HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD STANDING COMMITTEES - 06132016 - FHS Cte Agenda Pkt
FAMILY & HUMAN SERVICES
COMMITTEE
June 13, 2016
1:00 P.M.
651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez
Supervisor Candace Andersen, Chair
Supervisor Federal D. Glover, Vice 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).
3. CONSIDER recommending to the Board of Supervisors the appointment of Douglas
Knowles to the Member at Large Seat #11 on the Advisory Council on Aging for a term
expiring September 30, 2017, as recommended by the Advisory Council on Aging.
4. CONSIDER recommending to the Board of Supervisors the proposed program model
changes to preschool programs operated by the Community Services Bureau of the
Employment and Human Services Department and plan to minimize the staffing
impacts, and impacts to the families and children served. (Camilla Rand, Community
Services Bureau Director)
5. CONSIDER accepting the local child care and development funding priorities for Contra
Costa County and CONSIDER acknowledging receipt of the California Department of
Education’s Local Priority Setting Reporting Form, as recommended by the Contra
Costa County Office of Education and Local Planning and Advisory Council for Early
Care and Education.
6.The next meeting is currently scheduled for July 11, 2016.
7.Adjourn
The Family & Human Services Committee will provide reasonable accommodations for persons
with disabilities planning to attend Family & Human Services 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 & Human Services Committee
1
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:
Enid Mendoza, Committee Staff
Phone (925) 335-1039, Fax (925) 646-1353
enid.mendoza@cao.cccounty.us
2
FAMILY AND HUMAN SERVICES
COMMITTEE 3.
Meeting Date:06/13/2016
Subject:Appointments to the Advisory Council on Aging
Submitted For: FAMILY & HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE,
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: N/A
Presenter: Contact: Enid Mendoza, (925) 335-1039
Referral History:
On December 6, 2011 the Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution No. 2011/497 adopting policy
governing appointments to boards, committees, and commissions that are advisory to the Board of
Supervisors. Included in this resolution was the requirement that applications for at
large/countywide seats be reviewed by a Board of Supervisors sub-committee.
Referral Update:
Staff to the Advisory Council on Aging has submitted the attached request for appointments to
seats on the Council.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
RECOMMEND to the Board of Supervisors the appointment of Douglas Knowles to the Member at
Large Seat #11 on the Advisory Council on Aging for a term expiring September 30, 2017.
Attachments
D.Knowles Application
3
4
5
6
7
8
FAMILY AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE 4.
Meeting Date:06/13/2016
Subject:Proposal to Eliminate Federal Head Start Home Based Slots and Increase State
Preschool Slots
Submitted For: FAMILY & HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE,
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: 78
Referral Name: Community Services Bureau / Head Start Oversight
Presenter: Camilla Rand, Community Services
Bureau Director
Contact: Enid Mendoza,
925-335-1039
Referral History:
Oversight of the Community Services Bureau and Head Start programs was originally referred to
the Family and Human Services Committee on March 1, 2005. Since that time the program has
provided the Committee with annual updates on the programs and services provided.
The attached report submitted by the Community Services Bureau of the Employment and Human
Services Department is to propose a program model change that impacts Federal Head Start
childcare slots, and is therefore being presented to the Family and Human Services Committee
(F&HS).
Referral Update:
Please see the attached proposal submitted by the Community Services Bureau of the
Employment and Human Services Department. The department will return to F&HS later this
year with the full annual report update on the programs and services provided.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
ACCEPT and recommend to the Board of Supervisors the following proposed program model
changes that will result in a reduction of 150 Head Start slots and an increase of 168 new State
slots:
A reduction in class size of seven Head Start classrooms in an effort to enroll more three
year olds; and
The conversion of select classrooms from part-day, part-year to full-day, full-year to best
meet community need; and
The elimination of 72 preschool home based slots to meet the growing demand of
center-based care; and
An increase of 168 new State preschool slots to fully earn the State contract and generate
additional revenue through partnerships in Antioch, Pittsburg, San Ramon and Concord.
9
additional revenue through partnerships in Antioch, Pittsburg, San Ramon and Concord.
