HomeMy WebLinkAbout20252769.tiffMariah Higgins
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Karla Ford
Wednesday, October 8, 2025 10:13 AM
CTB
Bruce Barker
10.13.25 Agenda
LTR_CC I_CCAT_TAN F_20251007.pdf
Follow up
Flagged
Commissioner James is the chair of the Works Allocation Committee (as a county commissioner) and he signed
the letter that is attached.
Please list on the 10.13.25 agenda under outgoing communications. Thanks!
COUNTY, CO
Karla Ford
Office Manager & Executive Assistant
Board of Weld County Commissioners
Desk: 970-400-4200/970-400-4228
P.O. Box 758, 1150 O St., Greeley, CO 80632
00000
_Join Our Team
IMPORTANT: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the
person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise
protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by
return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action
concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is
strictly prohibited.
CoMMun;Go-t;o✓15
(0/13/25
2025-2769
CCIColorado
Counties, Inc.
October 7, 2025
CCAT Q-sok
Chairman Bridges and members of the Joint Budget Committee,
On behalf of Colorado Counties, Inc. (CCI), the Colorado Human Services Directors Association (CHSDA),
and Counties & Commissioners Acting Together (CCAT), we want to take the opportunity to clarify some
details regarding the recent report submitted by the Colorado Department of Early Childhood (CDEC)
and the Colorado Department of Human Services (CDHS) in response to the Joint Budget Committee's
Request for Information #6.
As the administrators of Colorado's Child Care Assistance Program (CCCAP), Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF), and Child Welfare programs, counties have unique insight into these programs
and are committed partners in ensuring their sustainability. These programs are the backbone of support
for children and families across the state. However, they are facing immense budgetary pressures that
come with associated administrative challenges. To offer additional context and to clarify
misunderstandings on items from the Committee's Request for Information #6:
TAN F
Reduction of overall TANF community services: Approximately 90% of Coloradans receive
assistance from the 15 largest counties. Collectedly these 15 counties have served more than
15,000 people through basic cash assistance in July 2025 alone. With the significant increases to
basic cash assistance creating fiscal restraints and reduced flexibility, many of these counties are
having to reduce or eliminate TANF contracts and supportive services. But if basic cash
assistance becomes the only method of serving those in need across all counties, it would mean
slower exits from the program and ultimately, there will be a reduction in the number of families
served.
Contract oversight and transparency—TANF contracts are investments in the community that
allow for partnerships with trusted community organizations and help families achieve a more
stable future beyond basic cash assistance. These community investments have far-reaching and
multi -generational benefits even though they reflect only 3% of TANF funds spent for the 2024-
2025 state fiscal year. Both federal and state oversight agencies provide meaningful checks and
balances for how TANF dollars are spent:
In Colorado, all county contracts are regularly examined for compliance by CDHS as part
of their review of county TANF services through the state's management evaluation
process. All contracts must meet the expectations of the federal purposes of TANF and
CDHS requires counties to provide all executed contracts with the scope of work during
this evaluation process.
Counties report costs through the Colorado Fiscal Management System (CFMS), which
provides summary -level reporting. However, the reporting does not provide the
opportunity to share specific outcome data from contracts. With the implementation of
HB 25-1279, State Level Data for Colorado Works Program, the state and counties
continue to discuss how best to collect and report any outcomes associated with
expenditures tied to TANF contracts.
CCICounlorado
Coties, Inc.
CCAT
aSDk
Some counties rely on contracts to promote larger -scale economic mobility efforts, resulting in
shorter stays on Basic Cash Assistance. Other counties are not able to use contracts at all.
Because of this difference it is important to look at contracting as it relates to each county and
their administration of the TANF program, rather than relying on a one -size fits all approach.
Administrative spending —Administrative spending statewide remains under the 15% federal
cap. Because some counties have noted that their administrative costs are impacted differently
by Random Moment Sampling (RMS) accounting, it's important to continue looking at RMS'
factor in the future. To improve clarity and consistency with the federal definition of
administrative spending, new accounting codes will break out expenditures (e.g. case
management) to provide better tracking and reporting. Counties seek additional data and well-
defined expectations included within MOUs so they can effectively monitor the cap and meet all
requirements. There has not been a refusal to sign revised MOUs.
Stagnant Federal Block Grant —The TANF block grant has not increased since 1996. Adjusted for
inflation and population growth, Colorado's $135 million allocation today represents only about
$0.30 on the dollar compared to 1996. This erosion in purchasing power coupled with the
resource needs as a result of HB 22-1259 and inadequate additional revenue for the program,
intensifies fiscal challenges for both the State and counties.
