By DIANE ROSS

The flow of federal funds or social services

Last month the subject was the Department of Public Aid. This time it is the state's other three major social service agencies:
Rehabilitation Services, Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities, and Children and Family Services

OF THE $3 billion Illinois should generate in federal aid in SFY 1983, more than half will come via the state's "big four" human service agencies: the departments of Public Aid (DPA), Rehabilitation Services (DORS), Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities (DMHDD) and Children and Family Services (DCFS). DPA will be the giant, generating $1.4 billion; DORS, DMHDD and DCFS together will bring in $190.3 million. Of the total in federal aid, $1.3 billion or 84 percent will come indirectly, that is, as reimbursement deposited in the state's general funds account, money which does not show up on individual agency books. There is no way to trace exactly how much of this reimbursement will be generated by each agency, although DORS, DMHDD and DCFS combined will bring in $76 million. Of that, $14 million represents combined claims for Medicaid reimbursement and $62 million represents combined claims for Title XX reimbursement. The remaining $378 million or 16 percent of the total in federal aid comes directly as grants that appear on agency accounts. These grant monies are possible to trace on an agency-by-agency basis. DORS, DMHDD and DCFS combined will bring in $115 million.

Direct federal aid for DORS, at $60 million, is up; for DMHDD, at $28 million, about the same; for DCFS, at $27 million, slightly less.

Rehabilitation Services: 63% federally funded in state fiscal '83

TAXPAYERS shouldn't quarrel with the compassion inherent in the government's role in serving those humans, who, whether by act of God or act of man, find themselves disabled. And taxpayers shouldn't argue that federal, state or local vocational rehabilitation isn't cost effective — in the long run. When rehabilitated, the disabled are independent, which means the government spends less in taxes. And they often go on to lead productive lives, which means they pay taxes. But taxpayers are right when they maintain that rehabilitation is very, very expensive in the short run. And in the most severe cases the disabled will never achieve independence, much less productivity. From its inception vocational rehabilitation has followed its prescribed course, to retrain the disabled for new jobs, new careers, new lives. If Uncle Sam is partial to any of the human services, it's vocational rehabilitation.

Voc rehab has always been primarily a federal program and it probably always will be. (Illinois, however, claims the distinction of being the first state to elevate its agency for the disabled to cabinet-level status.) To be more precise, voc rehab is primarily a federally funded program, possibly because of its cost per client. It is not surprising, then, that 63 percent of the Department of Rehabilitation Services (DORS) SFY 1983 budget is federal aid, the highest percentage of any of Illinois' big four human services agencies. And for DORS, as for most of the big four, federal aid is still going up, not down. DORS looks for federal aid to rise 13 percent, nearly $7 million, reaching $59.6 million in SFY 1983. Thus far under the Reagan administration, categoricals for voc rehab have not been lumped into a block. Congress has cut the national voc rehab appropriations, but not as much as Reagan had asked.

DORS serves the physically and/or mentally disabled, and the visually impaired and the hearing impaired. The agency offers two major services, and a third, which determines eligibility for Social Security disability benefits.

The first and largest of these major services is Vocational Rehabilitation Services (VRS), which is federally funded. It encompasses the full range of rehabilitation and it extends to four special projects which allow some clients to live independently in Chicago, Rockford, Peoria and Decatur. These four independent living projects are also federally funded. (A related program, the Home Services Program, which provides rehabilitation for clients who would otherwise be institutionalized, is not federally funded.) The second of DORS' major services is Residential, Educational and Community Services (RECS), which is primarily state funded. This service involves the three institutions DORS operates for disabled children: the IIlinos School for the Visually Impaired and the Minos School for the Deaf, both in Jacksonville, and the Illinois Children's School and Rehabilitation Center in Chicago. The latter serves the most severely disabled children. RECS, however, includes a number of programs that focus on the rehabilitation of adults who have recently lost their sight; these programs are offered under the umbrella of Community Services for the Visually Handicapped (CSVH). DORS currently operates one institution serving the sightless, the Illinois Visually Handicapped Institute (IVHI), but the governor's SFY 1983 budget did not fund it. The governor announced in April it would stay open. (See "Executive Report," p. 35.)

A minor service related to both VRS and RECS is the Client to Counselor Assistance Program, or C-CAP, an innovative advocacy program for the disabled, which is entirely federally funded.

Finally, DORS' special service, Disability Adjudication Services (DAS), is also federally funded. DORS determines which of its clients are the most severely disabled; they are then eligible for federal Social Security benefits.

