Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
BOARD STANDING COMMITTEES - 06042012 - FHS Cte Agenda Pkt
FAMILY AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE June 4, 2012 1:30 P.M. 651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V, Chair Agenda Items: Items may be taken out of order based on the business of the day and preference of the Committee 1. Introductions 2. Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this agenda (speakers may be limited to three minutes). APPOINTMENTS - Consent 3. Approve recommendation for two re-appointments to the Arts and Culture Commission of Contra Costa County - Page 3 4. Approve recommendations for three appointments to the Family and Children’s Trust Committee - Page 10 DISCUSSION 5. Referral #1 – Family and Children’s Trust Committee Recommendation for the use of Child Care Affordability Funds (Presenter: Rhonda Smith, EHSD) – Page 36 6. Referral #81 – Local Child Care & Development Planning Council – Activities (Presenter: Ruth Fernandez, Office of Education) – Page 40 The next meeting of the Family and Human Services Committee is scheduled for August 6, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. ☺ The Family and Human Services Committee will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities planning to attend Committee meetings. Contact the staff person listed below at least 72 hours before the meeting. Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and distributed by the County to a majority of members of the Family and Human Services Committee less than 96 hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at 651 Pine Street, 10th floor, during normal business hours. Public comment may be submitted via electronic mail on agenda items at least one full work day prior to the published meeting time. For Additional Information Contact: Dorothy Sansoe, Committee Staff Phone (925) 335-1009, Fax (925) 646-1353 dsans@cao.cccounty.us Page 1 Glossary of Acronyms, Abbreviations, and other Terms (in alphabetical order): Contra Costa County has a policy of making limited use of acronyms, abbreviations, and industry-specific language in its Board of Supervisors meetings and written materials. Following is a list of commonly used language that may appear in oral presentations and written materials associated with Board meetings: AB Assembly Bill ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments ACA Assembly Constitutional Amendment ADA Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 AFSCME American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees AICP American Institute of Certified Planners AIDS Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome ALUC Airport Land Use Commission AOD Alcohol and Other Drugs BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District BART Bay Area Rapid Transit District BCDC Bay Conservation & Development Commission BGO Better Government Ordinance BOS Board of Supervisors CALTRANS California Department of Transportation CalWIN California Works Information Network CalWORKS California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids CAER Community Awareness Emergency Response CAO County Administrative Officer or Office CCHP Contra Costa Health Plan CCTA Contra Costa Transportation Authority CDBG Community Development Block Grant CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CIO Chief Information Officer COLA Cost of living adjustment ConFire Contra Costa Consolidated Fire District CPA Certified Public Accountant CPI Consumer Price Index CSA County Service Area CSAC California State Association of Counties CTC California Transportation Commission dba doing business as EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District EIR Environmental Impact Report EIS Environmental Impact Statement EMCC Emergency Medical Care Committee EMS Emergency Medical Services EPSDT State Early Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and treatment Program (Mental Health) et al. et ali (and others) FAA Federal Aviation Administration FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency F&HS Family and Human Services Committee First 5 First Five Children and Families Commission (Proposition 10) FTE Full Time Equivalent FY Fiscal Year GHAD Geologic Hazard Abatement District GIS Geographic Information System HCD (State Dept of) Housing & Community Development HHS Department of Health and Human Services HIPAA Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act HIV Human Immunodeficiency Syndrome HOV High Occupancy Vehicle HR Human Resources HUD United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Inc. Incorporated IOC Internal Operations Committee ISO Industrial Safety Ordinance JPA Joint (exercise of) Powers Authority or Agreement Lamorinda Lafayette-Moraga-Orinda Area LAFCo Local Agency Formation Commission LLC Limited Liability Company LLP Limited Liability Partnership Local 1 Public Employees Union Local 1 LVN Licensed Vocational Nurse MAC Municipal Advisory Council MBE Minority Business Enterprise M.D. Medical Doctor M.F.T. Marriage and Family Therapist MIS Management Information System MOE Maintenance of Effort MOU Memorandum of Understanding MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission NACo National Association of Counties OB-GYN Obstetrics and Gynecology O.D. Doctor of Optometry OES-EOC Office of Emergency Services-Emergency Operations Center OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration Psy.D. Doctor of Psychology RDA Redevelopment Agency RFI Request For Information RFP Request For Proposal RFQ Request For Qualifications RN Registered Nurse SB Senate Bill SBE Small Business Enterprise SWAT Southwest Area Transportation Committee TRANSPAC Transportation Partnership & Cooperation (Central) TRANSPLAN Transportation Planning Committee (East County) TRE or TTE Trustee TWIC Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee VA Department of Veterans Affairs vs. versus (against) WAN Wide Area Network WBE Women Business Enterprise WCCTAC West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 Arts & Culture Commission of Contra Costa County 10 Douglas Drive, Suite 250 Martinez, CA 94553E-mail: info@ac5.org Telephone: (925) 646-2278 Date: May 30, 2012 To: Family and Human Services Committee From: Carolyn Victoria Managing Director, Arts & Culture Commission of Contra Costa County Recommendation of Peter Maund and Dyana Bhandari for Reappointment to At-Large Commissioner Seats The Arts & Culture Commission of Contra Costa County (AC5) recommends Peter Maund and Dyana Bhandari for re-appointment as At-Large Commissioners. Mr. Maund has been with the Commission since June of 2009. Peter is a business person in a director role as well as a professional musician and music educator, with a long history of talented performances in both arenas. Peter brings to the table a sense of accomplishment and helps guide the commission with his voice of reason. His extensive education and experience in the arts makes him a valuable asset to the commission. The commission has enjoyed working with him and values his expertise. Peter has an M.A. in Music Folklore and is a Ph.D. candidate in Ethnomusicology. His reach in the arts communities is vast and has been valuable to the commission. He has contributed as a judge for Poetry Out Loud, served on the board of Friends of AC5, and participates and contributes to AC5 events as well as many arts events in the county. He has even performed at no charge, in AC5 gallery reception events. If the commission were to lose Peter the impact would be difficult to absorb. The commission is grateful for his continued service within his busy schedule. The commission has worked well with Peter and supports the renewal of his term. Dyana’s initial involvement with AC5 was through an application process that occurred in March 2011 for the At-Large seat. She was interviewed and chosen by the Commission. The AC5, in its regular meeting in May 2012, voted to recommend Ms. Bhandari for the renewal term. Dyana has a rich education in political science, psychology and art. She has been a supportive member who regularly attends AC5 meetings and AC5- related events. She will be Page 3 Arts & Culture Commission of Contra Costa County 10 Douglas Drive, Suite 250 Martinez, CA 94553E-mail: info@ac5.org Telephone: (925) 646-2278 a valuable contributor in support of AC5’s mission in the coming months and years. During her service thus far she has been involved in Poetry Out Loud and in the creation and launch of the Arts Café program. Her experience and knowledge of the arts is a valuable asset to the commission. If this recommendation were to be declined, we would be losing a valuable supporter of the Arts. Ms. Bhandari brings experience, ideas, enthusiasm and commitment that make her contributions unique and important. The commission has worked well with Dyana and supports the renewal of her term. Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Contra Costa County Roster Maddy Book Home Arts & Culture Commission of Contra Costa County Appointment Date Term Expiration Resignation Date Status Seat Title Alternate Representatives Bethea Pandora 03/15/2011 06/30/2011 Vacant Seat Seat Title District I Representatives 06/30/2013 Vacant Seat Seat Title District II Representatives Marable, Ph.D. Darwin 11/15/2011 06/30/2015 Seat Title District III Representatives Shelton Petural 07/12/2011 06/30/2015 Seat Title District IV Representatives Faustina David 06/28/2011 06/30/2015 Seat Title District V Representatives Walker Darija 10/13/2009 06/30/2013 Seat Title At-Large 1 Representatives Bhandari Dyana 03/15/2011 06/30/2011 Vacant Seat Seat Title At-Large 2 Representatives Maund Peter 06/09/2009 06/30/2011 Vacant Seat ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Contra Costa County Roster Maddy Book Home Family & Children's Trust Committee Appointment Date Term Expiration Resignation Date Status Seat Title Seat 1 Representatives Johnson Lisa 09/21/2010 09/30/2012 Seat Title Seat 2 Representatives Belinda Lucey 09/21/2010 09/30/2012 Seat Title Seat 3 Representatives 09/30/2012 Vacant Seat Seat Title Seat 4 Representatives Carrillo Carol 09/13/2011 09/30/2013 Seat Title Seat 5 Representatives Gonzales Raquel 09/13/2011 09/30/2013 Seat Title At-Large 4 Representatives 09/30/2013 Vacant Seat Seat Title At-Large 5 