Fiscal Note & Local Impact Statement
125 th General Assembly of Ohio
|
BILL: |
DATE: |
||||
|
STATUS: |
SPONSOR: |
||||
|
LOCAL IMPACT
STATEMENT REQUIRED: |
|
||||
|
STATE FUND |
FY 2003 |
FY 2004 |
FUTURE YEARS |
|||
|
Federal TANF Block Grant
Fund (Fund 3V6) |
|
||||||
|
Revenues |
- 0 - |
- 0 - |
- 0 - |
|||
|
Expenditures |
Minimal decrease if the
Director of JFS exercises discretion to make various changes to the publicly
funded child day-care program |
Decrease if the Director
of JFS exercises discretion to make various changes to the publicly funded
child day-care program |
Increase or decrease
depending on if, how, and when the Director of JFS exercises discretion to
make various changes to the publicly funded child day-care program |
|||
|
Minority Business Bonding
Fund, Housing Guarantee Fund, and Housing Development Fund |
|
|
|
|||
|
Revenues |
Potential loss of up to
$35 million |
-0- |
-0- |
|||
|
Expenditures |
-0- |
-0- |
-0- |
|||
Note: The state fiscal year is July 1 through June 30. For
example, FY 2003 is July 1, 2002 – June 30, 2003.
·
Acceleration of sales tax payments. The bill accelerates the schedules of sales tax payments for the
various taxpayers. This provision will result in a one-time gain of up to $288
million in GRF revenues in FY 2003.
·
BSF Transfer. The transfer of $39.9 million
is to support an increased appropriation to Department of Job and Family
Services GRF line item 600-525, Healthcare/Medicaid.
·
Chemical Dependency Professionals Board. This
bill allows the Director of Budget and Management to transfer cash in an amount
not to exceed the FY 2003 appropriation from Fund 5P1 (Credentialing Fund) to
Fund 4K9 (Occupational Licensing). The
FY 2003 appropriation amount is $450,000.
The bill appropriates the amount transferred and restricts the use of
these funds related to establishing the Chemical Dependency Board, including,
but not limited to, travel reimbursement of board members.
· Department of Youth
Services.
By modifying existing permanent law, the bill gives the Department of Youth
Services the authority to adjust how funds are distributed under the formula
for the Reclaim Ohio Program, which is currently funded by GRF line item
470-401, if its appropriation is subsequently revised. As a result, the amount
of funds that could be available to cover certain departmental operational
costs and/or to disburse as subsidies to counties may increase or decrease from
what might otherwise have been the case under current law and practice. The
magnitude of such a potential increase or decrease in funds available to either
the Department or counties is difficult to predict.
·
State Facility Closure Committee. The bill provides for the occasional creation of the State
Facility Closure Committee. The only likely fiscal effect, presumably to be
incurred by the state, would be potential one-time administrative costs for
support staff and also possible reimbursement expenses such as travel, meals,
and lodging for Committee members that must travel to meetings. Any such
expenses would likely be intermittent and minimal. This process in and of
itself should not create any immediate and direct local fiscal effects.
·
Unclaimed Funds Transfer. A $35
million increase in the transfer of unclaimed funds to the General Revenue Fund
before June 30, 2003, will potentially result in a $35 million decrease in
funds available for the Minority Business Bonding Fund, the Housing Guarantee
Fund, and the Housing Development Fund.
·
Publicly Funded Child Day-Care. The bill provides that when anticipated
future expenditures will exceed available funds, the Director of Job and Family
Services (JFS) may, by administrative order, limit enrollment of new
participants whose incomes are at or below a specified percentage of the
federal poverty line (FPL), without regard to eligibility standards established
in statute, and/or disenroll existing participants with income above a
specified percentage of FPL. There are
a number of approaches that the Director could choose in exercising the
authority granted by the bill. The
Department expects projected growth of the program to exceed budgeted estimates
in FY 2003. According to the
Department, it intends to limit eligibility criteria to those with incomes at
or below 150% of FPL in an attempt to control costs of the program at this
time. Any cost impact to the program
will depend on if, how, and when the Director exercises the discretion granted
under the bill. Publicly funded child
day-care is funded with GRF and TANF and other federal funds. According to JFS, all GRF and other federal
funds appropriated for the publicly funded child day-care program in FY 2003
have been expended and the Department is currently using TANF funds exclusively
to pay for this program. Any decrease
in expenditures would affect Fund 3V6 (TANF Block Grant). Given the delayed effective date (most
likely mid-May) of these provisions in the bill, it is unlikely that the
Director would be able to implement such an administrative order until mid-May,
which would result in minimal savings in FY 2003. Any decrease in expenditures realized in FY 2004 would also likely
reduce the amount of TANF dollars the Department uses to fund the program. In future years, the Director could exercise
discretion to change eligibility again, thereby increasing or decreasing overall
expenditures for the program.
