Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Years of neglect precede failed fee hike vote
Next Post: Not much of a warning shot
Posted in:
* The DCFS personnel budget has been cut by $27 million, but making those reductions won’t be easy…
The proposed spending plan, which is awaiting action by the governor, will force the agency to reduce its 2,961 workers by 375.
But, because DCFS is operating under a 1991 court order that requires certain caseload levels for each employee, they cannot simply cut caseworkers.
Instead, the agency is looking at ending grants to social service agencies that provide assistance to troubled families. Officials also are investigating whether to curtail grants for child abuse prevention programs.
* The other side of the coin…
Nancy Ronquillo, president and CEO of the Children’s Home and Aid, a Chicago-based organization that contracts with DCFS to provide programs for troubled families throughout the state, said the reductions now could end up costing the state a lot more down the road.
As an example, she said counseling and support services that can help keep a child out of foster care are much less expensive that putting a child into foster care. […]
She said other programs potentially on the chopping block include six crisis nurseries that serve as safe havens for babies whose parents are struggling to overcome poverty, drugs or sexual abuse.
“All these reductions could result in either more children in foster care or more children in dangerous situations,” Ronquillo said.
Discuss.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Jun 18, 12 @ 9:38 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Years of neglect precede failed fee hike vote
Next Post: Not much of a warning shot
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
We’ve spent 40 years shifting the personal tax burden in this country from the very rich, to everyone else — at the same time as shifts in business taxation and regulation have interacted with personal tax changes and globalization to break the long-standing connection between productivity and pay, with the chiefs’ pay galloping ahead of productivity while the Indians, so to speak, are producing twice as much as 40 years ago for slightly less money. The end result is people are working more and harder for less pay, and receiving far less from government, all while tax cuts have been overwhelmingly concentrated at the top and barely taken place at all for the bottom 80 percent.
This is what gets you the kind of tax revolts that lead to crushing and destructive decisions like this one. But barring some pretty dramatic policy change at the federal level, I don’t really see any way out of it.
Following President Obama’s proposal to cancel the Bush tax cuts on earnings beyond the 250,000th dollar, but also cutting defense spending and aggressively tackling health care costs, and then using the proceeds to support state and local services — now that would be an economic boost that would save essential services like these. But no-one in DC aside from one or two columnists, a few policy advisers and a handful of congressional Democrats is proposing all of these things in combination. And at this point, one or two of the above isn’t going to cut it.
Comment by Angry Chicagoan Monday, Jun 18, 12 @ 9:49 am
Let’s see we’re cutting DCFS programs, cutting prisons and bringing back early release, closing mental health facilities, murders are way up the number of police local and state are way down the least the states leaders could do is pass concealed carry to give the law abiding folks a fighting chance.
Comment by Fed up Monday, Jun 18, 12 @ 9:49 am
So continues the Illinois War on Children…
Comment by Sam Monday, Jun 18, 12 @ 9:55 am
@ Angry Chicagoan- The Dems supported extension of the Bush-Obama wartime tax cuts the last time they came up for extension. The President talks a good game, but when the super wealthy and their subjects cry out, Obama backs down.
Comment by Honestly Monday, Jun 18, 12 @ 10:05 am
Yeah Fed Up, guns are always the answer.
Comment by Cheryl44 Monday, Jun 18, 12 @ 10:08 am
“shifting the personal tax burden in this country from the very rich, to everyone else”
Really? The everyone else includes 47% who pay no federal income taxes. When you pay no federal taxes, you likely pay little or nothing toward state income taxes. So who does pay the income taxes? In the latest year compiled, the top 1% (AGI 344K) of the wage earners, paid nearly 37% of all federal income taxes. The top 25% (66K AGI) of the wage earners pay more than 87% of the federal income taxes.
It is a fantasy to claim that budgetary shortfalls can all be solved by taxing only the rich. There simply isn’t enough money out there to fund every single need out there.
Comment by Plutocrat03 Monday, Jun 18, 12 @ 10:19 am
Has DCFS found that $9 million that allegedly can’t be accounted for-leading to a critical report from the executive inspector general last year–and also to the resignation of the previous DCFS director, it seems. The recovery of even some of that money could help with the current shortage.