Representatives Bell Kamillah 06/22/2010 09/30/2010 Vacant Seat Seat Title District I Representatives Portero Connie 02/28/2012 09/30/2013 Seat Title District II Representatives Miller Mary K 04/24/2012 09/30/2013 Seat Title District III Representatives Frass Tracy 10/26/2010 09/30/2012 Seat Title District IV Representatives Rodriquez Ruth 12/06/2011 09/13/2013 Seat Title District V Representatives Coleman-Clark Alicia 08/10/2010 09/30/2012 Seat Title Page 34 At-Large 1 Representatives Vinson Debra 06/21/2011 09/30/2012 Seat Title At-Large 2 Representatives Freitas Cathryn 06/21/2011 09/30/2012 Seat Title At-Large 3 Representatives Gagen Marianne 09/20/2011 09/30/2013 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 1 of 5 M E M O R A N D U M DATE: May 30, 2012 TO: Family and Human Services Committee Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V, Vice Chair FROM: Ruth Fernández, LPC Coordinator/Manager, Educational Services SUBJECT: Local Planning Council for Child Care and Development – Council Activities-Referral #81 CC: Contra Costa County Office of Education Dr. Joseph A. Ovick, Contra Costa County Superintendent of Schools Dr. Pamela Comfort, Associate Superintendent, Educational Services RECOMMENDATION(S): 1) ACCEPT the local funding priorities for Contra Costa County reviewed and approved by Local Planning Council members at the LPC board meeting held on May 24, 2012. The below priorities were reviewed and discussed at a public hearing held on May 24, 2012 at the Contra Costa County Schools Insurance Group Building in Pleasant Hill, CA. California General Child Care Center Priorities (Contract type: CCTR) Children ages 0-2 and 6-12 years of age Priority 1: Option 1 94509, 94518, 94520, 94521, 94553, 94565, 94801, 94803, 94804, 94806 Priority 2: Option 1 94513, 94519, 94523, 94530, 94561, 94572, 94583, 94596, 94805 Priority 3: Option 1 94526, 94547, 94564, 94595 California State Preschool Priorities (Contract type: CSPP) Children ages 3-5 Priority 1: Option 1 94509, 94520, 94565, 94801, 94806 Priority 2: Option 1 94518, 94521, 94523, 94553, 94596, 94804 Priority 3: Option 1 94513, 94519, 94530, 94561, 94572, 94583, 94803, 93805 See California Department of Education (CDE) approved Priority Setting Process for Local Planning Councils attached. 2) ACCEPT the below written report of activities, key accomplishments and challenges during fiscal year 2011-2012 for the Local Planning Council for Child Care and Development (LPC) as they relate to Education Code - Section 8499.3 – 8499.7. Page 40 Page 2 of 5 ANNUAL ACTIVITIES REPORT (Reporting period July 2011 – June 2012) 1. Countywide Child Care Needs Assessment The Contra Costa LPC is mandated to complete a countywide child care needs assessment at least once every five years. California’s Education Code is specific about the data elements that shall be collected by Local Planning Councils. The Contra Costa County LPC would be expected to comply with this requirement by conducting and completing a new needs assessment during the 2012 program year. The last needs assessment titled: Contra Costa County Child Care Needs Assessment and Status of Children and Families 2006-2015 was completed in October 2006. Considering the on-going 50% budget cut to Local Planning Councils, the CDE and the California Child Care Coordinators Association (CCCCA) partnered to identify a streamlined and standardized data collection mechanism that may be utilized by LPCs to comply with the unfunded needs assessment mandate. The CCCCA developed a data collection spreadsheet that utilizes public data sources to inform local county needs assessments; this data collection mechanism has been approved by the CDE. During the month of May 2012, the LPC Coordinator participated in a data collection tutorial on how to utilize the Needs Assessment Spreadsheet developed by the CCCCA. The LPC Coordinator will continue to collect the data required to complete the needs assessment data elements. Collection of the mandated data fields will require collaboration with local and State governmental agencies that already collect population specific information for the services they provide to the Contra Costa Community. The goal is to complete Contra Costa County’s Child Care Needs Assessment by the end of 2012. The LPC Coordinator will continue to report on the progress of the completion of the needs assessment. 2. Comprehensive Countywide Child Care Plan: Based on the data gathered in the child care needs assessment, the LPC is mandated to develop a strategic plan that can serve as the guide and resource that will drive the agenda of child care services that meet the needs of Contra Costa Children and Families. The legislative intent of the Comprehensive Countywide Child Care Plan is to mobilize and coordinate local public and private resources. During the second quarter of fiscal year 2011-2012, the LPC began discussions about the new Comprehensive Countywide Child Care Plan by including the topic in the LPC Executive Committee meeting agendas. In December 8, 2011, the LPC hosted the Annual LPC Member Retreat. The first hour of the retreat was dedicated to host a Community Stakeholder Input