California County News

Judge Urges Other Counties to Adopt Laura’s Law to Save Money and Lives

Nevada County is the only county in the state to have fully implemented Laura’s Law in response to a legal settlement surrounding a woman’s murder by a severely mentally ill man. The law has been around for 8 years and is intended to get mentally ill people treatment, often on an involuntary basis. Many untreated mentally ill people are homeless and the law aims to get such patients off the street with treatment, especially if there is the potential for violence, which was the case in Nevada County for a college-aged woman the law is named after. 

Orange County has discussed adopting the law, which would make it the first county to voluntary implement Laura’s Law, but the Orange County's Health Care Agency has already released a critical report on the ordinance. The Orange County Commission to End Homelessness by 2020 is studying the proposal and recently a panel discussion was held in Huntington Beach by the Behavioral Health Symposium sponsored by the California Hospital Association.

Among the speakers on the panel was John Anderson, the Superior Court judge in charge of Nevada County's program. Anderson is a supporter of the law and advocates that other counties should adopt it. The judge stated, “It's a very effective tool that has proven to save lives ... and save and ease a burden on service providers. And it saves tons of money." The Voice of OC reports the following on Anderson’s arguments:

“’We're a beta,’ Anderson said of the small county's groundbreaking work. Asked why large counties, including Orange, don't study the Nevada County experience as a pilot program, he replied, ‘It boggles me.’ Part of the reason, he suggested, for general opposition to Laura's Law by county health departments statewide is that the courts would hold them accountable for actually providing the treatment they promise. Some opponents of Laura's Law have cited conservatorships as a better alternative.”

RAND Study Says Counties Face Serious Strains in Local Services due to Realignment

We relayed recently that county projections were off when it came to predicting the number of state prisoners that would land in county jails under realignment. Counties are not only scrambling to find extra room for the flood of extra inmates, but the draw on resources could put a strain on county services, according to a new report from the RAND Corp. In a study entitled, “Understanding the Public Health Implications of Prisoner Reentry in California,” the organization argues that local health care and social services programs could suffer under realignment due to the extra demand in resources from local agencies that are already struggling with difficult budgets. The study cautions that counties are ill-equipped to meet the rehabilitative and health care needs of additional inmates at the local level because released prisoners have a high level of health care needs, such as mental health care and alcohol and drug treatment. In addition, if inmates are returned to communities with high poverty and low levels of education, local services are likely to be only further strained. Here are some highlights from the report:

• About two-thirds of California inmates reported having a drug abuse or dependence problem, but only 22 percent of those inmates reported receiving treatment since admission to prison. More than half of California inmates reported a recent mental health problem, with about half of those reporting receiving treatment in prison
• Reentry disproportionately impacts 11 counties statewide and that, within counties, parolees tend to cluster in certain communities and neighborhoods. Such clustering has implications for linking to and providing health care services to this population and for considering how to effectively target reentry resources
• California’s new Public Safety Realignment Plan represents an almost tectonic shift in the state’s criminal justice system that will have a number of implications for thinking about how to meet the health care and rehabilitative needs of the reentry population.
• Public safety realignment presents some challenges, such as the fact that traditional mechanisms for linking ex-prisoners to health care and social services—e.g., parole officers, PACT meetings— will change dramatically for individuals placed on county-level postrelease community supervision and for low-level offenders who will serve their time in county jail.

The study looked closely at Alameda, Los Angeles, San Diego and Kern counties and used focus groups with former prisoners and their families to get a better understanding of the issues at play. The study’s lead author commented that “Investing in treatment for this population may help offset criminal justice costs later. Moreover, expanding access to primary care may help avoid expensive care such as emergency room visits and preventable hospitalizations for this population."

Read the full report here.