Vocational Rehabilitation Services (VRS)

Formula grant gives Illinois 3.6 percent of the national appropriation; to get 100 percent of the federal aid, DORS must be able to match 20 percent in state aid; USHHS awards under Section 110 of the 1973 U.S. Rehabilitation Act. (DORS offers under its VRS program.)

This is DORS' largest source of federal aid, and DORS expects it to rise

20 | June 1982 | Illinois Issues

about 15 percent, nearly $4.4 million, in SFY 1983, reaching $34.5 million. About 53 percent flows through DORS to the local level to reimburse providers for services DORS purchases for its clients; DORS uses the rest for administration.

Social Security (SS) Clients

Reimbursement at 100 percent of the VRS costs for DORS' most severely disabled clients (about 15 percent of the caseload), that is, clients who are eligible for federal Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits; no ceiling; USHHS awards under Title X of the U.S. Social Security Act. (DORS offers under its VRS program.)

Because of a federal policy change, it may now take years for DORS to see this Social Security money. DORS had received this reimbursement for these SS clients apart from the voc rehab grant for the other clients. Effective last October, the feds delay reimbursement until proof of rehabilitation is shown: these SS clients must have found jobs and worked for a least nine months for DORS to receive this reimbursement. The policy change means DORS must now stretch the voc rehab grant to cover these SS clients, but DORS sees no problem since the voc rehab grant is increasing.

Because the policy change took effect last October, DORS estimates a $6.3 million loss in this reimbursement in SFY 1982. On an annualized basis that would be a $7.9 million loss for SFY 1983. DORS has no idea when it will receive substantial amounts of this reimbursement again. To put the policy change in perspective, in SFY 1983 DORS expects to rehabilitate about 16 percent of its projected 43,550 VRS caseload.

Disability Adjudication Services (DAS) (Administrative Costs Only)

Grant covers 100 percent of the cost of administering the federal SSDI and SSI programs; no ceiling; USHHS awards under Title II and XVI of the U.S. Social Security Act. (This money covers the cost of determining which clients are eligible for the federal SS benefits, i.e., the 15 percent of the caseload that is most severely disabled.)

This second largest source of DORS' federal aid is like a supplemental allowance. DORS looks for it to climb 13 percent or $2.8 million in SFY 1983, reaching $24.6 million. The increase is due to another federal policy change designed to tighten up the program. Effective last October the feds require DORS to periodically reevaluate SSDI and SSI cases to determine whether clients are still eligible for the federal SS benefits. That has meant increasing the DORS adjudication staff from 473 to 609; most staffers came on board in SFY 1982; the rest will come in SFY 1983.

About 35 percent of this federal DAS money flows through DORS to the local level, usually as reimbursement to doctors who confirm or deny clients' disabilities. DORS uses the rest for administration, generally for salaries for adjudication staff.

Four Special Grants

So much for the allowances. Uncle Sam also provides a little pin money in the form of four special projects grants. They're a comparatively tiny source of DORS' federal aid, but like the huge VRS and DAS grants, they're increasing. Together, the four should bring in $773,500 in SFY 1983, slightly more than the $768,000 they brought in in SFY 1982.

1.  The largest covers 100 percent of the cost of four special independent living projects in Chicago, Rockford, Peoria and Decatur (under DORS' VRS program). DORS hopes to add a fifth project in the next fiscal year, but does not expect the combined cost to go up substantially. USHHS awards this grant under Title VII-B of the U.S. Rehabilitation Act. DORS expects to get $440,500 in SFY 1983, about the same as in SFY 1982. This is the only federal money that flows directly through DORS to the local level; the agency keeps none for administration.

2.  The next largest grant covers 100 percent of the cost of the Client to Counselor Assistance Program, or C-CAP, which is DORS' innovative advocacy program for the disabled. USHHS awards this grant under Section 112 of the U.S. Rehabilitation Act.

June 1982 | Illinois Issues | 21

3.  About the same size is the grant that covers 90 percent of the cost of VRS for migrant workers. USHHS awards under Title III-B of the U.S. Rehabilitation Act. DORS' expects $130,000 in SFY 1983, almost the same as in SFY 1982.

4.  The smallest of these grants covers 90 percent of the cost of training VRS counselors. USHHS awards under the U.S. Rehabilitation Act. DORS expects $66,000 in SFY 1983, about the same as in SFY 1982.

