Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence

The enacted budget makes the following changes to the Executive Budget (March 30, 2012):

·        Makes no changes to the proposed All Funds, State Operations appropriation ($2.15 million)

·        Rejects the broad Executive Budget proposal to allow the Executive to have unlimited transfer and interchange authority over all State Operations appropriations. Instead it creates specific transfer and interchange authorization for State Operation appropriations, for this agency they include: OGS/Back Office, Call Center, and Information Technology.  In general this authorization allows the Executive to move appropriations between state agencies for these purposes. For additional detail please see page 5 of the Summary of the SFY 2012-13 Enacted Budget memo.

The Executive Budget recommends (analysis January 23, 2012):

A SFY 2012-13 workforce of 26 FTEs the same number as the adjusted FTE level for 3/31/12 and the same number that was proposed in last year’s Executive Budget as part of the Division of Criminal Justice Services (a merger that was rejected by the Legislature). 

The following chart identifies adjustments in the current fiscal year FTEs along with the recommended differences in FY 2012-13 FTEs by program:

• Two FTE positions are moved from federal and internal service funds to the General Fund because these funding sources are no longer available. The Office will continue to pursue new funding opportunities, which may be available after January 2013.

• An All Funds appropriation of $3.556 million, a $131,000 increase (+3.1%) from the enacted SFY 2011-12 appropriation. 

• A Personal Services appropriation of $2.148 million a decrease of $535,000 (-19.9%) from the enacted SFY 2011-12 appropriation. This decrease is misleading because in the SFY 2011-12 enacted budget the $1.1 million Special Revenue Federal appropriation in the Miscellaneous Discretionary account was broken out into personal ($700,000) and non--personal services ($400,000) which is no longer the case.  After you adjust for this anomaly the personal services appropriation for the Office is increased by $165,000. According to SFY 2012-13 Executive Budget documents it appears that this $1.1 million appropriation was not used for personal services in SFY 2011-12.  The purpose and use of this $1.1 million appropriation should be clarified at statewide labor management.

• A Contractual Services appropriation of $68,000, a decrease of $14,000 from the enacted budget appropriation for SFY 2011-12.

·        The Office only employed an estimated 1 FTE under consultant contracts in SFY 2011-12 at a cost of $29,000.  It is estimated that the Office will not spend anything on consultants in SFY 2012-13.