·
The
bill permits the Director of JFS to prescribe the amount, duration, and scope
of publicly funded child day-care benefits in rules establishing eligibility
criteria. The authority granted to the
Director of JFS by this provision of the bill could have a significant fiscal
impact on the program depending on the policy the Director decides to
adopt. Since the discretion granted by
the bill lies with the Director of JFS and the Department has not indicated any
intentions in this regard, LSC is not able to quantify the potential fiscal
impact.
·
The
bill eliminates a requirement that a provider of publicly funded child day-care
to children of caretaker parents who work nontraditional hours be paid at the
reimbursement rate set by rule regardless of whether that is higher than the
provider's customary charge. Since the
reimbursement ceiling is to be set by rule, it is possible that the provider
could be paid more than the current rate or less than the current rate, which
could in turn increase or decrease program costs.
·
The
bill requires the Director of JFS to set the reimbursement ceiling for a type B
family day-care home provider that has limited certification, and reduces the
reimbursement of providers who provide publicly funded child day-care to
children who have the same caretaker parent, from 75% to 60% of the ceiling for
fully certified type B family day-care homes.
According to JFS, such a reduction will likely decrease the costs of the
child care program by an estimated $100,000 to $150,000 in FY 2003 and by some
amount less than $1.0 million in future years.
·
The
bill no longer exempts a caretaker parent, for whom special needs day-care is
necessary, from the requirement that the parent be employed or participating in
an education or training program. If
required to become employed or begin participating in an education or training
program to continue receiving publicly funded child day-care, some caretaker
parents may take their children off the program. For every child that leaves the program due to this change in the
law, the program costs would be reduced by $7,306 per year (based on costs in
FY 2002).
·
The
bill provides that a caretaker parent, must comply with the requirement that
changes in employment or participation in an education or training program be
reported not later than ten calendar days after the change occurs. Requiring notification within ten days may
result in some recipients (who are no longer eligible) leaving the program
sooner, thus reducing costs of the program.
·
The
bill eliminates a county department of job and family services statutory
authority to request a waiver of the reimbursement ceiling when a family has
special circumstances or there are unique market conditions. Through the rulemaking process, JFS may
provide for acceptable reasons for requesting a waiver. The potential impact on the number and
amount of waivers will depend on the rules adopted by the Department.
·
Lapse of state share of line item 600-610, Food Stamps and State
Administration. The bill requires the Director
of Budget and Management to transfer to the General Revenue Fund all state
dollars lapsed from the fiscal year 2003 appropriation to line item 600-610,
Food Stamps and State Administration (Fund 384). Because it is possible that these same funds would revert to the
General Revenue Fund in any case, it cannot be said that the provision has a
fiscal effect.
|
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT |
FY 2003 |
FY 2004 |
FUTURE YEARS |
|||
|
County departments of job
and family services |
||||||
|
Revenues |
Minimal loss if the
Director of JFS exercises discretion to make various changes to the publicly
funded child day-care program |
Loss if the Director of
JFS exercises discretion to make various changes to the publicly funded child
day-care program |
Gain or loss depending on
if, how, and when the Director of JFS exercises discretion to make various
changes to the publicly funded child day-care program |
|||
|
Expenditures |
Minimal decrease if the
Director of JFS exercises discretion to make various changes to the publicly
funded child day-care program |
Decrease if the Director
of JFS exercises discretion to make various changes to the publicly funded
child day-care program |
Increase or decrease
depending on if, how, and when the Director of JFS exercises discretion to
make various changes to the publicly funded child day-care program |
|||
Note: For most local governments, the fiscal year is the calendar year. The school district fiscal year is July 1 through June 30.
