Merced Nonprofit Fund Raising - DOC
Merced Nonprofit Fund Raising document sample
Shared by: xns10596
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.