Meanwhile, if money is short, I’d take a close look at the existing contracts. Some may well be more effective in helping the kids than others–as last year’s scandal clearly demonstrates.
Comment by cassandra Monday, Jun 18, 12 @ 10:20 am
Wow off topic more or less with the first 2 comments is that a capfax record?
Comment by OneMan Monday, Jun 18, 12 @ 10:22 am
Plutocrat03,
I would argue the money is there for the needs … but the problem is what used to be a long wish list of wants has now been misclassified as needs. Its all a matter of priorities, and the State clearly has theirs screwed up.
Comment by RNUG Monday, Jun 18, 12 @ 10:38 am
Could someone smart please explain to me how these cuts do not violate the consent decree? I thought we couldn’t reduce DCFS spending.
Comment by soccermom Monday, Jun 18, 12 @ 10:39 am
Soccermom,
They are trying to hit programs that are not directly covered by the consent degree. Nailing caseworkers would probably violate it; cutting grants to outside NGOs (non-government organizations) should not violate it because that is not a direct DCFS service to a client.
Comment by RNUG Monday, Jun 18, 12 @ 10:55 am
Pluto — It’s always fascinating to me when “tax fairness” somehow turns into an argument that families who are trying to get by on $20K/year somehow aren’t paying their share. I assume that your “47% who pay no federal taxes” also includes people who made no income . . . blood from a stone?
Comment by BCross Monday, Jun 18, 12 @ 11:14 am
“The everyone else includes 47% who pay no federal income taxes.”
Of course, you ignore the regressive Social Security and Medicare federal taxes payed by the working poor as well as regressive state and local taxes. Modest downward income redistribution caused by ending Bush era tax cuts on the super rich would spur the economy for the simple reason that the rich don’t spend much relative to their incomes. It is Economics 101 and it would work if we would try it.
Comment by wishbone Monday, Jun 18, 12 @ 11:34 am
We have been hearing arguments from social service agencies from a wide spectrum, not just Children’s Home and Aid, that various cuts will down the road cost the state more money than they are saving in the cuts themselves. There are certain presumptions being made in these arguments.
For example in this situation it assumes that these children will be allowed to enter the foster care system. Each state’s services are monitored by the federal Department of Health and Human Services through reviews such as Child and Family Services Reviews, Title IV-E Foster Care Eligibility Reviews, Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System and Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System Assessment Reviews. We should not assume given the fiscal cuts that will come down on the federal level due to the mandatory reductions of $1.2 trillion in spending spread out from 2013 to 2021, also known as the trigger cuts that foster care as we know it will continue.
Legislation like title IV-B of the Social Security Act may be modified to allow cuts in this area and allow states to contain the flow of children into foster care. Where would these kids go, effectively to the streets or into charity care that might no longer be subsidized by either the state or Feds. Unthinkable, I would not count on that as sick as it may seem.
So the argument either pay now or later really may break down in the not to distant future.
Comment by Rod Monday, Jun 18, 12 @ 11:36 am
cassandra:
I tire of your flippant comments about the state budget like it’s all an easy answer and that if people would simply listen to your babble about fraud or waste we would be ok. If you cannot see or understand that such a cut to DCFS will inevitably violate a court order and that it will inevitably affect children in a negative way then you truly have no understanding of the DCFS budget or the state budget and general and should probably keep your mouth shut.
The money you refer to is gone for now. Maybe some of it will come back but that doesn’t go to the DCFS budget. The budget is set in case you don’t realize that. Stop it with your constant statements about how cuts are not a big deal. You are completely ignorant of the state budget.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Jun 18, 12 @ 12:16 pm
Rather than all this hand-wringing, the Democrats should just raise taxes.
What’s stopping them—the GOP? The voters?
The Illinois GOP is a joke and in ‘10 Illinois voters wanted business as usual, not reform.
Just raise taxes and be done with all this silly drama and political theater. This is what Democrats really want to do anyway, and with the new redistricting, what do they have to fear—or lose?