·
Publicly Funded Child Day-Care. The bill provides that when anticipated
future expenditures will exceed available funds, the Director of Job and Family
Services (JFS) may, by administrative order, limit enrollment of new
participants whose incomes are at or below a specified percentage of the
federal poverty line (FPL), without regard to eligibility standards established
in statute and/or disenroll existing participants with income above a specified
percentage of FPL. The majority of
funds appropriated to JFS for the publicly funded child day-care program are
passed down to the counties for payment to providers. According to the Department, it intends to limit eligibility
criteria to those with incomes at or below 150% of FPL in an attempt to control
costs of the program. The impact on the
amount of state and federal funds passed through to county departments of job
and family services to pay publicly funded child day-care providers will vary
depending on if, how, and when the Director of JFS chooses to exercise the
discretion granted under the bill.
·
State Education Formula. The bill
prohibits the Governor from reducing FY 2003 GRF appropriations for the
following state education formula aid related line items: 200-500, School
Finance Equity, 200-501, Base Cost Funding, 200-502, Pupil Transportation,
200-520, Disadvantaged Pupil Impact Aid, 200-521, Gifted Pupil Program,
200-525, Parity Aid, and 200-546, Charge-off Supplement. Total appropriations
for these line items amount to $5,485,418,913 in FY 2003, representing 76.6% of
total GRF appropriations for the Department of Education.
·
Prohibited GRF Reductions. The bill
also prohibits the Governor from reducing FY 2003 GRF appropriations for items
200-511, Auxiliary Services, and 200-532, Nonpublic Administrative Cost
Reimbursement. Total appropriations for these two items amount to $183,325,760
in FY 2003, representing 2.6% of total GRF appropriations for the Department of
Education.
|
|
Acceleration of sales and use tax payments
Remittance of sales and use
tax payments vary according to the type of taxpayers,[1]
the timing, and the method by which sales tax payments are made. Payments of tax returns are required to be
made by electronic funds transfer in cases where the taxpayer’s annual tax
liability exceeds a particular threshold.
The Tax Commissioner notifies taxpayers required to use this payments
method. The bill requires direct pay
permit holders, vendors, and sellers that remit sales and use taxes by
electronic funds transfer to make tax payments more often. Under current law, a permit holder must
remit sales tax payment on or before the twenty-third day of each month for
taxes due the previous month. The bill
requires such a permit holder to pay each month one fourth of the tax liability
for the same month in the preceding calendar year on the eleventh, eighteenth,
and twenty-fifth day of each month; and on the twenty-third day of each month,
the permit holder shall report the taxes due for the previous month less any
amounts already paid during the month under the new provision. The Tax Department expects this provision to
increase revenues in FY 2003 by $288 million.
This revenue increase will be a one-time pick-up in GRF revenue, and
will have no effect in FY 2004 and FY 2005.
Budget Stabilization Fund (BSF) Transfers for Medicaid
The
bill authorizes, subject to Controlling Board approval, the Director of Budget
and Management in consultation with the Director of Job and Family Services to
transfer up to $149.6 million of cash from the Budget Stabilization Fund (BSF)
to the General Revenue Fund in FY 2003.
The transfer is to support an increased appropriation to Department of
Job and Family Services line item 600-525, Healthcare/Medicaid. The transferred funds will pay the state
share of Medicaid expenses in excess of the amount originally provided for in
Am. Sub. H. B. 94 of the 124th General Assembly and will allow the
state to draw down $55.9 million in additional federal funds for this purpose,
as well.
H. B. 94 of the 124th
General Assembly authorized the transfer over the FY 2002-2003 biennium of
$150 million from the BSF to the GRF for that purpose. Of this amount $40.35 million was
transferred in FY 2002, leaving $109.7 million available in FY 2003. This change will increase by $39.9 million
the state dollars available to support Medicaid expenses. With the $55.9 million federal match,
the total additional amount available in FY 2003 to supplement the revised
Medicaid estimates will be $95.8 million.
Chemical Dependency
Professionals Board
Sub. H.B. 496 of the 124th
General Assembly, effective in December 2002, created the Chemical Dependency
Professional Board and required licensure or certification of chemical
dependency counselors and certification of alcohol and other drug prevention specialists. The bill also appropriated $100,518 in FY
2003 from the Occupational Licensing and Regulatory Board Fund (Fund 4K9) to
fund the new board’s operations.
