HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03021999 - D6 M
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS �',, Contra.
4
FROM: SUPERVISOR CAYLE B. UILKEIUTA ., .. ; ' Costa'
County
DATE: February 24, 1999
CONSIDERATION OF THE COMPOSITION OF THE CONTRA COSTA
SUBJECT. COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILIES FIRST (PROPOSITION 10)>
COMMISSION
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION:
CONSIDER postponing until`March 16, 1999, consideration of the reports from the
Family and Human Services and Finance Committees on the composition of the
Contra Costa County Children and Families First (Proposition>10) Commission.
BACKGROUND.
The West County Mayors and Supervisors organization has asked the Board of
Supervisors to postpone consideration of the reports from the Family and Human
Services Committee and Finance Committee on the composition of the Proposition
10 Commission:
The West County Mayors and Supervisors meeting takes plane on March 3, 1999.
The members would like to have the opportunity to discuss,this issue and provide
input into the process at the Board's March 16, 1999 meeting.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT. YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE Olt,ER
SIGNATURES`
ACTION OF BOARD ON Marnh 7y IM APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED XX OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
..UNANIMOUS(ABSENT - _ } AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN:
ATTESTED mar-ch 2,1999
Contact: A PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
CC: County Administrator SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Mada Alegna, Mayor, City of Pinole
West County Mayors and Sup rvisor.%pr anization DEPUTY
r
TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA'
FROM: FINANCE COMMITTEE � ' COSTA
John Gioia
- COUNTY
Donna Gerber -
DATE: MARCH 2, 1999
SUBJECT: Children and Families First Commission
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. ESTABLISH the memberships of the Children and Families First Commission as follows:
Chair of the Family and Human Services Committee of the Board Of Supervisors;
Chair of the Board of Supervisors or another Board Designee;
County Health Officer or designated deputy;'
Community Services Director;
Social Services Director;
Representative of the Mental Health Commission to be selected from three nominees
➢ Representative of the Local Planning Council for Child Care and Development to be
selected from three nominees;
Representative of the Substance Abuse Advisory Board to be selected from three
nominees; and
> Representative of a Parent Advocacy Group or an Early Childhood Educator
2. Staff services shall be provided to the Commission by those County Departments designated
by the Board.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER'
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMME D OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
REBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
UNANIMOUS(ASSENT ) TR ND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTIO KEN AND ENTERED
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ON MINU F THE 8OARD'OF
SUPERVISORS THE DATE'SHOWN.
Contact: Tony Enea(5-109
CC: Scott Tandy, —11 th ATTESTED
Dr.William ker,Health'Services PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK
Vic We an,County Counsel THE BOARD OF SUPERVISOR
AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY ,DEPUTY
_ _
3. The Ordinance shall reflect that the intent of the Board is for the Commission and
Advisory Committee members to :be diverse in terms of race, ethnicity, gender and
geography. The terms of the members can be limited to two years to assist in
achieving diversity.
BACKGROUND
The Finance Committee met on February 22 to continue discussions on the Children and,
Family First Commission begun on February 8. Testimony was heard from six members
of the public. County staff, represented by the County Counsel, Health Service Director
and Social Services, presented information and answered a variety of questions posed by
the Finance Committee members. The County Counsel was asked to request an Attorney
General opinion regarding conflict of interest issues and the timeline for the County
strategic plan.
The Committee formulated three recommendations which are listed above. The
Committee also decided to discuss the matter again at its March 8'Committee meeting.
Some issues for the March 8 meeting include:
1 the inclusion of''a parent advocate or early childhood educator on the
Commission,
2. shorter than four year terms for members to achieve a greater Commission
and advisory Committee diversity; and
3. discussion of including language in the ordinance concerning allocation of
monies to meet the greatest needs.
F iS#44
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA
" COST.
FROM: Family and Human Services Committee COUNTY
DATE. March 2, 1999
SUBJECT: Establishment of the Children and Families First Commission (Proposition 10)
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) &BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS):
1'. ACKNOWLEDGE that the Family and Human Services;(FHS) Committee has identified
several issues which require staff response prior to finalization of the FHS's recommendation
to the Board of Supervisors on the composition of the Children and Families First Commission,
including the issues of
■ accountability for audits including fiscal accountability, particularly for audits which
require remedial action;
■ whether or not the Commission's budget requires annual approval by the Board of
Supervisors;
• legal authority to;allocate Proposition 10 monies to a trust fund', the interest of which
would be used to fund projects in accordance with the County's Prop 10 Strategic Plan;
■ the legal feasibility of structuring a community-based organization slot on, the
Commission, similar to LAFCO, with categories for specific alternates who vote only
when the member has a conflict of interest;
• clarification lin the ordinance that the Supervisorial positions would be=rotating and the
mechanism for that rotation;''
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR—RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S); MARK DESAULNIER` GAYLE S.UtLKEMA
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
UNANIMOUS'(ABSENT ) TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED
ABSENT:' ABSTAIN: ON MINUTES'OF THE BOARD''OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DA 1'E SHOWN.
Contacts Sera Hoffman,335-1080
cc CAC? A TED
Scott Tandy,CAO IL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF
WiHlan Walker,'H TH ARD OF SUPERVISORS
John Cullen,S ery ce AND0 ADMINISTRATOR
Vic W , ourty Counsel
TonyC C:c3mmunity'Seroces'
BY ,DEPUTY
FUS#40
2. ACKNOWLEDGE that both Family and Duman Services Committee members concur on the
advisability of two Boardmembers on the Commission, replacing the pediatrician position
previously discussed and that the issue of a parent or recipient member replacing either the
Social Service Director or Community Services Director is still at issue and is 'tied to the
discussion of accountability under the audit provisions.
3. ACKNOWLEDGE that the Family and Human Services Committee is still discussing the issue of
staffing for the Commission,whether it should be in one or more of the operating departments or
within the Office of the County Administrator.
4. ACKNOWLEDGE the importance of moving forward on the County's Prop I Ot Strategic Plan since
it is uncertain that the County can receive 98-99 rollover revenues if a plan is not in place by,lune
30 '1999.
5. AUTHORIZE and DIRECT the County Administrator, Health Services Director, Social Service
Director and Community Services Director to begin the planning process for the Strategic Plan,
including involvement of all relevant existing commissions, advisory boards and coalitions; parent
specific forums to be held in East, West and Central County; age-specific work groups involving
parents, service providers and child development experts; and a fiscal' group to examine the
funding 'opportunities and challenges posed by Proposition 10 drawn from local business,
philanthropy and other fiscal experts,
SACKGROUNDl'REASON Ct�A
FOR RECOMMENDATIONS:
On`.February 2, 1999, the Board of Supervisors requested that the Family' and Human Services
Committee re-examine the proposed membership of the Centra Costa Children and Families First
Commission (Prop 10). Can February 22, 1999,the Family and Human Services Committee received the
attached report on the Commission from Dr. William Walker,'Health Services Director; Vic Westman,
County Counsel; and Pat Strobe, Head Start Director.
Dr. Walker reported that the Finance Committee met on the issue on February 8 and, at that time, had
asked for further information from staff. He gave the overview of the report which responded to Finance
Committee issues, including:
countywide child care needs assessment
staffing for the Commission
contracting by the Commission
• composition of the Commission
• advisory committee network
0 suggested amendments to Ordinance 98-46
• next steps and time line
In` making his presentation, Dr. Walker emphasized that it would be impossible to have full
representation of all interests, including geographical and ethnic diversity with a nine member
commission. Consequently, he felt that the advisory committee network was an essential element for
the Commission's future success. He also stated that there were several mechanisms that could be
used to promote diversity, including defining the non-supervisorial seats as the named official or
designee with the expectation that, in most cases, where designees are named more diversity could
result. In addition, the Substance Abuse Advisory Board, the Mental Health Commission's Children's
Committee and the Local Planning Council could be directed to nominate two or three passible
representatives with racial/ethnic gender and geographical' diversity as well as a mix of users and
community basest organizations. Dr. Walker also noted that the Prop 10 monies should become less
over time as srnoking declines. Consequently, he thought it was important to maximize the revenges
and leverage their use with federal financial participation. He suggested including departmental
representation on the Commission that had the ability to draw down these revenues.
Vic Westman, County Counsel, reviewed his report regarding both Proposition 10 and Proposition 99.
Mr. Westman emphasized that Proposition 10 is ambiguous regarding the ability of the County to receive
rollover monies for the first year and, consequently, recommended that"some" plan be developed, even
if it was substantially modified at a later date. He stated that some parties were relying on the State
Commission to provide clarifying guidelines on this issue, but it was not clear in the proposition if the
2
FHS#40..
state evenhas the authority regarding rollover for the first year. Mr. Westman then reviewed proposed
amendments to the ordinance as requested by the Finance a Committee, including staggered Commission
appointments, organization and meetings of the Commission, staffing for the Commission and authority
for contracting.
Pat Strobe, Head Start Director, reviewed the results of a Local Planning Councils' Conference, which
she attended with state staff. Several points came out, including the need for advisory'committees and
broad participation in order to ensure diversity, that Proposition 10 monies were expected to diminish
over time and that a self perpetuating trust fund would be allowable under the proposition; and that
statewide representatives would be willing to held a local workshop for Contra Costa County- ;Ms. Strobe
then reviewed the findings of the 1997-98 Child Care Needs Assessment conducted by the Local
Planning Council. She noted that, of the 7,090 children in Contra Costa County within the Head Start
age range, 3,885 applied for Head Start, but only 1444 were able to be served.
Supervisor Gayle Uilkema stated that the mayor of Pinole had requested that the Board of Supervisors
delay consideration of the Commission membership until March 9, so that the' est County !Mayors'
Conference would have a chance to review the issue. Supervisor Uilkema thanked'the many
organizations and individuals who provided information to her and said that it all helped her identify
issues which need consideration. The Supervisor thea laid out issues which she felt needed to be
explored prior to making a final decision on the membership of the Commission":
z> It seemed like there would be a terrific price to be paid by a community based organization
(CBE ) if they were on the Commission, since they would be ineligible for any grant awards,
due to conflict of interest laws. Would it be possible to structure the Commission like
LAFC4 by using alternates in specific categories when there is:.a conflict by a voting
merrier? This could give the Prop 10 commission flexibility to include community based
organization representatives without triggering conflict of interest.'
How would the ordinance establish that supervisorial representation would be rotating?
Who would be accountable for the recommendations of any audit, particularly ones which
require remedial action? Would it be the Commission or the Board of Supervisors who
would ultimately be responsible to the state commission? if it was the Board, that would
affect the necessary composition of the Commission.
b Would the budget for the Commission need to be approved annually by the Board of
Supervisors?
