HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD STANDING COMMITTEES - 06252018 - FHS Cte Agenda Pkt
FAMILY & HUMAN SERVICES
COMMITTEE
June 25, 2018
10:30 A.M.
651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez
Supervisor Candace Andersen, Chair
Supervisor John Gioia, 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. RECEIVE and APPROVE the draft Record of Action for the May 30, 2018 Family &
Human Services Committee meeting. (Julie DiMaggio Enea, County Administrator's
Office)
4. CONSIDER recommending to the Board of Supervisors the appointment of Mujdah
Rahim to the At Large 2 seat on the Family and Children's Trust Committee to
complete the current term ending on September 30, 2018 and to a new term that will
expire on September 30, 2020, as recommended by the Employment and Human
Services Director. (Juliana Mondragon, Employment and Human Services Department)
5. CONSIDER recommending to the Board of Supervisors the appointment of Blanca
Crovetto-Avancena to the Member At-Large 8 seat on the Managed Care Commission,
as recommended by the Commission. (Julie DiMaggio Enea, County Administrator's
Office)
6. RECEIVE report on the Contra Costa County Individualized Child Care Subsidy Pilot
Plan and CONSIDER recommending approval of the Plan to the Board of Supervisors
for submission to the California Department of Education. (Susan Jeong, Contra Costa
Office of Education)
7. ACCEPT the attached report on the Employment and Human Services Department’s
Innovative Community Partnerships. (Devorah Levine, Employment and Human
Services Department)
8. CONSIDER endorsing and supporting the East Bay Stand Down to be held September
13 - 16, 2018 at the Alameda County Fairgrounds in Pleasanton. (Nathan Johnson,
Veterans Services Officer)
1
9.The next meeting is currently scheduled for July 23, 2018.
10.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
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:
Julie DiMaggio Enea, Interim Committee Staff
Phone (925) 335-1039, Fax (925) 646-1353
julie.enea@cao.cccounty.us
2
FAMILY AND HUMAN SERVICES
COMMITTEE 3.
Meeting Date:06/25/2018
Subject:RECORD OF ACTION FOR THE MAY 30, 2018 F&HS MEETING
Submitted For: David Twa, County Administrator
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: N/A
Presenter: Julie DiMaggio Enea Contact: Julie DiMaggio Enea (925)
335-1077
Referral History:
County Ordinance requires that each County body keep a record of its meetings. Though the
record need not be verbatim, it must accurately reflect the agenda and the decisions made in the
meeting.
Referral Update:
Attached is the draft Record of Action for the May 30, 2018 Family & Human Services
Committee meeting.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
RECEIVE and APPROVE the draft Record of Action for the May 30, 2018 Family & Human
Services Committee meeting.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
None.
Attachments
DRAFT F&HS Record of Action 5-30-18
3
FAMILY AND HUMAN SERVICES
COMMITTEE
RECORD OF ACTION FOR
May 30, 2018
Supervisor Candace Andersen, Chair
Supervisor John Gioia, Vice Chair
Present: Candace Andersen, Chair
John Gioia, Vice Chair
Staff Present:Julie DiMaggio Enea, Staff, County Administrator's Office
Attendees: Gabriel Lemus, DCD
Kristen Lackey, DCD
Daniel Davis, DCD
Jaclyn Isip, DCD
Kristin Sherk, DCD
Delia Pedroza, Echo Housing
Wendy Porras, Echo Housing
Hadi Attaran, Lamorinda Spirit Van
Ann Wrixon, CASA
Tiffany Harris, Girls, Inc.
Robyn Kuslits, Rainbow Community Center
Neil Zarchin, Food Bank
Barbara Hunt, St. Vincent de Paul of Contra Costa
Eliza Duggan, CC Senior Legal Services
Stephanie Medley, RYSE
Eric Whitney, CCC Health, Housing, Homeless Svcs
1.Introductions
Chair Andersen convened the meeting at 9:32 a.m. and self introductions were made
around the room.
2.Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this
agenda (speakers may be limited to three minutes).
None of the attendees requested to speak during the public comment period.
3.RECEIVE and APPROVE the draft Record of Action for the April 23, 2018 Family &
Human Services Committee meeting.
The Committee approved the record of action for the April 23rd meeting as
DRAFT
4
The Committee approved the record of action for the April 23rd meeting as
presented.
AYE: Chair Candace Andersen, Vice Chair John Gioia
Passed
4.CONSIDER recommending to the Board of Supervisors the appointment of Steve Van
Wart to the Member At-Large 2 seat and Barbara Hockett to the Member At-Large 4 seat
on the Managed Care Commission, as recommended by the Commission.
The Committee approved the nominations of Steve Van Wart to the Member at Large
#2 seat and Barbara Hockett to the Member at Large #4 seat on the Management
Care Commission and directed staff to forward the Committee's recommendation to
the Board of Supervisors.
AYE: Chair Candace Andersen, Vice Chair John Gioia
Passed
5.CONSIDER approving the staff recommendations for FY 2018-19 Community
Development Block Grant Public Service and Emergency Solutions projects, and
directing the Department of Conservation and Development to prepare a staff report,
inclusive of the other CDBG categories, for Board of Supervisors consideration.
Gabriel Lemus of the Conservation and Development Department presented the staff
report and clarified that the FY 2018/19 recommendations relate to Year 2 of the
three-year CDBG funding cycle.
None of the meeting attendees requested to speak on the recommendations.
The Committee approved the staff recommendations and directed DCD to prepare a
report for Board consideration on June 26, 2018 that combines these Family &
Human Services Committee recommendations with any Finance Committee
recommendations on the Economic Development & Infrastructure/Public Facilities
categories.
AYE: Chair Candace Andersen, Vice Chair John Gioia
Passed
6.The next meeting is currently scheduled for June 25, 2018.
7.Adjourn
Chair Andersen adjourned the meeting at 9:44 a.m.
For Additional Information Contact:
Enid Mendoza, Committee Staff
Phone (925) 335-1039, Fax (925) 646-1353
enid.mendoza@cao.cccounty.us
DRAFT
5
FAMILY AND HUMAN SERVICES
COMMITTEE 4.
Meeting Date:06/25/2018
Subject:RECOMMENDATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE FAMILY AND
CHILDREN'S TRUST COMMITTEE
Submitted For: Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director
Department:Employment & Human Services
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: APPOINTMENTS TO ADVISORY BODIES
Presenter: Juliana Mondragon, EHSD Contact: Juliana Mondragon
925-608-4941
Referral History:
On December 13, 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 a requirement that applications for at
large/countywide seats be reviewed by a Board of Supervisors committee.
The purpose of the Family and Children's Trust (FACT) Committee is to establish priorities and
make funding recommendations to the Board of Supervisors on the allocation of specific funds
for the prevention/amelioration of child abuse and neglect, and the promotion of positive family
functioning. These funds include: Child Abuse Prevention, Intervention, and Treatment funds
funds (AB 1733), Birth Certificate revenue to the County Children’s Trust (AB 2994), the Ann
Adler Children’s Trust funds, Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention funds, and other funds
as may be subsequently directed by the Board of Supervisors.
The FACT Committee also provides information and data to the Employment and Human
Services Department on the effectiveness of current and proposed programs for families and
children and on recent or pending legislation that would potentially impact family and children’s
services programs, clients, or funding mechanisms.
FACT Committee is composed by:
Five At-Large seats
One representative from each of the five Supervisorial Districts
Five discipline/sector specific seats
Referral Update:
There are currently 13 seats filled and there are two vacancies on FACT. The Committee has
6
There are currently 13 seats filled and there are two vacancies on FACT. The Committee has
vacancies in the Seat 3, Local Planning Council, and one At-Large Seat. Seat 3, Local Planning
Council was declared vacant due to committee member resignation on October 18, 2016. The
FACT Committee is actively recruiting to fill Seat 3.
Current FACT Committee seat members live or work in the following areas of the county:
East (2): One At-Large, District III
Central/South (10): Four discipline specific, Three At-Large, Districts II, IV and V
West (1): District I
Candidates for appointment to the FACT Committee will serve a two-year term. The current term
for the At Large 2 seat is set to expire on September 30, 2018.
Attached is a memo from the Employment and Human Services Director transmitting her
nomination of Ms. Mujdah Rahim for appointment to the At Large 2 seat on the FACT
Committee.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
RECOMMEND to the Board of Supervisors the appointment of Mujdah Rahim to the At Large 2
seat on the Family and Children's Trust Committee to complete the current term ending on
September 30, 2018 and to a new term that will expire on September 30, 2020.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
There is no fiscal impact.
Attachments
EHSD Nomination Memo _ Mujdah Rahim_FACT At Large 2
Candidate Application_Mujdah Rahim_FACT Committee
7
1
40 Douglas Drive, Martinez, CA 94553 • (925) 608-5000 • Fax (925) 313-9748 • www.ehsd.org
To:
Family and Human Services Committee
Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II, Chair
Supervisor John Gioia, District I, Vice-Chair
Date: June 25, 2018
CC:
From: Kathy Gallagher, EHSD Director
Juliana Mondragon, FACT Staff
Subject: Family and Children’s Trust (FACT) Committee Seat Membership Recommendation
The Employment and Human Services Department Director, Kathy Gallagher, respectfully
requests that the Family and Human Services Committee accepts this recommendation to appoint
the following new applicant to the At -Large seat 2 on the Family and Children’s Trust (FACT)
Committee.
Name Seat Area
Mujdah Rahim At -Large Seat 2 Central County
At -Large Seat 2 was declared vacant due to committee member resignation on January 9, 2018.
PURPOSE OF COMMITTEE _________________________________________
The purpose of this Committee is to establish priorities and make funding recommendations to the
Board of Supervisors on the allocation of specific funds for the prevention/amelioration of child
abuse and neglect, and the promotion of positive family functioning. These funds include: Child
Abuse Prevention, Intervention, and Treatment funds (CAPIT) funds, (AB 1733), Birth Certificate
revenue to the County Children’s Trust (AB2994), the Ann Adler Children’s Trust funds,
Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention funds (CBCAP) and other funds as may be
subsequently directed by the Board of Supervisors.
The FACT Committee also provides information and data to the Employment and Human Services
Department on the effectiveness of current and proposed programs for families and children and
on recent or pending legislation that would potentially impact family and children’s services
programs, clients, or funding mechanisms.
SUMMARY OF RECRUITMENT EFFORTS/NOMINIEES FOR MEMBERSHIP
The FACT Committee, in conjunction with the County Administrator’s Office, continues to make
every effort to fill its vacant seats. These efforts include contacting each district Supervisor’s office
M E M O R A N D U M
Kathy Gallagher, Director
8
2
and releasing a public notice, inviting interested parties to consider membership and soliciting the
support of current members to outreach to potential candidates for consideration for membership.
FACT Committee membership consists of the following:
Five At-Large seats
One representative from each of the five Supervisorial Districts
Five discipline/sector specific seats
There are currently 13 seats filled and there are two vacancies on FACT. The Committee has
vacancies in the Seat 3, Local Planning Council, and one At-Large Seat. Seat 3, Local Planning
Council was declared vacant due to committee member resignation on October 18, 2016. The
FACT Committee is actively recruiting to fill Seat 3.
Current FACT Committee seat members live or work in the following areas of the county:
East (2): One At-Large, District III
Central/South (10): Four discipline specific, Three At-Large, Districts II, IV and V
West (1): District I
Candidates for appointment to the FACT Committee will serve a two-year term. At -Large Seat 2
is set to expire on September 30, 2018.
Ms. Rahim has expressed a sincere interest in serving on the Committee and is dedicated to
fulfilling the mission and goals as outlined in the Committees’ policies and procedures.
