FAADS Workgroup Agenda Wednesday January 11th Room 300, 9:30am – 12:30 & Room 1125 12:30 – 3:30pm

9:30 – 10:00 General Housekeeping – Introductions of attendees.

 Getting organized, select a chair (s), membership, backups/alternates, communication

Background explanations - Last May discussions began about how to restructure the FAADS workgroup. It was decided that the group would break into the five CWS regions and select four representatives from each to participate in a morning work session with State staff. No one person wanted chair – taking minutes was an issue. Steve Rodriguez took the lead and the group decided to have 4 chairpersons each with a specific set of duties so that no one person was over burdened. State staff had major changes to discuss with FAADS and other meetings were often in conflict. The work group also had lots of sub-subcommittees. It became evident that half days not enough time to address the issues. The workgroup is now doing full day. Organizational structure – Are regions working? Northern has been meeting and discussing who to send to FAADS. Central Valley meeting regularly – sharing is good. These two groups have been meeting for years. No group meetings in the Bay or Southern area. Some counties are changing personnel or rotating who they send to the meetings. This is a working group and constant change in personnel causes lack of consistency and being able to get the work done. Does this work? Now that the group is smaller a chair is needed. Can we go back to one chair person? What to do with afternoon session? FAADS needs to suggest to Fiscal what will work and what work we can do. Some counties are not happy with lack of information coming back or feel there is no avenue for input. Full sets of minutes and handouts will be given. Can others give input at fiscal? FAADS is still in fact finding mode. This group is only for making recommendations; policy etc is to be done at fiscal. We will be moving forward. Can we some how give proactive heads up to counties about what the workgroup is going to be looking at? Only two regions meet and share so those that do not get together feel left out. Some people are calling members of FAADS to get their questions to the workgroup. Report out needs to be done by more people and needs to be more of a discussion and not just a report. People are feeling a loss of what is going on. FAADS needs to be asking fiscal what issues are to be pursued. Need to take recommendations to them. May need to give short summary of discussion around issue and then present recommendation.

10:00 -12:00 State joined the group. Introductions

 Child Welfare Services - Review of Data with CDSS Staff. Continuation of November Discussion

Last meeting the methodology was discussed. Questions? Data source – how do you get these reports? Comes from CWS/CMS. Reports used are SOC 291, FCI561, FMGT12, FRXDUR – some one in the counties should have these. Handout from Sacramento County on codes used for reporting direct costs. O’s are codes gathered from an initial list, check marks are codes gathered from survey from others counties, smilies in red are additions by the State, yellow highlights(or shaded) are new and not from any other list. Complete list of PIN codes on back side of sheet. If state is not pulling all the expenses associated with each type of code, then state is missing some of the costs. State to look into why they are not using all the codes. Counties want to discuss further – want to look at reports.

 Federal Fund Sources, IV-E,

Question regarding recent CFL changing training in CWS to 145? Feds want all training to go to one code so that enhanced funding can be utilized for all training. State has combined what codes they can. Is code 155 for non IV-E training? Need clarification on codes for non- investigative training. CFL changed 170 to 513 – but training issues not addressed. The thought is that training is all IV-E as it covers what is and is not IV-E eligible. If only a small portion of the training is about what is not IV-E eligible then all of the training can be IV-E.

Questions on funding for EA – Can the data be changed from two years actual to current data? Estimates uses the prior complete Fiscal Year. Allocation comes from different source. Prior fiscal year is used as current December quarter data is not available for May calculations. Using 04-05 data to calculate 06-07 is the most current data available. State starts pulling data in October.

Question – third bullet – Will direct costs grow at same level as justified FTE growth? FTE growth has been at zero yet costs are going up. The growth should be more county specific. Need to think about how to apply direct costs. Need to look at most current 4 quarters of costs not any specific type of year (fiscal vs. calendar). CWS costs are growing yet this method does not keep up. Two years prior would be diluting the data. Has any one looked at cost trends? State is excluding some TOE numbers – why? Or where do those TOE’s go? Maybe counties need to look at what costs are being claimed to what TOE code. State will find out why some codes are excluded. Terri Concellos volunteered to look at the trend. Estimates calculates the direct cost numbers and feeds the information to Allocations. Total state wide directs are distributed based on FTE’s not on county specific data. It has been done this way for years. Counties need to be consistent on how direct charging is to be done. Need to see the numbers before any decisions can be made. FAADS needs to know that all reported costs are being put somewhere in the budget. Fully loaded costs are tied to old PCAB. There is a need to get directs right so it can be more to actual. Sacramento County has list of what TOE codes are being used. Each county needs to look at how they code operating expenses.

