1 / 19

Department of Human Services

Department of Human Services. FY 2012 FY 2011 Amended Budget Considerations. DHS FY 2012 Budget Discussion. Where we are How we got here Where we are going. Budget Cycle Current Focus. Closing FY 2010 Budget Final allotment cut $894,929 state funds (last two weeks)

lbullock
Download Presentation

Department of Human Services

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. Department of Human Services FY 2012 FY 2011 Amended Budget Considerations

  2. DHS FY 2012 Budget Discussion • Where we are • How we got here • Where we are going

  3. Budget Cycle Current Focus • Closing FY 2010 Budget • Final allotment cut $894,929 state funds (last two weeks) • Starting FY 2011 Budget Year • Budgets loaded into system • Operations beginning at reduced levels • Preparing FY 2012 and FY 2011 Amended budget request • Due Sept 1 • No budget instructions from OPB to-date, but expect prior cuts to be rolled into FY 2012

  4. DHS Budget HistoryState Funds • FY 2010 Original Budget $509,461,256 FY 2010 Reductions 7% (35,885,863) FY 2010 Amended $473,575,393 • FY 2011 • Statewide Adjustments 6,233,243 • Additional Reductions (3,860,567) FY 2011 Original Budget $475,948,069

  5. FY 2012 Focus • Maintain current funding level • Additional cuts could seriously impact core services

  6. Budget Prioritizations to make cuts in FY2010 Amended and FY2011 • Must Do • Services required by Statute, rule, regulation, grant or contractual obligation • Consent Decrees • Should Do • Service beyond minimum requirements of Must do – Social obligations • Strategic initiatives to achieve DHS organizational goals • Legislative intent • Nice to Do • Other initiatives supporting DHS mission and social obligations

  7. Actions Taken • Cut Travel not related to client services or required for core business functions • Restricted office supplies • Renegotiated contracts for better rates • Reduced contracts for services • Reduced Office Space • Shift to on-line and in-house training • Eliminated Nice to Do and Should Do Services • Employee Furloughs and restricted hiring • Eliminated Employee annual salary increases

  8. Funding issues FY 2011 impacting FY 2012 request • State funding required for TANF maintenance of effort (MOE) is at minimum level • Relying on external sources • Aging MOE is near minimum level • TANF program funding has been maximized wherever possible (no more reserves) • Child Support at minimum state participation level

  9. TANF MOE Estimates • DHS Program • After School $28,000,000 • Child Support 3,216,117 • Child Welfare 48,259,890 • Child Care 22,182,651 • Family Violence 4,483,171 • Out of Home Care 24,239,774 • SNF – Work 3,577,658 • Total DHS Programs $133,959,231 • External Sources – Current Estimate • OFC School Readiness Pre-K DECAL $5,716,231 • OFC School Readiness Pre-K Trans. 753,622 • DTAE-Technical Education 1,024,125 • DTAE-Hope Scholars 149,640 • Atlanta Food Bank 24,100,000 • MOE from CCI Donations 7,000,000 • Total External Sources $38,744,425 • Total Estimated MOE $172,703,656 • Required TANF MOE 173,368,527 • Difference to be identified $ (664,871)

  10. Child Support Required Participation

  11. Need to Maintain Performance • Federal and court ordered - required performance standards • Child Welfare • CFSR Safety, Permanency, Well-being • CFSR PIP - 9 negotiated indicators with financial penalty if not met • Kenny A Consent Decree • Eligibility Programs • Food Stamp error rate • Medicaid, food stamp, child care and TANF eligibility application timeliness • TANF work participation rate • Elderly protection • Child Support

  12. FY 2012 Need to Maintain Current Funding • Down to core business functions - Must Do’s (no discretionary funding left) • Additional cuts could impact federal participation (MOE and match) • Risk: Lose more than would be saved • Risk: Lose whole program funding in Aging • Reduced staffing could result in financial penalties related to performance • Impact to clients

  13. Potential Funding Deficit • Child Support Services loss of ARRA funding will need to be replaced • Food Stamp Administration loss of one time federal support • Statewide loss of ARRA FMAP Rate must be addressed (statewide issue)

  14. Business Case ExampleFederal Eligibility Program • Eligibility Program Funding • Food Stamps - 50% state 50% federal • Medicaid - 50% state 50% federal • TANF - 100% federal • Service level change • Food Stamp eligibility increased with no new state funds • Medicaid eligibility increased with no new state funds • TANF Clients eligibility stable • Workload shift = shift in funding mix of state and federal funds • Results - $14 million deficit in state funds for eligibility programs (FY 2011). • Funded with one time federal supplemental and incentive funds • If trend continues in FY 2011 and 2012 state funding is inadequate.

More Related