Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06022009 - C.74RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT the report submitted by the Local Child Care and Development Planning Council on their activities and ACCEPT the child care funding priorities for Contra Costa County as recommended by the Contra Costa Office of Education and the Family and Human Services Committee. FISCAL IMPACT: None. The funding priorities are intended to identify the areas of greatest need should potential funding become available in the future. BACKGROUND: The Local Planning Council reviewed and approved the priorities outlined in the attached report at their March 26, 2009 meeting. The Family and Human Services Committee reviewed the report at their May 18, 2009 meeting. During the Family and Human Services meeting, Joe Ovick, County Superintendent of Schools acknowledged his offices approval of these priorities and recommended that the County also adopt them. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 06/02/2009 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Gayle B. Uilkema, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Susan A. Bonilla, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Dorothy Sansoe, 335-1009 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: June 2, 2009 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Katherine Sinclair, Deputy cc: C.74 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:June 2, 2009 Contra Costa County Subject:Local Planning Council Activities Update ATTACHMENTS Referral #81 & Attachments 5-18-09 M E M O R A N D U M DATE: May 18, 2009 TO: Family and Human Services Committee Supervisor Gayle B. Uilkema, District III, Chair Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V, Vice Chair Contra Costa County Office of Education Dr. Joseph A. Ovick, Contra Costa County Superintendent of Schools Dr. Susan Magnone, Associate Superintendent FROM: Ruth Fernández, LPC Coordinator/Manager, Educational Services SUBJECT: Local Child Care and Development Planning Council Activities Update – Referral # 81 RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT the funding priorities for Contra Costa County reviewed and approved by Local Planning Council members at the LPC board meeting held on March 26, 2009 from 6:00 – 8:00 p.m. The below priorities were reviewed and discussed at a public hearing held on March 26, 2009 at the Contra Costa County Office of Education. Per the California Department of Education methodology, Contra Costa is one of the counties under option 2 which is for counties with over 1 million residents. California Center Priorities (Contract type: CCTR) Priority 1: Option 1 94509, 94518, 94520, 94553, 94565, 94801, 94803, 94804, 94806 Priority 2: Option 1 94805, 94596, 94572, 94561, 94523, 94521, 94519, 94513 Priority 3: Option 1 94526, 94530, 94547, 94564, 94583, 94595 California Preschool Priorities (Contract type: CPRE) Priority 1: Option 1 94509, 94518, 94520, 94521, 94565, 94801, 94804, 94806 Priority 2: Option 1 94553, 94530, 94523, 94513, 94596 Priority 3: Option 1 94519, 94547, 94556, 94572, 94583, 94805 See attached spreadsheet with specific data organized by zip code. BACKGROUND/REASON(S) FOR RECOMMENDATION(S): California Education Code (EC) Section 8499.5 (a) through (d) requires the LPCs to review local, State and Federal data and provide the CDE with an updated listing of their local child care and development funding priorities by May 30 every year. In 1998, Assembly Bill 1857 amended EC Section 8279.3 to include specific expanded mandates for LPCs to identify local funding priorities for the distribution of new state general child care and development and preschool funding to promote equal access to child development services across the state, based on direct impact indicators of need. The EC language specifies how LPCs are to conduct their yearly review of child development services in order to identify gaps in services and funding priorities which will ensure that all the child care and preschool services of the county are met to the greatest extent possible given limited resources. The LPC priorities will be used by the CDE to determine future child care and development funding decisions for State subsidized services. Additional Information: Local Planning Councils develop priorities for funding using the following: Census zip code data as a baseline to estimate