Remedial, Blind and Deaf Education

Currently categorical grants but due to be lumped into the new federal (elementary) Education Block Grant on October 1, 1982; formula grants that give Illinois a percentage of the national appropriations; U.S. Department of Education awards to the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE); ISBE allocates a share to DORS.

Congress cut this federal education money last fall, and ISBE looks for further cuts as a result of the block grant this fall. DORS sees its allocation dropping more than 50 percent in SFY 1983, from $536,800 to $240,000.

While DORS' third major program, Residential, Educational and Community Services, is primarily state funded, federal aid does help support the three institutions DORS operates for disabled children. DORS uses this federal education money to help pay teachers' salaries at the ISVI and ISD in Jacksonville and the ICSRC in Chicago.

From DORS, primarily a federally funded program, we move to DMHDD, primarily a state funded program. While federal aid comprises 60 percent of DORS revenue, the dollar amount is only half that for DMHDD, where federal aid comprises only 5 percent of revenue.

Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities: 5% federally funded in state fiscal '83

THE THREE major programs the Department of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities offers are tailored to fit the three major clients it serves: those who are mentally ill (MH), those who are developmentally disabled (DD) and those who suffer from alcoholism or drug abuse (AL-DR). (Drug abuse programs are offered via the Illinois Dangerous Drugs Commission.)

In theory mental health is a state program, but in practice it is very much a state/local program. In effect, DMHDD administers both sides. DMHDD operates 25 state institutions (with a population of nearly 10,000), but it also directs the operation of hundreds of local clinics, which deliver or purchase care for nearly 250,000 patients. On the local side, DMHDD provides grants to 450 agencies which are responsible for the services.

There is a wide range to MH/DD/ AL-DR illness. The worst, the chronically ill, constitute only a relative handful of cases. The vast majority of cases include those suffering from short-term illness. Because of mental health's lopsided caseload, the delivery of service depends on a partnership between state and local governments.

If there has been a trend in mental health in the last 10 years, it has run toward local delivery of service. Indeed, the government's policy is one of deinstitutionalization. In Illinois, the state argues that it is far more cost-effective, in the long run, to treat only the few, worst, chronic cases at state institutions. The issue, of course, comes down to money. Deinstitutionalization leaves local clinics with the vast majority of cases. The switch in the roles of the state and local governments in delivering the service presumes a switch in the responsibility for funding. Simply posed: The state may save a bundle, but how are the locals going to pick up the tab?

Despite the fact that in practice mental health is a state/local program, the state has always assumed primary responsibility for funding. Of Illinois' nine human service agencies, only the Department of Public Aid (DPA) commands a higher budget than DMHDD. DMHDD is budgeted at $583.5 million in SFY 1983 — with fully 95 percent of the revenue to come from state sources. According to the budget breakdown (appropriations), roughly two-thirds of the total available would go for the operation of 22 state institutions (the governor would close three in SFY 1983), while the remaining one-third would go for grants to the 450 local agencies that deliver or purchase care.

Even though federal aid will comprise less than 5 percent of DMHDD's revenue in SFY 1983, the agency's budget is so big that the federal aid will amount to nearly $30 million.

What's interesting here is that the feds have taken more action on funding mental health than on most other human services. Congress is cutting the national appropriations for FFY 1982 and FFY 1983; some categoricals have already been lumped into a block; and DMHDD is bracing for still more cuts in FFY 1984. As with vocational rehabilitation, however, Congress has not cut mental health as much as Reagan had asked. Ironically, all this federal activity seems to have affected mental health less than most other human services.

In the aggregate, DMHDD's federal aid will remain about the same in SFY 1983 as it was in SFY 1982. Comparing the agency's two major kinds of federal aid, there appears to be massive increases on the block grant side and massive decreases on the project grant side; but that's because the block has absorbed some of the projects. On a grant-by-grant basis the agency accounts still show substantial increases and decreases. But that's because the agency generally does not spend all the money available in any given year; it carries the excess over from one year to the next.

According to the governor's budget, DMHDD can expect federal aid to reach $27.6 million in SFY 1983. On paper, that's an 85 percent, or $12.7 million increase, but it hardly calls for dancing in the halls.

Federal funding for mental health used to be simple: project grants for alcoholism, local developmental disabilities, vocational education for

22 | June 1982 | Illinois Issues

adults and remedial education for children. It got complicated last October when the new federal Alcoholism, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Services Block Grant took effect. Of the old project grants, the new block absorbed only those for alcoholism. (What's really confusing here is that this federal money is in a state of flux; DMHDD will get both project grant money and block grant money for alcoholism in SFY 1983.) But the new block grant went on to encompass other grants as well. The feds used to send mental health money directly to the locals and drug abuse money directly to the Illinois Dangerous Drugs Commission. Now both will come to DMHDD first. The fact that the local mental health money and the state drug abuse money will show up on DMHDD's books for the first time in SFY 1983 explains the paper increase in federal funding in Illinois.