Based on the above information, the Director of EHSD on behalf of the FACT Committee
respectfully recommends that the FHS Committee appoint Ms. Rahim to membership on the FACT
Committee.
Enc. Board, Committees, and Commission Application for Mujdah Rahim
9
Submit Date: May 15, 2018
Seat Name (if applicable)
First Name Middle Initial Last Name
Email Address
Home Address Suite or Apt
City State Postal Code
Primary Phone
Employer Job Title Occupation
Contra Costa County Boards & Commissions
Application Form
Profile
Which Boards would you like to apply for?
Family & Children's Trust Committee: Submitted
Describe why you are interested in serving on this advisory board/commission (please limit
your response to one paragraph).
Working in a non-profit has provided me insight into how funds and grants operate and how it impacts
non-profits, in particular non-profits that assist families. As a family law attorney, I have first-hand insight
as to what families are facing and what families need. In particular, I have assisted women who have fled
with their children's from domestic violence. My background would enable me to contribute by being on
the Family & Children's Trust Committee.
This application is used for all boards and commissions
Mujdah Rahim
CA
Law Office of Mujdah Rahim Owner/Principal Attorney Family Law Attorney
Mujdah Rahim Page 1 of 6
10
If "Other" was Selected Give Highest Grade or
Educational Level Achieved
Name of College Attended
Course of Study / Major
Units Completed
Degree Type
Date Degree Awarded
Do you, or a business in which you have a financial interest, have a contract with Contra
Costa Co.?
Yes No
Is a member of your family (or step-family) employed by Contra Costa Co.?
Yes No
Education History
Select the highest level of education you have received:
Other
College/ University A
Type of Units Completed
Quarter
Degree Awarded?
Yes No
Juris Doctor
UC Davis
International Relations
182
B.A.
06/17/2004
Mujdah Rahim Page 2 of 6
11
Name of College Attended
Course of Study / Major
Units Completed
Degree Type
Date Degree Awarded
Name of College Attended
Course of Study / Major
Units Completed
College/ University B
Type of Units Completed
Semester
Degree Awarded?
Yes No
College/ University C
Type of Units Completed
None Selected
Degree Awarded?
Yes No
Widener University School of Law
Juris Doctor
88
Juris Doctor
05/15/2010
Mujdah Rahim Page 3 of 6
12
Degree Type
Date Degree Awarded
Course Studied
Hours Completed
Dates (Month, Day, Year) From - To
Hours per Week Worked?
Position Title
Other schools / training completed:
Certificate Awarded?
Yes No
Work History
Please provide information on your last three positions, including your current one if you are
working.
1st (Most Recent)
Volunteer Work?
Yes No
Employer's Name and Address
Law Office of Mujdah Rahim 961 Ygnacio Valley Road Walnut Creek, CA 94596
04/15/2015-Present
70
Owner/Principal Attorney
Mujdah Rahim Page 4 of 6
13
Dates (Month, Day, Year) From - To
Hours per Week Worked?
Position Title
Dates (Month, Day, Year) From - To
Hours per Week Worked?
Duties Performed
Exclusively practice family law matters; such as dissolution, child custody/visitation, child and spousal
support, jurisdiction issues as it pertains to UCCJEA, move-away, motion to set aside judgment, and
domestic violence restraining orders, and complex litigation as it pertains to valuation of a business.
2nd
Volunteer Work?
Yes No
Employer's Name and Address
Family Violence Law Center 470 27th Street Oakland, CA 94612
Duties Performed
Provided representation to survivors of domestic violence and/or sexual assault in domestic violence
restraining order hearings, civil harassment restraining order hearings and family law matters.
3rd
Volunteer Work?
Yes No
12/01/2015-02/28/2016
45
Temporary Staff Attorney
07/01/2014-08/01/2015
Contract Attorney
Mujdah Rahim Page 5 of 6
14
Position Title
Upload a Resume
If "Other" was selected please explain
Employer's Name and Address
All for the Family Legal Clinic, Inc. 3137 Castro Valley Bld. Suite 210 Castro Valley, CA 94546
Duties Performed
Family law matters; including but not limited to dissolution, child custody/visitation, chil and spousal
support, and discovery.
Final Questions
How did you learn about this vacancy?
Other
. Do you have a Familial or Financial Relationship with a member of the Board of
Supervisors?
Yes No
If Yes, please identify the nature of the relationship:
Do you have any financial relationships with the County such as grants, contracts, or other
economic relations?
Yes No
If Yes, please identify the nature of the relationship:
Attorney
Internet
Mujdah Rahim Page 6 of 6
15
MUJDAH RAHIM, ESQ
EDUCATION
Widener University School of Law, Wilmington, DE May 2010
Doctor of Jurisprudence
Activities: Muslim Law Students Association (Treasury 2009-2010); Student Animal Legal Defense Fund (Secretary
2008-2009); Women’s Law Caucus; Public Interest Law Alliance.
University of California, Davis, Davis, CA June 2004
Bachelor of Arts in International Relations
Bar Admission
California, June 2011, Bar Number 276260
LEGAL EXPERIENCE
Law Office of Mujdah Rahim, Walnut Creek, CA April 2015-Present
Principal Attorney/Founder
• Family Law: dissolution, parentage action, child custody and visitation, child and spousal support;
• Move Away Trial;
• Successfully arguing jurisdiction for child custody under the UCCJEA involving three states; and
• Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment.
All for the Family Legal Clinic, Inc., Castro Valley, CA July 2014-August 2015
Of Counsel
• Dissolution and Parentage Actions, discovery;
• Marital Settlement Agreements;
• Child custody and visitation (establish and modification); child and spousal support;
• Order to Show Cause hearings of the following: defer sale of home, move-away, child support retroactive to
date of filing, job related expense deduction, hardship deductions of a child from another relationship, and
false allegations of sexual abuse.
Family Violence Law Center, Oakland, CA July 2011-June 2014
Volunteer Attorney/Contract Attorney
• Provide limited and full scope representation to survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault in domestic
violence restraining order hearings, civil harassment restraining order hearings and family law matters;
• Ran legal clinic;
• Supervise and train legal interns;
• Conducted outreach with Alameda and San Leandro Police Department, and Bay Area Legal Aid..
Solano County Public Defender’s Office, Fairfield, CA August 2010-December 2010
Legal Intern
• Wrote Motion to Suppress (1538.5(i)), Motion to Dismiss (995); and Motion to Modify Probation.
Schrom and Shaffer, P.C., Media, PA November 2009-May 2010
Legal Intern
• Drafted complaints and answers in Workers’ Compensation cases.
16
Chester County District Attorney’s Office, West Chester, PA May 2008-May 2009
Certified Legal Intern
• Represented the Government at Preliminary Hearings; and
• Signed off on waivers, agreements, and Drug Court applications.
Honorable William J. Mazzola, Philadelphia, PA August 2007-April 2008
Legal Intern
• Wrote bench-memoranda and assisted in drafting opinions;
• Researched relevant case law relating to sufficiency of evidence and credibility of witness;
• Assessed sentencing guidelines; and
• Familiarity with Pennsylvania Justice Network, a portal that provides an online environment for users to access
public safety and criminal justice information.
Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office, Philadelphia, PA May 2007-August 2007
Legal Intern
• Reviewed and analyzed discovery documents to anticipate defenses and identify issues;
• Conducted legal research for Motion to Suppress, corpus delicti, and Consolidation; and
• Assisted with trial director presentation.
Assegaf, Hamzah & Partners, Jakarta, Indonesia January 2005-March 2005
Legal Intern
• Researched and wrote memoranda about the advantages and disadvantages of franchise and subsidiary
companies;
• Drafted internal memorandum for a water company regarding monopoly practices in Indonesia; and
• Trademark, copyright, patent and design searches.
SKILLS
• Westlaw and LexisNexus;
• Microsoft Office: Word, Excel, and PowerPoint;
• Essential Forms;
• DissoMaster;
• Youthservices;
• Department of Child Support Services Calculator;
• CFLR Executioner and Proertizer; and
• Clio and some familiarity with MyCase.
LANGUAGES
• Spoken fluency in Dari.
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS AND MEMBERSHIPS
• State Bar of California, Family Law Section, Member;
• Contra Costa County Bar Association (Family Law Section Member);
• Alameda County Bar Association (Family Law Section Member); and
• Alameda County Judicial Appointments Evaluation Committee Member (2017-Present)
17
FAMILY AND HUMAN SERVICES
COMMITTEE 5.
Meeting Date:06/25/2018
Subject:RECOMMENDATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE MANAGED
CARE COMMISSION
Submitted For: Anna Roth, Health Services Director
Department:Health Services
Referral No.:
Referral Name: APPOINTMENTS TO ADVISORY BODIES
Presenter: Julie DiMaggio Enea Contact: Julie DiMaggio Enea (925)
335-1077
Referral History:
On December 13, 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 a requirement that applications for at
large/countywide seats be reviewed by the Board of Supervisors sub-committee.
The Managed Care Commission (MCC) was established in May 1995 and replaced the Contra
Costa Health Plan Advisory Board and the Medi-Cal Advisory Planning Commission. The
purpose of the Commission is to make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors, Health
Services Director and Chief Executive Officer of the Contra Costa Health Plan (CCHP) on
operational objectives, policies and procedures as well as revised service, product development,
marketing, and data-gathering priorities. Additionally, the MCC assures effectiveness, quality,
efficiency, access, acceptability of CCHP services by ongoing as well as periodic formal reviews
of Management Information System data.
The MCC consists of 15 seats: 9 At-Large, 4 subscriber, and 2 provider seats. Each seat has a
fixed three-year term. As recommended by the Phase III of Triennial Advisory Body Review and
approved by the Board of Supervisors at their December 5, 2017 meeting, the MCC is in the
process of revising its bylaws to add one additional seat for a Medicare subscriber for a senior or
person with disabilities as this is required by the National Committee for Quality Assurance. In
addition, the MCC is also broadening the title of “medical provider” to include Nurse
Practitioners, Physician’s Assistants and Optometr ists.
Referral Update:
There are currently 10 seats filled in the MCC, 1 pending appointments, and 4 vacant seats
without pending candidates. These vacant seats include: Commercial Subscriber, Representative
for Medically Indigent Health Care Needs, At-Large 3, At-Large 8, and Physician. The current
membership is as follows:
18
Seat Title
Term
Expiration
Date
Current
Incumbent
Incumbent
Supervisor
District
No. of
Meetings
Attended
Since
Appointment
Date
Total No. of
Meetings
Held Since
Appointment
Total No.
of
Absences
Allowable
in Bylaws
Medi-Cal Subscriber 8/31/2018 Tamara Mello IV 10 15 3*
Medicare Subscriber 8/31/2018 Ella Jones I 9 11 3*
Commercial
Subscriber VACANT 3*
Representative for
Medically Indigent
Health Care Needs
VACANT
3*
Physician,
non-contracting VACANT 3*
Other Provider,
non-contracting 8/31/2018 Joan
Lautenberger II 13 15 3*
At-Large 1 8/31/2019 Frances Trant V 2 3 3*
At-Large 2 8/31/2018 Steve Van Wart II ****3*
At-Large 3 VACANT 3*
At-Large 4 8/31/2019 Barbara Hockett II ****3*
At-Large 5 8/31/2018 Jeffrey Kalin IV 12 15 3*
At-Large 6 8/31/2018 Henry Tyson IV 14 15 3*
At-Large 7 8/31/2018 Debra
Shorter-Jones I 4 9 3*
At-Large 8 VACANT 3*
At-Large 9 8/31/2018 Andi Li II 13 15 3*
* In a rolling 12-month period
** Appointed on 6/5/18
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
RECOMMEND to the Board of Supervisors the appointment of Blanca Crovetto-Avancena to the
Member At-Large 8 seat on the Managed Care Commission, as recommended by the
Commission.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
There is no fiscal impact.