Getting Our Fair Share? CBP Tracks Federal Spending in CA in New Report

Curious about just how many federal dollars are spent in California? Well, the California Budget Project — a nonpartisan/nonprofit organization seeking fiscal reforms to benefit low and moderate income Californians — has done the research for you in a new report that tracks federal spending, which accounts for more than one-third of the state’s budget. Around 15 cents out of every federal dollar spent through the state budget goes to California’s public schools and universities and over 50 cents out of every federal dollar spent through the state budget supports health and human services for children, seniors, and many other Californians. The CBP points out that Californians received $333.8 billion in federal dollars both through and outside of the state budget in FFY 2010. Notably, social security accounts for nearly one-fifth of federal spending here in California. Here are some other figures and highlights from the CBP’s report:

• "An estimated three-quarters – roughly $240 billion – of the more than $330 billion in federal dollars spent in California in FFY 2010 went directly to individuals, businesses, and others without passing through the state budget
• More than one-fifth (23.6 percent) of federal dollars spent in California in FFY 2010 were provided as grants through federal agencies, including the Department of Education, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of Health and Human Services
• More than one out of six federal dollars (17.2 percent) went to businesses that provide goods and services to the federal government, including defense contractors.
• The federal government provided nearly $50 billion for health and human services programs in 2010-11; Nearly three-quarters (73.5 percent) of these funds – an estimated $36.4 billion – supported the Medi-Cal Program
• $272.9 million for drug abuse prevention, treatment, and recovery programs for approximately 300,000 Californians through the Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs
• The federal government provided $5.0 billion for transportation programs in 2010-11 – more than 5 cents out of every federal dollar spent through the state budget"

Key questions about federal spending in the Golden State concerns whether we get our fair share. Not according to the figures: California had 11.9 percent of the US population in FFY 2010, but accounted for 10.2 percent of federal expenditures; in addition, California’s share of federal dollars amounted to $8,960 per capita, well below the national per capita level of $10,460.

You can read the CBP’s full report here.

SBDO’s Welfare Call Center Touted as Innovative Approach to Communicate w/ Recipients

San Bernardino County officials are touting a call center set up to communicate with welfare recipients as an innovative and efficient approach to handling cases. In the month of September alone, the county’s transitional assistance department call center handled 36,000 calls. The center has a little over 100 employees. By having welfare recipients call the center when they have a question, case workers at offices have more time to see individuals in person without being bogged down by phone calls. Therefore, wait times are expected to be shorter and those who call the center should have their questions answered quickly under the center’s goal of having a response in 40 seconds or less. The call center opened up in August and slowly clients have been told to find answers by phone as opposed to from one individual case worker. While the approach may be less personal, it is being called much quicker. June Hutchison, deputy director of the department, commented the following:

“We feel the speed and the accuracy and the improved customer service is more valuable than having an individual worker serving a case load of a couple hundred.”

Many welfare recipients are required to provide updates in order to continue receiving assistance and the call center allows recipients to give updates or get an answer to a question about any forms. Notably, San Bernardino has about 24 percent of its residents receiving some type of aid. The Press Enterprise points out that residents “receive more than $837 million a year in state and federal benefits.”

SBDO Supervisor Wants Food Stamp Applicants to Still be Fingerprinted despite New Law

When Californians apply for food stamp assistance, they no longer have to be fingerprinted, thanks to a bill (AB 6) that Governor Brown recently signed into law. However, one supervisor calls the bill a big mistake due to concerns about fraud and misuse. San Bernardino Supervisor Neil Derry wants county staff to look into whether or not the county can continue to fingerprint people, which would violate the new law. Derry contends that fingerprinting does not prevent eligible applicants from receiving aid and provides some measure of assurance that taxpayers will not be defrauded. The supervisor may find some resistance in his own county, however, as San Bernardino has an unemployment rate of more than 14 percent. In addition, the county government has a very large deficit and the process of fingerprinting is quite expensive. The Daily Bulletin reports:

“Assemblyman Felipe Fuentes, D-Arleta, authored A.B. 6. He said the change in law is expected to create $850 million in increased federal benefits to low income Californians, translating into more than $1.4 billion in increased economic activity statewide and nearly $10 million in additional local tax revenue.  Derry, however, wants to keep the practice in San Bernardino County, even if it means dipping into the county's general fund to do it. He said he doesn't know how much it would cost the county to continue the practice, or what the potential blowback would be. ‘If this is a deterrent for people to commit fraud, then the only reason that you would get rid of the program is you think fraud is OK,’ Derry said.”

Derry commented that “Instead of making it easier to make people more dependent upon government, the governor should spend more time getting rid of the burdensome red-tape and regulation that discourages businesses from coming to California and providing jobs to the unemployed.” Food policy advocates have been critical of the supervisor’s proposal. More here.

