Merced Nonprofit Fund Raising - DOC

							                        DRAFT – For approval at Association meeting October 2009.



                                            FIRST 5 Association of
                                                 California
                                                                                             July 14, 2009
                                                                                      10:15 AM – 3:25 PM
                                                                                         Doubletree Hotel
                                                                                    Sacramento, California


Attendees:
                                                     Doreen Diehl – Sacramento
Mark Friedman – Alameda                              Karen E. Scott – San Bernardino
Janis Burger – Alameda                               Cindy Faulkner – San Bernardino
Teddy Milder – Alameda                               Joan Zinser – San Diego
Nina Machado - Amador                                Laurel Kloomok – San Francisco
Jill Blake – Butte                                   Lani Schiff-Ross – San Joaquin
Karen Pekarcik – Calaveras                           Jason Wells – San Luis Obispo
Jennifer Long – Colusa                               Debby Armstrong – San Mateo
Cally Martin – Contra Costa                          Patricia Wheatley – Santa Barbara
Patti Vernelson – Del Norte                          Patricia Madrigal – Santa Barbara
Steve Thaxton – El Dorado                            Eileen Monahan – Santa Barbara
Rick Alford – El Dorado                              Jolene Smith – Santa Clara
Kathleen Walker – El Dorado                          Susan True – Santa Cruz
Kendra Rogers – Fresno                               Muffy Berryhill – Shasta
Wendy Rowan – Humboldt                               Mike Filippini – Sierra
Julio Rodriquez – Imperial                           Karen Pautz – Siskiyou
Judith Harniman – Kern                               Christina Arrostuto – Solano
Thomas Jordan – Lake                                 Jennie Tasheff – Sonoma
Evelyn Martinez – Los Angeles                        John Sims – Stanislaus
Howard Jacobs – Los Angeles                          Deb Coulter – Sutter
Chinayera Black-Hardaman – Madera                    Denise Snider – Tehama
Christina Sauceda – Madera                           Sheila Kruse – Tuolumne
Amy Reisch – Marin                                   Robin Godfrey – Ventura
Brian Mimura - Merced                                Julie Gallelo – Yolo
Kathy Peterson – Mono                                Kris Perry – First 5 California
Francine Rodd – Monterey                             Marsha Jones – First 5 California
Sally Sheehan-Brown – Napa                           Diane Levin – First 5 California
Alyce Mastrianni – Orange                            Dion Aroner – AJE Partners
Kelly Pijl – Orange                                  Linda Baker – Packard Foundation
Janice LeRoux – Placer                               Phil Isenberg – Isenberg/O’Haren
Nancy Baggett – Placer                               Sherry Novick – F5AC
Ellen Vieira – Plumas                                Christine Karim – F5AC
Harry Freedman – Riverside                           Moira Kenney – F5AC
Kim Dahl – Sacramento                                Elise Torreano – F5AC
Erin Blount – Sacramento

Welcome and Introductions

Association President Evelyn Martinez (Los Angeles) brought the meeting to order at 10:15 a.m.,
welcomed members and called for introductions.
                        DRAFT – For approval at Association meeting October 2009.



Approval of Association Minutes of April 28, 2009

Association members unanimously approved the minutes as presented.

Report from First 5 California

First 5 California Executive Director Kris Perry announced that State Commission staff are subject to
furlough Fridays, two times a month and three times a month beginning in August. F5CA offices will be
closed the first 3 Fridays of every month for the coming year. These unpaid days represent an
approximate 14% pay cut which is difficult for staff.

She presented an over view of the commission agenda for the following day:

   A presentation by Communications Director Elisa Bupara on the communications campaign which
    will contain many of the slides provided during the online webinar and now posted on the
    communications TA website.
   Discussion of the state budget crisis and MRMIB: The State is facing a $26 billion deficit budget.
    Last January the Commission approved $16.75 million for Healthy Families. 48 counties approved
    partnering with the state commission for a total of about a $15million contribution. Approximately
    $4.5 million has been invoiced and a little more than $1million has been received so far. There is
    likely to be some under-spending and the full $16.75 million may not be needed. The cost to
    maintain the kids enrolled with First 5 funds starting in December will be approximately $34 million
    in the next fiscal year. The projected budget shortfall for MRMIB of $90 million means that there
    will be a waitlist. MRMIB is actively looking for partners to help fill this shortfall.
   Action item related to Project Legacy: In September 2008, the State commission approved the
    Project Legacy process. Due to the budget crisis and special election, the process was halted. The
    commission is getting many unsolicited funding requests and pressure to keep programs going. The
    commission needs the Project Legacy program goals in place to evaluate the various requests. At the
    commission meeting, staff will propose an accelerated, streamlined process in order to complete
    Project Legacy by September 2009.

