Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Child Placement Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Williams County commissioners review JFS child-placement contracts as staff say monthly costs exceed reimbursements
Summary
Commissioners reviewed several Job and Family Services contracts for child placement and heard a staff fiscal update saying the county is drawing down a one-time balance while monthly placement spending exceeds incoming reimbursements.
Williams County commissioners discussed three Job and Family Services contracts for child placement and heard a staff update saying monthly placement costs are outpacing reimbursements.
The contracts presented included a proposed agreement with the National Youth Advocate Program (Resolution 50), a contract with Adrian Schools for child placement capped at $400,000 (Resolution 52), and an agreement with Specialized Alternatives for Families and Youth of Ohio for placement services (Resolution 54). The resolutions were introduced on the meeting agenda; specific vote tallies for Resolutions 50, 52 and 54 were not stated on the record in the provided transcript.
Kylie, a county staff member asked to update the commissioners on finances, told the board that the county had about $1,000,000 remaining in a designated fund for these placements but was “bringing in roughly $80,000 a month” while actual spending had risen to “$125 or $150” thousand a month. Kylie said that the county was not out of cash at the time of the update but warned the pace of spending was depleting reserves.
The contracts were described on the agenda as authorizations for Job and Family Services (JFS) to place children with outside providers. Resolution 52 specified a maximum contract amount of $400,000 with Adrian Schools; the maximum for Resolution 50 (National Youth Advocate Program) and the term and maximum for Resolution 54 (Specialized Alternatives for Families and Youth of Ohio) were not specified in the transcript excerpt.
Commissioners and staff framed the discussion as both a programmatic need to place children and a budget-management issue. Commissioners asked staff to provide financial projections and to monitor the pace at which the county’s one-time fund balance would be exhausted. No formal direction to change the placement policy was recorded in the excerpt; the record shows discussion and a request for further financial information.
The related resolutions appeared on the meeting agenda for consideration alongside other routine items; the transcript does not show final vote tallies for Resolutions 50, 52 or 54 in the provided excerpt.
The county is expected to follow up with more detailed financial projections for the commissioners before taking additional funding action.
