Skip to content
Printer-friendly version

May 2007 Meeting Minutes

Minutes of May 23, 2007 meeting of the Before and After School Advisory Committee.

Advisory Committee on Before and After School Programs

Meeting Minutes

May 23, 2007

Members Present

Steven Amick
Ana Campos
Amy Christianson
Patti Clark-Roehrs
Alvaro Cortes
Michael Funk
Mary Hoshiko
Sandra McBrayer
Gary Moody
Renee Newton
Carla Sanger
Frank Pisi, CDE staff to the Advisory Committee

Members Absent

John White

Commencement

Sandra McBrayer, Committee Chair convened the May 23, 2007 Advisory Committee meeting at 9:35 a.m.

Approve Minutes from the March 14, 2007 Meeting

Sandra McBrayer noted that the only outstanding item from the March 14 meeting was the request from the committee that in the minutes there was a more detailed account of the Outcomes and Evaluation Subcommittee report. Ms. McBrayer asked the committee to review the revised minutes and asked for a motion to approve. A motion was made by Gary Moody to accept the revised minutes, it was seconded by Alvaro Cortes, and unanimously approved.

Approve Minutes from the April 25, 2007 Meeting

Sandra McBrayer asked the committee to review the minutes from the April 25 meeting. A motion to approve the minutes was made by Carla Sanger, seconded Gary Moody, and unanimously approved as submitted.

Advisory Committee Chair Report

Assembly Bill 1685

Sandra McBrayer reported that AB 1685 passed out of the Assembly and is on its way to the Senate. It was noted that the bill is still intact with the original language which addresses only the before school program.

Student Employment Program for After School Programs

The Chair announced Brad Duncan from the Foundation for California Community Colleges to present on this item.

The Foundation for California Community Colleges (FCCC) is the official auxiliary organization for the California Community College (CCC) system. The purpose of the presentation is to raise awareness of the student employment program available through the FCCC. This program will give grantees access to community college students, California State University (CSU) students, University of California (UC) students, and students from private institutions around California as a potential source of workers.

In his presentation Mr. Duncan referred to the presentation outline and program description that was handed out to the members.

The purpose of the program is partner higher education institutions with after school programs in providing academic and vocational related employment opportunities for students. It helps students stay in school and obtain career relevant employment experiences and also assists public agencies and even non-profit agencies in meeting their employment needs. Currently there are about 500 community college and CSU students working through this program. In the after school world, the FCCC is currently working with Bay Area Community Resources, who has the Oakland Unified School District after school contract (After School Education and Safety grant) and exploring a partnership with Bay Area Community Resources.

The authority for this program is found in California Government Code Section 19133 and it essentially authorizes any state agency to enter into an agreement with a state higher education to provide part time employment to students attending public and private institutions.

To be in this program, a student must be enrolled in at least 6 semester units in a related course of study. The students may not work more than 194 days in a year. Students can be paid differently from program to program so that if, for example, an after school program pays $10 per hour and another pays $11; the program can accommodate those variances in pay. The students do not accrue any state civil service status and cannot displace civil service employees.

The Foundation will recruit the students, provide a candidate pool for a public or non-profit agency, they will hire and pay the student and the Foundation will be reimbursed the sponsor agency.  

There was a question about who covers Worker's Compensation? Mr. Duncan replied that the foundation covers all payroll related expenses, taxes, liability insurance, etc., but this is included in the reimbursable amount paid by the sponsor agency.

Another question was asked about the 194 days maximum. Mr. Duncan stated that if a student works two hours in a day, that’s considered a day. The Chair concurred that it’s "days in a week" regardless of how many hours in that day.

A question was asked about any administrative fees related to this program. Mr. Duncan replied that there is a 15 percent administrative fee as well as a 13.5 percent indirect cost to do business with the Foundation.

The Committee asked if there is a specific program targeting minority students? Mr. Duncan explained that the Foundation does not target a certain population; however, if there are specific recruitment needs for a program, then the Foundation will work with the colleges to convey those needs and the type of worker being sought.

Some of the roles and responsibilities of the Foundation include executing the contract with either a district or non-profit agency that might have a sub grant through the district, administer payroll, provide all tax information to the students, bill and collect reimbursement from the sponsoring agency, provide the recruiting services, develop the candidate pool, screen the candidates, train the sponsors and the students on the FCC employment requirements, timesheet process, etc. Also the Foundation monitors the student academic performance, approve and track student employment hours, and coordinate with the campuses. For an extra fee, background checks will be provided.

