Funding Child Welfare Services

in California
Frank J. Mecca
Executive Director
County Welfare Directors Association of California

As Presented to the Child Welfare Council

April 14, 2008
Presentation Goals
Basic understanding of child
welfare services
Structure and funding
County role as broker of services
Challenges facing child welfare
services system
Options for overcoming these
challenges
What is Child Welfare
Services?
Child Welfare Services program vs.
system
Child Welfare- and Probation-
supervised children
Child Welfare Services program
includes:
Five Components: Hotline, Emergency
Response, Family Maintenance, Family
Reunification, Permanent Placement
Foster Care (a.k.a Out-of-Home Care)
Adoptions
Kin-GAP
Child Welfare Services
Funding
Total funding: $4.7 billion annually

County Funds
26%
$1.2 billion
$1.9 billion

$1.6 billion
Federal Funds
40%

State Funds
34%
Breakdown of Federal
Funding
Total federal funding: $1.9 billion annually

Title IV-B Other

4% 7%

TANF
9%

Title IV-E
80%
Rules for Federal Funds
What does it fund?
Fund Source
Open or Capped?
Out-of-Home Care Casework
Prevention, Early Intervention, and Post-Perma

Title IV-E Open YES YES NO

TANF Capped SOME SOME NO

Title IV-B Capped NO NO YES

Who Federal Funds Can Be
Used For
Title IV-E
Children must be in care or at imminent
risk (candidates)
Recent restrictions in federal candidacy
rules
Must meet income eligibility rules dating
back to 1996
Title IV-B
Small subset of funding may be used for:
Children not yet in foster care system
Children who have exited foster care
system
Role of Philanthropy
Provides at least $20 million each
year
Prevention, early intervention, post-
permanency
Differential Response
Family-to-Family Initiative
California Connected by 25
Guardian Scholars
Annual State Budget
Process
Three primary components
Out-of-Home Care Costs and Adoption
Subsidies
Case Management Services
Ancillary Services
State and county share non-federal
costs of program
Child Welfare Services: 70% state/30%
county
Foster Care: 40% state/60% county
Adoption Assistance: 75% state/25%
county
Kin-GAP: 50% state/50% county (no
Where the Money Goes
Ancillary
Services
7%

Case Management
Services
36%

Out-of-Home
Care
57%
Out-of-Home Care Costs
Caseload-driven and uncapped
Rates set in statute by type of
placement
Foster Family Homes and Relatives
Foster Family Agencies
Group Homes
Adoption Subsidies
Based on age of child and/or level
of care
No statutory COLA for payments to
caregivers
Case Management Services
Caseload-driven but capped
Caseload-per-worker “yardstick” for
each component
“Hold Harmless” and augmentation
Funds can be spent across
components
Based on cost per social worker
Case Management Services
(Cont.)
Cost per social worker
Based on 2001-02 costs per worker
Caseworker Ratios
Based on outdated caseload standard
SB 2030 Workload Study recommended
lower caseloads
SB 2030 Workload Study
Recommended Standard
Activity Existing Standard
Minimum Optimal