If action on the Hill hasn't had such an impact on the funding of mental health, action in the Statehouse has — especially on the local side, which has come to depend on state aid for one-third of its revenue. DMHDD may command Illinois' second highest human service budget, but it faces stiff competition. Under the Thompson administration, mental health is way down the list of human services priorities — after public aid, after elementary education, even after child abuse and prisons (see "The state of the State," May 1982, p. 14).

The question of whether the state can afford to operate its institutions is already putting the policy of deinstitutionalization to the test. And the fiscal crisis that will inevitably result on the local side of delivery is apparently just around the corner.

Mental health may well become Illinois' human service issue in SFY 1983.

From the taxpayers' perspective, however, the governor's plans to close DMHHD's Dixon, Adler and Bowen institutions have only clouded the issue, since the media often defines it in simple economic terms, the loss in state jobs or the cut in state costs, etc. The larger question concerns the patients. Society has great sympathy but perhaps little empathy for those who are mentally ill, developmental disabled or addicted to alcohol or drugs. Compounding the problem is the fact that it is admittedly difficult to see how this kind of rehabilitation can ever be cost-effective. Should the state accept this financial burden, caring for these "unproductive" people trapped in an institutional limbo?

Block Grant

On paper it looks like the new block grant funding for mental health means Illinois will receive a $15.2 million, or 257 percent increase in SFY 1983. But there's really no increase at all; the money just shows up on DMHDD's books, not those of the local agencies, for the first time.

Here's the breakdown on the components of the new federal Alcoholism, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Services Block Grant which took effect October 1, 1981.

Local Mental Health
(MH component of new block grant)

Formula gives Illinois 3.8 percent of the national appropriation; USHHS awards under the U.S. Community Mental Health Centers Act. (DMHDD offers under its state and local MH programs.)

This is the only federal funding for MH programs per se, and though the package may be tied with block grant strings, so far it's the same size. All of this money goes on to the local side of the delivery of MH services.

DMHDD expects to have some $11 million of this federal MH money available in SFY 1983, about the same amount as in SFY 1982. Usually though, the agency carries over some of this money from one fiscal year to the next. According to the agency's accounts, the block grant shows a yield of $10.4 million in SFY 1983 — 2095 percent over the the $501,000 in SFY 1982. Actually, there is no huge increase; the feds still sent the money directly to the locals in SFY 1982 but will send it all to DMHDD for the first time in SFY 1983.

Drug Abuse

(DR component of new block grant) Formula gives Illinois 3.8 percent of the national appropriation; USHHS awards under Sections 409 and 410 of the U.S. Dangerous Drug Abuse Act. (DMHDD offers via the Illinois Dangerous Drugs Commission.)

DMHDD hopes to have $4.8 million in federal drug abuse money available in SFY 1983. That would amount to a $1.6 million, or 50 percent, increase, over the $3.2 million available in SFY 1982, but some of the money will be carried over. The money goes straight through DMHDD to the commission, which administers the programs. The feds had sent the money directly to the commission prior to the block grant.

Alcoholism
(AL component of new block grant)

Formula gives Illinois 3.8 percent of national appropriation; USHHS awards under U.S. Comprehensive Alcoholism Abuse and Rehabilitation Act. (DMHDD offers under its state and local AL program.)

This is where the federal fundings gets confusing. The new block grant

June 1982 | Illinois Issues | 23

absorbs three old categorical grants, actually so-called "project" grants for general alcoholism services, administrative federal alcoholism mandates and alcoholism staff training. What's actually happening however, is that while the feds are phasing the projects into the block, Illinois is still getting both kinds of this federal alcoholism money. The separate figures are misleading. Only the net change is significant.

On the block grant side, the agency accounts show a $3.1 million, or a 141 percent, increase, putting funding at $5.3 million for SFY 1983. On the project grant side, it's just the opposite: a $2.6 million, or 80 percent decrease, setting funding at $628,000 in SFY 1983. In combination, however, Illinois' share both kinds of this federal alcoholism money will rise $480,000 or 8.8 percent in SFY 1983.

Despite the switch from categoricals to block, the shopping list hasn't changed nor has the level of funding.