Could a trust fund be established that would provide a self perpetuating source of revenue
for Proposition 10 funding targets?
Supervisor-Mark DeSaulnier concurred with the need to resolve these issues and said that the primary
purpose here was to 'provide service to children and their families. Supervisor DeSaulnier further
stated,from his perspective, two supervisors on the Commission would be appropriate, with one taking
the place of the pediatrician slot and that the addition of a parent could replace either the Social Service
Director or Community Services Director slot. Supervisor DeSaulnier also stated that the issue of
staffing needs to be addressed, whether it would be the departments working together or would be
through the County Administrator's Office.
Supervisor Uilkema stated that,from her perspective, a recipient would be preferable to a parent, since
it would be someone who had been used to dealing with the system. She again noted that the
accountability issue would influence her position on membership to the Commission:
Both'Supervisor Uilkema and Supervisor DeSaulnier concurred:: on the need to begin work on the draft
strategic plan using the staff time as an outline of how to remove forward.
The Family and Human Services Committee thea heard from members of the audience.
Mary Kay Miller,staff to FACT and FACSAC, stated that she felt that it was possible to finesse the issue
of conflict of interest for community-based organization representation and that other advisory
committees had CBO representatives.
3
FHB#4d
Kathy Lafferty, Cambridge Community Center, stated that the salaries of community based organization
employees are not dependent upon whether or not the CBO receives a particular grant and, therefore,
any Prop 10 monies would not benefit the individual. She supported community based organization
representation, since these people have expertise in the field.
Robert Miller, Barbara Milliff Center, asked County Counsel why there was a conflict with the community
based organizations. Vic Westman responded that Section 1090 of the Government Code defined the
conflict of interest to include any employee of an organization that. receives money and that there were
several penalties attached to the violation of the Government Cade and, in addition, conflict would void
the contract. He suggested talking with an attorney on this issue and also noted that the legislature
could adapt exceptions to this rule, but that it is state law.
Carol Hatch, Representative George Miller's Office, commended Supervisor DeSaulnier for inclusion
of a parent and felt itwas important to consider appointment of an Early Childhood Development expert
rather than the Superintendent of Schools.' Supervisor Uilkema asked if Ms. Hatch considered a
recipient to be the same as a parent. Ms. Hatch responded that it was. Kate Ertz-Berger, Child Care
Council, stated that she felt a parent was a better designation since it was more in the spirit of
Proposition 10 which does not only target recipients of subsidized services.
Kathi McLaughlin, Mental Health Commission,:,stated that she had checked with two other counties and
Santa Clara was recommending the addition of two CBO representatives and Sonoma was considering
one CBO. She.also did not feel it was necessary to put together the Strategic Plan before June 2000,
because there would be no loss of money. Ms. McLaughlin also provided written commentary
(attached)
Rick Aubry, Rubicon Programs, stated that the;representative could be staff to an alliance of contractors
and so would not be an employee of any one community based organization.
Rev`. Carel Wickersham expressed the concern of West'County for geographical and racial diversity,
stating that child care is very different by region and ethnicity.
After further discussion, Supervisors Uilkema and DeSaulnier agreed to"report on the status of their
discussions to the Board of Supervisors on March 2, as well as to recommend that staff be authorized
and directed to begin preparation of the Strategic Plan
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Administration'Building
651 Pine Street, II1h Floor
Martinez, CA 94663
DATE: February 16, 1999
TO: Finance Committee
Family & Human Services Committee
FROM: Scott Tandy, Chief AssistantCounty Administrator
SUBJECT: °'PROPOSITION 10 REFERRAL
BACKGROUND:
On February 2, 1999, the Board of Supervisors considered recommendations from the
Family & Human Services Committee (F&'HSC) on the establishment of a Children and
Families First'Commission,pursuant to Proposition 10. The Board referred the report back
to the F&HSC and simultaneously to the Finance Committee for further review.
On February 8, 1999, the Finance Committee discussed the report and requested
additional information for its 'meeting on February 22. Since both committees are
scheduled to meet on the same morning,the same information requested by the Finance
Committee is being shared with the F&HSC.
1. Countywide__Child_Care Needs Assessment
The Local Planning Council on Child Care and Development conducted a joint
needs assessment with the County Head Start Program. The assessment
identified various assessment needs and gaps in service access. The Community
Services Department will provide an overview at today's Committee meetings.
2. Administrative Issues for Proposition 10 Commission
a. Staffing. The Health Services and Social Services Departments have offered
to provide staff support to the commission during the implementation period
at county cost until the local Children's and Families First Trust Fund
proceeds can be utilized to finance support services. Health Services would
draw on the expertise of staff from Public Health, Substance Abuse, Mental'
Health and Pediatrics who are currently responsible for perinatal and early
childhood services. Health Services will request other Departments, as
needed,to identify relevant staff within their programs whose expertise would
also be useful to the strategic planning process.
b. Contracts. County Counsel has advised that the local commission will have
authority to enter into contracts for expenditure of funds, but this should be
clarified by an ordinance amendment. Again,we are awaiting guidance from
the State Commissionon terms and conditions for contracts with
community-based organizations and agencies.
C. Composition. In the event two supervisors are designated for appointment,
the pediatrician appointee should be dropped. If the Public Health Director
were appointed in addition to the Health Services Director, another seat
would have to be dropped. There are several ways to promote greater
racial/ethnic,',geographic and gender diversity.; The non-supervisor seats
could be defined as the named official or designee with the expectation that
in those cases where designees are named more diversity would result.
For those seats representing the Substance Abuse' Advisory"Board', the
Mental Health Commission's Children's Committee and the Local Planning
Council, those groups could be directed to nominate two or three possible
representatives with racial/ethnic, gender and geographic diversity so that
the Board could make final selections based on creating overall Commission
diversity. Those groups should: be encouraged> to include in their
nominations a mix of users and community-based organization
representatives, as well. The community-based organization affiliation
should be focused on those organizations currently working to promote
early childhood development, as suggested by the language of the
Proposition. '
d. Advisory Committee Network. The Health Services Department has
prepared some suggestions on how advisory functions to the Commission
might be structured. (See attached.)
e. Suggested Ordinance No. 9846 Amendments. County Counsel has
provided some draft ordinance'amendments for further consideration based
upon the discussion and request of the Finance Committee on February
8, 1999. (See attached`:)
f. Next Steps and Timeline. In order to meet the initiative requirement of
submitting a`County strategic plan to the State Commission by July 1, 1999,
we suggest the following'guidelines to achieve that goal, recognizing that the
timeframe is very tight. (See attached.)
ST/amb
Attachments
W B, WnM. 1�), OFFICCF Of:
HIA.III VINVIr I , Uiir r TilF DIR[:C;-FOR
20 Alien Street.
Martinez, California
CON-TRA COSTA 94553-3191
HEALTH SERVICES Ph (92S) 370`5010
Fax (92 S) 370-508
TO: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator
FROM: Mary Foran, MPH �U
Assistant to the Director
DATE: February 17, 1999
SUBJECT: Proposition 10 Advisory Structure
We recommend an advisory structure with four components.
i t, ail the relevant existing commissions, advisory boards and coalitions should be notified
about the strategic planning process and formally requested to review draft plans. This gives the
opportunity for broad input which can complement the advice from more specific work groups
Any group interested in commenting on the draft plans should be encouraged to do so.
Second, parent-specific forums, held in east, west and central county, should be convened to
solicit parent advice on what works about existing services, what's missing, and what they want
to see added.
Dl d, simultaneous with the parent forums, age-specific work groups involving parents, service
providers and child development experts should be convened to answer the same questions as the
parent forums. We recommend age-specific groups rather than discipline-specific groups (e.g.,
substance abuse, child development, children's mental health, etc.)because the strategic plan must
emphasize holistic approaches. As noted in the Proposition, the strategic plan must describe"how
programs, services and projects relating to early childhood development within the county will be
integrated into a consumer-oriented and easily accessible system" [Section 130140, (a)(i)(Q(ii)]
The age-specific approach allows for an interdisciplinary exploration of the issues and provides
for an appropriate focus on the developmental stages of children.
The age work groups should be structured in the following manner:
• Prenatal
Birth to 24 months
• Ages 2 through 5
r s • Contra Costa Community Substance Abuse Services + Contra Costa Emergency Medical Services • Contra Costa Environmental Health • Contra Costa Health Plan
• Contra Costa Hazardous Materials Programs •Contra Costa Mental Health • Contra Costa Pubh(Health • Contra Costa Regional Medical Center • Contra Costa Health Centers
Phil;Batchelor,County Administrator
February 17, 1999
Page 2
ur h, a group to examine the funding opportunities and challenges posed by Proposition 10
should be convened, drawn from local business and philanthropy. The role of the fiscal advisors
would be to recommend the best strategies for leveraging Prop 10 funds into additional resources
for child development services and programs. There may be ways to draw matching funds - from
government, businessand philanthropy. This group might consider how to form ties between the
local Children and Families First strategic plan and the development of Future Corps. This group
should also identify any negative impacts of the Prop 10 taxes on the existing Prop 99 accounts,
which support health care for young children in Contra Costa who are not eligible for other health
care coverage.
Getting Started. The role of staff to the Commission will be to draw together the advice from all
four sources. Staff will be designated to convene the various advisory groups. Staff will be
responsible for advertising and networking to gain participation in each advisory component. The
staff role will be to gather input, analyze and synthesize in order to produce an initial draft plan
which will go through two phases of review before being considered for Commission adoption.
MF;mg
Contra Costa Children & Families First Commission
Draft Timeline for Initial Strategic Plan
Commission appointed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March 16
Commission adopts guiding principles for 11 year's plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . April 15
Age Work groups convened i with charge to issue advice to Commission . . . . . . . . . . April 1
Parent forums convened f re:program directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "
Fiscal advisors convened . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Age group reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May
Parent forum reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "'
Fiscalreport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
All reports synthesized . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May 1--May 13
Large group event to have structured discussion of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May 14
reports by Commission, with advisors providing reactions
Revise plan based on large group review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May 15-May 31
1'It draft of plan/distributed for broad review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . June 1—,lune 15
Compile responses into final plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . June 16—June 21
Commission review second draft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . June 22
Final revisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . June 22--June 29
Commission adopt/submit to State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . June 30
Commission meetings: March 25, April 5, May 5, May 14
June 1, June 22, June 30
Office of the County Counsel Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street, 9th Floor Phone: (925)335-1800
Martinez, CA 94553 Fax: (925)646-1078
Date: February 16, 1999`
To: Finance Committee
From: Victor J. Westman, County Counsel
By: Vickie L. Dawes, Deputy County Counsel it�110.
