTOR FORMULA WORKLOAD METHOD Highest Poverty Counties Lowest Poverty Counties Highest Poverty Counties Lowest Poverty Counties Percent of County Population Living in Poverty Increased CFA Decreased CFA No Change in CFA

  18. Implementation Considerations • Leaky bucket • Receiving more state dollars may reduce county funding • County levy limits • Larger burden on counties who cannot raise revenue • Solution: “No harm” exemption • Large fiscal impacts on counties • Significant declines would be hard to absorb • Solution: Gradual implementation

  19. Recommendation • Risk Factor Formula • Effective: • Matches resources to need • Data manipulation unlikely • Equitable: • Updated yearly • Counties with similar poverty rates treated alike • Low additional cost to DCF • Counties likely will find it moderately acceptable

  20. County Interviews and Surveys In-person interviews with county Human Services Departments ● 2 small (Marquette and Richland) ● 3 medium (Dodge, Rock, and Sauk) ● 2 large (Milwaukee’s BMCW and Dane) On-line survey to all counties on cross-county collaborations for CPS ● 11 responses from across the state

  21. County Interviews and Surveys Four themes from counties The importance of block grants and flexibility The role of local decision-making Differences between BMCW and counties Constraints of state mandates

  22. Cross-County Collaborations • Suggestions for collaboration • High-Risk or Catastrophic Case Insurance Pool • Access and intake • Training • Foster care training for parents • Specialized and high-cost services • Use of teleconferencing for training

  23. Cross-County Collaborations • Some counties still won’t give up local control • Screen-in discretion • Out-of-county institutions • Debate over where to locate a new regional service hub or institution

  24. Cross-County Collaborations • How DCF can facilitate • “Lay the groundwork” for the first meeting • Provide information collected by DCF • Reduce or help navigate state mandates • If DCF provides new funds: • Help fund portions of specialized staff • Grants for start-up services/institutions for multi-county collaborations

  25. Cross-County Collaborations • Problems to avoid • Too many changes at once • Poor budgeting and unrealistic expectations • Lack of buy-in among stakeholders • Unaccountable governing bodies

  26. Conclusion • We explained: • CPS demands and funding • Two alternatives • Themes from county interviews and surveys • We recommend: • DCF adopt the Risk Factor Formula • DCF encourage and facilitate cross-county collaboration

  27. For further information Contact the La Follette School’s publications office at 608-263-7657 or publications@lafollette.wisc.edu Or see www.lafollette.wisc.edu/publications/workshops.html Thank you

  28. APPENDIX SLIDES

  29. Alternative #1

  30. Estimated County Allocation per Person Under Current Policy, by Percent of County Population Living in Poverty

  31. Estimated County Allocation per Person Under Risk Factor Formula, by Percent of County Population Living in Poverty

  32. Estimated County Allocation per Person Under Workload Method, by Percent of County Population Living in Poverty

  33. Magnitude of Changes in County Allocation using The Workload Method, by Percent of County Population Living in Poverty Lowest Poverty Counties Highest Poverty Counties Note: 1st quartile are those counties with highest levels of poverty

  34. Changes in County Allocation using Risk Factor Formula, by Percent of County Population Living in Poverty Highest Poverty Counties Lowest Poverty Counties Note: 1st quartile are those counties with highest levels of poverty

  35. Changes in County Allocation using Workload Method, by Percent of County Population Living in Poverty Lowest Poverty Counties Highest Poverty Counties Note: 1st quartile are those counties with highest levels of poverty

  36. Background • State supervised, county administered system • Differences in demand for services

  37. Background • Funded with state and local dollars • Declining state revenues • Limiting property tax levy

  38. Estimated County Allocation per Person, by Percent of County Population Living in Poverty CURRENT POLICY

  39. Estimated County Allocation per Person, by Percent of County Population Living in Poverty CURRENT POLICY RISK FACTOR FORMULA WORKLOAD METHOD

More Related