Census Report Releases Findings on Health Insurance Coverage; LA County Worst Rate in CA

In the state of California, Los Angeles County has the highest rate of residents without health insurance with a rate of 23.5%. The data was compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau for the 2010 American Community Survey, and it was found that Massachusetts had among the highest rates of employer-based health insurance coverage for both people who worked full time and those who worked less than full time, year round in 2010 (86.4 and 62.6 percent, respectively). New Mexico had the lowest rates of coverage and the South had very poor coverage rates. Studies have shown that when those with coverage live in areas with high uninsured rates, there is lower satisfaction with medical care.

In Orange County, 18 percent of residents lack health insurance and from 2008 to 2010, the county's free or low-cost clinics have seen reportedly anywhere from a 30 to 50 percent increase in patients. The OC Register reports that Isabel Becerra, chief executive officer of the nonprofit Coalition of Orange County Community Health Centers, commented “[The uninsured are] using that emergency room as their primary care doctor. When insured individuals get sick and our kids break their legs or have an accident on the soccer field, we're going to get that limited access and wait longer in the emergency room."

Some highlights from the report are as follows:

• “The percentage of people covered by private health insurance decreased in 2010 to 64.0 percent, while the number of people covered by private health insurance was not statistically different from 2009, at 195.9 million. The percentage of people covered by private health insurance has been decreasing since 2001.
• The percentage and number of people covered by government health insurance increased to 31.0 percent and 95.0 million in 2010 from 30.6 percent and 93.2 million in 2009.
• The percentage of people covered by employment-based health insurance decreased to 55.3 percent in 2010 from 56.1 percent in 2009. The number of people covered by employment-based health insurance decreased to 169.3 million from 170.8 million.
• The percentage and number of people covered by Medicaid in 2010, 15.9 percent and 48.6 million, were not statistically different from 2009 estimates. The percentage and number of people covered by Medicare increased in 2010 to 14.5 percent and 44.3 million.
• In 2010, 9.8 percent of children under age 18 (7.3 million) were without health insurance, not statistically different from the 2009 estimates. The uninsured rate for children in poverty (15.4 percent) was greater than the rate for all children (9.8 percent).” 

Highlights from the report can be seen here and here.

Budget Woes in Sacramento Leave No Funding for Seasonal Homeless Shelters; Advocates Outraged

As fall turns to winter, Sacramento County has typically funded homeless shelters so those in need can find relief from cold and rainy nights. However, as budget deficits continue to take their toll on county services, it appears the county will no longer be able to afford funding the seasonal shelters this year. Homeless advocates are outraged and are pressuring officials to rethink funding priorities. However, supervisors for the county have noted that the management of such social services is in the process of transitioning to a non-profit organization so that programs for the homeless can continue. That being said, many representatives from concerned groups believe that the non-profit will lack the ability to operate winter shelters. The Bee reports:

“Ben Burton, the new director of Sacramento Steps Forward, said foundations, private citizens and businesses must work to fill the funding gap. ‘This is a community issue, not just a governmental issue,’ he said. ‘We need to ring the alarm that winter is coming. Instead of pointing fingers, we need to all join together and help.’ Cassandra Jennings, a former assistant city manager who is working with homeless advocates on the issue, said she is confident that some form of winter shelter will evolve in the coming weeks. ‘Churches are gearing up, people are applying for grants, conversations are happening among public and private entities,’ Jennings said.”

It is estimated that there are over 2,300 homeless people in Sacramento County. Around $150,000 was budgeted for shelters last year, which is far less than the $700,000 the county has spent in past years. Current shelters in operation reportedly are already full and faith organizations are attempting to make more room for the needy.