the number of children eligible for State funded child development services (including Head Start and Early Head Start). Other pertinent local data, such as county growth factors, planning department data, or school district growth data, is then applied to achieve the most accurate estimate. CDE and other available zip code level data to determine the number and percent of eligible children served or not served by State funded child development services, Head Start or Early Head Start. The data is then analyzed using the Priority 1, 2, and 3 number and percentage thresholds and methodology to assign county zip codes to Priority 1, 2, or 3 designations. These priorities are first reviewed and approved by the members of the LPC for each county, which is made up of parent consumers of child care, child care and preschool providers, public agency representatives and community agency representatives who have been appointed by the County Board of Supervisors and the County Superintendent of Schools. Next, the priorities are made available for public review and finally reviewed and approved by the County Office of Education and County Board of Supervisors at a public hearing as prescribed in State regulations. Process for Establishing LPC Priorities: All county LPCs must use the methodology for establishing LPC priorities based on the population of the county. *See attached Management Bulleting from the California Department of Education. The Contra Costa County Local Planning Council for Child Care and Development (LPC) was established in April 1998. Required by AB 1542, which was passed in 1993, thirty members of the LPC were appointed by the County Board of Supervisors and the County Superintendent of Schools. Childcare consumers and providers, public agency representatives, and community representatives each comprise 20% of the LPC. The remaining 20% are discretionary appointees. Membership is for a three- year term. On January 7, 2003, membership was decreased from 30 to 25 members, due to the difficulty being experienced in filling all of the seats. Membership consists of the following: • Five consumer representatives - a parent or person who receives or has received child care services in the past 36 months; • Five child care providers - a person who provides child care services or represents persons who provide child care services; • Five public agency representatives - a person who represents a city, county, city and county, or local education agency; • Five community representatives - a person who represents an agency or business that provides private funding for child care services or who advocates for child care services through participation in civic or community based organizations; • Five discretionary appointees - a person appointed from any of the above four categories or outside of those categories at the discretion of the appointing agencies. Appointments to the Contra Costa County Local Planning Council for Child Care and Development (LPC) are subject to the approval of the Board of Supervisors and County Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Joseph Ovick. The Board of Supervisors designated the Family and Human Services Committee to review and recommend appointments on their behalf. Dr. Susan Magnone, Associate Superintendent, has been designated to review and recommend appointments on behalf of the Superintendent of Schools. 2008 Zip Code Priorities Report--Child Care Centers (CPRE)BOS DistrictZip CodeCity# of Children that Qualify for CPRE in 2000growth factorcurrent number of children eligible for CPRE in 2010CPRE 3-5Head Start 3-5 PTCPKP 3-5TOTAL PT 3-5 SPACESNumber of Children NOT Served% of Children NOT ServedCentralized Eligibility List (CEL)Priority 1 (40% unserved and more than 300 unserved)Priority 2 (40% unserved and more than 200 unserved)Priority 3 (25% unserved and more than 100 unserved)3 94506 Danville 25 1.104 28 0 0 0 0 28 100%0 3 94507 Alamo 64 1.104 71 0 0 0 0 71 100%1 5 94509 Antioch 1595 1.104 1761 222 22 51 295 1,466 83%126 1 3 94513 Brentwood 335 1.104 370 9 79 2 90 280 76%57 2 3 94514 Byron 30 1.104 33 2 0 0 2 31 94%6 4 94517 Clayton 24 1.104 26 0 0 0 0 22 85%3 4 94518 Concord 285 1.104 315 4 0 0 4 311 99%28 1 4 94519 Concord 190 1.104 210 20 0 0 20 190 90%18 3 4 94520 Concord 1015 1.104 1120 180 2 0 182 938 84%119 1 4 94521 Concord 305 1.104 337 4 0 0 4 333 99%26 1 4 94523 Pleasant Hill 225 1.104 248 2 0 0 