The main chunk of this federal money subsidizes general alcoholism services. About three-quarters will go on to the local side, although in SFY 1983, as in SFY 1982, most of it is earmarked for three special statewide alcoholism projects. A much smaller chunk subsidizes implementation of administrative federal alcoholism mandates; about 80 percent goes on to the local side. A tiny chunk subsidizes the training of alocholism staff; all of it stays on the state side as salaries.

Project Grants

What about the old project grants for mental health? It's the same story as the new block grant, only in reverse. On paper it looks like the project grants will drop $2.4 million, or 26.8 percent, in SFY 1983, falling to $10.4 million. Most of the drop, of course, is due to the phase-out of the three alcoholism grants. But some project grants remain and will yield an extra $200,000, or 3.5 percent, in SFY 1983, edging up to $9.8 million. Three of these grants, local developmental disabilities (DD), vocational education and remedial education, will bring in a total of $6 million. The rest of the "old" project grants should total $3.8 million; none is more than $100,000. The three larger grants remaining are:

1. Local Developmental Disabilities (DD)

Formula gives Illinois 4-5 percent of the national appropriation; USHHS awards under U.S. Developmental Disabilities Assistance Bill of Rights Act. (DMHDD offers under its local DD program.)

Like the federal MH money, this is the only federal funding for DD programs per se. It's another one of Uncle Sam's presents to the locals, but unlike MH, the DD package is getting smaller each year.

So DMHDD is braced for a $1.45 million, or 50 percent, cut in this federal DD money — but not until SFY 1984, as most of this money is usually carried over from one state fiscal year to the next. According to the agency's accounts, some $2.7 million will be available in SFY 1983, a loss of only $200,000 or 7.4 percent.

Of the total available in SFY 1983, about half, or $1.4 million, will stay on the state side, earmarked for use by the Governor's Planning Council for special statewide DD planning studies. The rest, about $1.3 million, will go on to the local side, as recommended by the council.

2. Vocational Education (voc/ed)

Grant subsidizes voc/ed services for adult DMHDD clients; formula gives Illinois a percentage of the national appropriation; U.S. Department of Education awards to Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) under Title I-B of the Vocational Education Amendments of the U.S. Elementary and Secondary Education Act: ISBE allocates a share to DMHDD. (DMHDD offers under state and local MH, DD programs.)

The budget shows DMHDD's share of this federal voc/ed money will reach $1.8 million in SFY 1983. That would amount to a $400,000 or 20 percent increase, but some of the money will be carried over.

About three-quarters of this money will stay on the state side, for workshops at state institutions. The remaining quarter will go on to the local side; about $110,000 for local MH and $210,000 for local DD.

3. Remedial Education

Grant subsidizes remedial education services for young DMHDD clients; formula gives Illinois a share of the national appropriation; U.S. Department of Education awards to ISBE under Title I of the U.S. Elementary and Secondary Education Act; ISBE allocates a share to DMHDD. (DMHDD offers under state MH,DD programs.)

DMHDD expects its share of this federal remedial education money to stay about the same in SFY 1983 as it was in SFY 1982: $1.5 million. All of the money will go for services delivered at state institutions.

Next we go to DCFS, primarily a state funded program. Federal aid may comprise 17 percent of DCFS revenue, but the dollar amount is almost the same as that for DMHDD where federal aid is less than 5 percent of revenue.

Children and Family Services: 17% federally funded in state fiscal '83

TAXPAYERS have long supported the government's role in serving children and families. During the last decade, however, they have given strong support for federal, state and local offensives against the abuse of children: both physical and mental abuse, even sexual exploitation. Abuse of the young and abuse of the old, as well as spousal rape and other forms of domestic violence, had long been the subject of neighborhood gossip. But not until the 1970s was child abuse truly exposed for what it had always been: a tragedy that warps, and sometimes ends, lives that are just beginning. The deaths of children who died at the hands of their own families, although sensationalized by the media, have served as shameful reminders that society should prevent such abuse. With the rise in the reports of abuse has come a rise in the calls for laws protecting children. Not surprisingly, this combination reporting/protection approach has proved so successful in combating abuse of children that taxpayers are clamoring for a similar safety valve for the elderly.

In Illinois, as in other states, the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) set up a series of so-called "protective" services. First came a sophisticated campaign to educate the public ("Talk is cheap/Life is precious"), then a hot line and central registry. Caseworkers were added and continue to be added. These protective

24 | June 1982 | Illinois Issues

services are only the latest in a long line of government services to children and families, services that began with adoption, moved to foster care, encompassed day care and now touch on prevention of juvenile delinquency.