This bill allows the Director of Budget and Management
to transfer cash in an amount not to exceed the FY 2003 appropriation from Fund
5P1 (Credentialing Fund) to Fund 4K9 (Occupational Licensing). The FY 2003 appropriation amount is
$450,000. The bill appropriates the
amount transferred and restricts the use of these funds related to establishing
the Chemical Dependency Board, including, but not limited to, travel
reimbursement of board members.
Department of Youth Services
The bill
modifies existing permanent law governing how the Department of Youth Services
allocates funds under the formula for the Reclaim Ohio Program, which is
currently funded by GRF line item 470-401. The modification permits the
Department to adjust the amount of funds distributed between the state and
counties under the formula if the program’s appropriation is subsequently
revised. As a result of these modifications, the amount of funds that could be
available to cover certain departmental operational costs and/or to disburse as
subsidies to counties may increase or decrease from what might otherwise have
been the case under current law and practice. The magnitude of such a potential
increase or decrease in funds available to either the Department or counties is
difficult to predict.
The RECLAIM Ohio (Reasoned and Equitable
Community and Local Alternatives to the Incarceration of Minors) program,
launched as a pilot in January 1994 and implemented statewide in 1995, provides
juvenile courts with funding to develop community-based programs for juvenile
offenders. In doing so, the program is intended to reduce the number of
commitments sentenced to the custody of the Department.
Funding is
allocated to counties through a formula based upon each county’s proportion of
statewide felony delinquent adjudications. Each month, counties are debited 75%
against a per diem allocation for juveniles placed in departmental institutions
and 50% for juveniles placed in community corrections facilities (CCFs). Any
funds remaining after the county’s commitments to the Department are then
remitted to counties and used by juvenile courts to support the development and
operation of rehabilitation programs at the local level. Courts may use the
funds to purchase or develop a broad based spectrum of community-based programs
for adjudicated felony delinquents who would otherwise have been committed to
the custody of the Department. Such programs include day treatment, intensive
probation, electronic monitoring, home-based services, residential treatment
reintegration, and transitional programs.
A “contingency” fund in the program, which represents up to 5% of the total RECLAIM Ohio allocation, allows courts to commit juveniles to the custody of the Department or CCFs, even if a county has exhausted its allocation. The law also provides for a category of commitments called “public safety beds” for which the counties are not debited. Public safety beds are provided for juveniles that are committed for very serious offenses like murder, manslaughter, rape, arson, and gun specifications.
Department of Rehabilitation and Correction
The bill eliminates the
legal requirement that the Department contract for the private operation and
management of the intensive program prison established for felony DUI offenders
in Grafton, Ohio. This provision essentially provides the Department with more
choices in its institutional operations, and does not introduce any immediate
and direct cost factor to daily operations.
State Facilities Closure Commission
The bill provides for the
occasional creation of a state entity to be known as the State Facility Closure
Commission. This Commission would emerge when, upon the consideration of all
administrative reductions and cost containment measures, the Governor decides
it is necessary to close a state institutional facility. According to the bill,
when the Governor notifies the legislature of a potential closure, the
Commission is created and, within 30 days, must report back to the General
Assembly, the Governor, and the targeted state agency with its own
recommendations as to the state institutional facilities that the Governor may
close. The Governor may close the state institutions on the recommended list,
and generally cannot close any state institutional facility within the targeted
state agency that is not listed in the recommendation. If, however, the
Governor determines that changes in circumstances make the recommendation
unworkable, then the Governor is not required to follow the Commission’s
recommendations.
Unclaimed Funds Transfer to the GRF
The bill increases the total unclaimed funds
transfer to the GRF by $35,000,000 to $115,800,000 in the FY 2002-2003 biennium.
The General Assembly previously authorized up to $80.8 million in unclaimed
funds to be transferred to the GRF in the FY 2002-2003 biennium. The Department
of Commerce, Division of Unclaimed Funds, collects unclaimed funds and deposits
them in the Unclaimed Funds Trust Fund. These unclaimed funds are then
transferred to Fund 543 Unclaimed Funds – Operating, used for administrative
costs by the Division, and Fund 543 Unclaimed Funds – Claims, used to pay the
unclaimed fund owners who claim their funds. The remainder of the unclaimed
funds is then available to the following funds: the
Mortgage Insurance Fund, the Minority Business Bonding Fund, up to $10,000,000,
the Housing Guarantee Fund, and the Housing Development Fund. The Housing
Guarantee Fund and the Housing Development Fund are used to fund programs of
the Ohio Housing Finance Agency (OHFA).