2 246 99%6 2 2 94525 Rodeo-Crockett 15 1.104 17 0 0 0 0 17 100%2 3 94526 Danville 70 1.104 77 0 0 0 0 77 100%1 1 94530 El Cerrito 195 1.104 215 3 0 0 3 212 99%12 2 2 94547 Hercules 105 1.104 116 8 0 5 13 103 89%19 3 2 94549 Lafayette 45 1.104 50 1 0 0 1 49 98%1 2 94553 Martinez 300 1.104 331 24 84 0 108 223 67%25 2 2 94556 Moraga 50 1.104 55 0 0 0 0 55 100%0 5 94561 Oakley 265 1.104 293 116 38 2 156 137 47%62 3 2 94563 Orinda 50 1.104 55 0 0 0 0 55 100%0 2 94564 Pinole 100 1.104 110 27 0 2 29 81 74%10 5 94565 Pittsburg 2040 1.104 2252 269 157 41 467 1,785 79%207 1 2 94572 Rodeo-Crockett 195 1.104 215 10 54 15 79 136 63%5 3 3 94583 San Ramon 120 1.104 132 0 0 0 0 132 100%2 3 3 94595 Walnut Creek 19 1.104 21 0 0 0 0 21 100%0 3 94596 Walnut Creek 190 1.104 210 1 0 0 1 209 100%2 2 3 94598 Walnut Creek 44 1.104 49 0 0 0 0 49 100%2 2008 Zip Code Priorities Report--Child Care Centers (CPRE)BOS DistrictZip CodeCity# of Children that Qualify for CPRE in 2000growth factorcurrent number of children eligible for CPRE in 2010CPRE 3-5Head Start 3-5 PTCPKP 3-5TOTAL PT 3-5 SPACESNumber of Children NOT Served% of Children NOT ServedCentralized Eligibility List (CEL)Priority 1 (40% unserved and more than 300 unserved)Priority 2 (40% unserved and more than 200 unserved)Priority 3 (25% unserved and more than 100 unserved)1 94801 Richmond 1205 1.104 1330 278 94 22 394 936 70%63 1 1 94803 El Sobrante 260 1.104 287 32 488 0 520 -233 -81%32 1 94804 Richmond 960 1.104 1060 211 1 18 230 830 78%90 1 1 94805 Richmond 200 1.104 221 45 0 1 46 175 79%24 3 1 94806 San Pablo 1505 1.104 1661 356 75 11 442 1,219 73%124 1 99999 various 44 1.104 49 36 142 11 189 -140 -289%68 total 12070 13324 1860 1236 181 3,277 10,043 1141 Sources:Census 2000: Number of Related Children Ages 3 and 4 with Family Income in 1999 Below Specified Thresholds (Eligible for Ca State Subsidized Child Care 07/08) Includes only 3 & 4s as birthday eligibility guidelines for the programs are precise, unlike for CCTR and other full-day programs Dept of Finance Population Projections used to determine zip code growth factors CA Dept of Education Report: Children enrolled Oc t 2007 in all subsidy types by age and zip code of residence for Contra Costa County Contra Costa 08/09 CPRE Subsdized Priorities. New formulas for prioirity setting may change the ranking for 09/10. CCTR 2008 Zip Code Priorities Report BOS DistrictZip CodeCity# of Children that Qualify for CCTR in 2000growth factor# of children eligible for CCTR in 2010General Child Care (CCTR)CFDPExtended Day LatchkeyEarly Head StartStage 1C2APC3APCAPPTOTAL FT SPACESNumber of Children NOT Served% of Children NOT ServedCentralized Eligibility List (CEL)Priority 1 (40% unserved and more than 500 unserved)Priority 2 (40% unserved and more than 200 unserved)Priority 3 (25% unserved and more than 100 unserved)3 94506 Danville 8 1.104 9 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 7 77%2 3 94507 Alamo 81 1.104 89 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 87 98%0 5 94509 Antioch 3260 1.104 3599 129 0 60 13 156 234 238 70 900 2,699 75%180 1 3 94513 Brentwood 424 1.104 468 33 0 0 0 41 65 99 28 266 202 43%57 2 3 94514 Byron 58 1.104 64 4 0 0 0 0 4 15 0 23 41 64%1 4 94517 Clayton 65 1.104 72 1 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 7 65 90%4 4 94518 Concord 540 1.104 596 17 0 0 0 23 23 21 9 93 503 84%31 1 4 94519 Concord 450 1.104 497 65 1 0 0 6 13 20 6 111 386 78%22 2 4 94520 Concord 1700 1.104 1877 251 22 14 46 34 32 41 13 453 1,424 76%163 1 4 94521 Concord 555 1.104 613 38 0 0 0 15 34 36 22 145 468 76%36 2 4 94523 Pleasant Hill 398 1.104 439 5 0 0 0 10 20 25 2 62 377 86%13 2 2 94525 Rodeo-Crockett 44 1.104 49 3 0 0 0 6 6 6 0 21 28 57%4 3 94526 Danville 151 1.104 167 0 0 0 0 2 4 1 0 7 160 96%2 3 1 94530 El Cerrito 335 1.104 370 39 6 1 12 11 2 8 8 87 101 27%10 3 2 94547 Hercules 260 1.104 287 39 3 0 0 38 30 53 19 182 105 37%33 3 2 94549 Lafayette 26 1.104 29 1 0 0 0 5 7 3 1 17 12 41%2 2 94553 Martinez 690 1.104 762 72 0 60 0 33 36 35 7 243 519 68%45 1 2 94556 Moraga 53 1.104 59 1 0 0 0 0 68 54 0 123 -64 -110%0 5 94561 Oakley 570 1.104 629 29 0 1 0 46 0 55 30 161 468 74%93 2 2 94563 Orinda 30 1.104 33 1 0 0 0 0 0 294 0 295 -262 -791%0 2 94564 Pinole 230 1.104 254 29 2 11 0 17 0 40 4 103 151 59%36 3 5 94565 Pittsburg 2690 1.104 2970 333 28 8 0 161 270 0 60 860 2,110 71%229 1 2 94572 Rodeo-Crockett 319 1.104 352 48 1 2 0 21 27 0 6 105 247 70%22 