1 / 40

GREAT OAKS VILLAGE decision points 2012 ……. And Beyond

GREAT OAKS VILLAGE decision points 2012 ……. And Beyond. ORANGE County Commission MEETING FEBRUARY 21, 2012. Powered By. Great Oaks Village (GOV) Study Points. History of Great Oaks Village. 1888 - Orange County Parental Home conceived

uma-hodges
Download Presentation

GREAT OAKS VILLAGE decision points 2012 ……. And Beyond

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. GREAT OAKS VILLAGE decision points 2012…….And Beyond ORANGE County Commission MEETING FEBRUARY 21, 2012 Powered By

  2. Great Oaks Village (GOV)Study Points

  3. History of Great Oaks Village • 1888 - Orange County Parental Home conceived • 1921 - Florida Legislature created Orange County juvenile court • 1924 - Orange County Parental Home opened (GOV) – Average Population 24 • 1964 - Four additional cottages created • 1995 – Parental Home Commission name changed to Children and Family Services Board • 1996 - Florida Legislature mandated outsourcing of child welfare services (known in Florida as Community-Based Care) • 2003 - Proviso s. 409.1671, F.S. created • Since 2004 there has been a steady decline in GOV resident population • 2011 – GOV licensed for 72 residential beds, currently contracted for 60 beds

  4. Key findings

  5. Current Statuscontract Orange County directly contracts with the State of Florida (DCF) for Child Welfare Services No intermediary contract (CBCLA) as is typical for other providers of Child Welfare Services Contract Provisions in s. 409.1671 F.S. require • Must maintain 40 Licensed Residential Group Care Beds • Must annually contribute not less than $2M worth of County GR through providing child and family foster care services • GOV can only draw down the total contract value if it is100% occupied DCF Contract requires 60 beds

  6. FY 2010-11 • Maximum amount that can be earned thru the DCF contract is approx. $2.6M • The county’s financial investment of $2M is maximized to earn the $2.6 only when • 60 residential beds are operational • 100% utilization of beds • The actual operating cost for GOV was approximately $3.2M. • The actual amount earned through GOV/ residential services was approx. $1.3M • Leaving a financial shortfall of $1.9M for the county Current StatusFinancial

  7. Current StatusFinancial Orange County Government’s general revenue contribution to GOV has increased by more than 64% since FY 2008-2009.

  8. Trends in Residential Group Care Average Daily Census at GOV and Orange County Children In Group Care

  9. Trends in Residential Group Care NATIONAL FLORIDA

  10. Existing Capacity Unmet Community Needs Future Needs # of Placements by Type and Nearby Counties 12/21/2011

  11. Utilization of STAFF RESOURCEs: GOV compared to other Counties * 1.04 FTE/Contracted Bed FY 2011-12

  12. Utilization of STAFF RESOURCEs: GOV comPared to Private Sector * 1.04 FTE/Contracted Bed FY 2011-12

  13. Structure, Services and management Rejections/Denials Potential for GOV maximum reimbursement from the DCF contract : • Reduce rejections/denials • Amend admission policies • Strengthen program

  14. Benchmarking GOV w/ Other Government Operated Facilities (Limited data)

  15. Benchmarking: Other GOV Program Performance indicators

  16. Benchmarking: Sample Child Outcomes Needing comParison Data

  17. Assets, liabilities, and challenges

  18. Assets & Liabilities

  19. challenges • Extensive restructuring of current GOV operations, programming, and revenue maximization efforts • Operate within the budgetary allocation set forth by the DCF contract, without any supplemental GR contributions • Adopt national and state recognized foster care services “best practices” • Increase the level of internal collaborations to avoid turf guarding or isolated operations • Increase level of community engagement through nonresidential community-based services • Broadening the scope and influence of Child and Family Services Board

  20. Options for consideration

  21. Options for consideration

  22. OPTION 1Elimination of County Role in Great Oaks Village The first option relieves Orange County Government of operational and fiscal responsibility for dependency residential services. DCF and the local CBC lead agency would assume full responsibility for these services. Further, the county would relinquish its direct contract with DCF and not be in compliance with provisions set forth in s. 409.1671, F.S.

  23. ELIMINATION Of County Government Role

  24. OPTION 2 STATUS QUO-MAINTAIN CURRENT OPERATION, STRUCTURE, AND FINANCING OF GOV The second option continues the Orange County Government role of operational and fiscal responsibility for GOV Residential Group Care (RGC); thereby, continuing the current direct contractual relationship with DCF, including compliance with annual general revenue contribution of $2M.