Other updates:

   Progress on the Center for Results: Project Directors and Executive Directors receive updates which
    are posted on the First 5 California website. The Commission is currently conducting a county-level
    needs assessment to go along with the state-level needs assessment that West Ed is doing. The Center
    for Results is an on-going roll-out and will continue to build over time. The research agenda is also
    on-going but contingent on the outcome of the Project Legacy which WestEd is also leading. The
    commission is close to securing a vendor to build a data system and expects to announce the
    contractor in October with work to begin early next year.
   ELQIS and ELAC: ELQIS is an advisory committee charged with designing a Quality Rating
    Improvement System for California. It is co-chaired by the Supt. of Public Instruction. Roberta Peck
    is staffing the process. An ELAC does not yet exist. It will be needed if the state is to apply for
    federal early learning challenge grants. The Governor could issue an Executive Order to establish it.
    Budget trailer language exists to establish the ELAC, but so far it hasn’t moved forward.
   The small population county augmentation: The commission’s commitment is still in place. Two
    years ago, the Commission approved $3.5 million per year through 2010-2011. The commission also
    approved funding for a consultant to develop a model formula for the augmentations. A contract is
    nearly finalized with the BOE.
   First 5 California will meet at The California Endowment in Los Angeles on October 21.
                         DRAFT – For approval at Association meeting October 2009.



   Jennie Tasheff (Sonoma) asked about submission of county needs assessments to the Center for
    Results. Kris said it is just starting and asked Teddy Milder (Alameda) to respond. Teddy said
    commissions should have submitted their needs assessments by now, but if they haven’t they should
    send it to Stacie Sormano and it will be forwarded to the contractor, WestEd.

Status of State Budget

Dion Aroner and Phil Isenberg provided their observations regarding the 09-10 budget situation and state
cash flow problem.

   Dion said the big elephant in the room is Prop. 98 and what the agreement will be about making up
    school funding that will be cut this year in future budgets. The Democrats believe the deficit is closer
    to $22 or $23 billion, not $26 billion. The Governor wants a rainy day fund although the Democrats
    argue this is the rainy day. The Governor recently issued a number of reform measures that he
    insisted be part of the budget. A report on his proposals was recently issued by the Assembly Budget
    Committee and is available on their website. It found few savings would result, especially in the near
    term.

   Phil described two facets of the continuing budget problem: that discretionary income comes from
    income and property tax, which are deeply affected by the recession; and the Legislature cannot
    access funds that have been carved out by the initiative process. General Fund spending goes
    primarily to education, health and social services, and corrections (to a lesser extent). Advocates are
    protective of education and health and social services. Although some would like to cut corrections,
    others are unwilling to suffer the consequences. None of this is new – it’s been going on for 20 years.
    According to a report from the Controller, last year’s General Fund spending was $95-96 billion and
    income was $84 billion. The cash flow problem, however, presents a new challenge.

   As of Monday, the Controller had issued IOUs worth $435 million. The Controller’s challenge is to
    manage cash flow through a combination of IOUs and delayed payments. There are rules about who
    can get IOUs and who can’t. Child care payments are expected to be made with real money, not
    IOUs.

   Prop 98 spending on Kindergarten through Community College has first draw on General Fund
    dollars, which represents about 40% of all spending because of Prop 98. The Legislature can suspend
    Prop 98, but voters are opposed to cutting spending on education. All education funding is $63
    billion per year. If that cannot be reduced, cuts have to be made somewhere else. A suspension of
    Prop 98 is effective for one year, and then the previous formula goes back into effect.

   The state is not without a budget because one was passed in February. However, voters rejected $6
    billion in revenue shifts and revenues deteriorated another $20 billion from February to today.

   The Legislative Analyst predicts a deficit each year through 2014 of at least $20 billion.

