Oregon Department of Education Long Term Care Treatment

  • Slides: 24
Download presentation
Oregon Department of Education Long Term Care & Treatment Programs (LTCT) Presentation to: State

Oregon Department of Education Long Term Care & Treatment Programs (LTCT) Presentation to: State School Fund Task Force April 24, 2014 1

LTCT Overview § § “Long Term Care & Treatment” programs are intended for the

LTCT Overview § § “Long Term Care & Treatment” programs are intended for the treatment of children with mental health and/or behavioral issues. There are 47 programs in Oregon that are recognized and funded by ODE consisting of both day treatment and residential sites. These sites vary greatly by size and number of students served, ranging from 8 students served, up to 92 students served. An average of 878 children have been served thus far in these 47 sites during the 2013 -14 school year. 2

LTCT Overview § § Many factors go into placement and treatment decisions and these

LTCT Overview § § Many factors go into placement and treatment decisions and these factors determine a student’s length of stay in these programs. Children may be placed in these programs from a few weeks to over a year. Children can be placed in these programs by a public agency, a private entity, or a parent. ODE is responsible for the payment of costs of educating students in LTCT programs. 3

LTCT Overview § § “Educational services” paid for by ODE do not include transportation,

LTCT Overview § § “Educational services” paid for by ODE do not include transportation, care, treatment, or medical expenses. The school district in which the LTCT site resides is responsible for providing educational services to students placed in these sites. Currently ODE contracts with 26 districts or ESDs to provide educational services at the 47 separate LTCT sites. Funding for the 2013 -14 school year was based upon a monthly estimate of 1, 150 students, thus far we have served an average of 878 students per month. 4

Current Funding Formula § The current LTCT funding formula is found in OAR 581

Current Funding Formula § The current LTCT funding formula is found in OAR 581 -015 -2572 and defined in 1(b) as: § (Service level factors) x [(the contracting district's NOE in year one) x (state agency slots for year one) + (the contracting district’s NOE in year two) x (state agency slots for year two)] = total state funding contract amount § Funds are then distributed based upon the estimated count of students per contractor. 5

Current Funding Formula (Continued) § Explanation of formula: § Service Level Factors: § 1.

Current Funding Formula (Continued) § Explanation of formula: § Service Level Factors: § 1. 75 for day treatment sites § 2. 0 for residential treatment sites § NOE (Net Operating Expense): is a dollar amount calculated per district based upon regional and other unique cost factors determined by ODE. § Slots: The estimated number of students in attendance. 6

Prior Allocations and Spending § In the 2009 -11 biennium LTCT contractors were budgeted

Prior Allocations and Spending § In the 2009 -11 biennium LTCT contractors were budgeted $37, 060. § They invoiced ODE for $35, 599, 031 § In the 2011 -13 biennium LTCT contractors were budgeted $34, 246, 414 § They invoiced ODE for $32, 562, 610 7

Current Funding Sources For the 2013 -15 biennium LTCT funds to support education services

Current Funding Sources For the 2013 -15 biennium LTCT funds to support education services in LTCT sites came from the following sources: § General Fund § State School Funds § Federal Funds (Title I-D & IDEA) § Total allocated funding for the 2013 -15 biennium was $34, 757, 934 8

Per Student Funding Following the current LTCT funding formula (including federal funds), per child

Per Student Funding Following the current LTCT funding formula (including federal funds), per child funding for the 2013 -14 school year was: § $13, 687 per year for a day treatment student. § $15, 642 per year for a residential treatment student. In comparison, using the current SSF formula (not including Federal Funds), per child funding for the 2013 -14 school year was: § $6, 521 per regular student per year § $13, 042 per special education student (avg. x 2) per year 9

Current Count Method § § § Up to and including the 2013 -14 school

Current Count Method § § § Up to and including the 2013 -14 school year, monthly student counts were reported to ODE by the LTCT contractors. ODE then calculated the estimated student counts per site by taking the highest monthly attendance count, the average monthly attendance count, and calculating the median between these two numbers. This median number was then used as the estimated student count for calculating contract amounts for each contractor per site. This calculation method led to an overestimation of student counts by adjusting the average count upwards based on the highest count. 10

New Count Method § Starting with the 2014 -15 school year, and moving forward,

New Count Method § Starting with the 2014 -15 school year, and moving forward, the following will be used to calculate student counts: § Each LTCT site will be required to track daily attendance and report these counts to ODE monthly. § ODE will then use the daily attendance counts to calculate actual annual average attendance and that number will be used for calculating contract amounts for each contractor per site. § This count method relies solely on the actual attendance counts per month and will therefore be a more accurate method of estimating counts. 11

Actual Costs of Providing Adequate & Comparable Ed Services § § HB 5201 directed

Actual Costs of Providing Adequate & Comparable Ed Services § § HB 5201 directed ODE to inform the School Funding Task Force what were the “actual costs of providing adequate and comparable education services” under the LTCT programs. ODE chose to approach this question from the perspective of identifying an adequate service level necessary to serve this population and then extrapolate costs from this information. 12