The $35,000,000 increase in unclaimed funds transferred to the General
Revenue Fund decreases the amount available for allocation to the Minority
Business Bonding Fund, the Housing Guarantee Fund, and the Housing Development
Fund.
Department of Education
The bill prohibits the Governor from reducing FY 2003 GRF appropriations for the following state education formula aid related line items: 200-500, School Finance Equity, 200-501, Base Cost Funding, 200-502, Pupil Transportation, 200-520, Disadvantaged Pupil Impact Aid, 200-521, Gifted Pupil Program, 200-525, Parity Aid, and 200-546, Charge-off Supplement. Total appropriations for these line items amount to $5,485,418,913 in FY 2003, representing 76.6% of total GRF appropriations for the Department of Education.
These line items collectively support state foundation payment obligations to school districts (including joint vocational school districts). These funds are distributed to school districts based on various formulas specified in the Revised Code. The base cost formula amount is $4,949 per pupil in FY 2003. In addition to the base cost funding, these line items also support funding for other components of the foundation program, including parity aid, special and career-technical education weights, disadvantaged pupil impact aid, pupil transportation, gifted unit funding, excess cost supplement, charge-off supplement, and equity aid. The foundation program is also partially supported by lottery profits money through line item 200-612, Base Cost Funding (Fund 017).
The bill also prohibits the
Governor from reducing FY 2003 GRF appropriations for line items 200-511,
Auxiliary Services, and 200-532, Nonpublic Administrative Cost
Reimbursement. Total appropriations for
these two items amount to $183,325,760 in FY 2003, representing 2.6% of total
GRF appropriations for the Department of Education. These nonpublic subsidies
provide secular materials, health and safety assistance, and certain state
mandated administrative cost reimbursement to state charted nonpublic schools.
The bill makes several changes to the law governing the publicly funded child day-care (hereafter referred to as child care) program that is overseen by the Department of Job and Family Services (JFS). Overall, the provisions of the bill related to the child care program grant greater discretion to the Director of JFS regarding operation of the child care program. By exercising such discretion, the Director could specify the amount, duration, and scope of benefits, limit or lower day-care provider payments, limit enrollment of new participants in the program, and disenroll existing participants with incomes above a specified percentage of the federal poverty line (FPL).
Under
current law, whenever the Department determines that the anticipated future
expenditures of the county departments of job and family services will exceed
available federal and state funds for child care, the Director of JFS is to
issue and implement an administrative order that specifies the priorities for
expending the remaining available funds and issue instructions and procedures
to be used by the county departments.
Current law grants the Director authority to suspend enrollment of all
new participants in any child care program or limit enrollment of new
participants to those with incomes at or below a specified percentage below
FPL. Therefore, under current law, the
Director may only suspend enrollment for an entire child care program (i.e.
non-guaranteed) and not just for certain categories of individuals within that
program, or limit enrollment of new participants whose incomes are a specified
percentage below FPL.
Current law also restricts
the Director’s authority by specifying that the administrative order cannot
limit enrollment by otherwise narrowing eligibility standards established in
statute. The bill removes this restriction. In addition, the bill grants authority to
the Director to limit enrollment of new participants whose incomes are at or
below a specified percentage of FPL, and/or disenroll existing participants
with income above a specified percentage of FPL. The Director could, for example, choose to limit enrollment of
those with incomes at or below 150%, 125% of FPL, or any level the Director
chooses.
Publicly funded child
day-care is funded with GRF and TANF and other federal funds. The Department expects projected growth of
the program to exceed budgeted estimates in FY 2003. According to JFS, all GRF and other federal
funds appropriated for the child care program in FY 2003 have been expended and
the Department is currently using TANF funds exculsively to pay for this
program. The Department is expecting a shortfall of $70 million in
FY 2003. The Department plans to
use unspent TANF dollars to deal with this shortfall.