 EA – Hotline shift – investigation activities unallowable for IV-E Survey sent out asking counties about spending in CWS hotline area to help in developing the budget numbers for EA and IV-E. State does not want to impact counties negatively. Asking counties about what activities are IV-E eligible and what codes they are claiming to, in efforts to help split the money. No separate code for investigation versus other activities. Some are IV-E and some are TANF. State has added additional TANF costs in EA for FY 05-06 and 06-07. Difference in funding is IV-E has Federal discount rate and TANF does not. State has done some shifting. CFAP wants to send out a new allocation letter. Survey to counties to help decide how to allocate the additional funds. Must do soon so counties have time to use the money. . State does not have claim data to work with so the survey sent only to a few counties. Now all counties will be asked to do the survey. Surveys will go out next week to remaining counties and will be due back to the state in February. Allocation letter may be out by April. This is not enough time for counties to deal with it. State was asked if it can be done in close out? Each county impact is different. Each county would show what percentage of cases are TANF and IV-E then state will set up allocations by county based on percentages. CWS is getting 40M – 39m of which is for the hotline shift. This money has come from performance incentives. FAADS concern is that this could cost counties more money. Having this change late in the year can cause over spending of county share. Feds have forced the change. As long as bottom line allocation does not change, just the funding source we should be ok. Close out shift would be ok if we are assured that we will be made whole. State making shift for first quarter, all of IV-E disallowance is being covered with TANF. State wants counties to think about their issues and impacts – let them know through the survey. Close out seems to be the best way to go instead of a revised allocation in fear that the allocations may not be enough. FY05-06 is more of a concern now not FY06-07. Will use the data for both FY’s. TANF is limited so the shift to CWS is coming from CalWORKs? Donna to take the question back. How does this effect PI and TANF overall?

 IV-B Part 1 is services, part 2 is PSSF. Budget has capped allocation and SGF dollars. This has stayed the same. Fed has been decreasing this over the years but it is increasing now. Increase at Federal level is not known how it will affect California. Most counties spend all of this in first quarter.  Title XX, - State says the money will stay the same.

 CAPIT What is state doing?? Now part of normal allocation process. Child Abuse activities and prevention is main focus of the allocation. New methodology not yet created. It was agreed last year that it needed to be looked at for FY06-07. This is the State’s version of the Federal CAPTA money.

 PSSF Decrease again for FY06-07. Tied in with food stamp eligible population at the federal level. This does not make sense to do it that way, especially in California where we have a high immigrant population. State to address in the future. Allocation is 50% based on population of age 0-17 and 50% on children at poverty level.

Chafee money out by end of month. ETV is tiny. Giving only to counties that spend it. FY 06- 07 majority is going back to education for distribution.

Adoptions - New adoption money – CWDA or program? No discussions yet. 11.2m for improving adoption outcomes. Will discuss in February. Adoption counties have an old performance agreement with the state. State will try to find it.

AB1412 – expansion of AB408 activities. Caseload of kids in certain age group, 10 and older. Methodology is a combination of age and type of placement. As of March each year the child must be 10 or older and in a group home for a minimum of 6 months.

Rosales v Thompson – Very few cases shifted from Foster Care to CalWORKs. But there was a substantial shift from State only to Federal. Fed’s are planning reverse the decision. Want to go from one point and forward, not to go retro. Only 500 cases state wide were shifted from CalWORKs to Foster Care.

Kinship – on solid ground with relative approval process. Admin is being taken care of in the calculation of discount rate. CWS/OIP Problem between plan submitted in grant application and allocation split of funding sources. State does not want any roll over money and will work with the counties to formulate how they can properly spent the allocated funding while meeting state and federal requirements. Fiscal policy to work with counties to identify activities that can be claimed. Counties want a clean split in how plan fits with the money. CWDA has asked for retro claiming. State will allow this in supplemental claim for the first quarter of FY05-06. Can counties be made whole at close out? State said yes, but can not switch funding sources. There is a recognize dilemma within PSSF in that regular PSSF and PSSF given for the OIP project are claimed to the same code so no distinction is made in the expenditures. Program looked at plans and decided on the funding sources. Information on retro claiming to come. Need to tell counties to call state – use it or loose it money.

 Budget update State is taking back child care money in CalWORKs. Mid year augment (shadow allocation) money not yet out – via survey 25m stays in place. State wants statewide survey to allow counties to rethink their decision regarding the augmentation, based on this child care cut. How are we going to know what each county is getting in CC cut? Discussion did not yield and answer. SB1104 money is what they are taking back. CC reserve is still in place. CC is under spent 8% by end of first quarter based on history. 11.5m set aside can be spent in this year. Taking performance incentives to make sure we do not go above MOE. Legislation says they can not take PI back. State would back it out of each county based on what is available at the state level (to cover state share).