CCCAP
The RFI's CCCAP section is misleading in its indication that there are 500 staff responsible for the
administration of the program to serve just over 29,000 children across the state. This number
was determined based on who has access to the case management database, not who is actually
charged to, or actively working in, the program. For example, CDEC indicates that Larimer County
has 22 staff administering the CCCAP program. Larimer County has 5.75 full-time employees
actively working and charged to the program for applications, recertifications, and maintaining
provider contracts and payments.
HB24-1223 codified new federal requirements in state statute that are increasing the fiscal
pressures on CCCAP. While many of the changes are subject to federal appropriations and CDEC
is seeking waiver to some of these changes the change to limit family copay is still required in
state statue. Even if the waiver is approved, changes to the co -pay requirements for families
would add an estimated $10 million annually to the cost for CCCAP. Limiting a family's co -pay to
no more than 7% of their income is certainly beneficial to families struggling to afford childcare,
however without increased funding to implement this change, far fewer children will be able to
access CCCAP due to the $10 million annual cost to the existing block allocation. Philosophically,
this is a positive change for families, but without additional funding, it will continue to reduce
the number of children who have access to care through CCCAP.
Upcoming changes to work requirements under the SNAP and Medicaid programs will pose a challenge
for parents as childcare is one of the biggest expenses for families. It can cost up to 30% of monthly
expenses, particularly before age 3 when care is most expensive and difficult to find. Care costs in the
Denver Metro Area are some of the highest in the country. Without proper funding, CCCAP counties can
2
C CCT Colorado
1 ounties, Inc.
'CCAT
awn
only serve single digit percentages of eligible families, leaving a significant gap in care. Parents who don't
have someone to safely care for their children will be unable to meet work requirements.
Child Welfare
Workload and staffing —The most recent child welfare workload study identified substantial
staffing needs, only one-third of which have been funded. The study also aimed to look at the
funding appropriated for child welfare staff where the amount provided to counties for one full-
time employee did not equal the full cost of hiring that employee. Unfortunately, this structural
deficit has become more pronounced as inflation has increased personnel costs, operating
expenses, and contracted services. At the same time, counties have faced new statutory and
regulatory mandates that have expanded prevention service responsibilities, which add to
administrative workload.
Practical solutions on adaptable caseloads for child welfare workers —We support practical
solutions and believe caseload management works best when it reflects the complexity of child
welfare practice and the changing needs of children and families. Reasonable ranges, rather than
rigid statutory limits, give counties the ability to respond to local circumstances and ensure
resources are directed where they are most needed. With the child welfare block projected to be
overspent by $20 million, counties are making difficult budget decisions that prioritize legally
mandated services, which in turn limits capacity for the broader supports that help promote
child safety and family stability.
Cross -Program Challenges
The Child Welfare program ensures the well-being of children by requiring counties to provide
essential services to eligible families. It's fundamental that families have access to safety net
programs that support a child's safety, including CCCAP and TANF.
As programs continue to face significant budgetary pressures, it's critical for counties to have
clear guidance and direction on how to proceed as allocated expenditures are exhausted. While
freezes and waitlists are a tool to control spending within the CCCAP program, this is not
permitted in state statute for TANF basic cash assistance, nor in child welfare which is an
entitlement program federally.
Increases in administrative spending should be analyzed in the context of inflation and
caseloads, as well as increases in statutory and regulatory requirements. Without these
adjustments, more costs to administer the program shift to local government which is
untenable.
CCCCColoraCountido
I es, Inc.
CCAT
On behalf of Human Services agencies throughout Colorado, we want to reiterate our desire to continue
partnering at the state level as we navigate how to best meet the needs of residents through funding
challenges. We look forward to sharing additional information about the varied ways in which these
programs provide essential services to vulnerable families at the local level and invite you connect with
your local county representative on how you can get a closer look at our programs.
Sincerely,
Jamie Ulrich
President, Colorado Human Services Directors Association (CHSDA)
Director, Weld County Department of Human Services
rig,
Jennifer O'Hearon
Health & Human Services Committee Chair, CCI
Rio Blanco County Commissioner
Scott James
Chair, Colorado Works Allocation Committee
Weld County Commissioner
-C(thi,4
Carrie Warren -Gully
Counties and Commissioners Acting Together, Human Services Chairwoman
Arapahoe County Commissioner
4
Hello