Re: Propositions 10 & 99 - Finance Committee Request of February 8, 1999
BACKGROUND At the Finance Committee meeting of February 8, 1999,
the following question was asked:
"1s the replacement of Prop. 99 money the first priority of Prop. 10 funding?
SU MARY ANSWER: The replacement of Prop. 99 money appearstobe a
high priority, if not the first priority, for Prop. 10 funds.
ANALYSIS Health and Safety Code section 130105 (copy attached as
added by Proposition 10 and copied from the Voters' Pamphlet)creates the Califomia
Children and Families First Trust Fund (hereafter referred to as the "Fund") and
provides that all the money collected pursuant to the taxes imposed by Section 30131.2
of the Revenue and Taxation Code shall be deposited into the Fund. (Subsection (a).)
Subsection (b) of section 130105 then provides that all costs to implement
the act are to be paid from the Fund.
Subsection (c) next provides for the State Board of Equalization to determine
how much Prop. 10 caused a decrease in cigarette consumption and how much that
decrease in consumption caused a reduction in Prop. 99 funding (and other funding not
relevant to this question). The statute then directs that money from the Fund is to be
transferred to Prop. 99 programs (and other specified programs not relevant to this
question) to offset the revenue loss caused by Prop. 10.
Then subsection (d) provides for how the money from the Fund is to be
allocated and appropriated to the State and county commissions.
There is no specific language in the statute which says that replacing Prop.
99 moneys is the first priority, second priority,'or any priority at all. However, the
provision for replacing Prop. 99 money [subsection (c)] comes BEFORE the provision in
section''130105 which specifies how Prop. 10 money is to be allocated and appropriated
[subsection (d)]. From that order, it may be inferred reasonably that Prop. 99 money is
Finance Committee
February 16, 1999
Page 2
supposed to be replaced before any other monies from the Fund are allocated and
appropriated. This appears to a common sense construction of section 130105 and in
accord with the principal that statutes must be given their reasonable and common
sense construction. (People v. Mulholland(1940) 16 Cal.2d 62.)
cc: Family and Human Services Committee
H:\DPFIS\PROPIO.WPD
05. The California Children and Families First Trust
Fuereby created in the,State T easury, (G) In the event that,for whatever reason, the expenditure
(a) The California Children and Families First Trust Fund any moneys allocated and appropriated for the purpo,,
shall consist of moneys collected pursuant to the taxes imposed specified in subparagraphs(A)to(F), inclusive, is enjoined b,
by Section 30131.2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, then the
b All costs to implement this act shall be paid from moneys moneys shall be available for expenditure by the stc
aesited in the California Children and Families First"T-ust commission for mass media communication emphasizing t
Fund, need to eliminate smoking and other tobacco use by pregno
The State Board of Equalization shall determine within women, the need to eliminate smoking and other tobacco use
one year of the passage of this act the effect that additional taxes persons under 18 years of age, and the need to eliminc
imposed on cigarettes and tobacco products by this act has on exposure to secondhand smoke.,
the consumption of cigarettes and tobacco products in this state. (U) Any moneys allocated and appropriated to any of t
To the extent thai a decrease in consumption is determined by 'mounts described in subparagraphs(A)to(F), inclusive, tt.
the State Board of Equalization to be the direct result of are not encumbered or expended within any applicable pert
additional taxes imposed by this act, the State Board of amour debyy law o shall and rttmain in with
the accrued interest for the n,
Equalization shall determine the fiscal effect the decrease in
consumption has on the funding of any Proposition 99 (the seal period.
Tobacco Tax and Health Protection Act of 1988) state (2) Eighty percent shall be allocated and appropriated
health-related education or research programs in effect as of county commissions in accordance with Section 130140.
November 1, 1998, and the Breast Cancer Fund programs that (A) The moneys allocated and appropriated to cour
are funded by excise taxes on cigarettes and tobacco products. commissions shall be deposited in each local Children a
Funds shall be transferred from the California Children and Families First ,Trust Fund administered by each cour
Families First Trust Fund to those affected programs as commission, and shall be expended only for the purpo,
necessary to offset the revenue decrease directly resulting from authorized by this act and in accordance with the cour
the imposition of additional taxes by this act. Such strategic plan approved by each county commission.
reimbursements shall occur, and at such times, as determined (B)) Any moneys allocated and appropriated to any of t
necessary to further the intent of this subdivision. county commissions that are not encumbered or expena
,al Moneys shall be allocated and appropriated from the within any applicable period prescribed by law shall(toget!
Calfa ornia Children and Families First rust Fund as follows. with the accrued interest on the amount)''revert.to and remain
(1) Twenty percent shall be allocated and appropriated to the same local Children and Families First Trust Fund for t.
separate accounts of the state commission for expenditure next fiscal period under the same conditions as set forth
according to the following formula: subparagraph(A).
(A) Six percent shall be deposited in a Mass Media (e) All grants,gifts, or bequests of money made to or for e
Communications Account for expenditures for communications benefit of the state commission from public or private source,
to the general public utilizing television, radio, newspapers,and be used for early childhood development programs shalt
other mass media on subjects relating to:and furthering the deposited in the California Children and Families First Tri
goals and purposes of this act, including, but not limited to, Fund and expended for the specific purpose for which the gro
methods of nurturing and parenting that encourage proper gilt or bequest was made.The amount of any such grant,gift,
childhood development, the informed selection of child'care, bequest shall not be considered in computing the amot,
information regarding health and social services, the prevention allocated and appropriated to the state commission pursuant
of tobacco, alcohol, and drug use by pregnant women, and the paragraph(1)of subdivision(d).
detrimental effects of secondhand smoke on early childhood (f) All grants,gifts, or bequests of money made to or for
development, benefit of any county commission from public or private sour
(B) Five percent shall be deposited in an Education Account to be used for early childhood development programs shall
for expenditures for programs relating to education, including, deposited in the local Children Arad Families First Trust Fu
but not limited to, the development of educational materials, and expended for the specific purpose for which the grant,9
professional and parental education and training,and technical ar bequest ural made, The amount of any such grant, gift,
support for county commissions in the areas described in bequest shall not be considered in computing the 'amot
subparagraph(A)of paragraph(1)of subdivision (b)of Section allocated"and appropriated to the county commissions pursu(
180125. to paragraph(2)of subdivision(d),
(C) Three percent shall be deposited in a Child Care Account 130110. There is hereby established a California Childi
for expenditures for programs relating to child care, including, and Families First Commission composed of seven vot,
but not limited to, the education and training of child care members and two ex officio members.
providers, the development of educational materials and (a) The voting members shall be selected,pursuant to Sect
guidelines for child care workers, and other areas described in 130115,from persons with knowledge, experience, and expert
subparagraph (B)of paragraph(1)of subdivision (b)of Section in early child development,child care,education,social servit
130125. public health, the prevention and treatment of tobacco and of
(D) Three percent shall be deposited in a Research and substance abuse, behavioral health, and medicine (includi
Development Account for expenditures for the research and but not limited to, representatives of statewide medical o
development of best practices and standards for all programs pediatric associations or societies),,upon consultation u
and services relating to early childhood development established public and private sector associations, organizations, e
pursuant to this act, and for the assessment and quality conferences composed of professionals in these fields.
evaluation of such programs and services. (b) The,secretary of Health and Welfare and the Secretar
(E) One percent shall be deposited in an Administration Child Development and Education, or their designees, A
Account for expenditures for the administrative functions of the serve as ex officio nonvoting members of the state commissioi
state commission.
(F) 21vo percent shall be deposited in an Unallocated Account
for expenditure by the state commission for any of the purposes
of this act described in Section 130100 provided that none of
these moneys shall be'expended for the administrative functions
of the state commission,
4. Add ;26-14.023 to provide for Commission contracts as follows:
26-14.023 ContracLrj. Exc t o a h rwise provided in this chapter. the
commissign may enter o such contracts as necessary or api2rol2riate to cagya t the
provisions and purposes- of this chapter and the Calffgrnia Qhildren and Families it t
Act of 1998 t "Act").. All such co trac s h ll specify and be contingent upon the
continued future fundina of the commission pursuant to the Act, the commission's
anal exemise of its discretionr parklpgte w h contract's ora r
another year a ou 's co t' u d participation in the Acts l2rogram.
HADFOTIWEMOS\VJW\OROCHG,WPU
Lll.•. JC.r .:�11 90 10 1V 114 ViJ
�•i
�i
j.j
I:t
CONIPIR-A
LOCAL
,{
COUNCIL
:
1997-98 Child Care Needs Assessment
1
Prepared by.
BilloOIRMA
w
TaHEI�T
i
3
i
•... u.L3 Jv 1v .v 1 1 tvV V L
I�
&The 14"da of Familln 119IM2 La SUbalcitzed Ch d&AEF
[ntrtli'uctlon
A critical part of data that the Local planning Council needs in order to set priorities is the
number of children between zero and 13 who are eligible for and in need of subsidized care, as
well as the number of same-aged children regardless of economic status In the previous
assessment,the Local Pianning Council and the Child Care ming Council worked closely
with the Stats of California's Department of Finance,which provided estimates on the number of
children eligible for different child'cava subsidy programs. The Depsmnant of Finance based its
estimates on data tabulations that were prepared from what is called the Public'Use Microdata
Sample(PUS)of the 1990 United States Census:'
In determining the current child caner needs for children eligible for and In need of subsidized
care,the Northam California Council for the Community built on the data generated by
Department of Finance and the LPC. The NCCC applied to the Department of Finance data an
agreed upon methodology for estimating the current child care situation in Contra Costa County.
The absence of current data that crosetabs children by income necessitated the use of some
agreed upon method for estimating the number of children eligible for subsifted cars;
What follows are descriptions of the different methodologies used to derive current estimates.
The first population estimation model is called the"General Growth Modal." Following,this,the
"K-9 Growth Model"is described. luta generated by either population estimation model Is
presented directly afterward.A summary of the key findings is included.
Genorrrt Orowth Nto"
The fundamental assumption of the General Growth Modelisthe following: what is true for the
population as a whole Is true for subsets of the population.'For example, acoording to the
demographic company called Claribrs,Contra Costs County"s population Increased by.0157
from"t 990 to 1091. If the number of infanta and toddler In South County who were eligible for
and needed subsidized care in 1990 was 55,then the growth model suggests that in 1991 the
number grew to 56 which is an Increase by.0157(or 1.57%). Using Claritas Population
estimates for each of the years between 1991 and 1998 to calculate the annual change from
one year to the next,the N+CCC'arrived;at ft following estimates'below.
As an aside,the research compared Claritise annual population estimates with those of the
state of Catifomla's Department of Finance. Clarites and Department of Finance annualchange
data are similar. The table directly below describes the annual change in Contra Costa County's
population from one year to.the next- Data are for Claritatt and the State of CatffomWO
Department Q Finance.