2 3 94583 San Ramon 203 1.104 224 3 0 0 0 10 5 10 6 34 190 85%7 3 3 94595 Walnut Creek 96 1.104 106 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 103 97%2 3 3 94596 Walnut Creek 330 1.104 364 2 1 0 0 4 5 1 5 18 346 95%11 2 3 94598 Walnut Creek 74 1.104 82 0 0 0 0 3 1 4 1 9 73 89%5 1 94801 Richmond 1950 1.104 2153 301 8 17 18 81 73 109 24 631 1,522 71%103 1 1 94803 El Sobrante 719 1.104 794 72 2 7 16 20 27 49 24 217 577 73%58 1 1 94804 Richmond 2150 1.104 2374 325 32 24 0 107 110 136 54 788 1,586 67%130 1 1 94805 Richmond 314 1.104 347 53 3 2 0 11 15 18 9 111 236 68%31 2 1 94806 San Pablo 2245 1.104 2478 465 11 12 16 109 98 156 49 916 1,562 63%214 1 CCTR 2008 Zip Code Priorities Report BOS DistrictZip CodeCity# of Children that Qualify for CCTR in 2000growth factor# of children eligible for CCTR in 2010General Child Care (CCTR)CFDPExtended Day LatchkeyEarly Head StartStage 1C2APC3APCAPPTOTAL FT SPACESNumber of Children NOT Served% of Children NOT ServedCentralized Eligibility List (CEL)Priority 1 (40% unserved and more than 500 unserved)Priority 2 (40% unserved and more than 200 unserved)Priority 3 (25% unserved and more than 100 unserved)99999 various 57 1.104 63 47 1 1 23 77 121 142 64 476 -413 Total 21075 23456 2409 222 144 1047 1331 1674 523 7,350 15,614 1546 Sources:Census 2000: Number of Rel ated Children Ages 0 to 12 with Family Income in 1999 Below Specified Thresholds and with all Parents (1 or 2) Employed SM CTY / ZCTA5 Parts i n California(Eligible for Ca State Subsidized Child Care 07/08) CA Dept of Finance Population Projections 2010 used to determi ne growth factor CA Dept of Education Report: Children enrolled Oct 2007 in all subsidy types by age and zi p code of residence for Contra Costa county Centralized Eligibility List Report Contra Costa 08/09 CCTR Subsdi zed Priorities. New formulas for prioirity setting may change the ranki ng for 09/10. Management Bulletin 09-05 Child Development Division Attention: Local Planning Council Chairpersons, Coordinators, Contractors, Legal Entity Representatives, Executive Directors and Program Directors of all Child Care and Development Programs Purpose The purpose of this Management Bulletin is to instruct Local Planning Councils (LPCs) on the new standardized child care and development funding priority setting process. LPCs are required to submit their local funding priorities to the California Department of Education (CDE), Child Development Division (CDD), every year on or before May 30. Background California Education Code (EC) Section 8499.5 (a) through (d) requires the LPCs to review local, State and Federal data and provide the CDE with an updated listing of their local child care and development funding priorities by May 30 every year. In 1998, Assembly Bill 1857 amended EC Section 8279.3 to include specific expanded mandates for LPCs to identify local funding priorities for the distribution of new state general child care and development and preschool funding to promote equal access to child development services across the state, based on direct impact indicators of need. The EC language specifies how LPCs are to conduct their yearly review of child development services in order to identify gaps in services and funding priorities which will ensure that all the child care and preschool services of the county are met to the greatest extent possible given limited resources. The LPC priorities will be used by the CDE to determine future child care and development funding decisions for State subsidized services. Over two years ago, the CDE began a collaborative effort to clarify and standardize the LPC priority setting process with representatives from the California Child Care Coordinators Association. This Management Bulletin describes the new priority setting process which must be utilized for the priorities submitted this May 30, 2009, and all subsequent submittals. Additional Information: Local Planning Councils develop priorities for funding using the following: z Census zip code data as a baseline to estimate the number of children eligible for State funded child development services (including Head Start and Early Head Start). Other pertinent local data, such as county growth factors, planning department data, or school district growth data, is then applied to achieve the most accurate estimate. z CDE and other available zip code level data to determine the number and percent of eligible