Outside Law Firm Hired by OC to Reclaim $48 Million Taken by the State

At the conclusion of the legislative session, the issue of lost VLF money was not taken up by lawmakers, so Orange County’s fight for $48 million continues. The state grabbed the VLF revenues from local governments under SB 89 and Orange County officials warn that without such funds, as many as 250 county employees could lose their jobs. In addition, cuts to critical public health programs including community clinics and social services may be necessary. Consequently, Orange County has now reportedly hired the law firm Best, Best & Krieger to pursue whatever legal options the local government may have to reclaim the $48 million. Supervisor Shawn Nelson commented that “We want to find a way to get all or at least some of the money back. But no one is itching to pick a fight with the state Legislature just to pick a fight.” The OC Register provides background on the county’s budget dilemma:

“County supervisors in June approved a $35 million increase in spending as part of the $5.6 billion 2011-2012 budget. The 2.7 percent spending boost came at a time when many other counties were making drastic cuts and laying off employees to survive rough economic times. Hours later, Orange County lawmakers got word that the state budget proposal was targeting $48 million that Orange County receives from California vehicle license fees as part of a guarantee while the county pays off its bankruptcy debt. What was a balanced budget suddenly threatened to be $48 million in the hole. To put it in perspective, the county would have to make a 5.48 percent cut across the programs it pays for to make up the $48 million.”

On September 20th, the Board of Supervisors will hear from the firm about its options. Vice Chairman John Moorlach had strong words about the loss in VLF revenue, stating that “It’s a dysfunctional relationship where we are a subdivision of the state and the state decides when and if it wants to pay us for the services rendered. Now do we not only have nonpayment but we have theft.”

And on a related note, Supervisors out in Riverside County have commented that the cities of Menifee, Wildomar, Eastvale and Jurupa Valley will need help because the loss in VLF revenues means the state’s newest cities will struggle to find their footing. Supervisor Marion Ashley recently stated that “We're all in this together and have to work this out together. These cities are losing a tremendous amount of funds. Will they be able to survive, or will they disincorporate and come back to the county? We're going to have to engage in discussions with each city and evaluate their status.” Collectively these cities will lose $14 million. For more, see here.

Officials Hope Mendocino’s Struggling Library System Will Find Relief in Sales Tax Measure

The Mendocino County Board of Supervisors, as well as most city councils and school boards in the county, are supporting a one-eighth cent sales tax that will support the area’s struggling library system by raising $1.3 million annually in revenue. Voters will get a chance to have the final say in November and two-thirds approval will be necessary if the sales tax increase is going to be implemented. If the tax is approved, it would sunset after 16 years. Supporters hope it will pass because the library system has a $160,000 shortfall. The Ukiah Daily Journal reports on the severity of the system’s finances:

“The library has since cut hours and jobs, and exhausted its reserve to avoid operating in a deficit, according to Mendocino County Librarian Melanie Lightbody. With the impending threat of more state funding cuts next year, Lightbody estimates the shortfall over funding two years ago is closer to $600,000. The portion of local property taxes that went to the county library system in the 2010-11 fiscal year was just more than $1.2 million, according to Mendocino County Auditor-Controller Meredith Ford.”

As it currently stands, many of the county’s libraries are only open for 3 days a week and there has been a 43% decrease in hours since 2007-08. Warnings have been issued that if voters don’t approve the sales tax measure, simply more cuts will have to be made or branches may have to be closed.

Audit of Now-Defunct Alameda Assistance Program Reveals Abuse of Grant Money

Back in March, the governing board of Alameda County’s Associated Community Action Program, referred to as ACAP, voted to dissolve the program, as it could not meet its payroll costs and the former executive director and grants manager were on administrative leave due to grave concerns about mismanagement and abuse of funds. Now the extent of that mismanagement has come to light thanks to a county audit of the now-dissolved organization. Perhaps most alarming are the highly suspect expenses, as reportedly funds were used on alcohol, massages, and questionable travel. The misuse of grant money is one of the findings that led to the dissolution of the countywide assistance program. The Oakland Tribune reports that oversight issues were problematic as well:

“The audit of the Associated Community Action Program, commonly called ACAP, also confirms what former employees had asserted -- a complete lack of oversight by the program's governing board. That board was made up of one county supervisor and one elected official from every city in the county, excluding Berkeley and Oakland. […] The audit states that there was ‘significant noncompliance with laws and regulations’ concerning the program's contracts and grant agreements, and that ACAP's accounting records were incomplete.”

The governing board of the program had 13 members and while it was supposed to meet every 90 days, during 2010 it only met twice. In addition, fiscal mismanagement was discovered in audits in 2008 and 2009, but another audit was not scheduled for 2010, even though one was supposed to take place every year. The Tribune also points out that “the county and the 12 cities that participated in ACAP agreed to pay $1.9 million to former employees for back wages and to cover legal costs as the program winds down.”