Comment by benevolent hegemon Monday, Jun 18, 12 @ 12:29 pm
Actually, Demoralized, it sounds as if the DCFS is trying to make its cuts in such a way so as not to violate the court order. DCFS spokespeople have made statements to that effect, and RNUG seems to confirm it above. It also sounds as if DCFS is trying hard not to cut direct service staff or their immediate supervisors. In fact, I believe the new director is trying to reduce caseloads and reduce the number of caseworkers a supervisor must oversee.
Should we assume that all of the contract/grant monies are as well spent. I don’t know. $9 million is a lot in the context of a $27 million cut. And I read that EOIG report. It wasn’t pleasant.
Comment by cassandra Monday, Jun 18, 12 @ 12:31 pm
===This is what Democrats really want to do anyway===
Sez who?
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Jun 18, 12 @ 12:42 pm
No need for “budgetary magic” as Kurt Erickson called it. When Blago and the legislature handed DCFS a huge budget hit a few years ago and layoffs were underway, the ACLU went to court to enforce their BH consent decree. The federal court blocked the planned layoffs, the Gov had to ask for a supplemental and the legislature complied. Quinn should issue a statement reminding everyone of that history. He should say he is avoiding needless and costly litigation and disruption to an important public service by notifying the legislature he can’t accept this budget. He should layout how much more he needs to operate the agency for the safety of Illinois’ kids. He should say he wants that taken care of in the veto session. Meanwhile he will spend the appropriation he has as if he will get more - personal services were lump summed so there are no problems there. If the legislature kicks, he can make them say what protective programs for kids they think can and should be eliminated while complying with the BH Consent Decree.
Comment by Jeff Park Mom Monday, Jun 18, 12 @ 12:48 pm
Rich, I was speaking practically, not politically—unless you want to argue that somehow Democrats aren’t known as the party of higher, bigger and better taxes.
Comment by benevolent hegemon Monday, Jun 18, 12 @ 1:30 pm
Better to slash the estate tax to help multi-millionaires than to use the revenue from a handful of wealthy residents to lessen the cuts at DCFS.
Comment by reformer Monday, Jun 18, 12 @ 1:30 pm
–Really? The everyone else includes 47% who pay no federal income taxes.–
That one’s still out there, huh? Are Hannity and Rush on summer repeats? Shouldn’t Glen Campbell or Mac Davis have a summer fill-in show for them?
–Who pays no federal income taxes? I think I have the picture you’re looking for. This piechart shows the households paying no FIT, with all inset numbers in thousands of dollars (i.e.: 20-30 means $20,000 to $30,000). The big takeaway is that more than half of the folks who pay no federal income tax make less than $20,000 a year. It is also true that 7,000 millionaires paid no federal income tax last year (more on that factoid here).–
Of course, everyone pays sales taxes, and fees, and yadda, yadda, yadda.
But if you think you’re a victim, you’re a victim. You gotta believe.
It’s always fascinating to hear from those who think being broke is some sort of sweet deal to aspire to.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/10/signs-of-dissent-what-about-the-47-who-pay-no-federal-income-taxes/246721/
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Jun 18, 12 @ 3:00 pm
cassandra:
The point is the $9 million is gone for now. Why even bring it up? Sure DCFS is trying not to violate a court order. I will be interested to see how they cut $27 million without doing that. And I’m sure they could adjust some of their contracts. Of course then who manages some of the caseloads?
Stop being so dense and focusing on something in the past as if it should have some effect on the current cuts. The whole episode was ugly but it isn’t relevant right now. I constantly tire of an ignorant public who has no understanding of how a state budget works. Like it’s some simple business model or some simple checking account. It’s not.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Jun 18, 12 @ 3:04 pm
“Efficiency, waste, fraud, and abuse” are popular terms when it comes to government and people who use them often have no clue as to what they are referring to. It’s not the magic bullet anymore. Either you want state government to do certain things or you don’t. But don’t expect nothing to change for a lesser amount of money.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Jun 18, 12 @ 3:06 pm
If the standard of living had not degraded to the extent that 47% of this once great nation no longer fell within the tax bracket to pay taxes, they would. And they will. Just as soon as it all “trickles down” Got it?
Comment by Madison Monday, Jun 18, 12 @ 5:19 pm