I
General Growth Model:Annual Population Change: 1 -19*1 to 19974"8
Contra Costa County
00 41 9142 92.93 43-9+1 woo 9647 ii7-pb
pUF 0.0149 0.0186 0.0176 O.Ow 0.0045 0.0106" 0.01641 0.0153
Ctj4kPJTA$ 0.01$7 04164 0.0152 010150 .0.014T 0.0145 0.0143 0.0141
Paye i
k
4
I
t
I
I U air ,u I N0 U I J r .U 4
i
The baseline Department en€of FinanosALPC estimates presented in the previous assessment are
increased each year by the annual change for the county,to arrive at a new estimation of the
number of children between zero and 13 who area elgibile for subsidized care. This computation
is repeated until an estimate for'IM is arrived at.
It must be stated that both Clark"and Department of Finance annual population change data
are estimates. These estimates'are based on a range of factors,such as driver license address
changes, stats income tax returns, and, for Claritas, population densities that are a function of
different land use:designations.-As a measure:of actual change in the population of children in
Contra Costa County and its respective regions, another growth model was devised. This model
is based on kindergarten through eight grade,population fluctuations between 19W and 1998.
K-8 Growth Atodol
Similar to ttte previous model,the fundamental assumption of the K-6 Growth Model is thatwhat
is true for the population as a whole(In this case, K-8th gra dem)is true for population'subsets
(children needing subsidized care).
Whereas the Clarit wDepartment of Finance annual changes are steady, growing by
approximatelyy 1.5%annually,the K-8 population data from the California Department of
Education describes more dynamic population shifts at the K-8 grade levels between 1990 and
1998. The K-8 population expends and contracts, as opposed to the Clarita&OOF data,which
always expands, if only incrementally. The K-8 model also takers Into account tremendous,
actual growth at the reglonal levet,with East County'.growing as high as 16%.23%. 30% and
even 350A for each of the.years'between 1893 and 1997._
The table below describes the annual population shifts that were used in the K-8 Growth Madel
to estimate the number of children etiaible for subsidized cars.
K-8 Growth Model*.Annual Population Change:119W-11"i to 1S T-18$8
Contra Costa County
K ebm# 9"1 01.92,, 92.93' W94 "45 0646 Wo? 97-"
COUNTY 0.0286 0.0206 0.0289 0.0300 0.0130 0.0241 0.0196 0.0141
WEST 0.0272 -0.0064 -0.0000 »(!.0041 40081 0.4017 -0.0172 0.0141
NO-CNITRA, 0.0108 0.0153 0.0200 0.02117 0.0171 0.0173 O.DM 04141
St'F„CNTFtAe. 0.0722 0.007 0.0ei09 -0.0050 -0.0740 -01346 .0J*1 DAA
EMT 0.0146 0.01+53 0.0909' 0.1668 022" 0.3070 0.3507 0.0141
i
1
i
Pop 2,
,
,,..ice ., JEC .iV 0 iL71 o4u .U1J ,r .0
tea
Children to Need of SUbStdlzod Care
After identifying the universe of children who are eligible for subsidized Cage using either growth
methods, research focused on those children who are eligible for subsidized care and we
simultaneously in need of such care. A percentage of children in households with working
parents was muttipiied to the universe of eligible children,to arrive at a figure of children in
single-parent households where the parent worm or two-parent households where both parents
work. 'A generat rule of thumb is that half of all children need care receive care from friends or
relatives, meaning that the other half r*W licensed care. This rule of thumb was applied to the
number derived at by the use of the working-parent multiplier.
Applying the working-parent multiplier and the rule of thumb rate to the estimated number of
children who are eligible for subsidized care leads to the new estimate on the number of children
eligible for and in need of subsidized care is arrived at.
Observations and Sumnuwy of Fhm maga
When the 19913 baseline date provided by the Department of Finance is'grown*using tht K-s
Growth Model, the 1985 estimates approximate best the original numbers reporfed in the Child
Care Task Force'sContra Q*a:QQWW Old CKA MMft%Elan;E100 which was
published in 1996. it is this 1995esdrriates that Is then grown even more to arrive at the logs
estimate. In summary.
• The General Growth Model is based on annual county population estimates;the K-8 Growth
Model is based on actual population changes at the elementary and rniddle school'levels.'
• The General Growth Model describes slow, steady growth that Is evenly distributed across'
the different regions of the county; except for South County,growth described In ttte K-8
Growth Madel are relatively higher and with greater annual fluctuations than the growth
described in the General Model,
The Geral growth Model provides a conservative estimate the K-8 Model provides a
dynamic estimate.
• The General growth Model estimates that the number of children between zero and 13 who
are eligible for and need for subskiured Care increased from 28,1']88 to 29,290 In 1998 for the
county as a whole; the K-8 Model easatimat s that the current number of 0 to 13 yeah'-olds
eligible for and in need of subsidized care now stands at 40,533
• The General Growth Model estimates eligibility and need for all subsidized programs in
South County Increased,from 1,266 to 1,322 today*,,the K4 Model sstirrlatos that the
number of eligible children In South County decreased,from 1,3413 to 989.
• The General Growth Model estimates eligibility and need for SO subsidized programs In
North Central County"ased,from 8,736 to 9,116 today;the K-8 Model estimates that the
number of eligible children in North Central County increased,from 8,874 to 9,343.
• The Geniiaal Growth Model estimates eligibility for all subsidized programs In West County
increased,franr+'111,286 to 10 736; the K-6 Model estimates that the number of eligible
children in West County declines only Incrementally,from 9,395 to 9,678.
The General Growth Model estimates eligibility for 80 ribsidized programs in East County
increased.from 7,890'to 8,118 today:the K•8 Model estimates that the number of eligible
children in East County increased tremendously,from 11,518 to 20,623.
Pogo
t
l r JU 2 1b 1J NO .UlJ r .Ub
Estimates Based On K through 8 Growth Model
General Chit!Care f>i96 f�19E{est)
South Centra( lnfantModdler 63 47
,+ presthoolers 50 37
4+01=1 age 362 267"
4?6 351
North Central infantsltaddWr 511 636
,s p osc:hoolers 3t7 334
s chool'age 2295 2416
3123 3288
VYes# 564 563
paoschool6rs 456' 455
schoolage 2349 2345
3369 3364
i
aSt infantModdler 893 1600
i
p uchooWrs 422 755'
school age 2735 4687
4061 7252
County 1nfantiVioddler 2302 2746
past twolors 1245 15s2
school age 7741' 9925
Total 11019 14255
Page 4, �
i
i
f
IQ . SEP 30'98 16 ; 13 No .013• P 07.
Esdrnatss-Based On K through 8 Growth Madel
Federal @lock Grant i$98 1n$(tart)
South C el inf~oddler 51 40
preschoolers 23 18
schoolage 273 214
346 271
Norris Central infants/toddler 427 456
i presrhoOlem 280 300
schoolage 1763 1882
2459 2640
West infafthoddler 515 461
preschoolers 394 368
schoolage 2139 1999
3048 2$48
l
Ent IMantsWdler 493 1313
preschoolers 240 640
school age 1445 3847
217$ 5800
County infentattoddler 148$ 2292
precttooNers 937 1326
s 5t3t)9 7541
Total 8032 11560
k
S
p"t 6'"
1U qtr sU �s 10 ; 13 N0 .016 F .08
i
Estimates Based On K through 8 Growth Modell
TrrLE N Is" 11!1111(afst)
South Certtsal #nfainriltoddler 59 47
;: psfvhors 41 32
school age 334: , 262
a 435 341
North Central Infenmitoddler 450 484
preschoolers 261 280
school age 2096 2250
2807 3013
Was; inf rWoddler 445 413
proschoolers 380 355
f
school age 2004 1873
{
2829 2644
Eest InfentModdler 489 1302
preschoolers 229 610
l dmi"e 1585 4216
,2303 6130
county Infarttsttoddler 1444 2248
preschoolers 911 1277
school age 6018 66133
Tout 8373 12128
i
t
i
f
Pop a
lU . Jtt JU '� it) 14 NO .UiJ J'. W3 '
,.i
Estimates Based On K through S Growth Model
Stat&Pn-iw hooi 19s5 It"(set)
South Central preschoolers 33 26'
North Central preschoolers 373 441
West preschoolers "S 723
East preschool+rs 541 1441
4i County prorchoolers 1'T2i 2591
P
I
G
Face 7
P
F
I
, r
„1
`'. Estimates Based On K through 8 Growth Model: All Subsidies
All Subsidy Pmorarns tSt93' 1t 1{
South Central lnfantsttc der 180 133
preschacters 163 113
school age 1008: 743'
1340' gag
North Central lnfantsWdler 1406- 1480
pr+sschoolers 1249 1316
school 6219 6547`
8874 9343
W"t infentattoddler 1+463 1460
proachoolers 1904 1901
schoolage 6227 6217,
9595 9578
East infantsitoddler 2354 4215
preschoolers 1925' 3446
school age 7240 12962
11619 20623
County infs tModdler 5403 7288
preschoolers 5231' 6775
schoolage20893 26469
'total 31328 40533
i
,
Page 8
r
iU : � �u 1r t NO .015 , . 11 .
ice#
Estl+mates Bawsd On 06nerat Of**' `e Model
G*nerat Child Caw 1996 Im test)
South;Central infantShoddlar 69 62
preschaalens 47 49
schoolage 341 356
A 448 467
North Central InIlanteltoddler 502 523
preschoolers 311 324
school ap 2260
2348
3063 3196
West Intantsltoddler 603 629
preschoolers 407 $00
school age 2509 2618
3590 3755
East Into t1toddler 801 627
proschoolers 284 296
school age 18411 1919
2724 2842
County infi9tnts4oddler 1765 1841
preschoolers 1129 1178
whool age 6940 7241
Tot:Nl 9834 10280
i
Peps 9
1
lU• oC.r JV :io i.Q IJ NU U1J r
3
EstleliOt" Bused On Goneral Growth lllloclsl
Eatl"810ok Grant 1�1� ttl9$(n##)
South Central Infanta/toddler 51' 53
Preschoolers 23 24
school age 273 284
3
3$1
North Centras infantsltoddMr 427 445
preschoolers 280 292
schoolap 1753 1828
2459 2586
vwst l tfimts/todt3ler $15 537
preschoolers 394 411
School ap 2138 2231
j 3048 3180
East infi nWtodd r 493' $15'
pr"chooMm 240 251
school ague 1445 1508
2179 2273
County Infantsitoddler 1486 1550
presdwows 937 977
school age 5609 5852
Total 8032 8380
i
• C
i
i
3
t
f
3
I
Pape 10.