 Claiming and Accounting Issues – Ramon Lopez and Didi Okimoto No show – Allocations stated that planning and augmentation letters not going out until the numbers are final. Planning allocations will go out but not showing in claim until it is final. CWS/OIP was added to PSSF as part of the allocation. Just a timing issue. Would this cause any shifts? Will it shift back when the new money comes in? This should be Ok.

 Ledgers and future allocation augments – not discussed, carried forward.

 Current turnaround times for the audit and payments and the incorrect AA190s. – not discussed, carried forward.

 EDP pages of the CEC, specifically the M&O – not discussed, carried forward.

 Review of matrix and next steps – Onita, Terrie, Maile, Wendy Heather and Michael from state here to go over what Santa Cruz put together. Want this to be a working document. Data collection period needs to say what it pertains to – estimates or allocations. Do we want PIN codes in it? Is the methodology based on current or historical. How do we show anomalies? Changes done in the middle of the year, ie type of caseload being used, causes problems in changing allocations. Should be what is currently being used as this document is meant to help counties know what the state is doing. Maybe do foot notes as to when changes are made. Some changes are eased into because of some drastic shifts in what caseloads are being used. Yearly changes based on allocation letters. Need to show what fiscal year this matrix is for. Proposed changes can be bulleted for future planning purposes. #7 for example – group home monthly – gives probation more money. Note: This method changed FY05-06 and will change to 50-50 in Fy06-07. Same with kingap. ILP – 18-21 data not used. Data for 15-18 age group comes only from meds. Chaffee money – new leg says you will do after care if requested. 18-21 only used to allocate Chaffee money. Any additional money would be dist based on caseload. There is a floor, MBA for smalls, then rest is done on caseload. Aid codes in MEDS is foster care kids in age group. Adoptions – allocation – unit cost is from FTE updated each year? State get back as to when the unit cost was calculated. Allocation is directly from estimates – county specific – based on prior FY not most current 4 quarters. Only fed ratio is being updated. #7 Estimates uses caseload from CWS/CMS not the claim exp. Projection of assistance claims payments, CA 800, is what estimates uses to divide the caseload and build the estimate with the caseload data. CA 800’s has the breakout. State to give us wording on how the numbers are pulled. #8 A –Outstanding issue with direct charges. L - PQCR for CWS has fixed amount for travel only. Unit cost to percent to total of what is left after taking out travel. State wants to cover all travel exp knowing that there is not enough money to cover all expenses. Estimates use unit costs from PCAB done for CWS for 01/02 not from claim. Other programs using PCAB is 00/01.J has no data collection period. FTE level is the hold harmless level or justified which ever is higher. K uses CMS cases, 15 min per case and 1778 hrs per year to get cost per hour (unit cost).

Chaffee going away also.

Kin-gap is gone is 06-07. Becoming part of the main CWS.

#14 – is subject to grant.

19A -Anything using CA 237 is calendar year (page 5). SD is most recent 4q. Admin also most recent 4q. EBT Admin – not known – Michelle will know. Rosales is line 8a for calendar year. #4 Is county specific same as estimate. Allocations does not do the calculation, estimates does it.

QRPB – being reviewed. They are taking money but we may get it back.

Food Stamp – PA to NA shift. Terrie – Handout reflects statewide numbers. Under reporting of CalWORKS because of the shift being done at close out. This money not showing is hurting us in terms of what leg sees. State wide over match needs to be brought up to the single allocation to show how much is actually spent. State legislators are missing this part when they do the budget, based on our under spending. Moe shift is causing loss of funding. Need to walk the state through this to help show what is being done now and how it should be done so funding is not lost. Scenario 2 state would have to put in more SGF. #3 State would need to increase TANF. Setting up conf call with Nolaa, Graham, etc.

2:30 – 3:30 UCD Training – Do we want more from them? If yes…what? Wrap-up and organization from the a.m. What to do about Best Practices/Training Sessions? How often – once a quarter? How would topics be selected? Who would be responsible for putting together?

Having different people report out was not good. Report only items that are not on the Fiscal agenda. The matrix is a big piece of training for some. Then do a training around it. Hand it out one month and discuss later. May come back in June to discuss with rest of fiscal people after they have had time to look at it and have questions – ask fiscal. Training related materials can be posted on CWDA web site. People want what handouts FAADS gets. Report out is synopsis of the minutes. Report out ones to be highlighted. To be a discussion. Monica to be the person to give info. Consensus of the group was to stay as is for now and continue to discuss based on what others say at fiscal.