1 / 17

National Innovations in CWS Funding: What’s Working?

National Innovations in CWS Funding: What’s Working?. Michael Lawler Co-Director, Center for Public Policy Research and Director, The Center for Human Services UC Davis Extension University of California, Davis. Study Methodology. Internet document review

pearl
Download Presentation

National Innovations in CWS Funding: What’s Working?

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. National Innovations in CWS Funding: What’s Working? Michael Lawler Co-Director, Center for Public Policy Research and Director, The Center for Human Services UC Davis Extension University of California, Davis

  2. Study Methodology • Internet document review • Telephone interviews with state and local agencies • Interviews with national experts • Data gathered Sep-Nov 2006

  3. Child Welfare Budget Methodologies in Selected States

  4. Texas • Reorganized and consolidated a number of human services • Using private contracts and new public programs to address CFSR • Basic CWS budget formation similar to California • Sixth highest child poverty rate in the US (23%)

  5. New York • Changes driven by consent decrees (Marisol cases) • Reduced caseloads, increased training, configured services by neighborhoods • Focus on prevention • 3 major CWS funding components: uncapped services reimbursement, foster care block grant, quality enhancement • Outcomes: Decrease in foster care, increase in adoptions • Moving toward incentive based funding in NYC

  6. Illinois • Major reductions in caseloads due to consent decrees and CFSR • Home of Relative Reform legislation to help pay for kin care rather than creating dependants • Focus on caseload reductions with some private contracts • Caseload standards: 15:1 for placement, 12:1 for investigations • Reduced number of foster children from 52,000 to 18,000 while steadily increasing CWS budget

  7. Minnesota • Strong reputation for innovation • Focusing on comprehensive assessment program to prevent maltreatment and placement • Sophisticated monitoring system similar to California • CFSR outcomes among the best

  8. Florida • Using private agencies to provide much of CWS • Low salaries and high caseloads leading to high turnover of CWS staff (30%) • Funding for state’s data reporting system has been suspended

  9. California strengths • Excellent quarterly monitoring system (CWS/CMS and UCB) • Relatively stable and educated workforce • 2030 standards for workloads • Hold harmless approach

  10. Summary of Fiscal Models • Wide variation across states • Changes driven by CFSRs • Not all states have county input • Some rely on competitive bidding • "Hold harmless" approach unique to California • Some states (e.g., New York) moving to incentives and outcome based budgeting

  11. Bottom line • All states want flexible funding to reward and support improved outcomes • Most states still use a caseload driven formula for budgeting • Jury is still out on private contracting and performance based budgeting

More Related