Attachments
Commission Memo
Candidate Application_Blanca Crovetto Avancena_Managed Care Comm
19
ADMINISTRATION
PATRJcrA TA N QUARY , MPH, PhD
595 Center A venue, Su~e 100Chiejbecillive Officer
Martinez, California 94553
JOSE YA SUL, MD MaN'l Number: 925·313-6000
Actiflg M ed icol Director Memt>el Cal Center: 877·66 1-6230 CON T RA COS T A Provider Call Ce-IIef: 877 ·800·7423
HEALTH PlAN
A Dlvilian af Calltri Co<ta Huitt> S.",lc.. 5e H.lbla Espanol
A Culture of Caring
Date: May 18, 20 18
To: Family and Human Services Committee, Contra Costa Board of Supervisors
Susan Smith, County Administrator's Office
From : Deboran Eve rist. Staff contact for Managed Care Commission
RE: MANAGED CARE COMMISSION -RE~ApPOINTMENT
The Managed Care Commission (MCC), in its continued efforts to recommend commissioners that are
able to articulate concerns of health care recip ients as well as represent the diverse population within our
community, hereby makes Ihe following recommendation for re-appointment 10 the MeC.
NOMINEE TERM EXPIRATION
Blanca Crovetto-Avancena
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Member-at-Large 8 Three years
Expiration 8 /31 /2016
Blanca resides in Walnut Creek . Our olher commissioners reside:
Member-at-Large 1 Pittsburg Member-ai-Large 8 Walnut Creek (this request)
Member-ai-Large 3 San Ramon Member-at-Large 9 San Ramon
Member-aI-Large 5 Pleasant Hill Medicare Subscriber San Pablo
Member-ai-Large 6 Walnut Creek Other Provider Lafayette
Member-ai-Large 7 Richmond Medi-Cal Subscirber Pleasant Hill
Blanca's application is attached . The MCC By -Laws, Article III. MEMBERSHIP states that (E.) The term
of office is for three years.
The Managed Care Commission supports this recommendation wi th a unanimous vote and hopes to
annouce this appointment at their July 18, 2018 meeting. My contact information is :
Phone: 925-313 -6035
Email: Deboran .Everist@hsd .cccounty .us
Thank you in advance for your kind consideration in this maUer.
20
21
22
23
24
FAMILY AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE 6.
Meeting Date:06/25/2018
Subject:Countywide Child Care Pilot Plan
Submitted For: Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director
Department:Employment & Human Services
Referral No.: #92
Referral Name: Countywide Child Care Pilot Plan
Presenter: Susan Jeong Contact: Susan Jeong (925) 942-3413
Referral History:
California Education Code (EC) Section 8231 requires that Local Planning Councils prepare a
comprehensive countywide child care plan designed to mobilize public and private resources to
address identified needs. Projects and activities of the Contra Costa LPC align with legislative
intent for Local Planning Councils to serve as a forum to address the child care needs of all
families and all child care programs, both subsidized and non-subsidized in Contra Costa County
(Ed code Sections 8499.3 and 8499.5).
On October 17, 2006, the Board of Supervisors referred updates on the Countywide Child Care
Plan to the Family and Human Services Committee and the Local Planning and Advisory Council
for Early Care and Education has provided annual reports.
Referral Update:
Attached is the proposed Local Child Care Policy and Evaluation Plan submitted for the
Committee's and Board's consideration. The plan was produced by the Contra Costa County
Local Planning and Advisory Council for Early Care and Education, in partnership with the
Contra Costa County Office of Education, First 5 Contra Costa and the Contra Costa County AB
435 Planning Committee.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
RECEIVE report on the Contra Costa County Individualized Child Care Subsidy Pilot Plan and
CONSIDER recommending approval of the Plan to the Board of Supervisors for submission to
the California Department of Education.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
No net County cost. The Pilot Plan attempts to access CDE future child care subsidy funds that,
due to policies in past years, would have been unearned.
25
Attachments
Memo_Child Care Subsidy Pilot Plan
AB 435 CCC County Plan
AB 35 Chaptered
26
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: June 15, 2018
TO: Family and Human Services Committee
Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II, Chair
Supervisor John Gioia, District I, Vice Chair
Contra Costa County Office of Education
Karen Sakata, Contra Costa County Superintendent of Schools
Lynn Mackey, Deputy Superintendent of Schools
FROM: Susan K. Jeong, LPC Coordinator/Manager, Educational Services
SUBJECT: Review and Approve the Contra Costa County Individualized Child Care Subsidy Pilot
Contra Costa County Local Planning and Advisory Council for Early Care and Education (LPC)
RECOMMENDATION(S):
APPROVE the Contra Costa County Individualized Child Care Subsidy Pilot Plan
RECOMMEND approval of the Plan to the full County Board of Supervisors, for submission to the
California Department of Education
REASON/S FOR RECOMMENDATION:
On March 28, 2017, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors adopted a SUPPORT position
for AB 435.
In October 2017, Governor Brown approved AB 435, authorizing an individualized child care
subsidy plan for the County of Contra Costa. Authored by Assemblymember Tony Thurmond, the
legislation allows Contra Costa County to develop and implement a plan through January 1, 2023.
Modeled on similar bills, especially AB 833 for Alameda County, the legislation removes some of
the regulatory constraints in providing subsidized child care through Title 5 contracts with the
California Department of Education (CDE). Under AB 435, the individualized child care plan is
designed to “ensure that child care subsidies received by the County of Contra Costa are used to
address local needs, conditions, and priorities of working families in the community.”
AB 435 provides the county only limited flexibility in designing its subsidy rules. There are four
fundamental limitations on the pilot:
No family who would have been eligible under state rules can either become ineligible or be
asked to pay higher family fees;
Provider participation is entirely voluntary;
The number of child days of enrollment across participating providers must increase overall
from the base year; and
There are no additional resources for the pilot – only unearned and unallocated funds from
existing contracts and funding streams.
27
This plan lays out the County’s goals for its subsidized child care system. It contains three main
parts: Chapter 2 reviews local economic and child care market conditions in Contra Costa County
and the challenges to be addressed by the pilot. Chapter 3 summarizes the County’s goals for the
pilot and describes the components of the local plan to be implemented to meet these goals within
the constraints of AB435. Chapter 4 offers a list of outcome measures to evaluate the success of the
plan.
Additionally, there is no net county cost associated with the recommended action. The Board’s
approval of this Pilot Subsidy Plan will allow the LPC to access CDE childcare subsidy funds that
would have been unearned in years past.
28
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
INDIVIDUALIZED CHILD CARE SUBSIDY PILOT
Local Child Care Policy and Evaluation Plan
June 2018
Developed by
Contra Costa County Local Planning and Advisory Council for Early Care and
Education, in partnership with the Contra Costa County Office of Education , First 5
Contra Costa and the Contra Costa County AB 435 Planning Committee
Reviewed by:
235 Montgomery Street, Ste. 1049
San Francisco, CA 94104
29
Contra Costa County Individualized Child Care Subsidy Pilot Plan – June 2018 1
SUMMARY
Assembly Bill (AB) 435 (Thurmond) authorizes an individualized child care subsidy plan
for the County of Contra Costa to ensure that funding for child care subsidies in the
county address local needs and priorities. The Pilot Plan tackles four main concerns:
1. Children in Contra Costa County are less likely than children in other California
counties to qualify for subsidized child care, because of family incomes above
the statewide income threshold.
2. Housing costs are substantially higher in the county than the statewide average:
the “housing wage” to afford fair market rents in Contra Costa County is 49%
greater than the income cutoff for subsidies.
3. Families in Contra Costa County face higher child care prices for unsubsidized
care than in California overall.
4. Reimbursement rates for direct service providers are well below market rates in
the county, even though regulations for subsidized care make it substantially
more expensive to provide.
This local child care subsidy plan, therefore, has two main goals:
1. The pilot will better meet the early education and child care needs of families in
Contra Costa County through policies that support low-income families and
promote stable care.
2. The pilot will expand subsidized care by implementing policies that improve
reimbursement rates for contractors, promote contractor retention, and reduce
unearned contract funds.
30
Contra Costa County Individualized Child Care Subsidy Pilot Plan – June 2018 2
Summary of Contra Costa County Pilot
Components
Alignment of Pilot Components
Alameda Santa
Clara
San
Francisc
o
San
Mateo
1.
Increase income threshold for eligibility
for subsidized care for Title 5
contractors to 85% of the state median
income as provided by the California
DOF
X X X X
2.
Authorize 24-month eligibility for
families entering subsidized care and
eligible on the basis of need other than
job search
Variant X X X
3.
Authorize an exception to the
requirement that 50% of the children
enrolled at a CSPP program site be
four-year-old children.
4.
Establish a family fee schedule for
families with income above the state
eligibility cutoff to set fees at
approximately 10% of family income
X X X X
5.
Restore the age eligibility for CSPP
contracts to 2.9 years old as of
September 1st of the fiscal year and
allow children to enroll immediately on
or after their third birthday if born after
December 1st
Variant Variant Variant Variant
6.
Authorize families for 6.5 hours of
services if their only need is seeking
housing or seeking employment
X X X X
7.
Incorporate additional changes to meet
the needs of low-income families in
Contra Costa County, such as
authorizing 6.5 hours of services to
families seeking employment or
housing
X X X X
31
Contra Costa County Individualized Child Care Subsidy Pilot Plan – June 2018 3
INTRODUCTION
In October 2017, Governor Brown approved AB 435, authorizing an individualized child
care subsidy plan for the County of Contra Costa. Authored by Assemblymember
Tony Thurmond, the legislation allows Contra Costa County to develop and implement a
plan through January 1, 2023. Modeled on similar bills, especially AB 833 for Alameda
County, the legislation removes some of the regulatory constraints in providing
subsidized child care through Title 5 contracts with the California Department of
Education (CDE). Under AB 435, the individualized child care plan is designed to
“ensure that child care subsidies received by the County of Contra Costa are used to
address local needs, conditions, and priorities of working families in the community.”
AB 435 provides the county only limited flexibility in designing its subsidy rules. There
are four fundamental limitations on the pilot:
No family who would have been eligible under state rules can either become
ineligible or be asked to pay higher family fees;
Provider participation is entirely voluntary;
The number of child days of enrollment across participating providers must
increase overall from the base year; and
There are no additional resources for the pilot – only unearned and unallocated
funds from existing contracts and funding streams.
This plan lays out the County’s goals for its subsidized child care system. It contains
three main parts: Chapter 2 reviews local economic and child care market conditions in
Contra Costa County and the challenges to be addressed by the pilot. Chapter 3
summarizes the County’s goals for the pilot and describes the components of the local
plan to be implemented to meet these goals within the constraints of AB435. Chapter 4
offers a list of outcome measures to evaluate the success of the plan.
As called for by the legislation, this plan will go through the following approval process:
Review Body Approval Date
Local Early Education Planning Council (LPC) of
Contra County
June 14, 2018
Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa July 10, 2018
Early Education and Support Division (EESD), CDE Within 30 days of
submission
32
Contra Costa County Individualized Child Care Subsidy Pilot Plan – June 2018 4
LOCAL ECONOMIC AND CHILD CARE MARKET CONDITIONS
In developing this plan Contra Costa County stakeholders assessed the local child care
market, economic conditions for working families, and the needs for and costs of child
care. This review included consideration of:
— Level of need for various types of subsidized child care services
— General demographics
— Income eligibility levels for subsidized child care and family fees
— Trends in the County’s unemployment and housing affordability index
— County’s self-sufficiency income level
— Cost of providing child care
— Standard reimbursement rates and regional market rates
— Current supply of available subsidized child care
Contra Costa County is home to over 250,000 children, with about 67% with living
with employed parents.