Discussion of Local First 5 Response:

Commission Loans

Francine Rodd (Monterey) said the situation regarding loans from commissions to state contractors is
somewhat confusing this year. Last year providers had contracts to use as collateral but this year they
                         DRAFT – For approval at Association meeting October 2009.


may have neither contracts nor IOUs. Recently fiscal staff from six Bay Area commission met to discuss
means of assisting these contractors:

   Bob Mason (Santa Clara) is coordinating an effort to explore the Nonprofit Finance Fund which loans
    capital to agencies at 3% interest based on government receivables. Bob asked Bay Area counties
    that want to participate to send him requests.
   Wells Fargo is willing to offer the same service as it provided First 5 Monterey last year, but the
    interest rate is now lower for the commission’s CD that secures the loan and the borrower’s interest
    rate is higher (5%).
   State child care contractors can include the interest in their budget and be reimbursed for it, but not all
    providers understand that.
   Christine Hom (Alameda) will ask the Low Income Investment Fund (LIIF) what they are able to do.

Healthy Families

Sherry Novick provided an update on the budget as it affects the Healthy Families program. The program
is projected to have a $90 million deficit and MRMIB has already determined that a waiting list will be
necessary if the deficit remains because its first priority is to avoid disenrolling any current members.

   Christina Arrostuto said First 5 Solano is exploring alternatives to payments for Healthy Families
    premiums. She pointed out that if First 5 continues to pay for enrollment of all new children 0 to 5
    and maintain their enrollment in future years, the cost could grow exponentially; within a few years
    First 5 could bear the entire cost of the 0 -5 portion of the program. She is also concerned that
    assuming the whole cost of the 0 – 5 portion of the program would be supplantation because state
    General Funds previously paid for that age group. She suggested that counties might be able to
    access CCHIP, which currently permits San Francisco, Santa Clara and San Mateo to use local funds
    to draw down federal CHIP funds in order to serve children up to 300% of the federal poverty level.
    Accessing these funds through their Healthy Kids programs would be cost efficient because those
    premiums are lower than Healthy Families premiums.

   Susan True (Santa Cruz) said her county has had a proposal to participate in CCHIP that has
    languished for nearly eight years. The program has not expanded beyond the three counties that were
    initially included.

   Linda Baker (Packard Foundation) clarified that CCHIP merely allows certain counties to provide
    what would otherwise be the state’s dollar for the Healthy Families program in order to serve families
    between 250% and 300% of the federal poverty level. It does not allow funds to be drawn down into
    another program.

   Sherry said she asked children’s health advocates to respond to the concern that Christina articulated
    regarding First 5 becoming responsible for the entire 0 – 5 portion of the program in a matter of a few
    years. Their response was that this is still a bridge to other funding sources, such as a pending bill
    that imposes a fee on hospitals or a ballot initiative in 2010. She said the Executive Committee
    authorized her to talk with the children’s health coalition about how the Association can help with the
    initiative development.

   Lani Schiff-Ross (San Joaquin) said her commission would not likely fund Healthy Families
    premiums. It remains committed to Healthy Kids, but foundation partners who have funded the 6 –
    18 group are ending their support in October 2010. Their health plan is not enrolling any more kids
    this year.
                         DRAFT – For approval at Association meeting October 2009.


   Jennifer Long (Colusa) said her county is part of a regional Healthy Kids program but one of their big
    funders is leaving and they stand to lose 70% of their administrative funding.

   Christina said an analysis that shows the costs projected over the next few years would be extremely
    helpful. Sherry reported that the Association will assist with a statewide analysis of projected costs,
    but for more a meaningful county-based actuarial analysis, a consultant would be needed and
    suggested the Association could facilitate that.

   Wendy Rowan (Humboldt) recalled a meeting in Los Angeles when Rob Reiner pointed out that Prop
    10 was not meant to fix a broken health care system. She said commissions need to understand the
    implications of the foundations withdrawing their funds and asked the Association to talk with the
    advocacy groups about the mix of funding.

   Jennie Tasheff asked for an answer to the basic supplantation question. Is MRMIB continuing to fund
    at the level they were when First 5 began contributing?

   Kim Dahl (Sacramento) reported that Sacramento is looking at the GF available for children 0-5 in
    their county and ensuring that the GF is staying constant. She requested the same analysis from
    MRMIB – what is the portion of their funding going to children 0-5?

   Alyce Mastrianni (Orange) asked what is the definition of new enrollment? Is it just babies being
    born?

   John Sims (Stanislaus) said it is a troubling expectation that Prop 10 will be there.

   Evelyn Martinez said her commission has made a commitment to Healthy Kids, but she would have
    to do a strong selling job to get them to agree to fund Healthy Family premiums again.