Session. Key stakeholders were invited to the Community Input Session that included: Board of Supervisors, County Superintendent of Schools, Director of Contra Costa Community Services Bureau, Executive Director for First 5 Children and Families Commission, Executive Director for Resource & Referral Agency-Contra Costa Child Care Council. The purpose of the Community Stakeholder Input Session was two-fold: 1) to inform them of the intent of the LPC’s Comprehensive Countywide Child Care Plan and 2) to gather input from local leaders on specific topic areas, such as: a) Challenges to maximum collaboration and integration of child care and early learning services b) Local assets & strengths to help collaboration & maximize resources c) Opportunities for collaboration & partnerships The LPC will continue to host community input sessions that can help inform the development of a relevant and viable Comprehensive Countywide Child Care Plan. The data collected from the 2012 needs Page 41 Page 3 of 5 assessment will be used by the LPC to make data driven decisions when identifying local strategies and objectives that meet the needs of children and families. 3. AB212 Professional Development Program (PDP) The AB212 Professional Development Program (PDP) supports continuing education, professional growth & development, and leadership development for employees working at state- funded child development programs in Contra Costa County. Funding for the AB212 PDP comes from the California Department of Education, Child Development Division with the intent to assist counties in improving the retention of qualified child care employees who provide state-subsidized child care services to children 12 years of age and under. During fiscal year 2011-12, the AB212 PDP received a total of 117 applications from eligible staff at state-funded programs. Applicants are required to complete a minimum of three college-level units for annual participation and a Quality Improvement Project related to an area of children’s outcomes as measured by Desired Results Developmental Profile (DRDP), Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS), and other assessment tools required by the CDE. Individuals who successfully complete the AB212 PDP program participation requirements are eligible to receive an Annual Participation Stipend (not to exceed $1,200). Stipend amounts are determined based on participation numbers, completion of requirements, and funding availability. Eligible participants are also able to obtain Degree Completion Stipend ($1,000) and Lost Wages Stipend for completing their Early Childhood Practicum (up to $1,000). Additionally, AB212 funding is utilized to fund mini-grants to promote the development of Professional Learning Communities at State-funded Early Care and Education Centers. A competitive Request for Applications was released in August 2011 to announce the availability of $5,000 Center-Based Team Professional Development Grants. All State-funded Child Development Programs and State-Preschool Programs are eligible to apply. The LPC announced awards for the CBTM Grants in October 2011. Four programs were selected by to receive a CBTM grant: Community Services Bureau‐Martinez Children’s Center (1st year applicant) Community Services Bureau‐George Miller III (1st year applicant) Cambridge Community Child Care Center (1st year applicant) Martinez Early Childhood Center (3rd year applicant) ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 8th Annual Young Children’s Issues Forum 2012: Speak Out for Children: Educate and Advocate Successfully planned, coordinated, and implemented the 8th Annual Young Children’s Issues Forum 2012: “Speak Out for Children: Educate and Advocate”, held on Saturday, March 24 at the Willow Pass Community Center in Concord, CA from 9-1 p.m. Page 42 Page 4 of 5 Highlights and accomplishments of the event: 1. Exceeded attendance goal of 200 people 2. Inspired by the rich discussions during the planning process, the LPC, First 5 Contra Costa, Parent Voices, and Concord Child Care Center, Inc. collaborated to create a 7 minute documentary titled: Your Story Matters! The documentary was presented at the forum as an opening activity. The documentary highlights the stories of low income families who currently receive services from State Child Development programs and Title V programs, and perspectives from preschool teachers and a Center Director about the current challenges faced by families due to the state budget cuts. 3. Provided resources from 8 community agencies and advocacy statewide organizations 4. Secured the necessary funds and in-kind sponsorships to successfully implement the event 5. Collected 120 advocacy cards from forum attendees. Advocacy cards were handed out at the end of the event to attendees as a tangible advocacy-action step to voice their concerns and ideas about a topic or issue of personal interest. Advocacy cards were hand delivered to each of the State legislators who participated in the forum. 6. The Annual Young Children’s Forum has become a tradition in Contra Costa and has gained the credibility, respect and support of local elected officials, state legislators and community leaders as a valuable forum for conversation, information sharing and community engagement. 