ACKNOWLEDGE that the following proposed program model changes will have the following
staffing impacts:
Six of the seven Early Childhood Educator - Project positions, recommended by the
department and approved by the Board of Supervisors on April 12, 2016 (D.5), to be
re-established effective August 22, 2016 due the summer lay-off period of staff for the
part-year preschool home based program model, will no longer need to be re-established;
and
Six of the seven former Early Childhood Educator - Project employees would not return to
work on August 22, 2016, as requested by the department on March 25, 2016, and would
remain in lay-off status; however, the department will provide the six impacted former Early
Childhood Educator - Project employees the opportunity to bid and be placed in other vacant
project positions they qualify for to prevent any of them from losing employment beyond
August 21, 2016.
ACKNOWLEDGE the department's plan to minimize impacts to families and children by case
managing each impacted family to ensure them the opportunity to receive classroom based
preschool services in other classrooms at nearby child care facilities.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
There is no anticipated impact to the Head Start funding allocation since the department has
proposed to use the funding from the slot reduction to pay for unfunded Head Start program
mandates and facility updates. The department anticipates fully earning the State contract for
preschool services, which if sub-contracted through partnerships, would still result in an
estimated $90,976 in administrative funding to the department.
Attachments
CSB Slot Reduction Model Justification
10
Community Services Bureau, Employment and Human Services Department
2016‐17 Program Model Change Overview
Community Services Bureau (CSB) is proposing a program model change that includes a Federal Head
Start childcare slots reduction and an increase in State Department of Education childcare slots in an
effort to meet the growing unfunded fiscal mandates and the changing needs of the community.
CSB continues to struggle with high facilities costs, stagnant State and Federal funding, the anticipated
cost of living increases and other un‐funded mandates that are threatening to adversely impact the
quality services that we provide to our community. At the same time, the needs of our communities are
shifting, forcing us to adapt our program to best meet these changing needs.
Many Head Start programs State‐wide are requesting from the Office of Head Start a reduction in slots
while maintaining the same level of funding. Community Services is making the same request, but has
devised a strategic and innovative plan that reduces costs while increasing revenue in the Department
and slots in the community.
Included in this model change are the following:
The reduction of 150 Head Start slots through varying strategies, including:
o A reduction in class size of seven classrooms in an effort to enroll more three year olds;
o The conversion of select classrooms from part‐day, part‐year to full‐day, full‐year to
best meet community need; and
o The elimination of 72 preschool home based slots to meet the growing demand of
center‐based care.
An increase of 168 new State slots to fully earn the State contract and generate additional
revenue through partnerships in Antioch, Pittsburg, San Ramon and Concord.
Impact:
Children and families impacted by these changes will have the opportunity to move to other
classrooms close by – no one will lose care.
Teaching staff impacted by the classroom changes have the opportunity to bid into other
vacant positions and none will lose employment.
The largest impact is to six of the seven Home Educators, who will lose their positions. CSB will
provide every opportunity for them to continue with CSB in other positions.
Please see attached justification
11
A Changin
HEAD STA
1. Increas
of four ye
funded sc
Kindergar
Due to th
Start Perf
decline in
This conti
old enroll
Cont
ng Landscape
ART CENTER‐B
sed Options f
ear old childr
chool‐based s
rten this year
his shift, CSB
formance Sta
4 year old en
inuing decline
ment as repo
tra Costa Cou
2016‐17
e
BASED SLOT
for Families:
ren to Transi
state‐prescho
and $4,273,0
has struggled
andards cons
nrollment in C
e in four year
orted by the R
unty Employm
Communi
7 Enrollment
REDUCTION‐
An overarchi
tional Kinder
ool programs.