i
3
,._...,
evu j.i r lam'
'I
;'. Estim*tas Basad On'Gener*!growth Model
a. 'tITt.E IY i898 1"s("t)
SouthCentra! InfOntsttoddler 62
preschoolers 41 43
# school age 334 349
435 454
F
North Central Infentsl Ier 450 470
pre$dVokrs 261 272'
school ego 2095 211
2807 2926
t+l/ea#' MfAntsltoddler 445 464
pmdmlem 380 396
r school age 2004 2091
2829 2951
East infantsAoddler 469 510
preschoolers 229 239
school age 1585 1653
2303 2402''
county infa t Aoddl r 1444 1506
preschoolers 911 950
school age 6018 6279
Totes 0373 6735
a
6
tp 30 '98 10 1t No x'13 P . 14
Estimates Based On General Growth Mode
Slate pf"thooh 1Y 1109 +a1
South Centel pnaschoalera 33 34
North th Central preschoolers 373 390
west pmschoolere 773 $07
Last preschoolers 641 565
County preschoolers 1721 1795
1
t
I
k
I
i
t
1
r
f
Pale 12
i JU �d lC? 1C? NO .U13 t, AL)
Estimates Based On General Growth Model.- All Subsidies
AH Subsidy Pf"f ems 1li alp fires asst
South Central Infentettoddler 170 178'
preschooters 145 151
schoolage 951 993
}
1266 1322
North Central, infsntsltoddbr1384 1444
preschoolers 1230 1263
schoolape 6122 6389
8736. 9116
West kftnModdler 1569 1637
preschoolers 2042 2131
schools 6678 6968
10288 10738
East infantsitoddter 1589 1669
preschoolers 1300 1356
school' 4880 5101
' 777 8116
County infants/toddler 4712 4918
preschoolers 4716 4921,
school NO 16639 19451
TOW 28068 29290
3
i
i
1
X13`
k
ID : SEP 3€l 98 16 16 NO .013 P .16
The N,"daof EaMft Not mow.FW Sub
The tables below compaM the number children who are not eligible for subsidized ski care.
Data below were derived using the some methods employed In suction A of this rope.
However,data below subtracts the universe of all children who are eligible for subsidized care,
as opposed to the subset of all children who are eligible for and are in need of subsidized care.
All Children Between zero'and 13 regardless of economic status MINUS All Children
80weetn sero and 13 In need of subsidized caw. C*nwral Growth Model:
"Children Not Eti Ibis For SubstO d Curer"
Chi dron Not Elgibilf 190 14li8(sst)
South Central Infantstloddler 4692 5255
preschoolers 3032 3395
swot age 15073 16879
22797 25530
1
North Central MttntsftWlor "' 6307
preschoolers 3160 3523
school age 13414 14960
22224 247913
West infantsRoddler 4839 5178
preachoolers 60 38
school age 9320 10361
14019 155+7+1
East into tiAoddler 4633 5188
preechootere 2062 2279
60hooi'age 12274 13693
18959 21139
County infantsAoddler 19614 21904
prowhoolors 8304 9235 �
school*96 50081 55883
Total 77895 67032
i
t
Pao*14
ID � ir� : ir Na .ul3 P . Lr
All Children Between zero and 13 regardless ot'eooner�hk suets MINUS All Children',
Between zero and 13 In ttesd of subside ed care: K-$Growth Model:
"Chlidr"lVof Eligible For Subsidized Care"
Children Not El9Wl* 1W test?
South Central infantsftoddW 4692: 3950
preschoolers 3032 2552
schoot age 15073 126W
22787 19190
North Central infentOoddler 5646 6511
preschoolers 3460 3+644
school age', 13414 15468
22220 25623
West Wftntshoddler° 4639 4057
1
preschoolers 60 60
school age` 9320 9356
14019 14074
last intantsltoddler 4633 13248
preschoolers' 2052 $867
schoollarge 12274 3606
18959 54211
County infantslwdler 19610 23630
proschoolm $304 1000$
school age 60081 60347
Total' 77995 93984
{
i
Pap 15
t
1
I D
.. 5E'P 30 '98 16 17 No .013 P . 18
C, WAfte 11e11 for b ratn>rr s!unded by Qrt and CM
4 in an effort to compile whiting lists for subsidized child case,the needs assessment team
contacted subsidized child care providers to gather the toted number of children who were
currently on waiting lists. According to the numbers mbers provided by subsidized child caro providers
who responded to the wait list numberrequest, there were an estimated total of 2449 children
on the wait lists for subsidized child cera in September 1998, it must be noted that at the time,of
this report,there were a number of child care providers who stilt have not responded with wait
list numbers for their site, and thus waiting list numbers are expected to Increase.
' With SM children currently being owed by subsidized child care(see Section l),'the waiting
list number indicate that there are 2449 additional children who are waiting for services. The
number of children identified on waiting Rets are listed by geographic region in the figure below.
Whiting List by County Geogtaphic Region
East Counly Sal
Central County 402
West
WO
South Crawly nla
C"bv Costa counW:SW IM pass
Mile waiting lists are a general soume of Information in identifying the perceived need of
services,it can besomewhatan inaccurate measure of the actual neW for service. The
frequent changes in waiting list numbers,possible duplication of numbers, time of data
collection, and eligibility requirements pose as challenges when gauging the number of actual
children waiting to fill a"slot." It is speculated that waiting;lists number's collected at the time of
this study may underestimate the number of children who ere waiting for open*slots.*
1
Page 18.;
I SEP 30 98 16 . 18 No .01 3 .P . 19
At',
ftlsk of Abuse or Naweat.
The chart below identifies the rate per 10,000youths at which youth in Contra Costa County,
have been placed for the first time in thts foster care system! Compared to Alameda County and
the ten-county Bay Area,Centra Costa's firat•time foster care placement We is smatter.
Additionally,Contra ICosta`s rate declined between 1.992;and 199t3! Raw data are presented in
the table below the chart, and come From the University of California at Barlteley`s Child Welfare
Reseammh Center.
Foster Cars: Fkat Time PUm emtints
Contra Gaeb and arty Arra R"Was
s
36 _
��a Asa
. 90 X6+1: ft! tt.i jos 1•'t �
ris too
26.. 2fAi00: UA
IL
18
tti t t tra+ ilio+ # 1 l lois t
'...� tSrwC..� �rr�rs+t«w �wMMllew
Reasons for First-Time foster Care Placement Contra Costa 92-;t6 "
_
1992 INS IM ION
416 364 358 395 371
Phy iCM Abu" lie 105 117 94 62
3�acuM lthutte 49 47 56 46 26
OINK 9 is 6 10 $
TOW 593 634 641 646 469
l tom:"��Cto�it at SeticMis'•Cfiikf 1*fa�herRissud+Gniu:`Pa�te+�or lndlorieis ra t�fd ltit��i4tt
S+nrioes M CSNfor�is:190b.*(i9ils).'P.r6
t
ti
t
Pape 17 t
P
I i SEP 34 '98 16 : 18 No .413 P .20
Date above are not disaggregated by region The table below distributes the number of youth
who are receiving°Foster Cara AFMCOVORKS assistance, The bulk of the youths are in
West County,with East County as the second highest region where AFOOZaNVORKS Foster
care youths are concentrated. Unfortunately,data are not broken down by aps,so the number
of persons who are between zero and 13 in the table below is not known.
�r
Number of Persons Receiving AFDC%CAIWORKS Foster Garr Assistance:June 1ti S
June i to
t East 471` 36.3%
wast 839 47.1%
1 South 31 1.6X
C,*htw 214 16.0%
# County 1333
1
aotms Garter COW 000*nspuMrom of flock SWAM 'Caseload Stdollcl by OV Jens 30.i9W{laic
SOPWIIW 2'J.16041.from sillwaldi" ?
i
t
{
i
t
I
i
,
"
Pro*i;8
i
i
"
......... ....
......................................
............ ..........
�)Ep 60 , 98 lb -20 NO .014 P .01
f.. klUniber gf f.,tblldren,RMIXIOg f.!ublic,Asslament
Poverty and PuWiaAssistante
According to the 1090 Census, 7.3%of Contra Costa residents lived below the 100°,6 poverty
line,which,for a family of four,was approximately$16,000. Altogether, there were 57,867
persons living below the poverty line. Of this amount,21,904 were children and youths—or
38%of all persons living in poverty. Of the 21,904 children living in poverty, according to the US
Census,in 1900, 7,152 children were between the ages of rem and five.
Current estimates on the number of children in poverty are Impreclse n le" gman ytotumto
proxies such as the number of children on AFDC to obtain a glimpse of the economic situation of
Contra Costa's children. At of September 9997,there were 16,842 AFDC/C4dWORK5 cases in
Contra Costa County,down 210 linos March 1994,the point.in time when the county and the
rest of the region began to emerge from the long 1OW1994 reemlon. Ttw number of children
declined at a slower rate than the number of cases,by 13%, from 32,535 children in March 1994
to 29,283.
Over the same time period,the value of the average AFDC benefit also declined In inflatkm-
adJusted terms by 16%between 1094 and 1997. In March 1994,the average AFDC faftly
group obtained$477.61 in benefits, which when adjusted for Inflation,is equivalent to$617.36 In
1997 dollars. The average AFDC family group benefit of$409.08 in September 1997 was less
than the average amount obtained four years earlier in both nominal and real terms, meaning
greater economic stress today for many of the familles,and children.
MW"LWOW* 1#04-ift?
Page 19
ID ; SEP 30 '98 16 :21 NO .014 P .02
f
/FDC CALWORK9i 199""7
COMM Cas!*"Mtp Nos of CMIdron
H.o�o
,a,
am
Ava
4
;tw. ; i i 1 trs
r..r sy pu.nrKt
AFDC CALWORKS.- ftU>1 s Y Ca" 1
con&*costs Couwtita 1"4.1"7 QTR
low oonm
MY1.
i
.MNit .YxI ...._...... �{�s*. ...... ............ 1
_ - .. Wrw... .......... ... �.
+3 ........ ..........
rw.a
.-.......+ .
........... ........... ......_ _ ... M1lY...
.. ......
1
wr...........
... ..--. - M .... ----- - .. ------
` .. ...- �.
T64 E 1 t11e 1 1 1 .40 1 1
Y."vv GN�rrn
i
i
t
Page 201
........... ............-...... ..........
. .......... ...........
ID : SEP 30 '98 16 :2)1 No 014 P .03
Similar to AFDO\CaWORKS,other public assistance programs are also recording substantial
declines in the number of cases and vWus of benefits. The Food Stamp program typically keeps
Its value in inflation-adjusted terms, although betwen September'96 and September'98 the
Inflation-adjusted value of Food Stamp benefit declined by almost 5%. For the most part,
children are not covered by General Assistance which over the past four years has experienced
a real decline in value of almost 200/6.