children served or not served by State funded child development services, Head Start or Early Head Start. The data is then analyzed using the Priority 1, 2, and 3 number and percentage thresholds and methodology, described in Attachments 1, 2, and 3, to assign county zip codes to Priority 1, 2, or 3 designations. These priorities are first reviewed and approved by the members of the LPC for each county, which is made up of parent consumers of child care, child care and preschool providers, public agency representatives and community agency representatives who have been appointed by the County Board of Supervisors and the County Subject: Local Child Care and Development Planning Council Funding Priority Setting Process Number: 09-05 Amended Authority: California Education Code sections 8499.5 (a) through (d), 8279.3 (a) through (d), and 8208 (ag). Date: February 2009 Expires: Until Rescinded Page 1 of 2Management Bulletin 09-05 - Child Development (CA Dept of Education) 5/12/2009http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/cd/ci/mb0905.asp Questions: Linda Parfitt | lparfitt@cde.ca.gov | 916-322-1048 Superintendent of Schools. Next, the priorities are made available for public review and finally reviewed and approved by the County Office of Education and County Board of Supervisors at a public hearing as prescribed in State regulations. Process for Establishing LPC Priorities: All county LPCs must: 1. Use the methodology for establishing LPC priorities based on the population of the county. 2. Review the instructions in Attachment 1 (DOC; 50KB; 4pp.), which describes and defines the process by which LPC priorities are established for California Center (CCTR) programs. 3. Review the instructions in Attachment 2 (DOC; 44KB; 4pp.) which describes and defines the process by which LPC priorities are established for California State Preschool Programs (CSPP). 4. Select either Option 1 for establishing Priority 1 and 2 using local, State and Federal U.S. Census Bureau data and the percent and number of eligible children not receiving child development services or Option 2, current information from the County Centralized Eligibility List (CEL) to determine the percent and number of eligible children not receiving child development services. Once the Option is selected, it must be used consistently through the entire LPC priority setting process. 5. Analyze all of the data, using either Option 1 or Option 2 to determine Priority 1 and Priority 2 ranking for each zip code in the county. 6. Have additional choices for establishing Priority 3. They may either choose Option 1, or Option 2, or Option 3, which is all other zip codes in the county, or Option 4, which is no other zip codes in the county. 7. Identify on the LPC priorities report form which options they chose to use to determine their local LPC priorities. 8. List each local zip code in the county, and each zip code must only have one identified funding priority number. 9. LPC priorities must be submitted electronically to the CDE in Microsoft Excel 2000 or newer versions. The LPC priority forms include instructions and examples of the correct format. This is described in Attachment 3 (DOC; 71KB; 4pp.). The attached LPC Priority Forms must be completed, approved, signed and submitted to: Linda M. Parfitt, Consultant, Child Development Division, 1430 N Street, Suite 3410, Sacramento, CA 95814- 5901. These forms must be submitted electronically and a signed hard copy and attached spreadsheets for CSPP and CCTR programs must be mailed on or before May 30, 2009. The CDE relies on the LPCs and the local authorized representatives to carefully review all data and documents for accuracy before they are sent to CDE. If you have any questions, please contact Linda M. Parfitt, CDD Consultant, at 916-322-1048 or via e-mail at lparfitt@cde.ca.gov. Last Reviewed: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 California Department of Education 1430 N Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Page 2 of 2Management Bulletin 09-05 - Child Development (CA Dept of Education) 5/12/2009http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/cd/ci/mb0905.asp California Department of Education Attachment 1 March 2009 Page 1 of 4 California Center (CCTR) Priorities 1. Counties with over 5 million residents (Los Angeles County): Priority 1: Option 1: A zip code qualifies as Priority 1 when: there are 