047 in new st
d to maintain
sistently over
Community S
r old enrollm
Regional Offic
ment and Hum
ty Services B
and Program
‐ 78 SLOTS
ng trend that
rgarten (TK) p
In Contra Co
ate preschoo
n 100% enrol
r the past tw
Services.
ent is aligned
ce in February
man Services
ureau
m Model Chan
t is taking the
programs and
osta County, 2
ol funding has
llment at all
wo years. T
d with the Sta
y, 2016 as ind
s Department
nges
e nation by st
d to the prol
2,744 slots w
s been allocat
times as req
The below ta
ate’s sharp d
dicated below
t
torm is the ex
liferation of
went to Transi
ted since 201
uired by the
able illustrate
ecline in fou
w.
xodus
newly
tional
3.
Head
es the
r year
12
A Solution: CSB is poised to meet this challenge by re‐designing our program to be able to serve more
3‐year olds. In order to do this, we must reduce class size according the Head Start Performance
Standard 1306. We have identified seven (7) classrooms to serve more three year olds and we have
redesigned others to meet the needs of our community for more full‐day care.
These proposed changes will result in no loss of employment for staff and no loss of early care and
education for our children.
2. Change in Family Need: Each year, staff reviews the community assessment to ensure that our
program options meet the changing needs of our families. When looking at our waitlisted families, 14%
of families need part‐day, part‐year services and yet we have the capacity to serve 30%. With
unemployment now at 4.5% in Costa County, more families need full‐day, full‐year services as they go to
work.
A Solution: In an effort to meet the needs of our families, four classrooms county‐wide will be
converted from part‐day to full‐day. In addition, we will add 84 state funded center based slots to be
placed in areas of high need.
Again, these proposed changes will result in no loss of employment for staff and no loss of early care
and education for our children.
HEAD START HOME‐BASED SLOT REDUCTION – 72 SLOTS
1. Change in Family Need: Each year, staff reviews the community assessment and other program data
to ensure that our program options meet the changing needs of our families. Data shows less need for
home‐based care for preschoolers and a growing need for center‐based services. The tables below
illustrate this change.
There has been a steady decline in home based slots available and a more drastic decline in enrollment.
Home Base has not achieved full enrollment, a federal mandate, since 2013. In order to maintain
compliance, CSB has over‐enrolled in full‐day/full year care to offset for this drop in enrollment in home
base.
2007, 133 2010, 132
2016, 84
2007, 133
2010, 110
2016, 76
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018# of SlotsYear
CSB's Home Base Trends
# of Slots
# Enrolled
13
Similarly,
base as th
A survey o
move awa
And finall
Indian pro
Alame
Berke
Na
Oran
Riversi
Santa Cla
# of S
the chart bel
heir first prefe
of other prog
ay from home
y, looking at
ograms, only
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
PY
2
0 1
da
ley
pa
ge
de
ara
Alame
Slots 0
Cal
ow shows a s
erence for se
rams similar
e‐base as a pr
all 242 Head
6% or 5,502 s
Y 2012‐
2013
PY 2
20
H
1020
eda Ber
ifornia P
94%
24
steep decline
rvice.
to CSB, that h
rogram optio
Start agencie
slots out of 80
013‐
14
PY 201
2015
ome Bas
30 4
keley
0
Program
6%
%
42 State‐
in children o
historically ha
n.
es state‐wide,
0,746 are hom
14‐
5
PY 2015‐
2016
se Wait i
4050
Napa
0
s with H
‐Wide Ag
on the CSB wa
ad home‐base
, excluding m
me‐based slo
‐
ing List
Home
60 7
Orange
12
Home Ba
gencies
Home
Cente
aitlist that hav
ed programs,
igrant and Na
ots.
Based Waiting
7080
Riverside
0
ase Slots
e Based Slots ‐
er Based Slots ‐
ve indicated h
, clearly revea
ative America
g List
90 1
Santa Clara
0
s
5,502
‐ 80,746
home
als a
an
100
14
2. Optimal “Dosage”: In 2015 the Office of Head Start issued a draft of the proposed new Performance
Standards that govern the Head Start program. This proposal spoke to a need for “higher dosage levels”
in Head Start to be consistent with that of many State pre‐kindergarten programs and proposes to
eliminate the home based option as a standard program option. Programs can still have Head Start
Home Base as a locally‐designed option if “a program can demonstrate that a shorter program more
effectively meets its community’s needs.”1
A Solution:
CSB will respond to this call for increased dosage and decreased community need by adjusting our
programing as follows:
Reduce our current Head Start home base program from 84 to 12; leaving one caseload (12) to
serve children with special needs that are temporarily unable to participate in center base.