In 2016, an estimated 250,524 children lived in Contra Costa County, including 75,809
children under age 6 and approximately 174,715 children aged 6 to 17. (See Table 1.)
Children under 6 in Contra Costa County are more likely than average to have all
parents working, 65% compared to 61% statewide. For children 6 to 17 years of age,
the percent increases to 67% in Contra Costa County and 66% statewide.1
Table 1: Contra Costa Children with All Parents Working, 2016 Estimates
Age
Category
Number of
Children in
Contra Costa
County
Number with
All Resident
Parents in
Workforce
Share with All
Parents
Working2
Under 6
years 75,809 49,570 65%
6 to 17 years 174, 715 117,147 67%
Total 250,524 166,717 67%
Source: 2016 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates (Table C23008)
1 2016 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates
2 Includes children of working single parents and children in two-parent families where both parents work
33
Contra Costa County Individualized Child Care Subsidy Pilot Plan – June 2018 5
The racial/ethnic profile of children in Contra Costa County (Figure 1) is overall
congruent to California. Hispanic/Latino children represent the largest share of children
in the county, and White children represent nearly as large a share. Asian American
children account for just under 15% of children in the county, while African
American/Black population make up nearly 9% of children in the county. The county has
a relatively small population of American Indian/Alaska Native children, but a slightly
higher share of children identified as Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander. Contra Costa
County has a considerably higher percentage of multi-racial children at over 7.5%,
compared to 4.7% statewide.
Figure 1: Race/Ethnicity of Contra Costa County Children, 2016
Source: Kidsdata.org from California Dept. of Finance, Race/Ethnic Population with Age and Sex Detail, 1990-1999,
2000-2010, 2010-2060; U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Estimates, Vintage 2015 (Jun. 2016)
Nearly 34% of children in Contra Costa County speak a language apart from just
English at home (Figure 2). About 18% of public school students in Contra Costa
County are English Learners3.
3 http://www.kidsdata.org/region/171/contra-costa-county/results#cat=6
9.2%
0.2%
14.5%
35.4%
0.6%
32.6%
7.6%5.3%
0.4%
11.0%
51.4%
0.4%
26.9%
4.7%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
Contra Costa California
34
Contra Costa County Individualized Child Care Subsidy Pilot Plan – June 2018 6
Figure 2: Language Spoken at Home of Contra Costa County Children, 2016
Source: 2016 American Community Survey Data (Table B16007)
Fewer Contra Costa County children live in households that qualify for
subsidized child care, yet families face significant financial pressures from high
costs of housing.
Children in Contra Costa County are less likely than other California children to live in
families that qualify for child care subsidies. The monthly income threshold to enter
subsidized child care in California stands at $4,877 for a family of four, or about $60,000
per year4. Census Bureau data show only about 28% of Contra Costa County families
with children under 18 have incomes below $60,000 compared to 43% statewide (Table
2).
The smaller share of families below $60,000 income in Contra Costa does not mean
that families find it easier to afford child care. The higher average incomes reflect in
large part higher housing costs. Housing costs are commonly measured using fair
market rent (FMR), the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s measure of
4 https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/cd/ci/mb1708.asp
66%
22%
5%6%
1%
56%
35%
3%6%
1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
English Only Spanish Other Indo-
European
Asian and Pacific
Islander
Languages
Other Languages
Contra Costa California
35
Contra Costa County Individualized Child Care Subsidy Pilot Plan – June 2018 7
current costs for available rental housing. The FMR for a two-bedroom in Contra Costa
County in 2017 was 35% higher than the state ($2,173 in Contra Costa County
compared to $1,608 statewide).5 The difference in housing costs in Contra Costa
relative to the state has increased significantly in the last four years.
Table 2: Income Distribution of Contra Costa County Families
with Children Under 18, 2016
Income Category Contra Costa County California
Up to $20,000 7% 12%
$20,000 to $40,000 10% 17%
$40,000 to $60,000 11% 14%
$60,000 to $100,000 20% 20%
$100,000 to $150,000 16% 16%
$150,000 or more 36% 21%
Total 100% 100%
Source: 2016 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates (Table B19131)
Figure 3: Fair Market Rents (FMR) for Two Bedroom Housing, 2007-2017
Source: Fair Market Rents (FMRs), huduser.gov
5 The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines the FMR as the rent level where 40% of recent movers pay
less than the FMR and 60% pay more than the FMR.
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Contra Costa California
36
Contra Costa County Individualized Child Care Subsidy Pilot Plan – June 2018 8
Statewide the income cutoff for subsidized child care is just below the income level
where average California rents would be considered affordable. The National Low
Income Housing Coalition uses the FMR to calculate a “housing wage,” defined as the
wage income required pay no more than 30% of income to afford rent at the FMR.6
The average housing wage for California was $5,359 per month in 2017. In Contra
Costa County, the equivalent housing wage was $7,243, or 49% higher than the income
cutoff. Only two metropolitan areas in California have higher housing wages: the San
Francisco-San Mateo-Marin area and the Santa Clara area.
Figure 4: FMR, “Housing Wage” Income, and the Statewide Child Care Subsidy
Eligibility Cutoff for High Cost Counties, 2017
Source: 2017 Fair Market Rents (FMRs), https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/fmr.html. Methodology from
California Budget Center http://calbudgetcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/Making-Ends-Meet-12072017.pdf. 2017
housing wages, http://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/oor/OOR_2017.pdf.
Market prices for child care are higher in Contra Costa County than in California
overall.
In both family care homes and child care centers, Contra Costa County residents can expect
to pay more annually for child care than other California residents (Figure 5). The average
6 http://nlihc.org/oor/california
37
Contra Costa County Individualized Child Care Subsidy Pilot Plan – June 2018 9
price for center-based preschool care was about 12% higher than the state average. For
center-based infant care, families may pay nearly 8% more than the statewide average. In
fact, with income just over the subsidy threshold – say $5,000 per month – a family in Contra
Costa County would typically have to pay 21% of their income to have one child in center-
based preschool care at $ 12,589 annually or $1,049 per month. Add an infant at a child care
center and child care would require 50% of a family’s income.
Figure 5: Average Annual Rate for Child Care, by Age Group, 2017
Source: California Child Care Resource & Referral Network, California Child Care Portfolio , 2017; Cost data are from
the 2016 Child Care Regional Market Rate Survey. https://www.rrnetwork.org/child_care_data.
$10,880
$12,589
$11,394
$17,690
$9,984
$11,202
$10,609
$16,452
$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000
Preschooler at Family Child Care
Home
Preschooler at Child Care Center
Infant at Family Child Care Home
Infant at Child Care Center
California Contra Costa
38
Contra Costa County Individualized Child Care Subsidy Pilot Plan – June 2018 10
Table 3: Subsidy Cutoff Relative to Self-Sufficiency Standards
Monthly Income for “Basic Needs” for a Family
of Four with One Infant and One Preschooler
Contra Costa
County California
Initial Income Cutoff for Child Care Subsidy
(2017)7 $4,877 $4,877
NLIHC Housing Wage (2017)8 $7,243 $5,359
CBP Monthly Family Budget (December 2017)9
Without Child Care $6,161 $5,029
With Child Care $7,617 $6,329
California Self-Sufficiency Standards (2014)10
Without Child Care $4,722 N/A
With Child Care $7,104 N/A
Reimbursement rates for direct service providers are well below market rates in
Contra Costa County, even though Title 5 regulations make care more expensive
to provide.
Direct service providers who contract with CDE to provide subsidized child care typically
receive the Standard Reimbursement Rate (SRR) of $45.73 per day for full-time
preschool care, regardless of where they are located (Table 4). In contrast, child care
vouchers allow providers to receive up to the 75th percentile of the local child care
market based on 2016 data from the Regional Market Rate (RMR) survey11. The
maximum RMR payment rate for preschool is 26% higher than the SRR. Adjustment
factors applied to the SRR increase the reimbursement for contractors serving infants 0
7 https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/cd/ci/mb1708.asp
8 2017 Fair Market Rents (FMRs), https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/fmr.html. Methodology from California Budget
Center, http://calbudgetcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/Making-Ends-Meet-12072017.pdf
9 Estimated family budget (for a 4-person family, both parents working) from the California Budget Project (CBP), Making Ends
Meet: How Much Does It Cost to Raise a Family in California (December 2017). http://calbudgetcenter.org/MakingEndsMeet/
10 Insight Center for Community Economic Development: Self-Sufficiency Standard Tool for California for a 4-person family
with one infant and one preschooler. http://www.insightcced.org/tools-metrics/self-sufficiency-standard-tool-for-california/
11 https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/cd/ci/mb1717.asp
39
Contra Costa County Individualized Child Care Subsidy Pilot Plan – June 2018 11
to 18 months and toddlers 18 to 36 months. The infant adjustment is 1.7 and the toddler
adjustment is 1.4, providing effective SRRs of $77.25 and $63.62 respectively.
However, these still fall short of market prices, which go up to $111.93 for center-based
infant care.
Table 4: Estimated Costs and Reimbursement Rates
for Child Care Centers in Contra Costa County, 2018
Age Category Daily RMR
ceiling
Standard
Reimbursement
Rate (SRR)
% Maximum
RMR Exceeds
SRR
Full-time Infant (Birth up to 18
months) $ 111.93 $ 77.25 45%
Full-time Toddlers (18 months
up to 36 months) $ 80.39 $ 63.62 26%
Full-time Preschooler (Age 3
years) $ 80.39 $ 45.73 76%
Full-time School Age (Age 7
years) $ 61.08 $45.44 34%
Source: Regional Market Rate Reimbursement Ceilings for Subsidized Child Care 2018,
http://www3.cde.ca.gov/rcscc/; CDE Management Bulletin 17-17; Standard Reimbursement Rate,
https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/cd/op/factsheet17.asp.
Families who qualify for child care vouchers – largely current and former CalWORKs
participants – can use the voucher for care at a licensed child care center or family child
care home or with a relative. For preschool care, the SRR is lower than the Contra
Costa County RMR in all three settings. Yet the Title 5 contractors must meet more
stringent regulations than state licensing requires under Title 22. There are higher
education qualifications for Title 5 and stricter child staff ratios. For example, Title 22
requires one adult per 12 preschool children in child care centers; Title 5 requires one
adult per 8 preschool children12. There are similar differences for younger children.
Minimum wage boosts increase labor costs for child care providers in Contra
Costa County.
It will be increasingly difficult to provide child care at the SRR as labor costs rise in
Contra Costa County. Labor costs are the largest budget item for child care centers;
12 http://rise.lbcc.edu/family_child_care_provider/assets/resources/CA_Licensing_Regulations%20Compare.pdf
40
Contra Costa County Individualized Child Care Subsidy Pilot Plan – June 2018 12
one recent study estimates labor to account for 64% of operating costs13. In quarter 1 of
2017, child care workers in Contra Costa County had an average wage of $14.35 per
hour, with one in four making less than $11.52 per hour. Wages were slightly higher for
preschool teachers, who made an average of $18.05 per hour, with one in four below
$15.60.14 As of January 2017, the California minimum wage was $10.50 per hour15.
State and local minimum wage increases will push child care wages up further.
Statewide, the minimum wage will rise to $15.00 in 2022 (2023 for small employers)14.
Contra Costa cities have, on average, higher minimum wages than in the state overall.