50% or more eligible children un- served AND there are more than 1500 eligible children un-served. Option 2: Up to but no more than one-third of the zip codes with the highest numbers of infants, toddlers and school age eligible children on the CEL. Priority 2: Option 1: A zip code qualifies as Priority 2 when: there are 50% or more of eligible children un-served AND there are more than 750 eligible children un-served. Option 2: Up to but no more than one-third of the zip codes with the second highest set of numbers of infants, toddlers and school age eligible children on the CEL. Priority 3: Option 1: A zip code qualifies as Priority 3 when: there are 50% or more of eligible children un-served AND there are more than 500 eligible children un-served. Option 2: Up to but no more than one-third of the zip codes with the third highest set of numbers of infants, toddlers and school age eligible children on the CEL. Option 3: All other zip codes in the County. Option 4: No other zip codes in the County. 2. Counties with over 1 million residents (Orange, San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Santa Clara, Alameda, Sacramento and Contra Costa Counties): Priority 1: Option 1: A zip code qualifies as Priority 1 when: there are 40% or more eligible children un- served AND there are more than 500 eligible children un-served. Option 2: Up to but no more than one-third of the zip codes with the highest numbers of infants, toddlers and school age eligible children on the CEL. Priority 2: Option 1: A zip code qualifies as Priority 2 when: there are 40% or more of eligible children un-served AND there are more than 200 eligible children un-served. California Department of Education Attachment 1 March 2009 Page 2 of 4 Option 2: Up to but no more than one-third of the zip codes with the second highest set of numbers of infants, toddlers and school age eligible children on the CEL. Priority 3: Option 1: A zip code qualifies as Priority 3 when: there are 25% or more of eligible children un-served AND there are more than 100 eligible children un-served. Option 2: Up to but no more than one-third of the zip codes with the third highest set of number of infants, toddlers and school age eligible children on the CEL. Option 3: All other zip codes in the County. Option 4: No other zip codes in the County. 3. Counties with over 200,000 residents (Fresno County, Ventura County, Kern County, San Francisco County, San Mateo County, San Joaquin County, Stanislaus County, Sonoma County, Tulare County, Solano County, Monterey County, Santa Barbara County, Placer County, San Luis Obispo County, Santa Cruz County, Marin County, Merced County, Butte County): Priority 1: Option 1: A zip code qualifies as Priority 1 when: there are 40% or more eligible children un- served AND there are more than 200 eligible children un-served. Option 2: Up to but no more than one-third of the zip codes with the highest numbers of infants, toddlers and school age eligible children on the CEL. Priority 2: Option 1: A zip code qualifies as Priority 2 when: there are 25% or more of eligible children un-served AND there are more than 100 eligible children un-served. Option 2: Up to but no more than one-third of the zip codes with the second highest set of numbers of infants, toddlers and school age eligible children on the CEL. Priority 3: Option 1: A zip code qualifies as Priority 3 when: there are 25% or more of eligible children un-served AND there are more than 50 eligible children un-served. Option 2: Up to but no more than one-third of the zip codes with the third highest set of numbers of infants, toddlers and school age eligible children on the CEL. Option 3: All other zip codes in the County. Option 4: No other zip codes in the County. California Department of Education Attachment 1 March 2009 Page 3 of 4 4. Counties with under 200,000 residents (Yolo County, Shasta County, El Dorado County, Imperial County, Kings County, Madera County, Napa County, Humboldt County, Nevada County, Sutter County, Mendocino County, Yuba County, Lake County, Tehama County): Priority 1: Option 1: A zip code qualifies as Priority 1 when: there are 50% or more eligible children un- served and there are more than 24 eligible children un-served. Option 2: Up to but no more than one-third of the zip codes with the highest numbers of infants, toddlers and school age eligible children on the CEL. Priority 2: Option 