Currently, the child care
program provides non-guaranteed benefits to those with incomes at or below 185%
of FPL ($33,485/year for a family of four).
According to the Department, it intends to use the authority granted
under the bill to limit eligibility criteria to those with incomes at or below
150% of FPL ($27,150/year for a family of four) in an attempt to control costs
of the program at this time. Given the
delayed effective date (most likely mid-May) of these provisions in the bill,
it is unlikely that the Director would be able to implement such an
administrative order until mid-May. The Director also intends to allow those
who are currently receiving benefits to continue to do so until the person’s
scheduled redeterminiation (currently redetermination is done every six
months), at which time they will be told that as of September 30, 2003, they
are no longer eligible to receive child care benefits.
If the Director were to
limit enrollment of all new participants with incomes at or below 150% of FPL,
beginning in May 2003, while allowing existing participants to remain on the
program until the end of September, JFS could reduce program costs by
approximately $186,000 in FY 2003,[2]
$63.0 million in FY 2004,[3]
$91.1 million in FY 2005 and some amount in excess of $91.1 million annually
thereafter (based on JFS’ cost and caseload projections for FYs 2003, 2004, and
2005). Any decrease in expenditures would affect Fund 3V6 (TANF Block
Grant). Given the delayed effective
date, any cost savings in FY 2003 would be minimal. Any decrease in
expenditures realized in FYs 2004 and 2005 would likely reduce the amount of
TANF dollars the Department uses to fund the program.
There are a number of
approaches that the Director could choose in exercising the authority granted
under the bill in the future. In other words, the Director could change eligibility
again (increase or decrease) and/or disenroll additional participants should
the Director decide that it is necessary to do so. The discretion granted the
Director under the bill could have a significant fiscal impact on the program
in future years, depending on if, how, and when the Director exercises
discretion.
The majority of
funds appropriated to JFS for the child care program are passed down to the
counties for payment to providers. The
impact on the amount of state and federal funds passed through to county
departments of job and family services to pay child care providers will vary
depending on if, how, and when the Director of JFS chooses to exercise the
discretion granted under the bill.
Current law requires the
Director of JFS to adopt rules that, among other things, establish procedures
and criteria to be used in making determinations of eligibility for child
care. The bill goes on to permit the
Director to prescribe the amount, duration, and scope of benefits available as
publicly funded child care. “Amount,
duration, and scope” could include things such as a maximum lifetime amount (in
terms of dollars) of child care a caretaker parent may
receive, time limits on benefits, or whether or not to cover the cost of care
such as special needs or protective child care. The authority given to the Director of JFS by this provision of
the bill could have a significant fiscal impact on the program depending on the
policy the Director decides to adopt.
Since the discretion granted by the bill lies with the Director of JFS
and the Department has not indicated any intentions in this regard, LSC is not
able to quantify the potential fiscal impact.
Nontraditional
hours. The bill requires the
Director of JFS to adopt rules establishing reimbursement ceilings for
providers rather than rules establishing reimbursement rates, including an
enhanced reimbursement ceiling for providers of child care for caretaker
parents who work nontraditional hours.
Under current law, if a provider provides child care to caretaker
parents who work nontraditional hours, the provider is to be paid the rate
established in rules adopted by JFS, regardless of whether the rate is higher
than the rate the provider customarily charges. The bill eliminates this requirement. Since the reimbursement ceiling is to be set by rule, it is
possible that the provider could be paid more than the current rate or less
than the current rate, which could in turn increase or decrease program costs.
Type B Family Day-Care Homes.[4] Current law provides that a type B family day-care home is
eligible for reimbursement under the child care program if the home is
certified by the county department of job and family services. Eligibility for public funds extends to type
B homes with limited certification, which is granted to day-care providers who
provide care only for their relatives or only for the children of the same
parent. Under current law, the Director is required to adopt rules establishing
a reimbursement rate for a type B family day-care home that has received
limited certification. That rate is to
be the greater of the rate that was in effect for the home on October 1, 1997,
or 75% of the reimbursement rate that applies to a type B family day-care home
certified by the same county department of job and family services. The bill reduces the reimbursement of
providers who provide child care for children of the same parent to 60% of the
reimbursement ceiling for fully certified type B family day-care homes. According to JFS, such a reduction will
likely decrease the costs of the child care program by an estimated $100,000 to
$150,000 in FY 2003 and by some amount less than $1.0 million in future years.