In January 2018, El Cerrito will see a minimum wage of $13.60, while Richmond will hit
$13.0016. El Cerrito will raise the minimum wage to $15.00 in 201917. Wage increases
will not only increase costs for child care providers, but also put minimum wage earners
in families with two working parents close to the income eligibility threshold for
subsidized care.
Minimum wage increases generally increase wages not just for th ose workers
previously earning less than the new minimum, but also for workers earning just above
it, as employers seek to maintain wage differentials for experience and education . This
is particularly important in early childhood education where education al requirements
rise with increased classroom responsibilities. CDE and the Child Care Law Center
warn of the increased turnover from wage compression and competition from other
sectors as minimum wages increase.18 Labor markets are tight in Contra Costa County.
In 2017, the county’s unemployment rate was about 3.8%, slightly lower than the
average annual rate (4.8%) for California.
13 Welsh-Loveman, J. (2015). The Impact of Minimum Wage Regulations on the Early Care and Education Industry
in California. Oakland, CA: Alameda County Early Care and Education Planning Council.
https://www.acgov.org/ece/documents/Welsh-Loveman_APA_5202015.pdf
14 http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/oes-employment-and-wages.html
15 https://www.govdocs.com/california-15-statewide-minimum-wage/
16 https://www.minimum-wage.org/california
17 https://www.el-cerrito.org/940/Minimum-Wage-Ordinance
18 California Department of Education. (2017). Bringing Child Care Policy in Line with the New Minimum Wage.
Sacramento, CA.
41
Contra Costa County Individualized Child Care Subsidy Pilot Plan – June 2018 13
Figure 6: Average Annual Unemployment Rate, 2006-2017
Source: California Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division, Unemployment Rates
(Labor force) Statewide and by County, 2006-2017 annual averages,
http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/cgi/dataanalysis/areaselection.asp?tablename=labforce
Families above the income threshold, low reimbursement rates, and other
regulations together led to underearned state contracts.
In each of the last two years, Contra Costa County providers with CSPP and General
Child Care (CCTR) contracts returned more than $3.4 million allocated to child care in
the county. With funding for approximately 8,000 children, just over 7,000 children
received subsidized care.19 CSPP accounted for the largest share of unearned funds,
with more than 18% of contract dollars unearned.
Many CSPP contractors cited low reimbursement rates as a barrier to serving more
children. As one indicated:
We struggle each year to serve the families in our central county location, [and]
we do not have enough funds to serve most who need care. By adjusting for
needs and eligibility regulations with terms that meet our local [community], we
can support continued care for families [without families having to worry] about
“topping out” or not finding employment soon enough [which result] in loss of
access to care. This is especially true for families with young children under 3
years old. The pilot terms allow us to serve more families and to keep the monies
within our County as intended by the State in the first place.
19 Calculated from expected child days of enrollment for an average of 236 days in operation per year at the SRR for
preschool care.
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
14.0%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Contra Costa
Unemploymen
t Rate
California
Unemploymen
t Rate
42
Contra Costa County Individualized Child Care Subsidy Pilot Plan – June 2018 14
LOCAL CHILD CARE SUBSIDY PLAN GOALS AND
COMPONENTS
Subsidies for quality early education and child care services are important supports for
low-income families, helping parents gain and maintain stable employment. At the same
time, high quality programs promote healthy development and school readiness for
children, including cognitive development and social and emotional skills. Moreover,
research shows that stable child care is important for children’s development and may
be particularly important for children at risk of poor developmental outcomes. The lack
of reliable child care also affects mothers’ ability to remain employed, while many
parents who receive subsidized child care work in sectors such as retail and service
areas that are associated with employment volatility.20 Indeed, one goal of the
reauthorization of the federal Child Care and Development Block Grant Act in 2014 was
to incorporate more family friendly eligibility policies to promote greater child care
stability for parents and children.
In its local child care subsidy plan, Contra Costa County seeks to address two major
breakdowns in the child care subsidy system as currently exists. First, families barely
earning enough to meet the high costs of housing in the county are too high income to
qualify for child care subsidies under existing regulations and those that do qualify can
easily lose subsidies with small increases in their income. Second, difficulties in finding,
certifying and recertifying children as eligible for subsidies combined with very low
reimbursement rates make it difficult for providers to utilize their full allocation of state
and federal child care and child development funds. Thus, fewer children are subsidized
through these providers, and funding goes unused in the county.
Recognizing these challenges, the local child care subsidy plan has two main goals:
Better meet the early education and child care needs of families in Contra Costa
County through policies that
Support low-income families, and
Promote stable child care.
Expand subsidized care by implementing policies for child care contractors that
Increase earned child days of enrollment,
Improve reimbursement rates for contractors,
20 For an overview of the role of child care stability, see Adams, G., & Rohacek, M. (2010). Child Care Instability:
Definitions, Context and Policy Implications. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
43
Contra Costa County Individualized Child Care Subsidy Pilot Plan – June 2018 15
Reduce contractor administrative burden,
Reduce unearned funds, and
Promote contractor retention.
These policies are incorporated in six components where the local approach will differ
from statewide regulations. For each component, we provide a conceptual overview,
link it to the goals above, note whether the component is consistent with pilots in other
counties, and provide additional notes for background or clarification.
Contra Costa County plans to apply for a plan modification in year two (FY19/20) to
request increased pilot rates and an associated redistribution of unearned funds once
the impact of the state and pilot policy changes can be accurately assessed. At that
time, Contra Costa County’s Local Planning Council will provide Early Education and
Support Division (EESD) at the California Department of Education with recommended
contract terms for participating pilot contractors, including maximum reimbursable
amounts, child days of enrollment, and the pilot reimbursement rate.
44
Contra Costa County Individualized Child Care Subsidy Pilot Plan – June 2018 16
Component 1:
Increase income threshold for eligibility for subsidized care for Title 5
contractors to 85% of the state median income as provided by the
California DOF.
Concept Families will be eligible for subsidized care if their income does not exceed
85% of the state median income (SMI) as provided by the California DOF.
The same pilot income threshold will apply for both entry (initial enrollment)
and exit eligibility.
Contract
Type(s)
Affected
CCTR, CSPP, CalWORKs Stages 2 and 3, AP
Goal(s) Support low-income families
Reduce unearned funds
Increase earned child days of enrollment
Matched
to Other
Pilots
San Mateo, San Francisco, Alameda, Santa Clara
Notes As needed, the County will seek modification of this threshold to ensure that
the pilot income eligibility is the maximum allowable under federal guidelines.
The entry income threshold for the pilot deviates from the entry income
threshold established in the California Education Code 8263.1 (a), which
states that a family’s adjusted monthly income must be at or below 70% of
the SMI.
45
Contra Costa County Individualized Child Care Subsidy Pilot Plan – June 2018 17
Component 2:
Authorize 24-month eligibility for families entering subsidized care and
eligible on the basis of need other than job search.
Concept Consistent with federal goals to provide stable child care financial assistance
to families, the Contra Costa pilot will establish 24-month redetermination
periods for families who meet the income threshold for subsidized care and,
as required by the contract type, meet the need criteria for eligibility. (See
below for eligibility based on job search.) The 24-month eligibility would
apply to all ages of children in CCTR and to children in CSPP who meet the
state age requirements.
Goal(s) Support low-income families
Promote stable child care
Reduce contractor administrative burden
Promote contractor retention
Contract
Type(s)
Affected
CCTR, CSPP, CalWORKs Stages 2 and 3, AP
Matched
to Other
Pilots
Alameda and San Francisco/San Mateo have variants of the 24-month
eligibility. Contra Costa’s version of this component is consistent with San
Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara.
Notes Eligibility redetermination guidelines would be consistent with those now
embedded in contractor handbooks developed for Alameda and San
Francisco Counties and the EESD Management Bulletin 17-14 (September
2017). Specific features of this component include:
Family fees and subsidized hours of care would be stable over 24-
month eligibility period.
Earlier redetermination could be triggered by the family by their
choice to lower the family fee or expand hours of care.
At initial eligibility and redetermination, eligibility may be based on
either the previous month’s income (or in the case of unpredictable
income, the average from at least three consecutive months) and no
more than 12 months preceding initial certification, consistent with
Title V 18096.
Families must submit documentation of total income to the contractor
who will verify the information. An income calculation worksheet will
be used to help determine income eligibility. Income is calculated
pursuant to Title V 18078(q).
Families will be instructed that they must notify the agency if their
monthly income will disqualify them for subsidies. This includes
income exceeding 85% of the SMI as determined by the CA DOF.
46
Contra Costa County Individualized Child Care Subsidy Pilot Plan – June 2018 18
Component 3:
Authorize an exception to the requirement that 50% of the children
enrolled at a CSPP program site be four-year-old children.
Concept This new component will allow Contra Costa County CSPP contractors to
enroll more children in the 2.9 to 3.9 age range.
Goal(s) Reduce unearned funds
Increase earned child days of enrollment
Contract
Type(s)
Affected
CSPP
Matched to
Other
Pilots
New following AB 108.
Notes This component will allow CSPP contractors to fill more vacancies in child
care programs. Now, if programs cannot find enough four-year-olds to meet
the 50% requirement, they cannot move forward with enrolling children in the
2.9 to 3.9 range. Programs are required to grant first priority to four-year-old
children. This component has been authorized through AB 108.
47
Contra Costa County Individualized Child Care Subsidy Pilot Plan – June 2018 19
Component 4:
Establish a family fee schedule for families with income above the state
eligibility cutoff to set fees at approximately 10% of family income.
Concept To promote transition from subsidized care, family fees will rise with income
in the “pilot income range” between the state income threshold and the pilot
threshold. The family fee scale will match those in the other pilots.
Goal(s) Support low-income families
Reduce unearned funds
Increase earned child days of enrollment
Contract
Type(s)
Affected
CCTR, CSPP, CalWORKs Stages 2 and 3, AP
Matched to
Other
Pilots
San Mateo, San Francisco, Alameda, Santa Clara
Notes The pilot family fee scale will be updated following any changes in the state
fess schedule and when the income threshold is updated annually. As of
June 2018, the fee scale will not differ from the state, given the state exit
income eligibility.
48
Contra Costa County Individualized Child Care Subsidy Pilot Plan – June 2018 20
Component 5:
Restore the age eligibility for CSPP contracts to 2.9 years old as of
September 1st of the fiscal year and allow children to enroll immediately
on or after their third birthday if born after December 1st.
Concept Serving children aged 2.9 to age 5 in CSPP will allow children to receive
two years of state preschool before moving into TK. It will also allow
contractors to fill CSPP classrooms at the beginning and in the middle of
the school year.
Goal(s) Promote stable child care
Reduce unearned funds
Increase earned child days of enrollment
Contract
Type(s)
Affected
CSPP
Matched to
Other Pilots
San Mateo, San Francisco, Alameda, and Santa Clara only include
eligibility for CSPP contracts to 2.9 years old as of September 1st. Contra
Costa has a variant of age eligiblity which includes children to enroll
immediately on or after their third birthday if born after December 1st.
Notes This would adjust the definition of “three-year-old children” in EC Section
8208 to include children who will have their third birthday on or before
December 1 in the fiscal year in which they are enrolled in a CSPP
program.
Component 6:
Authorize families for 6.5 hours of services if their only need is seeking
housing or seeking employment.
Concept This components will assist in meeting the needs of families in the county
and help contractors by better matching authorized hours to full time care
schedules
Goal(s) Support low-income families
Promote stable child care
Contract
Type(s)
Affected
CCTR, CSPP, CalWORKs Stages 2 and 3, AP
Matched to
Other Pilots
Alameda, San Mateo, San Francisco and Santa Clara
Notes Services of families seeking employment are outlined in EC Section 8263.