Add 84 state funded center based slots in areas of high need.
Meet the needs and preferences of the 21 children returning to the program from home base in
the 16‐17 program year by serving 4 in home base and 18 in center base.
Work closely with each of the six impacted Early Childhood Home Educators who are impacted
to ensure alternate placement within the Department.
Fiscal Relief for Unfunded Mandates and Facility Improvement Costs
Despite the rising cost of doing business in general, along with the increased federal mandates to
maintain our facilities to the highest standards for health and safety, federal funding has remained
relatively flat. The Office of Head Start offers relief from this situation in the form of a slot reduction
where the same level of funding is maintained while serving fewer children. Therefore, this slot
reduction is not only making our program more viable in meeting community needs, it is also adjusting
our program fiscally as shown by the analysis below.
1 http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/standards/hspps/nprm/docs/ohs‐nprm‐summary.pdf
Anticipated Costs:
FY 2016‐17 Estimated facility costs to meet Health &
Safety requirements 1,076,000$
Cost Savings from 150‐slot reduction:
1 a. Reduce 78 slots ‐ CSB childcare centers ‐ 48; Little
Angels ‐ 10; East Leland ‐ 20 289,141$
b. Re ‐design slot configuration in Bayo Vista, Crescent
Park and GMC to 20 FP/HS 191,909
2 Eliminate Earl y Childhood Educator positions, 6 FTEs 460,000
Total Savings from slot reduction 941,050$
3
Addition of 168 State slots through collaboration with
Antioch and San Ramon Unified School Districts and
other community‐based organizations 90,976 1,032,026
Projected Shortfall (43,974)$
Unfunded COLA Impact:
FY 2017‐18 ‐ $611,000
FY 2018‐19 ‐ $1,240,000
15
16
FAMILY AND HUMAN SERVICES
COMMITTEE 5.
Meeting Date:06/13/2016
Subject:Local Child Care Planning & Development – Council Activities - LPC
Annual Zip Codes
Submitted For: FAMILY & HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE,
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: 81
Referral Name: Local Child Care Planning & Development – Council Activities
Presenter: Enid Mendoza Contact: Enid Mendoza, (925) 335-1039
Referral History:
The Board of Supervisors referred updates on the activities of the Local Planning and Advisory
Council for Early Care and Education (LPC) (formerly known as the Local Planning Council for
Child Care and Development) to the Family and Human Services Committee (F&HS) on January
17, 2006.
The last report was provided to the Family and Human Services Committee on June 8, 2015.
Referral Update:
Please see the attached report for an update on the California General Child Care Center Priorities
and California State Preschool Priorities for Contra Costa County as reviewed and approved by
the Executive Committee of the Local Planning Council.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
ACCEPT the local funding priorities for Contra Costa County, as reviewed and approved by
the Executive Committee of the Local Planning Council at the meeting held on May 9, 2016,
and reviewed and discussed at a Public Hearing held on May 23, 2016 at the Contra Costa
County Office of Education Building in Pleasant Hill, CA and forward the report to the
Board of Supervisors for their information.
1.
ACKNOWLEDGE receipt and sign, as a representative of the Board of Supervisors, the
California Department of Education’s Local Priority Setting Reporting Form which certifies
that the LPC recommended zip code priorities were reviewed and approved by the Family
and Human Services Committee.
2.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
Although the LPC priorities will be used by the California Department of Education to determine
17
Although the LPC priorities will be used by the California Department of Education to determine
future child care and development funding decisions for State subsidized services, there is no
expected fiscal impact to the County.