1: A zip code qualifies as Priority 2 when: there are 35% or more of eligible children un-served and there are more than 10 eligible children un-served. Option 2: Up to but no more than one-third of the zip codes with the second highest set of numbers of infants, toddlers and school age eligible children on the CEL Priority 3: Option 1: A zip code qualifies as Priority 3 when: there are 20% or more of eligible children un-served and there are more than 10 eligible children un-served. Option 2: Up to but no more than one-third of the zip codes with the third highest set of numbers of infants, toddlers and school age eligible children on the CEL. Option 3: All other zip codes in the County. Option 4: No other zip codes in the County. 5. Counties with under 60,000 residents (Tuolumne County, San Benito County, Calaveras County, Siskiyou County, Amador County, Lassen County, Del Norte County, Glenn County, Colusa County, Plumas County, Mariposa County, Inyo County, Trinity County, Mono County, Modoc County, Sierra County, Alpine County). Priority 1: Option 1: A zip code qualifies as Priority 1 when: there are 50% or more eligible children un- served and there are more than 10 eligible children un-served. Option 2: Up to but no more than one-third of the zip codes with the highest numbers of infants, toddlers and school age eligible children on the CEL. California Department of Education Attachment 1 March 2009 Page 4 of 4 Priority 2: Option 1: A zip code qualifies as Priority 2 when: there are 35% or more of eligible children un-served and there are more than 10 eligible children un-served. Option 2: Up to but no more than one-third of the zip codes with the second highest set of numbers of infants, toddlers and school age eligible children on the CEL. Priority 3: Option 1: A zip code qualifies as Priority 3 when: there are 20% or more of eligible children un-served and there are more than 10 eligible children un-served. Option 2: Up to but no more than one-third of the zip codes with the third highest set of numbers of infants, toddlers and school age eligible children on the CEL. Option 3: All other zip codes in the County. Option 4: No other zip codes in the County. Additional Note: If CEL is used, LPCs need to receive timely information from the CEL agency and the CEL Administrators must give timely access of CEL data to the LPC. California Department of Education Attachment 2 March 2009 Page 1 of 4 California Preschool (CPRE) Priorities 1. Counties with over 5 million residents (Los Angeles County): Priority 1: Option 1: A zip code qualifies as Priority 1 when: there are 75% or more eligible children un- served and there are more than 300 children un-served. Option 2: Up to but no more than one-third of the zip codes with the highest set of numbers of preschool children on the CEL. Priority 2: Option 1: A zip code qualifies as Priority 2 when: there are 50% - 74% or more of eligible children un-served and there are more than 300 children un-served. Option 2: Up to but no more than one-third of the zip codes with the second highest set of numbers of preschool children on the CEL. Priority 3: Option 1: A zip code qualifies as Priority 3 when: there are 25 - 49% or more of eligible children un-served and there are more than 100 children un-served. Option 2: Up to but no more than one-third of the zip codes with the third highest set of numbers of preschool age children on the CEL. Option 3: All other zip codes in the County. Option 4: No other zip codes in the County. 2. Counties with over 1 million residents (Orange, San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Santa Clara, Alameda, Sacramento and Contra Costa Counties): Priority 1: Option 1: A zip code qualifies as Priority 1 when: there are 40% or more eligible children un- served and there are more than 300 children un-served. Option 2: Up to but no more than one-third of the zip codes with the highest set of numbers of preschool children on the CEL. California Department of Education Attachment 2 March 2009 Page 2 of 4 Priority 2: Option 1: A zip code qualifies as Priority 2 when: there are 40% or more of eligible children un-served and there are more than 200 children un-served. Option 2: Up to but no more than one-third of the zip codes with the second highest set of numbers of preschool children on the CEL. Priority 3: Option 1: A zip code qualifies as Priority 3 when: there are 25% or more of eligible children un-served and there are more than 100 children un-served. Option 2: Up to but no more than one-third of the zip codes with the third highest set of numbers of preschool age children on the CEL. Option 3: All other zip codes in the County. Option 4: No other zip codes in the County. 