Public Assistance Recipients and Beneffts
"NOON"I
C46"
Its96 97
0447� 0479692
—
moo 19.307
17.614 16.642 A111% -1&2%
Fowl Starolm '13,044 13,076 12,934 10.619 -22.31A -22.4%
RAF$ ?A4 Oft -23.6% -24.7%
Ona Asslatena 4,044 3,0711 2.004 1,001 46.4% -541%
A
RAF
$,
end
su
A%v AmwrA JM?daftm)
7
2
3
60094 8"4 as 30% 64J�07 "47 .1
AFDC
FDC $517.20 5490.05 $474M $40-01 -M.0% A6.17%
4 9%
F&WAFnS. $41".60 $167.05 $179.60 WOO 1.2% 2.2% .4.9%
M Cal
od-Cal
19 1%
Ginn AUWWM $M." $316.47 $M.37 $240-80 -17.6% -24.6% -19.1%
MUMV SIA16 W COW"it.HOOM and Vft"o AjOnCy.OM. PWIcVVO%*In Caplet WIOA«m erota
As the tables below show, C&WORKS%FDC cases tend to be concentrated In particular areas
of Contra Cost&County.
CaMorke: Number of persons By.Age
undw 1 14 34 0-10 oft 10 11.17 W" 464111 64+
W&M 260 1.588 2.560 4.030 0,476 3,537 6,180 634 29
B&JM 36 144 249 299 we 311 6211 54 1
cuftl 101 464 820 1.168 2.1573 tue 2,069 154 7
EaM 105 419 626 023 2,073 940 1.704 199 9
Oftr 0 76 113 172 361 127 255 25 0
U'llft Cobb 622 2,76! 4,353 6.1592 1144411 6190 10,09 1,446 46
Pop 21
IU : SCP 6U ,98 Ib :22 No .014 P .04
is
CaMorks. Distribution of Children 0 to 14 By Region
West SAY$ 3299%
t
{ IDIOM i 2.673 1100.0%'
j Eeet 2.On- 804%
1
Other 361 144%
i Contra U.14
Costa
t
t
i�
1
{
t
1
t
E
Page 22 G
i
.................... .............................
.............
1.Jbit Number of Children ftm All Id2ntiffable and Cultural bachomunds
The table below identifies the diverse number of people arid languages that are spoken In the
public schools of Contra Costa County. The diversity In roe"and languages has increased
since 1990, as the table and accompanying charts demonstrate.
Limited English Proficient and Engilsh-Spooking Students: Contra Costa County
ji Contra Costs COUNTY 69-90 94.91 91-02 92-93 93 04 94-96 95-96 9647
SPANISH 4207 6337 6920 6667 7299 7062 0931 98117
ii VIETNAMESE 457 498 611 582 Sol 675 M Ms
CANTONESE 243 264 294 200 19 293 280 302
ii HMONG 13 16 is 14 297 17 il Is
KHMER 46 49 44 40 0 54 54 40
PILIPINO 472 $31 SOS $49 36 861 037 60
KOREAN 164 161 154 166 629 139 145 179
LAO 426 407 433 460 143 364 346 347
ARMENIAN 1 6 3 2 413 2 4 3
41 MANOARIN 179 187 183 176 3 147 153 170
JAPANESE 87 $9 70 70 141 85 81 se
TARSI 213 263 268 203 03 296 247 235
MIEN 382 450 497 637 274 578 579 WT
PORTUGUESE 45 49 66 62 58$ 64 00 91
ARABIC 52 65 73 82 0 96 108 123
PUNJABI 07 117 145 183 216 233 310
HINDI 71 106 105 Ili 0 121 117 lie
RUSSIAN 17 40 48 80 0 71 88 86
SAMOAN 10 Is 15 Is 70 21 28 32
ILOCANO 7 0 0 0 0 23 28 Is
RUMANIAN 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0
THAI 0 22 0 21 0 0 0 0
OTHER LEP 676 707 773 747 a 671 667 721
ENGLISH 120867 122120 123773 125714 1282% 00466 t33706 1359"
TOTAL-LEP 7662 sm lom 11222 101107 12448 133119 14547
TOTAL,&M 128729 131526 134035
136931 139673 142904 147026 161*34
Racial and Ethnic Distribution of Contra Costa County Students
coutm 86-89 69-60 9W91 gi-W 92-0 93-14 94-0 W"
AM-NO 614 030 725 701 741 W 909 896
ASIAN 9.027 9.773 10,217 10.683 10,807 11,183 11,367 11,650
PAC-12LO 450 667 sas 643 $49 696 "D 813
FILIPINO 3.556 3.687 4.257 4,30 4,757 068 5,047 51116
HISPANIC 14,601 16,373 17'8se 10.274 20,206 21,753 23,270 25,065
SLACK 15.957 15.940 16,084 16,622 19.073 17,422 18,092 18,535
VMS 82.179 81.60 81,760 61.813 791673 82.811 IltM 84,140
TOTAL 126.392 128.729 131.626 1134.035 134.006 139.673 142,004 147,026
Page 23
ID SEP 30 98 16 22 No .014 P .05
1
The Migrant Eduction Program)provides financial assistance to State educaRtionat agencies
(SEAS)to establish and improve education programs for children of migratory agricultural
workers or fishers who have moved within the preceding three years. The SEA*are responsible_
for identifying migrant children who meet this criteria,and for maintaining information on the
eligibility of those children.
P
The Migrant Education Program, Region Ill,operates out of the Merced County Office of
Education and serves migrant children and families from the cities of Brentwood. Oakley, and
un-incorporated county of Byron. According to August i M data from the Migrant Education
Region III„there are 236children beton the*get of 2 and IS who are Identified as migrant
children. That number represents,the number of children who have been identified and
riving migrant education services and not the total number of child an of migrant Tamil as who
ma►y aw services.
The distribution of the children of migrant workers by age are show in the figure below.
I
i
i
tl
Figura S.Number of Migrant Chirdren in East Contra Costa County, IM
xoo
TOT
too s
t
17 {p
so..
2
YM Va. YMQ 1 rr..+.irrMw. 4 eym
- Va plyw"n-1 On1
1
1
t
The'Stanislsui bounty of Education operates the Head Sart Migrant Program in Brentwood
(East County). White there we curreWly a total 66 slats available In the programV children 3-5
yeare were found eligible and enrolled. The Head Start eligibility criteria requires that the family
has moved`In the past year. The eligibility criteria between the Head Start Program and the
Migrant Education Services are different in their definition of migratory SUMS. Whft Heard Start
i otrsoa of Migrant Educ Wn.'Wbbew cl S*w"EMOInp Mapral MOW
�tlwww.n►ty'arrt+Id,orptc�frrpMnnMmap. iDr17. �
t
Pape 24> i
... ......... .........
A.1�
eligible families must have migrated In the past year,the.,Migrant Education Program eligible
children must have moved in the preceding three years. Because the availability of information
collected was based on eligibility recMrements, the totat number of children of migrant workers
in the county may be howr.
p"O 25
kl
H. The NUMW-cif Qh1fclr�rr�r, nwith !put I Nwde
' .Special Education Program
In Contra Costa County,three Special Education local Plan Areas(SELPAs)oversee the
Special Education Program: Contra Costa County ice of Education,West Contra Coats
Unified School District, and Mount Diablo Unified School District. In August and Member
1998,there were a'total of 18,861 children ages 0-22 enrolled in the Special Education Program.
The distribution of children by county region are shown in the figure below.
Figure 6. Nu l*r of CtWren in Special education by Region
Contra Costs County,September 1998'
7000
6 soot 4140
4W asps 3W
E aa 7#Jf7Q
rtQQli',
1
G
i
i
4
l
i
Pop 26 #:
f
t
.............
..........
Limited English Proficiency
LEP Student as Perc*nt of All: 9"7
Contra Cost& County
10%-- 9.87%
0.05%
7 %
7.66% .60
7.14%
4%--
2%-::
years
Limited English Proficiency
LZP Student as Parentof All: 90-97
W*st County
22%-
20% -
20.10%
16.48%
18% 17.48%
16.47%
15,83% 152746
14.24
14%--
2.625k-
12%-.
100/0
4%
80 90 9011 9142 92.9a 93-" Wa
"ars
lll Jtr 'JU 10 ib--'D NO .UJ 4 r . ju
•t�
UmIted English Proficiency
j+1
i�
LEP Student as Percent of All: 9047
j
North Central County
10%..
88056
7.90°6 9.1 tf%
$17%
6.22% 8.38%
5.4796
G 4.58'K
4%-
f
%
2% ;�; SSS
eo-90 oo.9t 9t.o� 42.03 Wa a4ss 115ei4 ���
years
Limited English Proficiency
L IEP Student a: P*Ment of Alt: W97
2%-- South Central County
1.73 1.831.73%
IM%
1
2% 1.48% .4596 1.56!6
- 1.1796'
�% 1.0396
Y
� C '
Elm0%-I- woo �aea` f 4142 04-x, iG&VI
Yew f
1
........... ...............
............... .............
Limited English PrOficlency
LEP Studont os Pirrcent of All: 90-97
East County
7%
7.05%
6.68% 6.56%
6%
4%+
years
a
K. The Ape: eyf ldran NeadjagAndmo
The following chart shows that a total of 109,8t10 children may need child care services using
the number of children 0-13 with parent(s) in the labor force.
Children Needing Child Care Services in 1997
N' 6 yem and AW 6-13TOTAL
under
p
Total number of children with parents)in the labor 22,863 13,104 38,687
' forcer current#y r+eoetving care outside the family
( tw"'a need being met)
Total nunftr of chlIcdren with parent(s)In the tabor 21,M 62,415 74,113
` force who are not in child care out kte the family
(child care situationsunknown)
1 Total n wr0w of children who msy need cd*we in 44,281 65,811? 1091800
�Caurt a Cos%County
$Oboe:CAI%Mis Gard Gare Rasouro"and Rrrarr r=(k.=4 MW Gn Pa riu,Carrera Coata Cau;; (199-n
1
s
i
f
t
t
l
y,
r
Pop 28
........ .........-........ ............. ... ........... ... .....
L Other Fattom 022mid ARRMRdM bY tha LPC
The section below.details the specific Information requested by the Local Planning Council on
the number of children served broken down by age and type of program.
a Infants and toddlers served by subsidized child care programs
0 Number of three to five year olds served by State Preschool Programs
• Number of three to five year olds.served by Head Start Programs
rograms
i.
