Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections, Youth Services,
Office of Juvenile Justice
Rate Setting for Residential Care
From 2016-2017 HZA was contracted by the Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections, Youth Services to develop rates for the Office of Juvenile Justice’s residential care facilities which would be defensible from both a state and federal auditor’s perspective. As part of the project, HZA developed a methodology for establishing rates for all facilities in which Title IV-E was being claimed and provided tools used to develop the rates along with a user’s guide on how to use the tools.
Kansas Department of Corrections, Juvenile Services Division
Cost Allocation Planning Services
HZA, in conjunction Baldacci Consulting Group, was awarded a contract in 2014 to review and recommend improvements for capturing Title IV-E federal funding for administrative and maintenance expenditures. Based on the merger of the Kansas Juvenile Justice Authority into the Kansas Department of Corrections (DOC), which created the Division of Juvenile Services, the cost allocation plan (CAP) which the Department files with the Department of Children and Families needed to be updated. HZA conducted a review of the CAP originally developed by the Juvenile Justice Authority, the Department’s financial infrastructure, and the random moment sampling process used to identify the percentage of time case managers are involved in Title IV-E administrative activities. HZA recommended ways to improve the efficiency of the process. Case type and activity definitions were updated to enable case managers to better select the appropriate codes; steps were taken to ensure responses are received timely, satisfying federal requirements; and an updated matrix was provided of case type and activity code combinations used to calculate Title IV-E allowable rates of reimbursement. The project team worked with DOC to draft a revised cost allocation plan to satisfy the requirements of the Department of Children and Families and thus the Federal Administration for Children and Families. Additionally, the team identified an opportunity to expand the RMTS to include intake and assessment staff, who carry out similar activities to those currently participating in the RMTS, as youth enter the juvenile justice system.
Applying the changes made to the cost allocation plan, HZA developed an automated application for the Department to use in calculating administrative claim values, including the amounts specific for posting to the federal claim and quarterly financial reports. The application apportions individual payments across 51 programs and segregates unallowable costs from the financial expenditures incurred. Costs are then distributed across nine claiming categories, e.g., adult services, grant awards, maintenance, food service, debt service and capital improvement. Calculations, incorporating data from the quarterly random moment surveys, were applied to calculate administrative claims for Title IV-E reimbursement, taking into account case management activities carried out for Title IV-E eligible youth as well as those which are candidates for Title IV-E and those related to determining eligibility.
Division of Youth Rehabilitative Services
Cost Benefit Evaluation of Alternatives to Incarceration Services for Youth
HZA performed a cost benefit study of alternatives to incarceration for the Delaware juvenile justice system. HZA’s evaluation of Delaware’s Alternatives to Incarceration program permitted, for the first time in that state, tracking of youth from the juvenile justice system into the adult correctional system. HZA created the concept of the “cost of success” to measure simultaneously the effectiveness and efficiency of individual contract providers. The cost of success derives a single figure for each program, representing the total costs for all clients served divided by the number of clients who succeeded in meeting the program’s objectives, i.e., avoiding recidivism. Unlike unit or average costs, the cost of success is heavily influenced by the rate of success of the program’s clients. This analysis permitted the state to determine which providers were cost effective with which types of clients.