Commission representatives met in two groups – those with Healthy Kids programs and those without--
to discuss possible options and identify further information they need for their decision-making. The
following questions and observations were then reported:

   What are other funding sources? Are there possible incentives for county commission participation
    such as a First 5 CA match?
   How can counties access the federal match?
   What are predictable costs for 0 – 5 children in the coming years?
   What is the definition of a new enrollee?
   What was the baseline in November 2008?
   What is accurate cost-per-child information in Healthy Families?
   We need to know how much this will cost going forward, including the cost of children enrolling and
    reenrolling.
   We want a trend analysis from 07-08 to 08-09.
    Why was there not a wait list for 6-18 year olds in Healthy Families?
   Will 5 year olds be able to transition to non-First 5 funds or will they face the same problem as in
    Healthy Kids?
   MRMIB has made mistakes in allocating zip codes to counties so some commissions may be
    improperly charged.
   To avoid supplantation isn’t a General Fund maintenance level necessary?
   The projections were wrong last year; small population counties had higher costs and large population
    counties had lower cost than projected.
   Commissions need better trend analysis to understand the longer term implications.
                          DRAFT – For approval at Association meeting October 2009.


   How is the federal match being used, especially in small counties? Is it subsidizing the 6 – 18 group?

Sheila Kruse (Tuolumne) referred to the MRMIB “Estimate for First 5 California Assistance in 2009-10”
and asked whether the listed numbers were correct because the request is an eight-fold increase.

Kendra Rogers (Fresno) reported her commission changed the CHI rules to allow enrollment not only of
those who don’t qualify for Healthy Families but those who would be unable to enroll because of a
waiting list.

Federal Stimulus Funds Update

Sherry pointed out the document “Synopsis of ARRA Funding Opportunities County Commissions Are
Pursuing.” She asked if members know of other funding opportunities not included on the list to let her
know and she will update it.

Lunchtime Discussions

Moira announced a lunchtime discussion of members interested in the parent survey that the Packard
Foundation for Children’s Health will launch later this year.

Opportunities for Collaboration with County Social Services Departments

Diana Boyer, Senior Policy Analyst with the County Welfare Directors Association, was welcomed as
guest speaker. She cited several local programs currently funded by First 5 commissions and shared some
of the challenges facing county welfare departments, including their underfunded infrastructure,
increasing caseloads, and higher expectations of departments without commensurate funding. She noted
that counties are grappling with bad budget situations, including lay-offs and the resulting disruptive
movement of staff due to the employee priority systems.

So far the budget has spared most child welfare programs, but it doesn’t recognize the impact on child
welfare that would result from proposed cuts to CalWorks.

There are several areas in child welfare that might provide opportunities for collaboration with First 5
commissions.

Federal performance reviews have resulted in the state’s obligation to enter into a performance
improvement program (PIP). California has a 2-year timeline to improve its performance. The state is
contributing some funding but not enough to operate elements of the programs, such as:
 Enhanced case planning, where teams of individuals in a child’s life come together to plan what is
    best for the child. Counties don’t receive any funding for the facilitator who is critical to this strategy.
 Family finding, where research is done to find and connect children to their extended families. There
    is no funding to support trained staff to do this work.

Other opportunities for collaboration include:
 The Federal Fostering Connections Act, which supports enhanced training funds for court personnel
   and others, where a match will be required.
 Collaboration around recruiting and training foster parents and providing supports to keep foster
   parents in the system, including mental health care and support for birth parents.

Child welfare is funded through three federal sources:
                         DRAFT – For approval at Association meeting October 2009.


   Title IV-E, which funds children in the foster care system and generally requires a state match of 60%
    which is shared between the counties and the state.
   Title IV-B which supports prevention services and is a capped allocation that is generally expended in
    the first quarter.
   Title 19, which reimburses targeted case management (TCM) and certain MediCal-linked
    administrative activities (MAA).

All programs require extensive documentation and the counties are audited constantly. The hope is to
maximize access to federal funds. First 5 can provide match dollars and can also support county social
services in “knitting the system together.”

In the areas of family economic support, the federal TANF Emergency Contingency Fund (ECF)
program, enacted under ARRA, provides basic assistance for families up to 200% of FPL, including basic
assistance, non-reoccurring short- term benefits, and subsidized employment. Examples are move-in
costs and emergency food, utility shut-off prevention, and rental subsidies up to 4 months. The program
has an 80% federal match. The 20% match can come from any non-federal source. CWDA is currently
working on trailer bill language to permit counties to implement the program in California.

