On Wednesday, April 8, the Senate Committee on Health, Human Services and Housing heard from Ralph McQuarter of the Department of Human Services (DHS) and Jim Koppel, Assistant Commissioner of Child and Family Services at DHS, on proposed child protection funding formulas that are based on recommendations from the Governor’s Task Force on the Protection of Children. If you are interested in listening to the audio, download it here or here (in your browser)—it begins around the 1 hour mark.

Overview

There were 2 funding formulas put forth in Wednesday’s hearing. One focused on child protection staffing while the other focused on service needs related to child protection. Both were the result of the Task Force recommendations, and both are related to Senate File 4, which will be heard in the Health and Human Services Budget Division of the Senate Finance Committee on Friday, April 10. Assistant Commissioner Koppel stated that the formula related to staffing is supported by the Governor’s supplemental budget, while the formula related to services is separate. Senator Sheran said that the second formula’s absence in the Governor’s supplemental budget does not mean that it will not get funded in the end.

Specifically, the child protection funding formulas would allocate $22 million over the next year for staffing at the county level and $10 million for services. Senator Sheran also pointed out that the Governor proposed an additional $3 million for disparity reduction special projects, which is not reflected in the child protection funding formulas.

How will the funding be allocated?

Both funding formulas look at the potential pool of children in each county as 3 (sometimes overlapping) groups:

  1. The pool of children within each county who may come into contact with child protection (essentially, the number of children residing in a county)
  2. The somewhat smaller pool of children who make it through the intake process
  3. The much smaller pool of children who have open child protection cases

For both formulas, the allocation is broken down according to these three groups as follows:

  • 50% of the allocation would be based on the number of children in the county; in this sense, counties with larger child populations will have more funding.
  • 25% of the allocation would be based on how many screened-in reports of child maltreatment there were according to the most recent data.
  • The remaining 25% would be based on how many open child protection case management cases there were in the county, again according to the most recent data.

In developing these formulas, there was a concern that smaller counties would not get enough funding to do their work. Thus, there is a guaranteed floor included within each funding formula. Under the staffing formula, no county would get less than $75,000 (McQuarter estimated that about 30 counties would benefit as a result). According to McQuarter, this number represents at least one whole worker who would be able to do the work expected as a result of the Task Force recommendations. For the services formula, the guaranteed floor is $30,000 with an estimated 26 counties benefiting.

When will counties receive funding?

For both funding formulas, counties would receive 80% of their full allocation up front in order to begin providing staffing and services to families. The remaining 20% would be received once the state has determined that the county has met its goals.

For staffing, the county must show that workers have made timely face-to-face contacts and monthly visits to children and youth in foster care and those receiving child protective services while residing in their homes. Eventually, the allocation would be based on outcome measures rather than performance measures: rather than counting the number of visits to a home, the state would look at whether or not kids are doing better as a result of the interventions. This change in measurement would take place in the Human Services Performance Management System.

For services, the county must show that they have expanded services based on the recommendations from the Task Force. There is no performance measure here; rather, there is an expectation of greater engagement by all child protection workers (intake, screening, ongoing, supervisors, etc.). Counties who do not meet the services requirement will see their remaining 20% go toward counties who are meeting the requirement.

No Supplantation

Both funding formulas also clearly state that the funds allocated under these formulas cannot be used for any other purposes. McQuarter stated that this was a very specific feature that the resources workgroup in the Task Force wanted to include. Thus, funds allocated under these two formulas would only be able to be used for adding staff to carry out Task Force recommendations and for services needed as a result of the Task Force recommendations.

For the services formula, there is a subdivision that provides examples of eligible services that fall under the purview of the formula. In addition to such services as family-based counseling, individual counseling, family assessment response, respite care, transportation, and mental health screening, the subdivision also states that funds can be used to move children involved in child protection off of waiting lists for services such as Head Start and child care that will help stabilize the child and family.

Funding Based on Investigations?

Senator Jeff Hayden expressed concern about allocating funding based on investigations over number of reports. He wondered if such a formula might create a “perverse incentive” where there would be a potential for counties to encourage more investigations in order to receive more funding, rather than more screenings to make sure counties are broadening their nets. McQuarter responded that the formula “reflects the intention” of the Task Force, who were concerned that there was not enough county engagement and who wanted to make sure that more child protection work was happening.