The
bill no longer exempts a caretaker parent for whom special needs day-care is
necessary from the requirement to be employed or participating in an education
or training program. If required to
become employed or begin participating in an education or training program to
continue receiving child care, some caretaker parents may leave the
program. Since each family’s
circumstances are different, an estimate as to the number of program
participants who would leave the program is unknown. The average annual cost for FY 2002 of special needs day-care is
approximately $7,306 per child.
Therefore, for every child that leaves the program due to this change in
the law, the program costs would be reduced by $7,306 per year.
Under
current law, a caretaker parent receiving child care is required to report to
the entity that determined eligibility any changes in status with respect to
employment or participation in a program of education or training. The bill provides that the caretaker parent
must comply with the requirement to report such a change not later than ten
calendar days after the change occurs.
Once an entity is notified it redetermines the caretaker parent’s
eligibility. If the entity determines
that the caretaker parent no longer meets the eligibility criteria due to the
status change, the person will no longer receive benefits under the
program. Requiring notification within
ten days may result in some recipients (who are no longer eligible) leaving the
program sooner, thus reducing costs of the program.
The
bill eliminates a county department of job and family services statutory
authority to request a waiver of the reimbursement ceiling when a family has
special circumstances or there are unique market conditions, but retains the
authority to request a waiver based on the special needs of a child. Through the rulemaking process, JFS may
provide for acceptable reasons for requesting a waiver. The potential impact on the number and
amount of waivers will depend on the rules adopted by the Department. JFS could provide for additional reasons to
grant a waiver, thereby increasing costs of the program, or provide for fewer
reasons to grant a waiver, thereby reducing costs of the program.
The
Food Stamp Program is a federal program administered by the Department of Job
and Family Services (JFS) and county departments of job and family
services. Food stamp benefits are 100% federally
funded. However, Ohio receives a
reimbursement from the federal government for one half of the administrative
costs of the Food Stamp Program.
Appropriation item 600-610, Food Stamps and State Administration (Fund
384, within the Federal Special Revenue Fund Group in the JFS budget), supports
the administrative costs of the Food Stamp Program in Ohio. Fifty percent of the appropriation to line
item 600-610 is state funds.
The
bill requires the Director of Budget and Management to transfer to the General
Revenue Fund all state dollars lapsed from the FY 2003 appropriation to line
item 600-610. Although there is no
specific amount mentioned, this provision assures that such funds that are
lapsed shall be transferred and not redirected to other purposes (as could be
done through a request to the Controlling Board). However, because it is possible that these same funds would
revert to the General Revenue Fund in any case, it cannot be said that the
provision has a fiscal effect.
LSC fiscal
staff: Jean Botomogno, Economist
Nickie Evans, Economist
Allan Lundell, Senior Economist
Steve Mansfield, Fiscal Supervisor
Jeremie Newman, Budget Analyst
Laura Potts, Budget Analyst
Ruhaiza Ridzwan, Economist
Joe Rogers, Budget Analyst
Maria Seaman, Budget Analyst
Holly Wilson, Budget Analyst
Wendy Zhan, Senior Budget Analyst
[1] O.R.C. sections 5739.17, 5739.031,5739.12, 5739.17, and 5741.12 describes the various taxpayers and schedules.
[2] This amount was arrived at based on data provided by JFS and the following assumptions:
(1) Monthly growth of 303.25 participants in the 151–185% of the FPL category of participants;
(2) The estimated average monthly cost of day-care provided to this group in FY 2003 is $351.83.
By limiting new enrollment, the Department would avoid the cost of paying for these additional individuals each month. In other words, the Department could avoid the cost of paying the cumulative effect of one and one half months of child day-care for the 303.25 individuals who would come on the program each month, beginning in mid-May.
[3] To estimate the amount saved in FY 2004, if the Department were to allow participants to stay on the program until the end of September, LSC used JFS’ caseload and cost projections for FY 2004 and subtracted the amount that JFS would have to pay for those individuals who remained on the program until the end of September 2003.
[4] A Type B family day-care home is a permanent residence of the provider in which child day-care is provided for one to six children at one time and in which no more than three children are under two years of age at one time.