  25. Status QUO

  26. OPTION 3 Re-engineering of County Operated Child Welfare Programs, Including GOV • This option presents several fiscal and operational alternatives. Great Oaks Village will remain a service option in Orange County (OCG/Privately operated). Fiscal and operations re-engineering options could include: • Lessening contribution of County General Revenue • Maintaining or amending current contract with DCF • Subcontracting for the services and subleasing the buildings • Reducing beds from 60 to 40 compliant with DCF contract • Modified DCF Contract: 60-40-20 Plan • Maximizing revenue; balance budget; reduce operational cost • Capturing an opportunity to re-purpose all resources to align with pressing community needs—homelessness, child welfare non-residential services, military families • Strengthening and integrating a fuller continuum of child welfare services

  27. Re-engineering of County Operated Child Welfare Programs, Including GOV

  28. Re-engineering of County Operated Child Welfare Programs, Including GOV

  29. ConsideringRE-ENGINEERING

  30. option 3 Re-Engineering Framework Orange County Government will continue to contribute the $2M in General Revenue expended for child welfare services to retain the DCF contract and the potential of $2.6M. Orange County Government and GOV will continue to support & provide quality services to children and families, including residential care. GOV must be structured and operated in a way that allows the County to provide support within reasonable fiscal limits.

  31. OPTION 3 Re-Engineering: Basic Strategies MAXIMIZING REVENUE • Increase utilization of GOV to meet the full $2.6M • Re-engineer residential services and /or structure to meet eligibility/requirements for other funding sources • Expand existing child and family services (non-residential) that are effective but less expensive to operate • Resource-sharing with other counties /programs/agencies REDUCING COSTS • Reduce GOV residential beds to a level that will: • Generate savings in staff coverage, food, utilities, etc. • Reinvest portion of savings in less costly non-residential services to keep number of children served intact • Decide whether to privatize • Look for other operational efficiencies-

  32. Potential benefits of re-engineering

  33. Potential BenefitBed Reduction Consider Modified DCF Contract 60-40-20 20 Beds X $115/Day X 365 Days = $839,500 (Redirected for Non-Residential Community-Based Services) • The Modified DCF Contract (60-40-20) would require amendment to existing DCF contract to allow a reduction from 60 beds to 40 beds. Revenue made available from this reduction of 20 beds would be redirected toward non-residential community based dependency services.

  34. Potential Benefitsavings plan; serving more children • Family and Youth Counseling • Specialized Case Management • In-home Services • Community Center for children who are “food insecure” • Adding a new population • Redirecting GOV cost savings toward specific populations where current capacity does not meet need (existing or new) • Short-term transitional living for former foster youth Reducing residential capacity and re-purposing some fixed residential operational funds to create less costly prevention/ diversion services will generate savings .

  35. Potential BenefitREVENUEMAXIMIZATION • Community Behavioral Health Provider | BHOS–Child Welfare Provider • TriCare (Military Families) • Role Expansion of Children and Family Services Board (CFSB) • Creation of Endowment • Medicaid • Public and Private Grants • GOV Center of Excellence Concept While Revenue Maximization opportunities can be explored for the Status Quo and Re-engineering Options, it is more likely that re-purposing some residential funds to create new services will generate more funding,

  36. Potential Benefitnew opportunities to lead Create a Center of Excellence • Develop formal consortium relationships w/state and local colleges and universities • Learning environment /conduct research—what works and what doesn’t • Create specialized training and technical support for system stakeholders • Specific training and technical support for foster/adoptive parent s • Develop service capacity to support military children and families • Develop relations w/national child welfare organizations • Identify best practices for dissemination • Exporting/replication of successful services

  37. Potential BenefitRole Expansion of theChildren and Family Services board • Amend county ordinance to allow CFSB role expansion • 501 (c)(3) status transforms current board dynamics from OCG appointed status to self-contained organization w/compensated professional staff • Hire professional executive staff (development director, grant writers, etc.). These positions will be funded with revenue generated by the CFSB. • Create and manage GOV endowment fund (initial goal: $1.3m) • Lead GOV service brand development across all GOV service areas • Equally support GOV residential and non-residential community-based services

  38. summary

  39. Options for consideration

  40. Questions & Answers

More Related