SuWdjz9d Child Car&C&M Dem q=Rbics: NuaftL-pf Child=So
In 1998,the Local Child Care Planning Council collected data on existing programs providing
subsidized child care, Information was collected regarding the number of slots available In their
he number of children enrolled in the.
programs, t programs, and the number of children on the
W kft lists. The date was divided according to chlfdrw�s ages and the geographic location of
the program.
The following programs supplied client demographic data on their programs:
Antioch Partnerships
Antioch Unified School District
Battered Women's Alternative
Cambridge Community Center
CC College District
Concord Child Care Center
Contra Cost*Child Care Council
Contra Costa County Community Services Department-Need Start Contra Cost&County
Child Development Division
Community Services Department
Consisting of the following centers:Balboa, Brookside,Carlson, Crescent Park, George
Miller, Las Juntas, Lake, Maritime, Oak Park, Powers, and Verde
Contra Costa County Social Servioes Department-AP Program
Contra Costa County Social Services Department-CaNYORKS Program
Greater Richmond Social Services
Martinez Early Childhood Center
Mount Diablo Community Child Care Advocates
Oakley Unified School District
Pittsburg Pro-school Coordinating Council
Pittsburg Unified School Ditstrict
PrdesstoneI70isodation for Childhood Education(PACE)
The Magic Years Children's Center
West Contra Costs County Unified School District
YMCA
YWCA
Slat fteschggi Prams
Pe"29
atr JU y5 ib • �s NO _UlU f iU
if
tl
' statePreschool Prpgrams which serve children ages 3 to 5 years are funded by the State
tl Department of Edo tion and are offered on a half-clay basis for 9 months per year. They are
open to low4ncome children wfth priority given to children who have been abused amttor
neglected.
#fi In 1995,The Child Care Council's Master Plan: Pian 2001 found that a total of 1,164 children
a
were served countywide in Mate Preschools. Our most current 1998 figures reveal that 975
children are being served,a 1610A decresseetinc reasee from the 1995 figurers.
r
conAra Cotte f&IM Heed:etad ftggrarn
' Head Start is a federally funded child development program for vary low-Income families and
their young childron. The primary telt population for the Heat!Stan Program is children
{ between the ages of 3-5 from families living below the federal poverty line. With priority given to
i children who hive been abused andfor neglected. 10%of children enrolled in the program must
1 be diagnosed with special needs.
t
in 199f-98,'there were 3,888 applicants for the Head Start Program. Of that neartber, a total of
1,487 (38%)children were accepted into the program,with 562 eligible children placed on the
waiting lists.
E
f
1
i
4
1
{
t
i
conv&coeua ow Gera councu. TW Gro Msew Ptm.Plan 2401.' 1995
Peke►34
i
M
............. .....................
............
Taal Number ofChildren Bel n 6b Subsidized
9 Serve �y CMd "t C
Prog
fill
TABLE 1: Number of CW[dren Being Served by Subsidized Child Care
it (80004ho to&"*V sou")
Contra Costa county, 1998
EAst wk ItT 8OUTN TOTAL
COUNTY, COUNTY CO (by 4"of cam)
State Pr*school 393 208 374 0
975
Genoral Child Ca"
344 500 1203 0 2137
(w"h.13 Vftj
fodoni Block 63 85 100
0 248
CarWORKS 220 105 284 0
Had start
680 164 743 0 1487
Afternag" 79 117 176 1 373
Payments Program
13 Va)
Latchkey Care 86 21 0 0 107
TOTAL
1765 12002=9 1 606
TABLE 2: Number of Children Being Served by Subsidized Child Cam by Age
Contra Costs County, 1998
EAST CENTRAL WEST SOUTH TOTAL
COUNTY COUNTY, COUNTY COUNTY
Inbrit/Toddler 101 128 304 0 533
(elm to I V"M)
Pre-School 1526 $ee 2352 1 4767
SchooIAW 138 184 314 0 636
TOTAL 1705 1200 1 1 5936
Pop 31
4
C. Addttlonal Data Requested By LPC- Emptoyrn6fttfuttemptcyment
As the chart below indicates, unemployment levels in Contra Costa today aro well below the,
levels during the tong recession of 19WIS44, and rave dropped below the pre4eces lon levels
as well. Today,unemployment in Contra Costs stands at 3.7%,wait ba►low the recession high of
6.8%. According to ASAG,the county is onx- ted to have a job boom lasting through the turn of
the century. Job growth will occur particularly in the south and east portions of the county,
according to ABAG.
to '.
i
t
I
I�
1
{{l
N
it
h
1
i
E
it
N
P�
a
t
t
Pap 32
�r
�, Conley►Chia.Caw�ys�iwwtrey ehtyry►'
+atli
1L._.........
i .. - -_aay►_
'v
{+
140.' i i tabs i 1 1 m6 r i r r r r r yiba 1 r r iaba i r i 40 i 1 r yabx t ' r 116
r~
rce:
_ Natr of CaMi b"Av STOWW*i tH,rsta nWt o%WWAK Lftw MAIW k+a knsrMese+tYtvysiW 'ClAw LOW FOM,Enrpaap .*M Uty�n{Noymsint
"UPditd MOM 13.IM:Corft C A&CouW(tl OWwwwi,om,g*vM
it
it
it
si
4 :
'l*1
r"
t1
is
a�
7•
9:jt
1
t. Pa"33
;10�
3•
i�
y
IU .V 1 moi... f 1 O
,
L. Additional Data Requested`'By LPC: Teen-age pregnancy Rate
For the most part, data in this health section are presented in three-year averages, to reduce-
H
i year-to-yearfluctuation in the ocourrenee of rare events by basing different health rates on an
averaged number of vital events.
i Live Births and Prenatal Cara
The birth rate dropped from 16.9 per 1,000 residents in 1990 to a projected 13.5 per 1,000. The
county consistently records a lower birth rate than the ten-county Bay Area. Births among
Contra Costa County teens increased slightly;between the 1992-1890 and 1994-1996'reporting
periods,while for during the same time teen births decreased for the Bay Area.
as
Live Births per 1000 residents
i
i+
f 5 CONS CW& Say k"
1t 1900 16.9 17.2
10.5 ISA
192 ISA 16.3
t1 1903 1S.0 15.7
t1 1904 14.0 1d.3
it" 14.4 14A
1990 44.0 14.7
i 1997 ,3.7 14.2
1095 13.5 f4.0
fi
1'
SOUM:Stott of Wftft.'EepMk"ni of F"noo. Como *%mot sk9 l+kp:a Yvar.es pow
TABLE 3: ORM PROJEOMM FOR C,AL FORNIA ITATE ANC COUNTIES 1970.2006
11 Teen Births per 1,000 Uva Births
is
,x
Wft=On
{i "Amaq Adgf~4 MOOfMs,16 fa 1r Y9«s OW 19034"s 1994.1x96
If
fi9WM-W stela of cwftn N. D"Wr MM Or low Services.*Cow*Noah LMOA PP9fYK'(ISO,1"7 end IM
elft ):Table 19
tae
t+
11!�
, With respect`to live births in Contra Costa, for last three
periods, the percentage of low birth-
weight babies has remained folly stobie at 6.2%. The county rate'is greater than the rate for the
ten county Bay Arca, and is greater than the Healthy People 2000 target of 6%.
t
Pepe 3+4
i.►,
It
t
............. ......... ....... .....
.... .........
ill )Lt 1)U 70 1u . —:7 "U U i
Low Bi,rth4V*Ight Babi*a
contra com
Low SWwmIgM IfftnLa 1092AW4 4.N 5.7%
1991=349956�2%
1:0 a
58%
1094-1996 0.2% 5.8%
F
Cit it SOV OM.'Courtly H"M SU&S PMW(low,107 and 1608 0"On#).
T6614 I a
The prevalence of low birth-weight babl"is related In part to the availability of early and
adequate pro-natal cats. A smaller percentage of Contra Costs pregnant women received late
prenatal care than women In the Say Area, but the county rate during the 1994-1996 period of
16.3%was higher than the Healthy 2000 goal of I DO/*.
Jc
Page 35
ill StN 6U ''J6 1 No 014 F . 20
" Prenatal Care
an o
%of Prwrgnent 1Noa*n Reoirm"tate,Pre-nitat Can 1092-IM 18.G1i 17.7%
tti9 -19115 15.9% 17.24
} 19941996 16.34E 17.0%
i�
Not Adoquato Pro-natal Cum 19924 04 22:6'x' 26.0%
rk
�� 1993-1ttOS
22.8% 26.3%
1994.1996 24.2% 26.7%
1'•
Sls;a of Grl'rtr�mis.'t�rlsw�i�t skUh SsiirviCwM['Oasatky tlatMh$latus '.(1tW6,104 etkd 14W tdtlWnsj:
TSM 20A an0 208
tj
k
I Infant Mwullty
' Contra Costal County mute the Healthy People 2000 obod ve of no more than 7 incidences of
infant mortality per 1,000 live births. In fact, infant moftatity has been declining over the three
'! reporting periods
Is
Infant Mortality
,f
It
tli Y
), mforA Mwtairty 1992.1994 6,2 b.i'
IMAM 6.9 5.9
k{
SUM.516%otS=t of HNlln gWftS'C01NNlf H66Rh SYua Protlifa"(190E.1 Q97 flna 1990 ease ane):
# TOW 17At
{t
li
k
�t
,Y
it
k�
k
43
ka
k,
ib
,t
ii
PMO 36
ki
.
it
k
}
KATHLEEN MC LAUGHLIN
P. O. BOX 153
MARTINEZ, CA 94553
(925) 372-6886
TESTIMONY TO THE FAMILY AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE OF
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FEBRUARY 22, 199
PROPOSITION 10 COMMISSION COMPOSITION'
AS A MEMBER OF THE CONTRA COSTA MENTAL HEALTH COMMISSION
AND CHAIR OF THE MHC CHILDREN'S COMMITTEE. I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK
TO YOU REGARDING THE FORMATION AND COMPOSITION OF THE CHILDREN
AND FAMILIES FIRST COMMISSION WHICH WILL BE EMPOWERED TO
IMPLEMENT PROPOSITION 10. AT YOUR FEBRUARY 2ND BOARD MEETING YOU
RECEIVED THE MEMO FROM THE MENTAL HEALTH COMMISSION DETAILING
OUR RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE COMPOSITION, SCOPE OF WORK,
AND TIMING OF THE WORK OF THIS NEW COMMISSION.
