Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Budget topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

DCF outlines budget adjustment act: $7.8 million consolidated for child‑welfare system upgrade, technical realignments proposed

2148315 · January 24, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Department for Children and Families Commissioner Chris Meeters told the Appropriations Committee that the department’s Budget Adjustment Act proposes a 1.7% decrease to the fiscal 2025 budget while consolidating $7.8 million for a child‑welfare information system and seeking technical funding realignments.

Department for Children and Families Commissioner Chris Meeters told the Appropriations Committee that the department’s Budget Adjustment Act proposes an overall 1.7% decrease to the state fiscal year 2025 budget while making multiple technical realignments, caseload adjustments and one‑time investments.

Meeters said the BAA includes a $1,000,000 request to plan a transition off the agency’s child‑support mainframe (approximately $340,000 of general fund) and a transfer of $1,800,000 in carryforward into a one‑time appropriation to consolidate CCWIS funding. "We have a BAA before you that represents a 1.7% decrease over the state fiscal year 25 budget," Meeters said. "The other one‑time request is for the comprehensive child welfare information system…It's a long overdue upgrade to our family services information system."

Why it matters: the CCWIS work would be a multi‑year procurement with a significant federal match and affects DCF’s ability to document work needed to draw federal dollars. Meeters said the department expects a 50% federal match for the CCWIS work and that other states have spent tens of millions on similar systems. Consolidating the $7,800,000 of state funding into a single one‑time appropriation is intended to simplify management and reporting.

Most important details first: the BAA text and committee discussion identified several large categories of change. Economic services adjustments include realigning Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) authority across DCF divisions to maximize federal draw and to meet state maintenance‑of‑effort rules. Family services adjustments reflect results from a new Random Moment Time Study (RMTS) allocation method; Meeters and Megan Steaton, DCF’s financial director, said that implementation of RMTS reduced the hours allocable to targeted case management (TCM), creating a shortfall that must be backfilled with general fund. Meeters explained, "now that we've had a year to see how this is shaking out, the result is that we are actually collecting less moments that allow us to draw in targeted case management…so we need to backfill our lost TCM charge with general fund dollars."

Information technology and procurement: DCF asked for a $1,000,000 feasibility planning appropriation (two‑thirds matched by federal funds) to transition the child‑support office off an older mainframe. The CCWIS consolidation would move $1,800,000 of carryforward into a department one‑time appropriation; Meeters said the RFP process was paused for technical corrections and is awaiting federal approval. "We're hoping for that any day now," he said. The department expects to pursue a modular procurement so more urgent pieces come online first.

Federal compliance note: Meeters described a federal compliance issue under the Family First Prevention Services Act (FFPSA) related to fingerprinting for staff at residential facilities. Because fingerprint processing delays prevent facilities from meeting Family First requirements that background checks be completed before staff start, DCF cannot draw certain federal reimbursements for the first 14 days of a residential placement. As a mitigation step, Meeters said DCF is obtaining portable fingerprint machines to speed part of the process, though the Vermont Crime Information Center (VCIC) still performs the final background check.

Child‑care and special fund moves: DCF reported projected savings in the Child Care Financial Assistance Program and said an analysis showed roughly $13,000,000 in projected higher payroll‑tax special fund receipts than previously budgeted. The BAA would increase the special fund appropriation and reduce a comparable general fund appropriation so the total program funding remains available to families and providers. Meeters and Steaton characterized that swap as a one‑time technical move that preserves program availability while allowing general fund to cover other mid‑year needs. Committee members pressed for assurances the change would not become an annual transfer away from childcare use and urged outreach to increase program enrollment among newly eligible higher income brackets; Steaton said a marketing firm is beginning outreach.

Other caseload and contract adjustments: DCF seeks caseload funding for substitute care and subsidized adoption pressures (examples quantified in the BAA narratives) and said family‑services transportation contracts have exceeded prior budgets; the department requested additional authority to align budgets with existing contract values for children in state custody. DCF also described a contract increase request for University of Vermont physician services that the department said is critical and has few alternatives.

Homelessness and transfers: DCF indicated it is transferring youth‑homelessness funding to the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) for program administration and moving a vacant position from the Office of Child Support to OEO to support a new permanent supportive housing program. Meeters described ongoing statewide shelter demand and use of hotel‑motel programs and said capacity challenges persist despite expanded shelter beds and hotel use.

What the committee asked: members sought more detail on ADS service level agreement increases and the assumptions behind childcare enrollment projections; Meeters and Steaton deferred some technical answers to ADS/AHS and committed to follow up with written detail. Several members also asked whether payroll tax proceeds should be used differently if the special fund continues to outpace utilization; Meeters said those policy questions extend beyond DCF and would involve administration discussion.

No formal committee action or vote was recorded during the DCF presentation; the committee moved to the next agenda item after questions and follow up commitments.

Ending: DCF officials said they will provide additional detail and follow‑up to the committee, including answers on ADS charges, precise RFP timing for CCWIS pending federal approval, and additional enrollment‑outreach information for the childcare program.