Adequate Service Levels Defined § § ODE defines adequate service levels as one certified

Adequate Service Levels Defined § § ODE defines adequate service levels as one certified teacher and two instructional assistants (IA’s) for every 8 -10 LTCT students. For populations of 10 -15 students, one teacher and three IA’s. For populations of 16 -20 students, two teachers and four IA’s, etc. These ratios were determined based upon general practices currently used in the field and commonly considered to be adequate. This ratio can then be used to calculate the minimum funding needed to achieve this level of support for each LTCT site based upon the slot counts (students served). Additionally, funding for administrative services, special education services, and supplies would be factored in as well. 13

Adequate Service Level: Example Applying Adequate Service Level to a specific program: § In

Adequate Service Level: Example Applying Adequate Service Level to a specific program: § In 2013 -14 the Ashland SD was funded on an estimated 15 students in day treatment programs and 31 students in residential programs. § Applying the Adequate Service Level principle we obtain the following: § For Day Treatment 15 students = 1 Teacher and 3 IA’s § For Residential 31 students = 3 Teachers and 6 IA’s § For an adequate staffing level of 4 Teachers and 9 IA’s 14

Adequate Service Level: Example (Continued) § Using the state average for teacher and IA

Adequate Service Level: Example (Continued) § Using the state average for teacher and IA salaries, Ashland would need estimated funding of: § $350, 608 ($87, 652 x 4 T’s) plus § $428, 634 ($47, 626 x 9 IA’s) totaling § $779, 242 in funding for one year, or § $1, 558, 484 in funding for a biennium, plus § $155, 848 for administrative and SPED service charges for total estimated funding of § $1, 714, 332 needed for the biennium to achieve an adequate service level. § In the 2013 -15 biennium Ashland SD was contracted to receive $1, 307, 367 in LTCT funding. 15

Options for LTCT Funding HB 5201 also directed ODE to present “various options for

Options for LTCT Funding HB 5201 also directed ODE to present “various options for allocating and distributing funding” to LTCT programs “in an equitable manner to maximize the amount that is used for direct educational services to these students. ” 16

Option 1: Make No Changes § Maintain current funding sources § Maintain current funding

Option 1: Make No Changes § Maintain current funding sources § Maintain current funding levels § Maintain current funding formula 17

Option 2: Change Service Factors § § § Currently, day treatment students are funded

Option 2: Change Service Factors § § § Currently, day treatment students are funded at a 1. 75 service factor, while residential students are funded at a 2. 0 service factor. These service factors were based upon an assumption that day treatment students do not require the same level of support as residential students. ODE believes this assumption is incorrect. Change the 1. 75 service factor for day treatment funding and increase it to a 2. 0 service factor so that it is consistent with residential funding. 18

Option 2: Change Service Factors (Continued) § This would balance funding for the day

Option 2: Change Service Factors (Continued) § This would balance funding for the day treatment population of children who are in general, nearly identical to the residential population. § This could be done relatively quickly because it would only require a language change in department rule. 19

Option 3: Run LTCT through the Regular SSF Formula (SB 1528) § § §

Option 3: Run LTCT through the Regular SSF Formula (SB 1528) § § § The separate General Fund appropriation for LTCT would be eliminated. All LTCT funding would come from the SSF. The formula would use funding per ADMw times the number of weighted students in LTCT programs, instead of Net Operating Expenditures per ADM. To maintain current LTCT funding levels, an estimated weight of 2. 4 would need to be implemented for LTCT students. If the weight is not increased, LTCT funding would see a 20% drop from current levels. 20

Option 3: Run LTCT through the Regular SSF Formula (Cont. ) Results: § LTCT

Option 3: Run LTCT through the Regular SSF Formula (Cont. ) Results: § LTCT programs would be funded like other Oregon educational programs. § When funding increases for education, funding would increase for LTCT. § This would also eliminate ODE as the “middle man” and provide the funding dollars directly to the school district responsible for providing the educational services at each LTCT site. 21

Option 4: Fund Adequate Service Levels § § Provide the level of LTCT funding

Option 4: Fund Adequate Service Levels § § Provide the level of LTCT funding needed to assure that all LTCT sites could achieve ODE’s defined level of adequate service. Preliminary calculations suggest this would require an additional $16, 000 in LTCT funding per biennium. 22

Questions ? ? ? 23

Questions ? ? ? 23

Contact Information Mitch Kruska, Director, Educational Programs Phone: 503 -947 -5634 Email: Mitch. Kruska@state.

Contact Information Mitch Kruska, Director, Educational Programs Phone: 503 -947 -5634 Email: Mitch. [email protected] or. us Brian Reeder, Assistant Superintendent of Policy and Analysis Phone: 503 -947 -5670 Email: Brian. [email protected] or. us 24