SINCE THAT FEBRUARY 2ND MEETING I HAVE RESEARCHED THIS ISSUE
WITH OTHER COUNTIES AND WITH ASSEMBLYPERSON TOM TORLAKSON'S
SACRAMENTO STAFF. 'BRIEFLY, I HAVE OBTAINED THE FOLLOWING
INFORMATION:
COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION:
THE MENTAL HEALTH'COMMISSION IS PLEASED THAT BY
RECOMMENDING THE INCLUSION OF A MEMBER OF THE MHC'S CHILDREN'S
COMMITTEE'ON THIS COMMISSION, THE HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
COMMITTEE, THE CAO'S OFFICE,AND THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HAVE
RECOGNIZED BOTH THE EXISTENCE AND IMPORTANCE OF MENTAL HEALTH
NEEDS-IN THIS OH SO VULNERABLE POPULATION. HOWEVER, WE AND THE
OTHER TWO SUBSTANCE ABUSE'AND"°CHILD.CARE ADVISORY BODIES, ARE
NOT SUFFICIENT TO ENSURE THE KIND OF GRASSROOTS AND COMMUNITY
...........
ORGANIZATION PARTICIPATION THAT THE AUTHORS OF THIS PROPOSITION
INTENDED.
AS "PROFESSIONALS" WE ALL BELIEVE WE KNOW WHAT WORKS BEST
FOR THE CLIENTS WE "SERVE"AND WE ALL COME FROM AN ORIENTATION OF
SERVICE AND CONCERN FOR THOSE FAMILIES AND CHILDREN WHO NEED
SUPPORT FROM "THE SYSTEM". I SUBMIT THAT MOST OF US HAVE NOT
"WALKED A MILE IN THEIR SHOES" AND REALLY DONT UNDERSTAND THE
SIMPLICITY AND PRACTICALITY THAT OUR FAMILIES NEED TO SUPPORT THEM
AND BUILD ON THEIR STRENGTHS, IN DOING THE BEST JOB POSSIBLE RAISING
OUR FUTURE STATESPEOPLE, FINANCIERS, MANAGERS, EDUCATORS,
TECHNICIANS, AND INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICE WORKERS. ONLY BY
INCLUDING SERVICE RECIPIENTS ON T141S COMMISSION CAN WE BE SURE
THAT THEIR VOICES AND PERSPECTIVE ARE HEARD AND ACTED I UPON.
THE OTHER VERY IMPORTANT PERSPECTIVE WHICH MUST BE
REPRESENTED ON THIS COMMISSION IS THAT OF THE COMMUNITY-BASED
ORGANIZATIONS. A DEPARTMENT OR DIVISION PERSPECTIVE IS ALREADY
INSURED BY THE STATUTE CREATING THIS COMMISSION. THE MENTAL
HEALTH COMMISSION IS RECOMMENDING THAT THESE VITALLY IMPORTANT
ORGANIZATIONS ALSO HAVE,AT LEASON-MAKINGT ONE SEAT AT THE DECISION-
TABLE. WE BELIEVE THAT THERE IS NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST CONCERN
HERE, BASED ON THE WORDING OF THE PROPOSITION AS PASSED BY THE
VOTERS. IF THERE IS SUCH A CONFLICT THEN IT APPLIES EQUALLY TO
DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATION REPRESENTATION ON THE COMMISSION.
OTHER COUNTIES SEEM TO BELIEVE THE SAME:
• SANTA CLAVA'COUNTY HAS ALSO ESTABLISHED A NINE MEMBER
COMMISSION. THE RECOMMENDATION OF THEIR BOARDS CHILDREN
AND FAMILIES COMMITTEE IS TO INCLUDE:
• THE HEALTH AND HOSPITAL DIRECTOR OR HIS D_ESfGNEE
• THE SOCIAL SERVICES DIRECTOR OR HER DESIGNU
• A CONSUMER OF SERVICES LISTED IN THE PROPOSITION
• TWO COMMUNITY BASED,ORGANIZATION REPRESENTATIVES
u
• AN EDUCATOR EXPERIENCED IN EARLY CHILDHOOD OR
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
• A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
o A PEDIATRICIAN OR OBGYN
• A CHILL?"CARE REPRESENTATIVE
• SONOMA COUNTY HAS INCLUDED A COMMUNITY BASED
ORGANIZATION REPRESENTATIVE ON THEIR FIVE MEMBER
COMMISSION.
ADDITIONALLY,`WE BELIEVE THE PROPOSITION ITSELF MAKES THE LACK
OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST CLEAR:
• SECTION 130140 A iii OF PROPOSITION 10 STATES THAT-. . .THE
REMAINING MEMBERS OF THE COUNTY COMMISSION SHALL BE FROM
AMONG THE PERSONS DESCRIBED IN SUBDIVISION (a)(1))A)(i)ABOVE
AND PERSONS FROM THE FOLLOWING CATEGORIES: RECIPIENTS OF
PROJECT SERVICES INCLUDED IN THE COUNTY STRATEGIC PLAN;
EDUCATORS SPECIALIZING IN EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT;
REPRESENTATIVES OF LOCAL CHILD CARE RESOURCE OR
REFERRAL AGENCY, OR A LOCAL CHILD CARE COORDINATING
GROUP; REPRESENTATIVES OF A LOCAL ORGANIZATION FOR
PREVENTION OR EARLY INTERVENTION FOR FAMILIES AT RISK;
REP"RESENTA77VES OF COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZA77ONS WHICH
HAVE THE GOAL OF PROM077NG NURTURING AND EARLY
CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT REPRESENTATIVES OF LOCAL SCHOOL
DISTRICTS, AND REPRESENTATIVES OF LOCAL MEDICAL, PEDIATRIC,
OR OBSTETRIC ASSOCIATIONS OR SOCIETIES.
IT SEEMS CLEAR TO ME THAT IF COMMUNITY BASED ORGANIZATIONS
ARE SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE PROPOSITION AS
AMONG THOSE FROM WHICH COMMISSION MEMBERS WILL BE DRAWN BY
DEFINITION THERE IS NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN THEIR PARTICIPATION;
.............................. ................. ............ .............
TIMING OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN AND POSSIBLE LOSS OF REVENUE:
MUCH CONCERN HAS BEEN RAISED, AND A SENSE OF URGENCY
GENERATED, BECAUSE OF THE POSSIBILITY THAT IF WE DO NOT HAVE A
STRATEGIC PLAN IN PLACE BY JUNE 30, 109 WE WILL LOSE THIS YEARS
FUNDING. SECTION 130140 CLEARLY STATES THAT: "FOR THE PERIOD
BETWEEN JANUARY 1, 1999AMID AUNE.:3 COUNTY COMMISSIONS SHALL
RECEIVE THE PORTION OF THE TOTAL MONEYS AVAILABLE TO ALL COUNTY
COMMISSIONS . . . PROVIDED THAT EACH OF THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS
HAS FIRST BEEN SATISFIED: . . . (C) THERM 'RE MENT
- - THAT'THE 4O 1117Y
COMMISSION ADOPT AN ADEQUATE AND QQlI�FLLFE STRATEEGIC
PLAN FOR THE SUPPORT MD MPR0MW OF:EARLY CHILDHOOD
DEM0PVElVTWTHlN:THE COUNTY.
MY READING OF THIS, AND MY DISCUSSIONS WITH OTHER COUNTIES
AND ASSEMBLYPERSON'S TORLAKSON'S SACRAMENTO STAFF, CLEARLY
INDICATE THAT NOT ONLY WILL WE NOT LOSE MONEY IF WE DON'T HAVE A
STRATEGIC-PLAN IN PLACE BY JUNE 1999 INSTEAD OF j(M 2000 AN
ARGUMENT COULD BE MADE THAT BY RUSHING OUR PLANNING PROCESS WE
MIGHT NOT PRESENT A PLAN WHICH ISI COMPREHENSIVE AND.COMPLETE
ENOUGH TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROPOSITIONM
IN CLOSING I WOULD LIKE TO EMPHASIZE THAT THE MENTAL HEALTH
COMMISSION BELIEVES THAT IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT WE INCLUDE PEOPLE
KNOWLEDGEABLE FROM A vA—wg*ry qF6gqgekMgs ABOUT THIS
POPULATION ON THE COMMISSION. IF WE ARE TOO CONSERVATIVE IN
APPLYING THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST MEASURE TO PARTICIPATION WE RUN
THE RISK OF APPOINTING REPRESENTATIVES WITH LITTLE OR NO
UNDERSTANDING OF THE NEEDS OF OUR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES WHO WILL
BENEFIT FROM PROGRAMS AND SERVICES FUNDED UNDER THIS
PROPOSITION. MOST IMPORTANTLY, WE MUST PROVIDE RECIPIENTS OF
SERVICES WITH A SEAT AT THE DECISION MAKING TABLE, OTHERWISE OUR
GOAL OF PROVIDING FAMILY FOCUSED PROGRAMMING WILL NEVER BE MET.
EER— #-1 14.17 SUPE V I SM OMBER 510 1 6627 .... P.02
CONSIDER U
Fuaarry , 1"9 .°
sup"Viim Donna,'Oftber
NWDimbloRd,
DAUv9k CA-94526
AKWAfnics I am w6fing to y*u,*o>ctt the CWd Development Co tees and/,OF Task Fac
ThOnUIS F Tang,hLb. which the counties have be=mad to develop as a consequenm ofthe
eleedion idt ative as of 1998 and the"T`obta*Settle. I do riot behave that
hay L.-Trott M.D. Co as Coati County bw as YetWined its committee
Colleen M.HoSM M.D. I am s pedimbician in Mstrict 3. Its adder,I am also PreAkut of'Cafilb>a
Allen D.c79briris r,M.D. �►tOr 1,Ametix t ;�emy of t mm der 2 p aattrWaim
In N�a�raaia As a Board Coed peatittritian I have,doted mfr
Tracy T.Trapi. auverto the wen bmg Wd needs of uftnts dWdr a and adelcsocift,
B*WoP==aed balth pare noxs are centralto the p ubst do discipline. Itrust
IntemalMeadne -- that i a Brd Certified pe dia hie,an will be ttwnW to the Comnittm.
Sue I.Krii ty M.D. Ow will the Commuft Trims A4"be�? The ohmW td Cc��ee
bow established? 'tel amara Cost&Cmunty use*templme for the cdamttae
Neil R.Okmura,D.O. detawinod by the sty or will the County mck to&sduStAsh twrfivm am
atigbboringtounties? We as ague tele,rtmvmx as id a esi t'a
mno aaa alt ow reWmft to enhince the fives of the oil'in our n ift. We must
209 X rta,D ive take adyantage of opport .
wife 3-
s Ra+mcrnCA919W: - lodk huwar4 to Jiso��tea&Ihm.with yW. ;i*W—W outtai .�'
`�a�3,;i9'9'�►. I wt's��+� +'� - . , ..
Pediatrkp
Sitamerr+a
In#.�r�at Meed
M 898.,M, T'�F. T on&IOW,FAAP'
Fox .
92.5-&38.65".