Santa Cruz County Grand Jury
• 2005-2006
The Welfare of Child Welfare: Comparison of Budgets Synopsis
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 7 findings
F1
The State of California determines a minimum total CWS budget for each county. Some factors that influence the total minimum budget are: • number of children served; • cost to employ qualified social workers (as determined by the state); and • state ratios for number of social workers to children in need of services. Of this minimum required budget, the state contributes 70 percent and mandates that counties contribute 30 percent as a county share of the total CWS budget. Monies contributed by counties to their CWS budgets above the minimum required share are supplemented by other monies from state and federal sources. The resulting increased budget may not reflect the 70:30 budget contribution ratio. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
Some counties supplement their CWS budget with additional state, federal and other monies. Santa Cruz County CWS has been able to access some of these funds. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
In 2002-2003, Santa Cruz County overmatched the required minimum share of the CWS budget by $696,152. In 2003-2004, Santa Cruz County overmatched the required share of the minimum CWS budget by $718,541. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Santa Cruz County Human Resources Agency personnel, along with the Board of Supervisors, should be commended for overmatching the required share of the County of Santa Cruz CWS budget. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. The County appreciates and concurs with the Grand Jury’s commendation.
F4
CWS budgets, county shares of these budgets, number of active cases and budget-to- child ratios vary from county to county. Fiscal Year 2002- Fiscal Year 2003- 2003 2004 Santa Cruz County Population: 251,584 Number of Active Cases 687 809 Total CWS Budget $8,246,650 $9,002,816 County Share Budget $1,538,957 $1,497,975 Total Budget Per Child $12,004 $11,128 County Share Budget Per Child $2,240 $1,852 County A Population: 246, 073 Number of Active Cases 470 391 Total CWS Budget $3,917,501 $4,778,564 County Share Budget $701,473 $967,956 Total Budget Per Child $8,335 $12,221 County Share Budget Per Child $1,493 $2,476 County B Population: 1,678,421 Number of Active Cases 5,638 5,242 Total CWS Budget $202,603,417 $214,665,827 County Share Budget $56,017,081 $52,586,883 Total Budget Per Child $35,936 $40,951 County Share Budget Per Child $9,936 $10,032 County C Population: 697,456 Number of Active Cases 1,175 1,216 Total CWS Budget $29,555,012 $31,736,859 County Share Budget $5,346,921 $7,453,884 Total Budget Per Child $25,153 $26,099 County Share Budget Per Child $4,551 $6,130 County D Population: 131,607 Number of Active Cases 251 227 Total CWS Budget $8,523,987 $8,275,200 County Share Budget $779,255 $820,399 Total Budget Per Child $33,960 $36,455 County Share Budget Per Child $3,105 $3,614 Note: The total CWS budget number includes the 30 percent county share of the minimum budget, the 70 percent state share of the minimum budget and all additional county, state, federal and other dollars contributed to the CWS budget regardless of source. The populations of each county are 2003 US Census Bureau estimates.1 Table 1: Child Welfare Services Dollars Per Child Comparison. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. In comparing the budgets across counties, it is important to keep in mind that there is significant variation from county to county in the amount of revenue available from taxes, fees and other county-specific sources to supplement the state’s allocation for CWS.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
The Grand Jury also researched information from the UC Berkeley “Point in Time” studies found on the UC Berkeley web site. This information, although very thorough in reporting data by children’s ages, caseloads of social workers and numbers of children in each category, is derived from the data of a single given day for each quarter.2 Conclusions
No recommendations for this finding
F6
Compared to other counties, Santa Cruz County CWS has less funds available to serve an increasing number of active cases.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
The County of Santa Cruz should explore other options for obtaining additional money to supplement Child Welfare Services funds. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. The recommendation has been implemented. The HRA budget approved by the Board of Supervisors in June 2005 provided for the addition of five new social work positions, a social work supervisor, and a program manager to the Family and Children’s Services Division. HRA, in collaboration with public and private agency partners, regularly explores various options for obtaining additional money to supplement CWS funds. For example, in FY 2004/05, HRA collaborated with the Health Services Agency Alcohol and Drug Program to apply successfully for approximately $100,000 of state funds to operate a Dependency Drug Court program to provide specialized services to alcohol and drug-abusing parents of children under age 5 who are in out-of-home placement due to parental neglect or abuse. In the first quarter of FY 2005/06, HRA has applied for nearly $1 million in State Child Welfare Services Outcome Improvement funds, and $1.9 million in federal funds under the Abandoned Infants Act to provide specialized prevention/early intervention services to substance-abusing families with young children. The Board of Supervisors and HRA are committed to improving and enhancing services to Santa Cruz County’s families and children, and will continue to work together to seek out opportunities to do so.
F7
The UC Berkeley “Point in Time” studies do not reflect an annualized number of children served which the Grand Jury believes were needed for this budget analysis.
No recommendations for this finding
Conclusions 7
-
CL1 Page 6Compared to other counties, Santa Cruz County CWS has less funds available to serve an increasing number of active cases.
-
CL2 Page 6The UC Berkeley “Point in Time” studies do not reflect an annualized number of children served which the Grand Jury believes were needed for this budget analysis.
-
CL3 Page 5The County of Santa Cruz has contributed more than the required county share to the CWS budget for fiscal years 2002-2003 and 2003-2004, resulting in additional total CWS budget dollars.
-
CL4 Page 5For fiscal year 2002-2003, Santa Cruz County CWS had significantly less total money budgeted than three of the four counties studied and more budgeted than the fourth county in comparison to the number of active cases. 1 California Quick Facts, from US Census Bureau web site, http://quickfacts.census.gov. 2 Child Welfare Services Reports for California, from University of California at Berkeley Center for Social Services Research web site, http://cssr.berkeley.edu/CWSCMSreports/.
-
CL5 Page 6For fiscal year 2003-2004, Santa Cruz County CWS had less total money budgeted than the four counties in comparison to the number of active cases.
-
CL6 Page 5For fiscal year 2002-2003, Santa Cruz County CWS had less county share money budgeted than three of the four counties studied and more budgeted than the fourth county in comparison to the number of active cases.
-
CL7 Page 6For fiscal year 2003-2004, Santa Cruz County CWS had less county share money budgeted than the four counties in comparison to the number of active cases.
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Santa Cruz County
County