3. Counties with over 200,000 residents (Fresno County, Ventura County, Kern County, San Francisco County, San Mateo County, San Joaquin County, Stanislaus County, Sonoma County, Tulare County, Solano County, Monterey County, Santa Barbara County, Placer County, San Luis Obispo County, Santa Cruz County, Marin County, Merced County, Butte County): Priority 1: Option 1: A zip code qualifies as Priority 1 when: there are 40% or more eligible children un- served and there are more than 150 children un-served. Option 2: Up to but no more than one-third of the zip codes with the highest set of numbers of preschool children on the CEL. Priority 2: Option 1: A zip code qualifies as Priority 2 when: there are 25% or more of eligible children un-served and there are more than 75 children un-served. Option 2: Up to but no more than one-third of the zip codes with the second highest set of numbers of preschool children on the CEL. Priority 3: Option 1: A zip code qualifies as Priority 3 when: there are 25% or more of eligible children un-served and there are more than 50 children un-served. California Department of Education Attachment 2 March 2009 Page 3 of 4 Option 2: Up to but no more than one-third of the zip codes with the third highest set of numbers of preschool age children on the CEL. Option 3: All other zip codes in the County. Option 4: No other zip codes in the County. 4. Counties with under 200,000 residents (Yolo County, Shasta County, El Dorado County, Imperial County, Kings County, Madera County, Napa County, Humboldt County, Nevada County, Sutter County, Mendocino County, Yuba County, Lake County, Tehama County): Priority 1: Option 1: A zip code qualifies as Priority 1 when: there are 50% or more eligible children un- served and there are more than 24 children un-served. Option 2: Up to but no more than one-third of the zip codes with the highest set of numbers of preschool children on the CEL. Priority 2: Option 1: A zip code qualifies as Priority 2 when: there are 35% or more of eligible children un-served and there are more than 10 children un-served. Option 2: Up to but no more than one-third of the zip codes with the second highest set of numbers of preschool children on the CEL. Priority 3: Option 1: A zip code qualifies as Priority 3 when: there are 20% or more of eligible children un-served and there are more than 10 children un-served. Option 2: Up to but no more than one-third of the zip codes with the third highest set of numbers of preschool age children on the CEL. Option 3: All other zip codes in the County. Option 4: No other zip codes in the County. 5. Counties with under 60,000 residents ( Tuolumne County, San Benito County, Calaveras County, Siskiyou County, Amador County, Lassen County, Del Norte County, Glenn County, Colusa County, Plumas County, Mariposa County, Inyo County, Trinity County, Mono County, Modoc County, Sierra County, Alpine County). California Department of Education Attachment 2 March 2009 Page 4 of 4 Priority 1: Option 1: A zip code qualifies as Priority 1 when: there are 50% or more eligible children un- served and there are more than 10 children un-served. Option 2: Up to but no more than one-third of the zip codes with the highest set of numbers of preschool children on the CEL. Priority 2: Option 1: A zip code qualifies as Priority 2 when: there are 35% or more of eligible children un-served and there are more than 10 children un-served. Option 2: Up to but no more than one-third of the zip codes with the second highest set of numbers of preschool children on the CEL. Priority 3: Option 1: A zip code qualifies as Priority 3 when: there are 20% or more of eligible children un-served and there are more than 10 children un-served. Option 2: Up to but no more than one-third of the zip codes with the third highest set of numbers of preschool age children on the CEL. Option 3: All other zip codes in the County. Option 4: No other zip codes in the County. Additional Note: If CEL is used, LPCs need to receive timely information from the CEL agency and the CEL Administrators must give timely access of CEL data to the LPC.