Diana said CWDA would welcome working with the Association and suggested a possible workgroup to
explore future partnerships.

Discussion:

   Janis Burger said Alameda Co. has a IV-E waiver and asked what happens when that expires. Diana
    explained that Alameda and Los Angeles opted for this waiver which permits them to receive a
    capped IV-E allocation. If they move children out of foster care, they can apply the dollars to
    prevention and other child welfare services. The risk is that if caseloads increase, the Title IV-E
    allocation won’t increase. The 5-year waiver expires in 2 years, and there no clear indication of what
    will happen next.

   Karen Pautz (Siskiyou) asked if any counties are using MHSA funds to draw down ECF. Diana said
    ECF has not been implemented yet, but this is a good time to find out who might be thinking of doing
    so.

   Tom Jordan (Lake) asked which departments can tap ECF. Diana said it is specifically for social
    services departments.

   Kendra Rogers said First 5 Fresno has a consultant working directly for the commission to help
    county social services revamp their approach to working with children 0-5. Having a full-time
    consultant working with the department has resulted in a child focus team, new training for foster
    homes working with 0-5, and other changes that improve the county system. She noted the First 5
    investment doesn’t just have to be direct funding to the county welfare department, but can still
    provide support for the department.

   Diana said that kinship care continues to be an issue because the kin are often elderly individuals and
    not prepared to assume that responsibility. New federal dollars may be used for kin caregiver
    training.

   Jolene Smith (Santa Clara) asked about subsidized child care for kin foster parents. Diana said three
    counties pay for it, but no state funds support it.
                         DRAFT – For approval at Association meeting October 2009.


   Francine Rodd asked about access to foster care data. Diana offered to take the issue up on a
    statewide level.

Save the Children Presentation

Natalie Vega O’Neil, staff for Save the Children USA, provided information on Save the Children’s early
childhood program, Early Steps to School Success. Early Steps is a language development and pre-
literacy program that provides services for low-income families in rural communities through home
visiting and parent groups.

Save the Children is expanding its program in California and seeking more partnerships. It already has
Early Steps programs in Fresno and Tulare where it works closely with the First 5 commissions.

Early Steps includes:
 Bi-weekly home visits by trained early childhood staff from the community
 Regularly scheduled parent/child support and education groups in school
 Positive transitions to school
 Book Exchange program

It targets children and families from pregnancy until the child enters kindergarten. Its goals are:
 Children will enter school with the skills necessary for school success.
 Parents will have the knowledge and skills to support their children’s education.
 Home and school connections will be strong.
 Early childhood knowledge and skills in communities will be significantly increased.

Partners include Zero to Three and Raising a Reader. It is in the sixth year of implementation. The 2006-
2007 evaluation shows dramatic increase of parent/child reading. It has reasonable cost that allows
replication and fosters sustainability. Cost per family per year is approximately $1800 for the full year.

Francine asked whether the model would be eligible for the proposed federal home visiting funds.
Natalie said not at this time, but they hope that might change. Early Steps has partnered with Early Head
Start in its expansion efforts. Francine asked about safety issues for the home visitors. Natalie said that
safety is the highest priority and is sometimes addressed by having visits take place at schools or libraries.

Lessons from the Special Election: How Do We Describe What We Do?

Moira presented a PowerPoint and led a discussion about the challenges of using county commission data
to describe the work and impact of county First 5 commissions.

She said that Annual Report Data is critical for providing a statewide perspective on local commission
work because it is the only consistent source of county-level data and allows for aggregating within
program areas.

This data was used earlier this year to identify what was at risk if First 5 were to lose considerable
funding. First 5 California staff expressed concerns about how we use the data, fearing it includes
duplicative counts. However, from Moira’s observation, undercounting is as likely to be a problem as
duplication.

The more the Association uses the data to aggregate a story, the more we need to understand how
commissions are counting, what they are counting, and how this differs across counties.
                         DRAFT – For approval at Association meeting October 2009.


Moira cited examples of commissions in similarly sized counties reporting very different numbers in
similar programs. In some cases, they count different populations. Some count children served in
breastfeeding programs, some count parents, and some count both.

