Online Webinar – November 19, 2009 at 10:00 am Presented by the John Burton Foundation Call-in...
-
Upload
brenda-edwards -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Online Webinar – November 19, 2009 at 10:00 am Presented by the John Burton Foundation Call-in...
Online Webinar – November 19, 2009 at 10:00 amPresented by the
John Burton Foundation
Call-in phone number for live audio: 916-233-3087
Access code: 412-707-592
Managing the Cut to THP-Plus: Getting the Most Out of Your Allocation
Webinar Technical Details
• Call-in phone number for live audio: 916-233-3087; Access code: 412-707-592
• To submit live questions, click on the “Question and Answer” arrow on your screen, type your question, and click “Send.”
Outline of Presentation
• Summary of Recent Cuts to THP-Plus Budget
• How THP-Plus Allocations are Determined
• THP-Plus Allocations and Spending by County
• Responsibly Managing the Cuts to THP-Plus
• County and Provider Case Studies
• Preventing Further Cuts to THP-Plus
• Q and A
Today’s Presenters
• Amy Lemley, John Burton Foundation
• Michele Byrnes, John Burton Foundation
• John Murray, San Francisco County
• Sam Cobbs, First Place for Youth
Summary of Recent Cuts to THP-Plus Budget
• $5 million cut included in legislature’s June budget
• Additional $169,000 cut included in the $80 million Child Welfare Services reduction
• THP-Plus budget for FY 2009-10 stands at $35.7 million, with a risk of being cut further in the January 2010 Governor’s budget
Why will there be more cutsto THP-Plus??
• Numerous cuts have been enjoined:
– 10% rate cut to group homes
– In Home Supportive Services
• Additional cuts will need to be made; under-spent programs most vulnerable
How Are Allocations Determined?
• California Department of Social Services (CDSS) develops the THP-Plus allocation based on the final budget
• THP-Plus budget is likely to be reduced if the allocation the year prior went under-spent
THP-Plus Draft Allocation vs. Spending for FY 09-10Amount under spent in red
THP-Plus Draft Allocation vs. Spending for FY 09-10Amount under spent in red, amount over spent in green
Responsibly Managing the Budget Cuts
1. Find out how much your county has claimed to date
• Does it accurately reflect claims submitted?
2. Recalculate the program’s monthly census target based on the remaining allocation
• Requires extensive communication between county and providers
Responsibly Managing the Budget Cuts (con’t)
• The best way to manage the budget cut is closely monitoring the program’s monthly census
• If program is under-spent, increase monthly census
• If program is over-spent, gradually decrease monthly census by not filling all vacant slots
• Freezing all intakes is not necessary, and will lead to under-spending, under-claiming, and likely budget cuts
Example #1: Under-Spending County
• County X has an allocation of $480,000, a target monthly census of 20, and a rate of $2,000 monthly.
• As of 8/31/09, $50,000 has been claimed, or 63% of prorated allocation
• $430,000 remains for the final 10 months
• $430,000 / $2,000 rate / 10 months = 21 or 22 participants on average
• To spend full allocation, County X should be serving one or two more participants monthly than their “approved bed” count
Example #2: Over-Spending County
• County Y has an allocation of $1,000,000, a target monthly census of 33, and a rate of $2,500 monthly.
• As of 8/31/09, $215,000 has been claimed, or 129% of prorated allocation
• $785,000 remains for the final 10 months
• $785,000 / $2,500 rate / 10 months = 31 participants on average
• County Y should gradually reduce intakes until monthly census reaches an average of 31
• Allocation and census should be monitored and adjusted regularly
County Case Study: San Francisco County
• Examine monthly census reports from providers
• Encourage providers to invoice on a regular basis
• Project THP-Plus spending based on current and previous claims
• Compare claims to maximum allocation
• Identify necessary cuts
– Cuts will be made through attrition
– Based on provider performance
Provider Case Study: First Place for Youth
• At 100% capacity in all counties with THP-Plus contract, so need to reduce total capacity
• In one county, contract modified to reflect reduction• Not freezing intakes
– Doesn’t reduce fixed costs (staff, rented unit) without additional cuts
– Difficult to get back up to capacity when budget improves
• Gradually reducing monthly census as necessary by closely monitoring budget
Preventing Future Cuts to THP-Plus
• All providers should submit invoices for services on a monthly basis to their counties
• All counties should file claims on a monthly basis with CDSS
• All claims must be submitted within the current fiscal year to be claimed against the current FY allocation
Project Updates
Questions you can answer about your program:• What is the average wage gain?• New Report, “Too Big to Ignore: Youth
Homelessness in California” released 11/10
• Homeless Youth Capacity Building Project web seminar 12/9/09 at 10:00 a.m.
• Policy briefing podcasts available at www.johnburtonfoundation.org/media.htm
Questions or comments?
Enter questions on your screen now by clicking the “Question and Answer” arrow, typing your question, and clicking “Send.”
Or direct later questions or comments to:
Amy LemleyJohn Burton Foundation
(415) [email protected]
Michele ByrnesJohn Burton Foundation
(415) [email protected]