Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Developmental Disabilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County says developmental‑disabilities caseloads have surged; division below state workload funding model
Summary
Health and Human Services told the budget committee the county’s developmental‑disabilities program now serves roughly 3,200 clients—driven by state eligibility changes—and is funded at about 86% of the state workload model; staff requested 11–12 new FTE funded through the state program.
Washington County’s Developmental Disabilities program has seen rapid caseload growth after state eligibility expansions, county staff told the budget committee. The division reported it served roughly 3,201 clients in the current biennium, compared with smaller caseloads in earlier years. Staff said caseloads rose by more than 600 applications in 2024 alone and that, even after adding 12 FTE in FY2024–25, current resourcing sits at approximately 86% of the state’s fully funded workload model.
Why it matters: The developmental‑disabilities program is largely state‑funded but requires local administration and has match and workload implications. Underfunding creates higher caseloads per case manager and risks delayed service planning and continuity of supports for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
Staff request and funding notes: The budget presented includes a request to add 11–12 new FTE within the special fund that carries state developmental‑disability revenues; staff emphasized this was not a request for general‑fund FTE. If the program were funded at 100% of the state workload model staff estimated the county would need roughly 22 additional FTE total to meet full workload targets.
Operational impacts: Current high caseloads—reported above state averages per case manager—mean staff prioritize work and reallocate duties to meet mandates. The division said it continues to manage intake and prioritization but that workload pressures remain and require additional staffing to meet statutory expectations and to reduce per‑case manager loads.
Ending: Staff asked the committee to consider the state funding shortfall when reviewing the department’s requested special‑fund FTE increases and emphasized those additions would be funded from state program revenues.