Where commissions put similar services also varies, making aggregation difficult. Because commissions
use the “Other Health Services” and “Other Health Education” to report oral health and nutrition
programs, that information gets buried, reducing the Association’s ability to tell the whole story.

An interesting reporting anomaly is apparent in the percent of Latino children served, which show that
62% of child development and child health services are received by Latino children, but only 28% of
family functioning services go to Latino families.

Moira said the Evaluation Committee met in an Early Bird to discuss the use of Annual Report data.
They continue to support the use of the data to describe children served, rather than services delivered, as
the State Commission uses it.

The Northwest Regional Impact report used Annual Report data to present the impacts of their collective
investments, and the Southern Region is currently working on similar report, using both annual report
data and local evaluations.

Moira said the Executive Committee has asked whether the Association should issue an annual report on
behalf of the county commissions, which points further to the need to increase consistency in commission
reporting.

Updates on Commission Operational Issues

Sherry made several brief announcements:

   Revised SCO guidelines: The revised SCO Guidelines contain a page showing all the revisions that
    have been made. It is important for auditors to check for the latest version before submitting their
    audits because the first year changes were made as late as September.

   Revised Financial Management Guide: Sherry said the fiscal workgroup did a lot of work with
    GFOA to revise the Financial Management Guide. Janice LeRoux reported they met for six months,
    added 30 pages, and made many changes to the financial reporting section. Two chapters were
    added, Internal Controls and Risk Management, and a few changes were made to the section on
    administrative costs. They finished in February so it could be discussed at the Staff Development
    Summit. New GASB fund balance rules will be mandatory beginning in 2011. Information about
    that is yet to be added.

   Sherry said that the SCO guide references the Financial Management Guide. She asked if any of the
    local auditors have questions, to please let her know. She also pointed out that the new fund balance
    reporting rules can be implemented early, which some commissions may decide to do. The fiscal
    workgroup will reconvene to discuss this and ensure all commissions understand and use the rules
    consistently. .

   Conflict of Interest Protocols: This has been a long-standing issue, given the construction of the
    Children and Families Act, and commissions have different ways of dealing with it. Sherry said the
    Association has begun discussion with commissions that have been dealing with it recently and hopes
    to develop protocols that commissions can adopt. It will be important to have an outside credible
    entity endorse the protocols. The County Counsel Association may be helpful and the Association
                        DRAFT – For approval at Association meeting October 2009.


    will also confer with private counsel used by some commissions. She asked anyone interested in
    working on this to let her know.

   New AmeriCorps Grant: The program is shrinking slightly because it did not receive a federal grant
    for the next 3-year cycle. However, some commissions will run their programs through a different
    grant operated by Prevent Child Abuse California. The First 5 Service Corps will focus on child
    development and is now required by the state AmeriCorps office, California Volunteers, to be much
    more consistent county to county than was previously the case.

Updates

   Report from Preschool Learning Exchange: Moira reported that the previous day’s meeting was an
    expanded version of the Learning Exchange. The meeting was opened to all commissions but did not
    include statewide partners and grantees. The participants were asked if they wanted to provide input
    to the ELQIS and the consensus was to do so. A workgroup formed to create a survey to gather
    information from all commissions regarding their quality improvement efforts. Moira asked everyone
    to send her their quality improvement systems. The Learning Exchange set its next meeting for Los
    Angeles. They will decide which lessons learned will be most important to share. Everyone will hear
    from Moira when the survey is sent out, but anyone who missed Monday’s Learning Exchange and
    wants further information should contact Moira.

   Regional activities:
    o John Sims said the Greater Sacramento Region is considering a shared dental van and planning a
       regional impact report.
    o Francine Rodd said the Bay Area Region will hold a retreat in Napa the following week for joint
       planning.
    o Karen Pekarcik said the Northeast Region is planning a retreat to discuss regional TA and plan
       regional goals.
    o Tom Jordan said the Northwest Region will meet July 29th to discuss further distribution of their
       impact report and the regional TA plan.

   Committee and liaison activities
    o Wendy Rowan, CFRA Liaison, reminded members that the California Family Resource
       Association is a good fit for those with a policy and advocacy interest. CFRA was helpful during
       the special election period. She urged commissions to join or to fund their grantees to join.
    o Nina Machado, Communications Liaison, said she has a meeting with Elisa Bupara next week
       regarding improved communications around the new media campaign. She asked members to
       contact her if they have input.

Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 3:25 p.m.
p.m.