Services to children and families have always been primarily a local program, in the sense that they are usually delivered at the local level. Because of this tradition of local delivery, and the need to ensure equity, the state has assumed primary responsibility for funding. Federal aid, then, plays a relatively small part, accounting for only 17 percent of DCFS' SFY 1983 budget. Like DMHDD, however, DCFS' small percentage of federal aid is a lot of money — $30 million — almost the same amount as for DMHDD. DCFS expects to receive $32.9 million in federal aid in SFY 1983, a slight decrease of $600,000 or 1.8 percent.

Unlike DMHDD and DORS, most of DCFS' federal aid comes indirectly, that is, as reimbursement deposited in the state's general revenue funds and not in any specific DCFS account. But it is possible to trace, since some of it represents reimbursement for services DCFS sells DPA. (When DPA receives the federal reimbursement, it, in turn, reimburses DCFS from its state general funds appropriation.) This traceable reimbursement includes money for DCFS' locally initiated day care program, foster care for DPA's Aid to Families with Dependent Children clients and services for DPA's orphaned Indo-Chinese refugees. (For details, see "The flow of federal funds through Public Aid," May 1982, p. 14.)

Some of DCFS' federal aid does come directly, that is, as grants which appear on the agency's accounts. The grants that DCFS expects to receive in SFY 1983 should run about $6.3 million, down $2 million or 24 percent. But in most cases there will actually be more federal money available since DCFS, like DMHDD, generally does not spend all the money available; it carries over the excess.

This indirect federal aid includes a major grant which subsidizes all services except substitute (foster) care, and two minor grants which subsidize day care for the children of migrant workers and child abuse protection services.

Child Welfare Services

Formula gives Illinois 5 percent of the national appropriation; USHHS awards under Title IV-B of the U.S. Social Security Act. (DCFS offers under its Family Maintenance program.)

This is the major source of federal funding for child welfare services, and DCFS thinks Congress will cut it sooner or later.

On paper it looks like this federal child welfare money will decrease $2 million or 28 percent in SFY 1983, falling to $5.2 million. Actually, however, there will be a $1.2 million or 29 percent, increase in the amount available to spend since DCFS used only $4.1 of the $7.2 million received in SFY 1982; the remaining $3.2 million will be carried over into SFY 1983.

All of this money stays with DCFS since it subsidizes part of the salaries of field caseworkers assigned to family maintenance service, which are designed to avoid placing children under substitute care: counseling, day care and homemaking services.

Uncle Sam's other subsidy comes in the form of project grants, which DCFS expects to yield about $148,000, or 12 percent, less in SFY 1983. And in fact a number of research and demonstration projects have been completed. But there will actually be a slight increase, $154,000 or 16 percent, in the amount of federal project grant money available for use: DCFS used only $960,000 of the $1,262 million received in SFY 1982, carrying over $302,000 into SFY 1983.

Of the $1,114 million available in SFY 1983, $1,081 million will come in two major grants for day care services for migrant workers and for administration services for child abuse prevention. The remaining $33,000 will come in a number of minor grants.

Day Care for Migrant Workers

Formula gives Illinois a percentage of the national appropriation; USHHS awards via the Head Start Program. (DCFS offers under its Child and Family Development.)

DCFS doesn't see Congress cutting this small subsidy in the near future. The agency expects to have about $681,800 available in SFY 1983, about the same amount as in SFY 1982. About three quarters or $535,000, will flow through DCFS to local agencies to reimburse providers for delivering the service. The remaining one quarter or $147,000, will stop at DCFS for administration.

Child Abuse Prevention

Formula grant gives Illinois a percentage of the national appropriation; USHHS awards. (DCFS offers under its Protective Services program.)

This special subsidy also seems safe from congressional cuts for the time being, according to DCFS. The agency expects a slight decrease, about $7,200, or 2 percent, in SFY 1983, with this federal child abuse money dipping to $398,800. Most of this money stays with DCFS. About $380,000 subsidizes salaries of caseworkers assigned to investigate reports of child abuse and/or follow up on verified cases. The remaining $18,800 is earmarked for a new program designed to make caseworkers more efficient in using the agency's hotline for reports and central registry for records.

So far, Washington has not had as much impact on the funding of human services as has Springfield. State revenue is barely able to keep pace with state spending, which is bad news for some human services like mental health, where local agencies have come to depend on the state for as much as one-third of their revenue.

June 1982 | Illinois Issues | 25