Attachments
LPC Report
18
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: June 2, 2016
TO: Family and Human Services Committee
Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II, Chair
Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V, Vice Chair
FROM: Ruth Fernández, LPC Coordinator/Manager, Educational Services
SUBJECT: Local Planning and Advisory Council for Early Care and Education
Council Activities-Referral #81
CC: Contra Costa County Office of Education
Karen Sakata, Contra Costa County Superintendent of Schools
Dr. Pamela Comfort, Deputy Superintendent of Schools
RECOMMENDATION(S):
1) ACCEPT the local funding priorities for Contra Costa County reviewed and approved by the Executive
Committee of the Local Planning Council at the meeting held on May 9, 2016. The below priorities were
reviewed and discussed at a Public Hearing held on May 23, 2016 at the Contra Costa County Office of
Education Building in Pleasant Hill, CA.
2) ACKNOWLEDGE receipt of the California Department of Education’s Local Priority Setting
Reporting Form which certifies that the LPC recommended zip code priorities were reviewed and
approved by the representative of the County Board of Supervisors.
California General Child Care Center Priorities (Contract type: CCTR)
Children ages 0-2 – Full-Day Infant and Toddler Child Development Services
Priority 1: Option 1
94509, 94521, 94531, 94553, 94565, 94801, 94804, 94806
Priority 2: Option 1
94519, 94520, 94523, 94530, 94549, 94805
Priority 3: Option 1
94505, 94506, 94507, 94511, 94513, 94514, 94516, 94517, 94518, 94525, 94526, 94528, 94547, 94548,
94556, 94561, 94563, 94564, 94569, 94572, 94575, 94582, 94583, 94595, 94596, 94597, 94598, 94803
California State Preschool Priorities (Contract type: CSPP)
Children ages 3-5 – Full-Day and Part-Day Preschool Services
Priority 1: Option 1
94520, 94523, 94531, 94553
Priority 2: Option 1
94509, 94513, 94519, 94521, 94565, 94582, 94583
Priority 3: Option 1
94505, 94506, 94507, 94511, 94514, 94516, 94517, 94518, 94525, 94526, 94528, 94530, 94547, 94548,
94549, 94556, 94561, 94563, 94564, 94569, 94572, 94575, 94595, 94596, 94597, 94598, 94801, 94803,
94804, 94805, 94806
19
California General Child Care Center Priorities (Contract type: CCTR)
Children 6-12 years of age – Full-Year School-Aged Child Development Services
Priority 1: Option 1
94509, 94513, 94519, 94520, 94521, 94523, 94530, 94531, 94547, 94553, 94561, 94565, 94801, 94803,
94804, 94805, 94806
Priority 2: Option 1
94505, 94518, 94549, 94563, 94564, 94596, 94597, 94598
Priority 3: Option 1
94506, 94507, 94511, 94514, 94516, 94517, 94525, 94526, 94528, 94548, 94578, 94556, 94569, 94572,
94575, 94582, 94583, 94595
See California Department of Education (CDE) approved Priority Setting Process for Local
Planning Councils attached.
REASON/S FOR RECOMMENDATION:
In 1998, AB 1857 (Escutia) amended the Education Code, Section 8499.5, to include specific expanded
mandates for Local Child Care Planning Councils (LPCs). One of these was an expansion of the existing
LPC mandate to identify local priorities for the distribution of new state child care and development and
preschool funding. The Education Code language specifies how LPCs are to conduct their work in order to
identify priorities to ensure that all the child care and preschool needs of the county are met to the greatest
extent possible. The priorities are to be submitted annually to the California Department of Education and
used by the Department to determine funding decisions.
Local Planning Councils develop priorities for funding using:
Census zip code data and American Community Survey data as a baseline to estimate the number
of children eligible for State Funded Services (and 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/not served by State Funded Services or Head Start.
California Academic Performance Index, other School Performance Data or Child Outcome Data
The data is then analyzed to assign a Priority 1, 2, and 3 designations to the zip codes of highest need using
both a number and a percentage threshold for our county size (over 1 million residents).
These priorities are first reviewed and approved by the members of the Local Planning Council 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. The priorities are next made available for
public review and finally reviewed and approved by the County Board of Supervisors at a public hearing as
prescribed in State regulations.
