Commissioners press JFS on rising child-placement costs, call for reserve review and possible audit

A sustained portion of Hamilton County’s Feb. 5 board meeting focused on skyrocketing Job and Family Services (JFS) costs for specialized foster and placement care and a contested question about county reserve balances.

Vice President Alicia Reiss pressed JFS and county administrators for a public accounting after describing a prior reserve balance of $100,000,000 and asking how the county reached the current shortfall. Reiss said she had repeatedly asked about the balance and asked for an independent review or audit so “the people can see it for themselves.” She told colleagues: "It's time for an audit. What happened with the $100,000,000 so that we can get right to the people, they can see it for themselves, an outside audit, and then a plan." (Vice President Reiss' remarks appear throughout the record of the consent-agenda discussion.)

John Nelson, interim director of Job and Family Services, described the contracts on the consent agenda as agreements with foster- and placement-service providers who recruit and train foster families and deliver specialized therapeutic support. Nelson told commissioners the JFS caseload includes “over 200 children that are in need of these kind of special foster homes” and that the county seeks least-restrictive placements that often require higher rates and additional services.

Administrator Jeff Aludo told the board the administration would begin monthly reporting on JFS spending to give commissioners “the forest for the trees” and that officials were discussing an audit or review to provide an accurate accounting before a prospective levy. "We will be reporting back to the board on that," Aludo said, and added officials were discussing a review to show "exactly here's how the finances have worked over the past several years, to provide the board and the public with the confidence that those dollars had been spent towards the care of children."

Commissioner Denise Driehaus and others urged caution in characterizing provider-rate increases as ‘‘price gouging’’ and described the providers as necessary partners that keep children local and safe. Commissioners asked administration to provide clearer, periodic budget reporting and a timeline for any external review so elected members and voters can understand the trajectory of reserves and expenditures prior to any levy on the ballot.

The discussion resulted in two near-term commitments from administration: (1) monthly JFS budget reporting to the commission; and (2) staff-level work on a defined audit/review scope and schedule to present back to the board prior to the levy campaign. Commissioners did not vote on an audit at the Feb. 5 meeting; that decision was deferred for follow-up work.