Hotline Staff 322.5 116.1 68.7

Emergency Response 15.8 13.03 9.88

Family Maintenance 34.97 14.18 10.15

Family
27.0 15.58 11.94
Reunification

Permanent Placement 54.0 23.69 16.42

Ancillary Services
Mostly small, categorical funds
Typically pass-through of federal funds or
state General Fund appropriations targeted
toward specific purposes
Examples include:
Kinship Supportive Services Program
(KSSP)
Child Abuse Prevention, Intervention and
Treatment (CAPIT)
CWS Outcome Improvement Project
Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF)
Services for emancipating youth (ILP, THP)
Child Welfare Services
System
System relies on many partner
agencies
Counties are both service
providers and brokers
Counties also purchase services
directly
(to much lesser extent and with
limited funding)
April’s Story
April’s Story
 April is 12, and has a brother, 6, and sister, 2,
all in foster care
 Her mom and dad get into lots of fights, and
her dad sometimes hurts her mom. Her mom is
depressed and angry a lot.
 Both of April’s parents use drugs. Her mom is
trying to get help with her drug problem. April’s
dad was arrested and is in jail.
 Mom couldn’t pay the rent on her own and lost
their apartment.
 The children are placed with their aunt. Their
aunt loves them, but gets stressed out trying to
care for them.
April’s Family Case Plan
April’s aunt is the out-of-home care
provider while CWS tries to reunify the
family
Help April with her learning disability
Address parents’ substance abuse issues
Secure mental health services for April and
her parents
Help April’s brother with his developmental
disability
Help April’s mother find safe, stable
housing and a job
Facilitate regular visitation between the
Common Services CWS
Brokers:
Substance abuse treatment for April’s
mother
Domestic violence services for her parents
Mental health services for April, her
siblings, mom and aunt
Education for April’s learning disability
Health care for the children
Regional Center services for April’s brother
Housing for the entire family
Employment assistance for April’s mother
Parenting and Anger Management classes
for April’s parents
Substance Abuse Services
CWS refers to county Alcohol and Drug
department
Limited entitlement through Medi-Cal
Limited funding for services
No statewide priority for CWS clients
Limited range of services
CWS also contracts directly with service
providers
Domestic Violence Services
No entitlement funding
Services through local community-based
organizations
Funded with fees on marriage licenses,
other minor sources
CWS pays any fees charged to perpetrator
Mental Health Services
For Foster Children
Entitlement to full-scope Medi-Cal
Includes medically necessary EPSDT
services
Assessments and therapy for diagnosed
conditions
Prevention/early intervention also provided
via:
Proposition 10 (for kids aged 0-5 and
families)
Proposition 63
Available Title IV-B/county overmatch, for
services not covered by Medi-Cal or not
Mental Health Services
For Parents
No entitlement unless parent is otherwise
Medi-Cal eligible
Can receive indirect services via child’s
treatment plan
Independent assessments (not via county
mental health)
Other options:
Prop 63 programs and SAMHSA grants
CalWORKs quasi-entitlement if in Welfare to
Work
CWS purchases with available Title IV-
Education Services
All children:
Entitlement to education
Entitlement to special education services
Foster children:
Right to remain in school of origin
Right to immediate enrollment in new school
Transfer of records within two business days
Ensuring Educational Access
Many foster children need:
IEPs for special education
Frequent transfer of records
Tutoring
Transportation to and from school
Access to education services has been a
major challenge
Foster Youth Services is very effective
model
Recent augmentation has helped
Not funded to fully serve every child who
could benefit
Health Care Services
For foster children
Entitled to full-scope Medi-Cal and EPSDT
Services through CHDP for regular exams,
preventive care
Public Health Nurses in child welfare and
probation agencies
For parents
Not entitled to Medi-Cal when children
removed
Must continue to meet eligibility
requirements on their own
Finding providers, particularly specialists, is
often a challenge
Regional Center Services
Entitlement for children with
developmental disability (or at risk if
aged 0-3)
Conduct intake and assessment for
services
Services driven by individualized plan
Regional Center purchases or secures
services not paid for by foster care
Children in both systems are called “dual
agency”
Lack of homes to serve these children
Out-of-home care (not services) paid with
Housing Services
Case plans often require parents to secure
“safe and stable” housing, but only limited
assistance is available
HUD programs (i.e., Section 8)
Eligibility based on income
Long waiting lists
No priority for CWS families
Involvement with CWS can undermine
housing assistance
CWS may pay first/last month’s rent and
security deposit for FR cases – if Title IV-
B/county overmatch available
Employment Services
Services (not grants) to families in both
CWS/CalWORKs:
Employment services and training
Substance Abuse treatment
Mental Health treatment
Domestic Violence services
Housing assistance (generally limited to once
in a lifetime)
Workforce Investment Act may be available
Federal grant, limited funding
Target populations (CWS families are not
targeted)
Challenges
Obsolete and inflexible federal funding
scheme
Federal funds focus on out-of-home
care, not services
High caseloads
Reliance on other systems with their
own priorities, funding limitations, and
accountability structures
Woeful lack of funding for prevention,
early intervention, and post-permanency
services
Possible Solutions
Title IV-E Waiver
Federal legislation
State options
Title IV-E Waiver
Five-year waiver in two counties (38
percent of CA caseload)
Allows flexible use of otherwise
inflexible funds
Prevention, early intervention, post-
permanency services ok
No eligibility requirements
Expected caseload reductions due to:
Fewer children entering system
Shorter stays
Less recidivism
Stable funding
Two percent annual increase in federal funds
Capped state funds for out-of-home care;
Two percent increase in state funds for case
Title IV-E Waiver
Rewards and Risks
Rewards
Stable funding with guaranteed modest
growth
Funds can be used for all children and for
all services
Savings due to lower caseload costs are
reinvested in system
Risks
No new federal dollars if caseloads
unexpectedly go up
No new federal dollars for policy changes
that increase costs
Pending Federal Legislation
 Invest in Kids Act (H.R. 5466, McDermott)
Removes the eligibility test for Title IV-E funds
Expands Title IV-E to include prevention, early
intervention, and post permanency services, and
Kin-GAP
Extends federal support for foster care to age 21
Provides $200 million to reduce social worker
caseloads
Some new costs would be offset by lower federal
sharing ratio
 Kinship Caregiver Support Act (H.R. 2188/S.
661)
Reps Davis and Johnson; Senators Clinton and
Snowe
Expands Title IV-E to include Kin-GAP
 Foster Care Continuing Opportunities Act (S.
State Options
Increase funding for child welfare services
Leverage private funds to bring successful
initiatives to scale
Prioritize foster children and families within
partner agencies
Align partner agencies’ accountability
systems with CWS
Questions/Discussion

Frank J. Mecca, Executive Director

County Welfare Directors Association
of California
(916) 443-1749
fmecca@cwda.org