The plan would include 6.5 hours of services for families seeking housing or
employment. This will allow families more time to seek housing or seek
employment and maximize child days of enrollment.
49
Contra Costa County Individualized Child Care Subsidy Pilot Plan – June 2018 21
The following is the list of contractors who have formally agreed to participate in
the pilot.
1. CoCoKids
2. Community Services Bureau – Contra Costa County Employment
Human Services Department
3. Concord Child Care
4. ICRI-El Nuevo Mundo Children's Center
5. Kidango, Inc.
6. Martinez Early Childhood Center, Inc.
7. The Child Day School
8. The Unity Council
9. YMCA of the East Bay
50
Contra Costa County Individualized Child Care Subsidy Pilot Plan – June 2018 22
MEASURING OUTCOMES
Each year as required in legislation, the County of Contra Costa will prepare reports on
the pilot project for submission to EESD following years one, three and five of the pilot.
Each report will be submitted the November after the end of the fiscal year and will
reflect results since the previous report. The first evaluation report will be submitted by
November 30st 2019 and will cover fiscal year 2018/2019. These reports will track
outcomes on selected measures described below. In addition, each report will profile
the children and families served under the pilot, including the demographic
characteristics of the children. The reports will also describe any major issues that arose
in implementation or special challenges affecting specific contractors. Finally, they will
identify any requested modifications in the pilot plan based on the previous year’s
experiences.
The annual report will draw on the following data sources:
1) 801A Data: Each month, contractors are required to submit to EESD a list of all
families that received subsidized services. For each child in subsidized care, the
801A lists the date services began, family income, family size, child’s date of
birth, CalWORKs receipt, and other demographic and care information. Pilot
contractors will provide an extract of their May submission for April 801A data for
inclusion in the annual report. A subset of providers will provide more frequent
reports as needed to track specific outcomes.
2) Attendance and Fiscal Reports: Contractors will provide the LPC with a copy of
each quarter’s Quarter Attendance and Fiscal Reports (8501 and 9500 Forms).
This would only apply to CCTR and CSPP programs. This will provide
information on earned child days of enrollment and family fees. This information
will be used to determine an increase in the aggregate child days of enrollment
from the aggregate child days of enrollment in the last quarter of the 2016-2017
fiscal year pursuant to the California Education Code Section 8332.4(c).
3) Provider Satisfaction Surveys: Each provider will complete an annual online
survey regarding their experiences with the pilot project. The survey will be
developed in collaboration with Contra Costa County and will examine
contractors’ experiences both positive and negative, and their perception of the
impact of the pilot on families.
4) Additional Data from EESD: We will also use data provided by EESD on the
number of contractors and the unearned contract funds.
51
Contra Costa County Individualized Child Care Subsidy Pilot Plan – June 2018 23
The measures tracked are structured around the two major goals of the pilot: better
meeting the needs of families and expanding the supply of subsidized care.
Understanding how the pilot meets the needs of families
The first two measures will examine the effect of the higher income threshold and the
longer recertification periods.
Measure 1: The number and share of children in subsidized care with family
income above the state income threshold.
We will track the number and share of children from families with income in the “pilot
range” (income above the state income threshold but below the pilot threshold). Over time,
we expect to see a larger share of children with income in this range. These are children
who, without the pilot, would not be eligible for subsidized child care. However, with
24-month recertification, we may not observe families as they move into this category.
Data Source: April 801A data provided by contractors
Measure 2: The time in services and year-to-year retention for children in
subsidized care by contract type.
For children in subsidized care, we will measure the time in services, measured as the
days since the date the child started receiving services. We will also measure the share
of children observed in each year that were also included in the prior year’s data. We
expect children to remain in care longer, recognizing that children will “age out” of care
especially in CSPP.
Data Source: April 801A data provided by contractors
Understanding how the pilot expands subsidized care
Additional measure will track the effect of the pilot on the supply of care and the stability
of providers.
Measure 3: The number of active direct services child care and development
services contractors in Contra Costa County.
We expect that higher reimbursement rates and lower administrative burden will promote
the retention of contractors offering subsidized care through CSPP and CCTR contracts.
We will measure the number of direct service contractors providing contracted child care
52
Contra Costa County Individualized Child Care Subsidy Pilot Plan – June 2018 24
and development services on June 30th of each year. For comparison, we will also plan
to obtain data from EESD on retention of direct service contractors in nearby counties
over the same period.
Data Source: EESD
Measure 4: The aggregate adjusted child days of enrollment among pilot
contractors.
The legislation requires that the pilot achieve an increase in child days of enrollment
compared to the baseline. For Contra Costa County, the baseline would be 2017/2018.
Each year the evaluator will re-calculate the baseline days of enrollment based on data
provided by EESD to adjust for fluctuations in contract funds. Thus, the baseline is a
formula rather than a static number. For example, if contract funds were reduced in a
year of the pilot to 85% of the baseline contract funds, the baseline goal for that year
would be calculated at 85% of the baseline child days of enrollment. This strategy is in
use in San Mateo and San Francisco Counties and was proposed by EESD staf f to
offset increases or decreases in funding provided to contractors.
Data Source: 4th Quarter Attendance and Fiscal Forms.
Measure 5: The value and share of unearned direct service contract funds
returned to the California Department of Education.
This measure is defined as the total contract allocations during a fiscal year that are
unearned (not spent). The amount of unearned contract dollars is defined as the
difference between the total contract allocations and the total dollars earned by
participating contractors.
Data Source: 4th Quarter Attendance and Fiscal Forms
53
Assembly Bill No. 435
CHAPTER 703
An act to amend Section 8340.2 of, and to add and repeal Article 15.1.1
(commencing with Section 8333) of Chapter 2 of Part 6 of Division 1 of
Title 1 of, the Education Code, relating to child care.
[Approved by Governor October 12, 2017. Filed with
Secretary of State October 12, 2017.]
legislative counsel’s digest
AB 435, Thurmond. Child care subsidy plans: Counties of Alameda,
Contra Costa, Marin, and Sonoma.
(1) The Child Care and Development Services Act has a purpose of
providing a comprehensive, coordinated, and cost-effective system of child
care and development services for children from infancy to 13 years of age
and their parents, including a full range of supervision, health, and support
services through full- and part-time programs. Existing law requires the
Superintendent of Public Instruction to develop standards for the
implementation of quality child care programs. Existing law authorizes the
County of Alameda and the County of Santa Clara, as a pilot project, to
develop an individualized county child care subsidy plan, as provided.
This bill would authorize, until January 1, 2023, the Counties of Contra
Costa, Marin, and Sonoma to develop individualized county child care
subsidy plans, as specified. The bill would require the plans to be submitted
by the counties to their local planning council and their respective county
board of supervisors for approval, as specified. The bill would require the
Early Education and Support Division of the State Department of Education
to review and approve or disapprove the plans and any subsequent
modifications to the plans and, in specified situations, would require the
State Department of Social Services to review the plans. The bill would
require the counties to annually prepare and submit to the Legislature, the
State Department of Social Services, and the State Department of Education
a report that contains specified information relating to the success of the
counties’ plans.
This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the
necessity of a special statute for the Counties of Contra Costa, Marin, and
Sonoma.
(2) Existing law authorizes the County of Alameda, as a pilot project, to
develop an individualized county child care subsidy plan, as provided.
Existing law requires the plan to include specified elements, including the
development of a local policy, as provided. Existing law requires the local
policy to, among other things, authorize an agency that provides child care
and development services in the county through a contract with the State
92
54
Department of Education and either provides direct services or contracts
with licensed providers or centers to apply to the department to amend
existing contracts in order to benefit from the local policy.
This bill would instead require the local policy, among other things, to
authorize an agency that provides child care and development services in
the county through a contract with the department to apply to the department
to amend existing contracts in order to benefit from the local policy.
Existing law authorizes the local policy to supersede state law concerning
child care subsidy programs with regard to certain factors, including
eligibility criteria relating to CalWORKs participation, with exceptions.
This bill would also authorize the local policy to supersede California
state preschool eligibility periods, as specified, and would delete the above
provisions relating to superseding eligibility criteria relating to CalWORKs
participation and the exceptions.
Existing law requires the plan to include a recognition that all funding
sources utilized by direct service contractors that provide child care and
development services in the County of Alameda and contractors that contract
with licensed providers and centers are eligible to be included in the county’s
plan.
This bill would instead require the plan to include a recognition that all
funding sources utilized by contractors that provide child care and
development services in the County of Alameda are eligible to be included
in the county’s plan.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. It is the intent of the Legislature to build a stable,
comprehensive, and adequately funded high-quality early learning and
educational support system for children from birth to five years of age,
inclusive, with alignment and integration into the K–12 education system
by strategically using state and federal funds, and engaging all early care
and education stakeholders, including K–12 education stakeholders, in an
effort to provide access to affordable, high-quality services supported by
adequate rates, integrated data systems, and a strong infrastructure that
supports children and the educators who serve them.
SEC. 2. Article 15.1.1 (commencing with Section 8333) is added to
Chapter 2 of Part 6 of Division 1 of Title 1 of the Education Code, to read:
Article 15.1.1. Individualized Child Care Subsidy Plans for the Counties
of Contra Costa, Marin, and Sonoma
8333. The Counties of Contra Costa, Marin, and Sonoma may
individually, as pilot projects, develop and implement individualized county
child care subsidy plans. The plans shall ensure that child care subsidies
received by these counties are used to address local needs, conditions, and
priorities of working families in the respective communities.
92
— 2 —Ch. 703
55
8333.1. For purposes of this article, “county” means the Counties of
Contra Costa, Marin, and Sonoma.
8333.2. (a) For purposes of this article, “plan” means an individualized
county child care subsidy plan developed and approved under the pilot
project described in Section 8333, which includes all of the following:
(1) An assessment to identify the county’s goals for its subsidized child
care system. The assessment shall examine whether the current structure of
subsidized child care funding adequately supports working families in the
county and whether the county’s child care goals coincide with the state’s
requirements for funding, eligibility, priority, and reimbursement. The
assessment shall also identify barriers in the state’s child care subsidy system
that inhibit the county from meeting its child care goals. In conducting the
assessment, the county shall consider all of the following:
(A) The general demographics of families who are in need of child care,
including employment, income, language, ethnic, and family composition.
(B) The current supply of available subsidized child care.
(C) The level of need for various types of subsidized child care services,
including, but not limited to, infant care, after-hours care, and care for
children with exceptional needs.
(D) The county’s self-sufficiency income level.
(E) Income eligibility levels for subsidized child care.
(F) Family fees.
(G) The cost of providing child care.
(H) The regional market rates, as established by the department, for
different types of child care.
(I) The standard reimbursement rate or state per diem for centers operating
under contracts with the department.
(J) Trends in the county’s unemployment rate and housing affordability
index.
(2) (A) Development of a local policy to eliminate state-imposed
regulatory barriers to the county’s achievement of its desired outcomes for
subsidized child care.
(B) The local policy shall do all of the following:
(i) Prioritize lowest income families first.
(ii) Follow the family fee schedule established pursuant to Section 8273
for those families who are income eligible, as defined by Section 8263.1,
and provide the exemptions for family fees specified in Section 8273.1.
(iii) Meet local goals that are consistent with the state’s child care goals.
(iv) Identify existing policies that would be affected by the county’s plan.
(v) (I) Authorize an agency that provides child care and development
services in the county through a contract with the department to apply to
the department to amend existing contracts in order to benefit from the local
policy.
(II) The department shall approve an application to amend an existing
contract if the plan is modified pursuant to Section 8333.3.