7. The evaluations reflect commitment and desire from target audiences to continue to participate and to expand the topics of discussion and depth of conversation at the event. A Road Map to Kindergarten© Parent Education Project The LPC’s Preschool-to-Kindergarten Adhoc Committee continues to plan and oversee the dissemination of A Road Map to Kindergarten© Parent Guide as a part of a community awareness campaign. The goal of the Adhoc Committee is to increase the visibility of the tool as an available educational tool to local and statewide non-profit organizations working with parents of children 0-5 years old, child care providers, school districts, Head Start programs and migrant programs in the community. Highlights and accomplishments for A Road Map to Kindergarten© Parent Education Project during the 2011-2012 year include: 1. Developed a web page to inform the public about the purpose of the Parent Guide, available trainer seminars, and ordering information – http://www.cccoe.k12.ca.us/edsvcs/roadmap.html 2. Conducted second Trainer of Trainers Workshop in January 2012 3. A Road Map to Kindergarten© Wins Top Award in the CalSPRA Excellence in Communication Awards. The California School Public Relations Association (CalSPRA) "Excellence in Communication Awards" recognizes superior achievement in meeting strategic goals through high quality communications products and public relations programs. Judging is based on printed samples, as well as a written summary which clearly explains how assessment, research and planning, target audience, measurable goals, and evaluation where used in the development of the project. CHALLENGES: 50% reduction in annual state funding allocation for the Local Planning Council. 35% reduction in annual state funding allocation for the AB212 Professional Development Program Staff Retention activities. Reduction of staffing infrastructure for the implementation of LPC projects and activities. Unfilled LPC membership categories. Page 43 Page 5 of 5 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 Local Planning Councils 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. Page 44 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 Page 45 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 Page 46 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. Page 47 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. Page 48 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. Page 49 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. Page 50 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. Page 51 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. Page 52 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). Page 53 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. Page 54 Local P la n n ing Cou n c i l Child Care and Development Principal Product Developer: Ruth Fernández, M.A. Graphic Designer: Diane Morrell July 2011 A Road Map to Kindergarten© User’s Information A Road Map to Kindergarten© was designed to promote meaningful conversations between parents, educators, and community members about the importance of planning for and facilitating children’s smooth transitions into kindergarten. This publication was developed as a component of the Contra Costa Local Planning Council for Child Care and Development’s (LPC) Parent Education Campaign, and it strives to: • Provide a guide for parents to help promote successful kindergarten transitions for their children • Increase parents’ knowledge of early childhood developmental milestones and school readiness indicators • Empower and inspire families to become active partners in education Our vision is to generate enthusiasm and a sense of collective responsibility for education and to increase the awareness of the importance of family partnerships and parent involvement in promoting children’s school readiness. A Road Map to Kindergarten© is a parent education tool that is designed to be used interactively to enhance parent workshops, parent-teacher conferences or to be the focus of parent education events. It is not meant to be handed out or distributed without the accompanying active education component for parents. The Contra Costa LPC has developed a training module for anyone who is interested in using A Road Map to Kindergarten© to help parents support their child’s school readiness and transition to kindergarten. The training module is implemented in workshops that are run as facilitated discussions and that model the way in which A Road Map to Kindergarten© is intended to be presented to parents. The workshops are purposefully designed to invite conversation and to foster a sense of collaboration and partnership. Workshop participants review the components of A Road Map to Kindergarten© and develop their own action plans for how they will use it to help parents become active partners in their child’s education. (See the reverse for an outline of the training module.) For more information or to schedule a training seminar in your community contact: Ruth Fernandez, M.A. Manager, Educational Services / LPC Coordinator (925) 942-3413 rfernandez@cccoe.k12.ca.us or visit www.cocoschools.org/roadmap Tran s it io n to Ki n d e r g a rten… pathway to sc h o o l su ccess!When your child is four years old… You are your child’s first teacher and have a huge impact on their lifelong learning! Steps 1-4: 1. Identify your child’s school. 