20
BACKGROUND:
The Contra Costa County Local Planning and Advisory Council for Early Care and Education (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. Child care
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. On September 19, 2012 membership was decreased from 25 to 20,
due to continued difficulty to fill vacant seats. Official reduction of appointed seats provides flexibility to
ensure quorum is met in order to conduct Council business.
21
Contra Costa Local Planning and Advisory Council for Early Care and Education (LPC) Annual Zip Code Funding Priorities May 31, 2016 2016
County
Code
Zip Code City CSPP Infant-Toddler
CCTR
School Age
CCTR
07 94505 Byron/Discovery Bay 3 3 2
07 94506 Blackhawk/Danville 3 3 3
07 94507 Alamo 3 3 3
07 94509 Antioch 2 1 1
07 94511 Bethel Island 3 3 3
07 94513 Brentwood 2 3 1
07 94514 Byron/Discovery Bay 3 3 3
07 94516 Canyon 3 3 3
07 94517 Clayton 3 3 3
07 94518 Concord 3 3 2
07 94519 Concord 2 2 1
07 94520 Clyde/Concord 1 2 1
07 94521 Concord 2 1 1
07 94523 Concord/Pleasant Hill 1 2 1
07 94525 Crockett 3 3 3
07 94526 Danville 3 3 3
07 94528 Diablo 3 3 3
07 94530 El Cerrito 3 2 1
07 94531 Antioch 1 1 1
07 94547 Hercules/Rodeo 3 3 1
07 94548 Knightsen 3 3 3
07 94549 Lafayette 3 2 2
07 94553 Briones/Martinez/Pacheco 1 1 1
07 94556 Moraga 3 3 3
07 94561 Oakley 3 3 1
07 94563 Orinda 3 3 2
07 94564 Pinole 3 3 2
07 94565 Bay Point/Pittsburg/Port Chicago/West
Pittsburg
2 1 1
07 94569 Port Costa 3 3 3
07 94572 Rodeo 3 3 3
07 94575 Moraga 3 3 3
07 94582 San Ramon 2 3 3
07 94583 San Ramon 2 3 3
07 94595 Walnut Creek 3 3 3
07 94596 Lafayette/Walnut Creek 3 3 2
07 94597 Walnut Creek 3 3 2
07 94598 Walnut Creek 3 3 2
07 94801 North Richmond/Point
Richmond/Richmond
3 1 1
07 94803 El Sobrante/Richmond 3 3 1
07 94804 Richmond 3 1 1
07 94805 Richmond 3 2 1
07 94806 Richmond/Hilltop Mall/San Pablo/Tara Hills 3 1 1
22
Draft Amended LPC Priority Setting Process for State Child Care and Preschool Funds 8-27-14 Page 1 of 4
Local Planning Council Priority Setting Process
for State Child Care and Preschool Funds (Approved 10-13-14)
History
In 1998, AB 1857-Escutia amended the Education Code, Section 8499.5, to include specific
expanded mandates for Local Child Care Planning Councils (LPCs) (8499.5 (a) through (e)).
One of these was an expansion of the existing LPC mandate to identify local priorities for the
distribution of new state child care and development and preschool funding. The Education
Code language specifies how LPCs are to conduct their work in order to identify priorities
which will ensure that all the child care and preschool needs of the county are met to the
greatest extent possible. The priorities are to be submitted annually to the California
Department of Education and used by the Department to determine funding decisions.
The Priority Setting Process
Local Planning Councils develop priorities for funding using:
• Census zip code data and American Community Survey data as a baseline to estimate
the number of children eligible for State Funded Services (and 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/not served by State or Federally Funded Services
• California Academic Performance Index, Smarter Balanced Assessment, or other
School Performance Data or Child Outcome Data
The data is then analyzed using the Priority 1, 2, and 3 number and percentage thresholds and
methodology, described in Attachment 1, to assign county zip codes to Priority 1, 2, or 3
designation.
These priorities are first reviewed and approved by the members of the Local Planning Council
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. The priorities are next made available for public review and finally reviewed and
approved by the County Board of Supervisors at public hearing as prescribed in State
regulations.