(III) The contract of a department contractor that does not elect to request
an amendment to its contract remains operative and enforceable.
92
Ch. 703— 3 — 56
(vi) Provide a family that qualifies for the second or third stage of child
care services pursuant to Article 15.5 (commencing with Section 8350), for
purposes of eligibility, fees, and reimbursements, the same or higher level
of benefit as a family that qualifies for subsidized child care on another
basis pursuant to the local policy, except as otherwise provided in Article
15.5 (commencing with Section 8350). Nothing in this section shall be
interpreted to impact or reduce any element in the second or third stage of
child care services pursuant to Article 15.5 (commencing with Section 8350)
that provides a greater benefit to participating families than is provided for
in the local policy.
(C) The local policy may supersede state law concerning child care
subsidy programs with regard only to the following factors:
(i) Eligibility criteria, including, but not limited to, age, family size, time
limits, income level, and special needs considerations.
(ii) Fees, including, but not limited to, family fees, sliding scale fees,
and copayments for those families who are not income eligible, as defined
by Section 8263.1.
(iii) Reimbursement rates.
(iv) Methods of maximizing the efficient use of subsidy funds, including,
but not limited to, multiyear contracting with the department for center-based
child care, and interagency agreements that allow for flexible and temporary
transfer of funds among agencies.
(v) Families with children enrolled in part-day California state preschool
programs services, pursuant to Article 7 (commencing with Section 8235),
may be eligible for up to two 180-day periods within a 24-month period
without the family being certified as a new enrollment each year.
(3) Recognition that all funding sources utilized by contractors that
provide child care and development services in the county are eligible to
be included in the county’s plan.
(4) Establishment of measurable outcomes to evaluate the success of the
plan to achieve the county’s child care goals, and to overcome any barriers
identified in the state’s child care subsidy system.
(b) A plan may also include stage one child care services and all
voucher-based child care programs.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the county to
change the regional market rate survey results for the county.
8333.3. (a) The plan shall be submitted to the local planning council,
as defined in subdivision (g) of Section 8499, for approval. Upon approval
of the plan by the local planning council, the board of supervisors of the
county shall hold at least one public hearing on the plan. Following the
hearing, if the board votes in favor of the plan, the plan shall be submitted
to the Early Education and Support Division of the department for review.
If the plan includes stage one child care services, the plan shall also be
submitted to the State Department of Social Services for review only.
(b) Within 30 days of receiving the plan, the Early Education and Support
Division shall review and either approve or disapprove the plan.
92
— 4 —Ch. 703
57
(c) Within 30 days of receiving a modification to the plan, the Early
Education and Support Division shall review and either approve or
disapprove that modification to the plan.
(d) The Early Education and Support Division may disapprove only those
portions of modifications to the plan that are not in conformance with this
article or that are in conflict with federal law.
8333.4. The county shall, by the end of the first fiscal year of operation
under the approved child care subsidy plan, demonstrate, in the report
required pursuant to Section 8333.5, an increase in the aggregate days a
child is enrolled in child care in the county as compared to the enrollment
in the final quarter of the 2016–17 fiscal year.
8333.5. (a) The county shall annually prepare and submit to the
Legislature, the State Department of Social Services, and the department a
report that summarizes the success of the county’s plan, and the county’s
ability to maximize the use of funds and to improve and stabilize child care
in the county.
(b) The department shall review the report submitted pursuant to
subdivision (a), along with any applicable programmatic and fiscal
compliance records submitted by the contracting agencies participating in
the plan, and determine whether to allow the county to continue with the
plan without change, or whether to require modifications to be made to the
plan.
(c) The county shall, by the end of the first fiscal year of operation under
the approved plan, demonstrate, in the report required pursuant to this
section, that there was no reduction in the number of children served as
compared to the number of children served before the implementation of
the plan.
(d) A report to be submitted to the Legislature pursuant to subdivision
(a) shall be submitted in compliance with Section 9795 of the Government
Code.
8333.6. A participating contractor shall receive any increase or decrease
in funding that the contractor would have received if the contractor had not
participated in the plan.
8333.7. This article shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2023,
and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute that is enacted
before January 1, 2023, deletes or extends that date.
SEC. 3. Section 8340.2 of the Education Code is amended to read:
8340.2. (a) For purposes of this article, “plan” means an individualized
county child care subsidy plan developed and approved under the pilot
project described in Section 8340, which includes all of the following:
(1) An assessment to identify the county’s goals for its subsidized child
care system. The assessment shall examine whether the current structure of
subsidized child care funding adequately supports working families in the
county and whether the county’s child care goals coincide with the state’s
requirements for funding, eligibility, priority, and reimbursement. The
assessment shall also identify barriers in the state’s child care subsidy system
92
Ch. 703— 5 — 58
that inhibit the county from meeting its child care goals. In conducting the
assessment, the county shall consider all of the following:
(A) The general demographics of families who are in need of child care,
including employment, income, language, ethnic, and family composition.
(B) The current supply of available subsidized child care.
(C) The level of need for various types of subsidized child care services,
including, but not limited to, infant care, after-hours care, and care for
children with exceptional needs.
(D) The county’s self-sufficiency income level.
(E) Income eligibility levels for subsidized child care.
(F) Family fees.
(G) The cost of providing child care.
(H) The regional market rates, as established by the department, for
different types of child care.
(I) The standard reimbursement rate or state per diem for centers operating
under contracts with the department.
(J) Trends in the county’s unemployment rate and housing affordability
index.
(2) (A) Development of a local policy to eliminate state-imposed
regulatory barriers to the county’s achievement of its desired outcomes for
subsidized child care.
(B) The local policy shall do all of the following:
(i) Prioritize lowest income families first.
(ii) Follow the family fee schedule established pursuant to Section 8273
for those families that are income eligible, as defined by Section 8263.1,
and provide the exemptions for family fees specified in Section 8273.1.
(iii) Meet local goals that are consistent with the state’s child care goals.
(iv) Identify existing policies that would be affected by the county’s plan.
(v) (I) Authorize an agency that provides child care and development
services in the county through a contract with the department to apply to
the department to amend existing contracts in order to benefit from the local
policy.
(II) The department shall approve an application to amend an existing
contract if the plan is modified pursuant to Section 8340.3.
(III) The contract of a department contractor that does not elect to request
an amendment to its contract remains operative and enforceable.
(vi) Provide a family that qualifies for the second or third stage of child
care services pursuant to Article 15.5 (commencing with Section 8350), for
purposes of eligibility, fees, and reimbursements, the same or higher level
of benefit as a family that qualifies for subsidized child care on another
basis pursuant to the local policy, except as otherwise provided in Article
15.5 (commencing with Section 8350). Nothing in this section shall be
interpreted to impact or reduce any element in the second or third stage of
child care services pursuant to Article 15.5 (commencing with Section 8350)
that provides a greater benefit to participating families than is provided for
in the local policy.
92
— 6 —Ch. 703
59
(C) The local policy may supersede state law concerning child care
subsidy programs with regard only to the following factors:
(i) Eligibility criteria, including, but not limited to, age, family size, time
limits, income level, and special needs considerations.
(ii) Fees, including, but not limited to, family fees, sliding scale fees,
and copayments for those families that are not income eligible, as defined
by Section 8263.1.
(iii) Reimbursement rates.
(iv) Methods of maximizing the efficient use of subsidy funds, including,
but not limited to, multiyear contracting with the department for center-based
child care, and interagency agreements that allow for flexible and temporary
transfer of funds among agencies.
(v) Families with children enrolled in part-day California state preschool
program services, pursuant to Article 7 (commencing with Section 8235),
may be eligible for up to two 180-day periods within a 24-month period
without the family being certified as a new enrollment each year.
(3) Recognition that all funding sources utilized by contractors that
provide child care and development services in the county are eligible to
be included in the county’s plan.
(4) Establishment of measurable outcomes to evaluate the success of the
plan to achieve the county’s child care goals, and to overcome any barriers
identified in the state’s child care subsidy system.
(b) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the county to
change the regional market rate survey results for the county.
SEC. 4. The Legislature finds and declares that a special statute is
necessary and that a general statute cannot be made applicable within the
meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California Constitution because
of the unique circumstances in the Counties of Contra Costa, Marin, and
Sonoma. Existing law does not reflect the fiscal reality of living in these
high-cost counties where the cost of living is well beyond the state median
level, resulting in reduced access to quality child care. In recognition of the
unintended consequences of living in a high-cost county, this act is necessary
to provide children and families in the Counties of Contra Costa, Marin,
and Sonoma proper access to child care through individualized county child
care subsidy plans.
O
92
Ch. 703— 7 — 60
FAMILY AND HUMAN SERVICES
COMMITTEE 7.
Meeting Date:06/25/2018
Subject:Innovative Community Partnerships
Submitted For: Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director
Department:Employment & Human Services
Referral No.: #110
Referral Name: Innovative Community Partnerships
Presenter: Devorah Levine Contact: Devorah Levine (925)
608-4890
Referral History:
On January 6, 2015 the Board of Supervisors referred oversight and receipt of updates on the
Employment and Human Services Department's (EHSD) Innovative Community Partnerships to
the Family and Human Services Committee (F&HS). On June 7, 2016, the Board approved
expanding F&HS Referral No. 110 "Innovative Community Partnerships" to include the subject
of Whole Family Services. This change was necessary to incorporate a major EHSD initiative,
which refocuses client-facing benefit eligibility to assess the status and needs of the “whole
family” while they are also determining benefit eligibility. Key to the new initiative is working
with community partners to form a network of family resource centers in current place-based
centers such as SIT (Service Integration Team) and SparkPoint sites, Family Justice Centers, First
5 centers, et al.
On June 26, 2017, the Family and Human Services Committee and Board of Supervisors received
the most recent annual report on Innovative Community Partnerships.
Referral Update:
Attached is a status report on EHSD's Innovative Community Partnerships program.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
ACCEPT the attached report on the Employment and Human Services Department’s Innovative
Community Partnerships.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
There is no fiscal impact; the report is informational only.
Attachments
61
EHS Innovative Community Partnerships Report June 2018
62
40 Douglas Drive, Martinez, CA 94553 • (925) 608 4800 • Fax (925) 313-9748 • www.ehsd.org
M E M O R A N D U M
Kathy Gallagher, Director
To: Family and Human Services Committee Date: June 25, 2018
Supervisor John Gioia, Chairperson
Supervisor Candace Andersen, Member
From: Kathy Gallagher, Director
Subject: FHS Referral #110 Innovative Community Partnerships
RECOMMENDATION:
ACCEPT the attached report on the Employment and Human Services Department’s (EHSD) Innovative
Community Partnerships.
Overview:
EHSD's mission is to partner with the community to deliver qual ity services to ensure access to resources
that support, protect, and empower individuals and families. Despite economic growth throughout the
Bay Area, one in ten Contra Cost a County residents live in poverty, including 13% of children1. Each year,
approximately one in four county residents receive help from EHSD2 to put food on the table, find jobs,
enroll their children in high quality child care, obtain and maintain health coverage, address and avoid
family violence, and in many other life sustaining ways central to the county’s safety net. Through robust
partnerships with community based agencies, county departments, law enforcement, funders,
businesses and policy makers, our services help make Contra Costa County a safer, healthier, and more
equitable place to live for all residents.
Furthering innovative partnerships has become more essential than ever. Research on the social
determinants of health and well‐being3 has shed new light on the significant connections between
poverty, employment, food security, social and community cohesion and health, creating a new urgency
for integrating social services into traditional health and community settings. Potential structural
changes being considered at the Federal level, including enforcing and expanding work requirements
associated with public programs and reducing funding for prevention, also add urgency to identifying
key partnerships.
