How Your Government Works (Or, At Least, How It Should)

As a member of the Health and Human Services Sub-Appropriations Committee, I just now received an email from Lisa Michelle Church, Director of Human Services.

Director Church believes in her programs. She is dedicated to providing excellent services to Utahns who need help. Running an efficient Department and seeing great need for and benefit from the services her Department provides, I'd imagine she doesn't want to cut a dime. But, representative of the quality we aspire to in Utah government, she professionally addresses the task at hand of matching expenditures to revenues. I want to share her points -- exactly how she shared them with me. Though this came out too late for tomorrow's papers, I have little doubt that it would be covered as anything other than a doom and gloom litany of all the vital services that are about to fly out the window. Of course, Director Church does not present it as such. She presents it as options that policymakers need to consider. Hard options, granted, but simply options at this point.

She succinctly gets in her points -- that her programs already are lean and that they have incurred increased costs each year (e.g., materials and fuel) that have not been funded -- but she performs her hard task in professional fashion. She writes:

Rep Urquhart

I thought you might find it useful to know the process I used in approaching the budget cuts for the special session. This is a summary and I can answer more specific questions. I will finalize my lists when I testify on Thursday at subcommittee.

Lisa-Michele Church
Executive Director

Process Used in Budget Reduction Analysis

1. Review all 75 DHS programs.

2. Review cuts already made to DHS in 2002-2004 cycles: some cuts were 20% administration and not restored (total GF admin cut $4,645,000), plus program reductions from 1.86% to 8.67%.

3. Review efficiencies already achieved through regular management such as Recovery Services centralizing its Intake function and reducing staff by 20 agents; leaves less overhead to be cut.

4. Review cost increases in materials, fuel, utilities, leases and other supplies, none of which has been the subject of a building block appropriation; these have had the effect of cuts each year.

5. Prioritize DHS programs in terms of value. Higher priority programs are those that are a) required by law, b) provide services to those in acute need, c) bring in revenue or defray expenses, d) protect immediate health and safety, e) have a proven track record of quantifiable outcomes, f) provide direct services to people, and g) have federal or other funding match. As a result of this analysis, several DHS programs were protected from further reduction analysis.

6. Those DHS programs that remain subject to the reduction analysis were then analyzed according to the following steps:

a. Are there further administrative cuts to be made, while still protecting accountability to the taxpayers and contract monitoring functions?
b. Are there organizational efficiencies (i.e., consolidations) that can be made to reduce costs?
c. Is there funding for services that are not yet being provided we can cut?
d. Is there funding for people in preventive services that can be partially cut? If so, will a cut shift costs to another department, a local agency, a provider, or impact state revenue?
e. Is there funding for people in services that can be partially cut? If so, will a cut shift costs to another department, a local agency, a provider, or impact state revenue?
f. Is there funding for people in services that can be totally cut?These steps are roughly the inverse of the steps we look at when we determine whether or not to request a building block.

7. We performed the above analysis for cuts at the following levels:

2% of total GF DHS budget: 7,806,600
3% of total GF DHS budget: 11,709,900
5% of total GF DHS budget less JJS: 18,078,600

8. At the 2% level we were able to accomplish the cuts with a) administrative cuts such as delaying computer replacements in DCFS, b) reorganizations like consolidating the FCCRB into DHS and reducing staff, c) freezing entry into programs such as disability services for people waiting, d) narrowing preventive services in DCFS family preservation services to focus on only court ordered cases, e) partially cutting critical services such as mental health and substance abuse in 2010, and f) eliminating a few programs altogether such as the parental visitation grant or the senior citizen center renovations. We could also use some non lapsing carryover balances.

9. At the 3% level we were required to go further into cutting services as the administrative and reorganization savings were already achieved, and the people not yet in services were already accounted for. Therefore, we may add cuts to programs such as adult protective services, substance abuse prevention, child abuse investigations, prison substance abuse treatment, and disabilities ombudsman. People being served in these programs will no longer be served. All of these cuts will be painful and may shift costs from one area of state government to another.

10. We were asked by the legislative fiscal analyst to go even further than the 3% reduction to a 5% reduction. At the 5% level, substantial services will be cut. We no longer have small increments to work with and must find an additional $4 million in reductions. Therefore we could be required to cut general fund in such areas as DORA, a portion of meals on wheels, some services at the developmental center, and other difficult decisions.

As I responded to Director Church, we'll get through this.

I had the chance to sit down today with former Governor Norm Bangerter -- who saw his fair share of downturns and tough turns while in the House and as Governor. It's always reassuring to get the take of sailors who've navigated the rough seas. I have now seen a complete economic cycle, while in office. We got through the downturn of 2001, and we'll get through this one. If we do our work well in the Special Session, we can help position Utah to be one of the first states to climb out of the trough. That's the goal -- last in, first out.