23
Draft Amended LPC Priority Setting Process for State Child Care and Preschool Funds 8-27-14 Page 2 of 4
CSPP Full and Part-Day Priorities
1. Counties with over 5 million residents (Los Angeles County):
Priority 1: A zip code qualifies as Priority 1 when: there are 50% or more eligible children underserved AND there are more than
1500 children underserved.
Priority 2: A zip code qualifies as Priority 2 when: there are 50% or more of eligible children underserved AND there are more than
750 children underserved.
Priority 3: Option 1: A zip code qualifies as Priority 3 when: there are 50% or more of eligible children underserved AND there are
more than 500 children underserved.
Option 2: All other zip codes in the County.
Option 3: 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: A zip code qualifies as Priority 1 when: there are 40% or more eligible children underserved AND there are more than 300
children underserved.
Priority 2: A zip code qualifies as Priority 2 when: there are 40% or more of eligible children underserved AND there are more than
200 children underserved.
Priority 3: Option 1: A zip code qualifies as Priority 3 when: there are 25% or more of eligible children underserved AND there are
more than 100 children underserved.
Option 2: All other zip codes in the County.
Option 3: 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: A zip code qualifies as Priority 1 when: there are 40% or more eligible children underserved AND there are more than 150
children underserved.
Priority 2: A zip code qualifies as Priority 2 when: there are 25% or more of eligible children underserved AND there are more than
75 children underserved.
Priority 3: Option 1: A zip code qualifies as Priority 3 when: there are 25% or more of eligible children underserved AND there are
more than 50 children underserved.
Option 2: All other zip codes in the County.
Option 3 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: A zip code qualifies as Priority 1 when: there are 50% or more eligible children underserved AND there are more than 24
children underserved.
Priority 2: A zip code qualifies as Priority 2 when: there are 35% or more of eligible children underserved AND there are more than
10 children underserved.
Priority 3: Option 1: A zip code qualifies as Priority 3 when: there are 20% or more of eligible children underserved AND there are
more than 10 children underserved.
Option 2: All other zip codes in the County.
Option 3: 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: A zip code qualifies as Priority 1 when: there are 50% or more eligible children underserved AND there are more than 10
children underserved.
Priority 2: A zip code qualifies as Priority 2 when: there are 35% or more of eligible children underserved AND there are more than
10 children underserved.
Priority 3: Option 1: A zip code qualifies as Priority 3 when: there are 20% or more of eligible children underserved AND there are
more than 10 children underserved.
Option 2: All other zip codes in the County.
Option 3: No other zip codes in the County
24
Draft Amended LPC Priority Setting Process for State Child Care and Preschool Funds 8-27-14 Page 3 of 4
CCTR Priorities for Full-Day Infant Toddler Services
1. Counties with over 5 million residents (Los Angeles County):
Priority 1: A zip code qualifies as Priority 1 when: there are 50% or more eligible children underserved AND there are more than
1500 eligible children underserved.
Priority 2: A zip code qualifies as Priority 2 when: there are 50% or more of eligible children underserved AND there are more than
750 eligible children underserved.
Priority 3: Option 1: A zip code qualifies as Priority 3 when: there are 50% or more of eligible children underserved AND there are
more than 500 eligible children underserved.
Option 2: All other zip codes in the County.
Option 3: 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: A zip code qualifies as Priority 1 when: there are 40% or more eligible children underserved AND there are more than 300
eligible children underserved.
Priority 2: A zip code qualifies as Priority 2 when: there are 40% or more of eligible children underserved AND there are more than
200 eligible children underserved.
Priority 3: Option 1: A zip code qualifies as Priority 3 when: there are 25% or more of eligible children underserved AND there are
more than 100 eligible children underserved.
Option 2: All other zip codes in the County.
Option 3: 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: A zip code qualifies as Priority 1 when: there are 40% or more eligible children underserved AND there are more than 150
eligible children underserved.
Priority 2: A zip code qualifies as Priority 2 when: there are 25% or more of eligible children underserved AND there are more than
75 eligible children underserved.