2. Contact your assigned school to get information. 3. Practice listening and thinking skills. 4. Practice responsibility. Steps 5-8: 5. Kindergarten entry requirements. 6. Talk about feelings. 7. Practice healthy habits. 8. Practice getting to school safely. Steps 9-12: 9. Practice social skills. 10. Talk to your child about school rules and what is expected. 11. Find ways to connect with other parents. 12. Become a partner with your child’s teacher. Just before the first day of Kindergarten… Final steps: 13. Before the first day of school 14. Tips for final preparation and drop off 15. The night before… 16. Become involved and stay involved Fall Winter Spring Summer See below for final steps… Page 55 Local P la n n ing Cou n c i l Child Care and Development Principal Product Developer: Ruth Fernández, M.A. Graphic Designer: Diane Morrell July 2011 A Road Map to Kindergarten© Training Module Outline Transition to Kindergarten: A Pathway to School Success and Lifelong Partnerships Outcomes: To ensure participants: • Understand the importance of successful kindergarten transitions • Understand the conceptual and delivery framework of A Road Map to Kindergarten© • Become familiar with the steps outlined in A Road Map to Kindergarten© • Reflect on ways in which A Road Map to Kindergarten© can be integrated into existing work within programs/agencies/schools • Know how to access information and resources in support their work and building partnerships with parents Workshop Outline I. Building community conversations II. Pathways to school success and building successful partnerships a. The benefits of effective transitions b. School-family partnerships: what do they look like? c. Defining school readiness III. A walk through A Road Map to Kindergarten© IV. Integrating A Road Map to Kindergarten© into your program a. Ideas for implementation b. Determining next steps c. Identifying additional resources d. Forming a collaborative network V. Reflection Page 56 Arts & Culture Commission of Contra Costa County 10 Douglas Drive, Suite 250 Martinez, CA 94553E-mail: info@ac5.org Telephone: (925) 646-2278 Date: May 30, 2012 To: Family and Human Services Committee From: Carolyn Victoria Managing Director, Arts & Culture Commission of Contra Costa County Recommendation of Peter Maund and Dyana Bhandari for Reappointment to At-Large Commissioner Seats The Arts & Culture Commission of Contra Costa County (AC5) recommends Peter Maund and Dyana Bhandari for re-appointment as At-Large Commissioners. Mr. Maund has been with the Commission since June of 2009. Peter is a business person in a director role as well as a professional musician and music educator, with a long history of talented performances in both arenas. Peter brings to the table a sense of accomplishment and helps guide the commission with his voice of reason. His extensive education and experience in the arts makes him a valuable asset to the commission. The commission has enjoyed working with him and values his expertise. Peter has an M.A. in Music Folklore and is a Ph.D. candidate in Ethnomusicology. His reach in the arts communities is vast and has been valuable to the commission. He has contributed as a judge for Poetry Out Loud, served on the board of Friends of AC5, and participates and contributes to AC5 events as well as many arts events in the county. He has even performed at no charge, in AC5 gallery reception events. If the commission were to lose Peter the impact would be difficult to absorb. The commission is grateful for his continued service within his busy schedule. The commission has worked well with Peter and supports the renewal of his term. Dyana’s initial involvement with AC5 was through an application process that occurred in March 2011 for the At-Large seat. She was interviewed and chosen by the Commission. The AC5, in its regular meeting in May 2012, voted to recommend Ms. Bhandari for the renewal term. Dyana has a rich education in political science, psychology and art. She has been a supportive member who regularly attends AC5 meetings and AC5- related events. She will be Page 57 Arts & Culture Commission of Contra Costa County 10 Douglas Drive, Suite 250 Martinez, CA 94553E-mail: info@ac5.org Telephone: (925) 646-2278 a valuable contributor in support of AC5’s mission in the coming months and years. During her service thus far she has been involved in Poetry Out Loud and in the creation and launch of the Arts Café program. Her experience and knowledge of the arts is a valuable asset to the commission. If this recommendation were to be declined, we would be losing a valuable supporter of the Arts. Ms. Bhandari brings experience, ideas, enthusiasm and commitment that make her contributions unique and important. The commission has worked well with Dyana and supports the renewal of her term. Page 58