Investments in social services and innovative partnerships have been modest in scale and often
temporary. Successful partnerships in neighboring counties have often been made possible by targeted
1 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012‐2016 American Community Survey 5‐Year Estimates
2 EHSD enrollment data
3 Social determinants have been defined as factors that contribute to a person's current state of health. These
factors may be biological, socioeconomic, psychosocial, behavioral, or social in nature Source: U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, Healthy People 2020 Draft. 2009, U.S. Government Printing Office.
63
2
investments of general funds and foundation grants.4 EHSD’s ability to fund and support innovative
partnerships has been greatly reduced as county general funds have not kept pace with the cost of doing
business. Despite these constraints, EHSD is prioritizing participation in, and supporting development
of key partnerships. With the support of the Policy and Planning Division, the department is working to
strengthen partnerships through strategic planning, research and evaluation, public policy tracking and
analysis, resource development, and incubating innovative pilot programs. The following report
highlights partnerships that are central to our efforts.
Elder Abuse Prevention Project
Under the leadership of EHSD's Adult Protective Services (APS), the Elder Abuse Prevention Project
(EAPP) is an innovative partnership addressing elder abuse through a coordinated system of care. Elder
abuse is an underreported and often invisible issue. Elderly are the fastest growing segment of the
county's population: From 2000 to 2010, the population of seniors 65 and older increased 22%, to
130,432 individuals. Based on population projections from the Census, the percentage of seniors in
Contra Costa County will continue to grow.
With the support of a $957,742, two‐year grant awarded from the Office of Emergency Services (Cal
OES), EHSD established a robust partnership between APS, other county agencies, and several
community partners. These
partners include Family Justice
Center, Senior Peer Counselors,
Senior Legal Services, Meals on
Wheels, and Ombudsman Services,
STAND!, SEEDS, the District
Attorney, and Behavioral Health.
This project leverages the existing
capacity of multiple agencies to
coordinate services through the
Family Justice Centers for victims of
domestic violence, child abuse,
elder abuse, and human trafficking.
In operation since June 2017, EAPP has served 226 clients, 72% of whom were disabled. The most
commonly provided services are advocacy (81% of clients), crisis intervention (66% of clients), and legal
assistance (15% of clients). EAPP provides a platform to raise awareness in the community, helping all
providers to better identify and respond to cases of elder abuse. Cal OES has extended this funding
opportunity for the EAPP through December 31, 2019 with an additional award of $620,884.
EAPP has established the following best practices for service delivery:
A common data collection tool and database to ensure cases are handled in a more coordinated
fashion.
An elder abuse prevention website, CoCoElderJustice.org.
A multi‐disciplinary team (MDT) meeting to improve the quality of services and care for clients.
A multi‐disciplinary Financial Abuse Strike Team to investigate and solve complex cases of
financial abuse.
A quarterly Elder Death Review Team meeting.
4 Some examples of partnerships in neighboring counties include Sonoma’s “Upstream Investments”, Alameda
County’s “Nutrition Partnership”, and San Francisco’s “Civic Bridge.”
64
3
As a result of these efforts, several benchmarks were reached:
Restraining orders for victims of elder abuse have more than doubled.
Enhanced outreach efforts increased APS reports by 9% (around 300 referrals per month) in FY
2016‐2017. We anticipate an increase of 24% in APS reports for FY 2017‐18.
Increased identification of service delivery gaps and problem solving to diminish those gaps.
Improved coordination of services, as evidenced by a decline in the number of repeated
referrals of EAPP clients by partner agencies.
Safety and Healing: Family Justice Centers
Developed with the support of the Contra Costa Alliance to End Abuse (formerly Zero Tolerance for
Domestic Violence Initiative), the Family Justice Centers embody an
innovative public‐private partnership. Each Family Justice Center (FJC)
(Central County and West County) has more than 16 on‐site partners (40
partners in total) providing services under one roof, including law
enforcement agencies, community‐based organizations, and county
departments. Significantly, EHSD has increased the strength of its presence
and partnership at the FJC in the last year. Workforce Services Bureau staff
rotate on –site at the FJC, providing immediate access to benefits and
support for clients. Both centers are community hubs for education and
integrated services for victims of interpersonal violence. Pla ns are underway
to open a FJC in East County in 2018.
In 2017, the Family Justice Centers served 2,442 families (with 2,010 children), a 30% increase from
2016. 81% of clients had a prior history with domestic violence, applied for a restraining order, had
contact with children and family services, adult protective services, or law enforcement. 65% of clients
served by the FJC earn less than $2,000 per month. 42% are worried about their safety. The most
common needs identified by clients are advocacy (“comprehensive services” (21%), family law/court
assistance (15%), restraining orders (11%), mental health counseling (6%).
The Family Justice partnership has created efficiencies among public and private partners and helped
identify service gaps and solutions. This partnership
naturally gave rise to a domestic violence
multidisciplinary team (MDT) and a human trafficking
MDT, which meet monthly to discuss complex cases.
New programs were launched this year, including a
“Housing First” project teaming up domestic violence
case management experts and housing assistance
specialists to help victims find and retain housing, as
well as a Restorative Justice project, testing alternative responses to domestic violence.
65
4
Whole Person Care: Community Connect
EHSD is collaborating as a key partner with Contra Costa Health Services (HSD) and a range of community
agencies in a $200 million, 5‐year Whole Person Care pilot funded through California's Section 1115
Medicaid waiver (Medi‐Cal 2020). Contra Costa County is one of 18 pilot locations in the state, with
California being the only state in the country implementing a pilot of this nature.
Under HSD's leadership and oversight, multi‐disciplinary teams apply a “whole person" approach to
caring for high‐risk members of our community who are also frequent users of emergency and other
medical services. Participants are provided with medical, behavioral health, social services, housing
support, public benefits, eligibility and enrollment services, and integrated care coordination. This
initiative provides an opportunity for EHSD to contribute its expertise to the emerging care model that
recognizes the importance of “social determinants of health" on a person's overall wellbeing.
“4” Our Families
In 2017, EHSD developed an integrated cross‐bureau pilot program, including identifying service sites
for the pilot and creating a robust
evaluation plan. The initiative is designed
to provide holistic services to EHSD
clients, increasing access to targeted
services and supports they need. The
pilot program uses four “navigators” to
engage clients with multiple unmet needs
and connect them to both EHSD and
community resources. Services will be
provided in the Sand Creek EHSD office,
the Delta Fair office in Antioch, the Bay
Point SIT/Spark Point site, and FJC
Richmond.
We plan to ultimately provide a new level of support with “wrap around services” for individuals and
families. Leveraging the 211 database and other technology, centralized data sharing and co‐located
staff will provide increased access, a better and faster service delivery experience, and improve
utilization rates of our comprehensive suite of services.
66
FAMILY AND HUMAN SERVICES
COMMITTEE 8.
Meeting Date:06/25/2018
Subject:East Bay Stand Down for Homeless Veterans
Submitted For: David Twa, County Administrator
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: #56
Referral Name: East Bay Stand Down for Homeless Veterans
Presenter: Nathan Johnson Contact: Nathan Johnson (925)
313-1481
Referral History:
The East Bay Stand Down (EBSD) is an extraordinary event providing 450 homeless Veterans
and their families from the San Francisco Bay Area an opportunity to receive invaluable and
diverse services and care in a safe, secure environment. The goal is to assist homeless veterans to
end the cycle of homelessness by bringing into one location transitional housing opportunities,
medical/dental care, legal services, benefits counseling, food, clothing, entertainment and many
other services. Of most importance, our participants receive this care in a respectful manner and
we let them know they are not forgotten. This event is supported by over 1,000 dedicated
community and military volunteers.
Referral Update:
As a volunteer and member of the Executive Board for EBSD, Veterans Services Officer Nathan
Johnson is pleased to present the opportunity to discuss an event that has a strong positive effect
on our community, and thanks the Committee for its support of this worthy endeavor.
Maj. General, USA (Ret.) Ron Lowe, Board Chairman, will join him today and would like to
address the Committee.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
ENDORSE and SUPPORT the East Bay Stand Down to be held September 13 - 16, 2018 at the
Alameda County Fairgrounds in Pleasanton.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
No net County cost.
Attachments
67
East Bay Stand Down Brochure
68
Alameda County
Fairgrounds
Sept. 13-16, 2018
HELPING DISPLACED,
HOMELESS AND NEEDY
VETERANS AND THEIR
FAMILIES.
EAST BAY STAND DOWN
Director:
Jerry Yahiro
(925) 743-8850
Donations: Please write a check payable to:
DIABLO VALLEY VETERANS
FOUNDATION - EBSD
And mail it to:
DVVF-EBSD
PO BOX 2133
DANVILLE, CA 94526
The Diablo Valley Veterans Foundation is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation, IRS identification number 26-3198472
It is the Soldier, not the minister
Who has given us freedom of religion.
It is the Soldier, not the reporter
Who has given us freedom of the press.
It is the Soldier, not the poet
Who has given us freedom of speech.
It is the Soldier, not the campus organizer
Who has given us freedom to protest.
It is the Soldier, not the lawyer
Who has given us the right to a fair trial.
It is the Soldier, not the politician
Who has given us the right to vote.
It is the Soldier who salutes the flag,
Who serves beneath the flag,
And whose coffin is draped by the flag,
Who allows the protester to burn the flag.
Copyright 1970, 2005 Charles M. Province
69
A community is often judged by how
well it takes care of its own. Serving
those who have served our Nation is
the primary goal of the East Bay
Stand Down (EBSD).
On any given night, across this
nation, there may be as many as
40,000 homeless Veterans.
Additionally, there may be as many
as 1.4 million at-risk Veterans.
Many of these Veterans suffer from
physical injuries and mental health
issues, frequently from both.
After separation from the Armed
Services, in an attempt to get
treatment, many Veterans have
gotten lost in a bureaucratic and
frustrating maze. They have yet to
receive a proper diagnosis, treatment,
and/or the care they need, deserve,
and have earned.
This often leads to loss of their self-
esteem, substance abuse, break up of
family relationships, and hardships
for the children of these Veterans.
Suicide, or worse, are all too
common in many instances.
The East Bay Stand Down, is a four
(4) Day event, held every 2 years, at
the Alameda County Fairgrounds,
in Pleasanton, CA. It brings
together 350 of the Bay Area’s
homeless and at risk military
veterans, connecting them with the
services they need, to break this
vicious cycle of homelessness and
despair.
Hosted by a consortium of
community organizations, the
EBSD provides a broad spectrum of
services to these Veterans.
Psychological, medical, dental, and
other care are available at the
EBSD, along with counseling
services for substance abuse, legal
issues, spiritual needs, and
employment opportunities. In
addition, follow up, rehabilitation
and housing options are available
for participants, after the close of
EBSD.
Since the first East Bay Stand
Down, held in 1999, our goal has
been to provide a respite for the
homeless and at risk Veterans’ from
their daily environment.
Approximately 5,000 Veterans, and
their families, have benefitted from
this event. These Stand Downs,
and others like it across the
Country, have proven to be
effective in breaking the cycle of
homelessness and despair.
The fiduciary agent for the EBSD is
the Diablo Valley Veterans
Foundation (DVVF), a 501(c)(3)
non-profit corporation, IRS tax
identification 26-3198472. If a
financial gift is granted, please
make the check payable to the
Diablo Valley Veterans Foundation
-EBSD, and mail to P.O. Box 2133,
Danville, CA 94526.
There are no paid positions
associated with the DVVF and the
EBSD. All monies raised for the
EBSD are used to support Veterans
and administrative costs associated
with the event. Donations may be
tax deductible.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT!
70