Priority 3: Option 1: A zip code qualifies as Priority 3 when: there are 25% or more of eligible children underserved AND there are
more than 50 eligible children underserved.
Option 2: All other zip codes in the County.
Option 3: 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: A zip code qualifies as Priority 1 when: there are 50% or more eligible children underserved AND there are more than 24
eligible children underserved.
Priority 2: A zip code qualifies as Priority 2 when: there are 35% or more of eligible children underserved AND there are more than
10 eligible children underserved.
Priority 3: Option 1: A zip code qualifies as Priority 3 when: there are 20% or more of eligible children underserved AND there are
more than 10 eligible children underserved.
Option 2: All other zip codes in the County.
Option 3: 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: A zip code qualifies as Priority 1 when: there are 50% or more eligible children underserved AND there are more than 10
eligible children underserved.
Priority 2: A zip code qualifies as Priority 2 when: there are 35% or more of eligible children underserved AND there are more than
10 eligible children underserved.
Priority 3: Option 1: A zip code qualifies as Priority 3 when: there are 20% or more of eligible children underserved AND there are
more than 10 eligible children underserved.
Option 2: All other zip codes in the County.
Option 3: No other zip codes in the County.
25
Draft Amended LPC Priority Setting Process for State Child Care and Preschool Funds 8-27-14 Page 4 of 4
CCTR Priorities for Full-Year School-Aged Child Development Services
Afterschool Safety and Education Services (ASES) and Twenty-first Century funding allocated to Counties should be included in
calculation of supply, even though these programs do not offer year round child care services.
1. Counties with over 5 million residents (Los Angeles County):
Priority 1: A zip code qualifies as Priority 1 when: there are 50% or more eligible children underserved AND there are more than
1500 eligible children underserved.
Priority 2: A zip code qualifies as Priority 2 when: there are 50% or more of eligible children underserved AND there are more than
750 eligible children underserved.
Priority 3: Option 1: A zip code qualifies as Priority 3 when: there are 50% or more of eligible children underserved AND there are
more than 500 eligible children underserved.
Option 2: All other zip codes in the County.
Option 3: 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: A zip code qualifies as Priority 1 when: there are 40% or more eligible children underserved AND there are more than 500
eligible children underserved.
Priority 2: A zip code qualifies as Priority 2 when: there are 40% or more of eligible children underserved AND there are more than
200 eligible children underserved.
Priority 3: Option 1: A zip code qualifies as Priority 3 when: there are 25% or more of eligible children underserved AND there are
more than 100 eligible children underserved.
Option 2: All other zip codes in the County.
Option 3: 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: A zip code qualifies as Priority 1 when: there are 40% or more eligible children underserved AND there are more than 200
eligible children underserved.
Priority 2: A zip code qualifies as Priority 2 when: there are 25% or more of eligible children underserved AND there are more than
100 eligible children underserved.
Priority 3: Option 1: A zip code qualifies as Priority 3 when: there are 25% or more of eligible children underserved AND there are
more than 50 eligible children underserved.
Option 2: All other zip codes in the County.
Option 3: 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: A zip code qualifies as Priority 1 when: there are 50% or more eligible children underserved AND there are more than 24
eligible children underserved.
Priority 2: A zip code qualifies as Priority 2 when: there are 35% or more of eligible children underserved AND there are more than
10 eligible children underserved.
Priority 3: Option 1: A zip code qualifies as Priority 3 when: there are 20% or more of eligible children underserved AND there are
more than 10 eligible children underserved.
Option 2: All other zip codes in the County.
Option 3: 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: A zip code qualifies as Priority 1 when: there are 50% or more eligible children underserved AND there are more than 10
eligible children underserved.
Priority 2: A zip code qualifies as Priority 2 when: there are 35% or more of eligible children underserved AND there are more than
10 eligible children underserved.
Priority 3: Option 1: A zip code qualifies as Priority 3 when: there are 20% or more of eligible children underserved AND there are
more than 10 eligible children underserved.
Option 2: All other zip codes in the County.
Option 3: No other zip codes in the County.
26