In terms of the sponsor roles and responsibilities: the Foundation asks that sponsor agencies provide a duty description, background of the agency and program, follow our screening requirements in that the sponsor agency interviews and selects the applicants, supervise and train the student, monitor the work hours, approve time sheets, and reimbursement to the FCC for payroll related expenses including the 15 percent for payroll tax fees and 13.5 percent for indirect costs. FCC would execute the contract through a standard or inter agency agreement.

This is a program that provides a connection to higher education institutions relieving the sponsor agency of the entire payroll and recruitment burden.

The Chair asked if these youth student workers receive any health benefits. Mr. Duncan replied no.

Mr. Duncan was asked if there is there a minimum of days these students must work. He replied that there is no minimum requirement. Committee member Sanger stated that it might be interesting to have a conversation about using this program to establish a substitute or "on call" pool of workers such as a temporary service as a resource for programs.

When asked about the status of a student worker once they graduate, Mr. Duncan replied that once they are no longer students, they can no longer participate in the program. It is the hope of the FCC to develop programs that create workforce development program or pipeline so that these student assistants can move in to full time employment with those agencies.

Patti Clark-Roehrs asked for an example of using the FCC located in the Bay area for her program in San Diego. Mr. Duncan said that as the FCC develops the new contracts, they are developing systems for working in areas out of the Bay area. The Foundation executes the contract, trains the agency and agency supervisors in the hiring and reporting processes, meets with each student and gives them an orientation to the FCC and the paperwork. Students are paid every two weeks and there is an electronic time sheet reporting process that will utilize the internet being developed. There is a point of contact person who handles all calls and problems. Mr. Duncan explained that the Foundation posts the position on their Web site and also at the local college's Web sites within the appropriate departments (such as internship or student employment office, service learning or teacher preparation programs as related).

Conflict of Interest Training from CDE Legal Counsel

The Chair introduced Joanne Lowe CDE Counsel to present this topic to the committee.

Ms. Lowe presented the Committee with an overview of statute related to conflicts of interest for public officials. The following is a summary of her presentation:

Government Code Section 87100 bars a public official from making, participate in making or in any way attempting to use his/her official position to influence a governmental decision in which he or she knows or has reason to know he/she has a financial interest.

The purpose of the statute is to prevent biases, actual or apparent, which result from the financial interests of the decision maker.

To determine if a conflict of interest exist which requires a committee member to disqualify him/herself, eight (8) questions must be answered. (Title 2 California Code of Regulations [CCR] Section 18700):

If a member finds that they must disqualify themselves from discussion due to a conflict of interest, the following must occur:

If member is going to provide public comment, he/she must clearly identify that she/he is commenting in his/her capacity as a member of the public and be treated as a member of the public.

The following are penalties that may occur as a result of non compliance with the law.

Penalties are enforced by either the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) or Local District Attorney and California Attorney General:

Ms. Lowe also provided Committee members with electronic resources for further information:

Questions regarding conflict of interest:

Fair Political Practices Commission at 916-322-5660 or through the FPPC (Outside Source)

The following question was asked of Ms. Lowe:

"If we have a connection to an entity that is the fiscal agent for an economic decision that this committee will be making, do we push away from the discussion or do we literally leave the room?" Ms. Lowe informed the Committee that a member would have to push away from the discussion, but not leave the room, as members still have the right to be a member of the public.

The Chair stated that it is up to each member to determine whether or not there is a conflict and recommended that if members during the course of the meeting feel that there is a potential conflict, it is not necessary to leave the room, but it is important to not to take part in  the discussion. Ms. Lowe suggested that the member acknowledge it to the committee when there a conflict and avoid non verbal communication in an attempt to influence the conversation or decision.

The Chair thanked Ms. Lowe for her presentation.

CDE Staff Report

The Chair announced that John Malloy would be presenting the CDE staff report.

Regional System of Technical Assistance

John Malloy reported that the first item to address is the roles and responsibilities of the Regional Lead Technical Assistance (TA) work and referred to a handout entitled 2007 After School Regional Lead TA Work. At the last meeting the committee asked staff to address this topic. The regional lead system was based on the Healthy Start Regional Lead system and CDE is working to update the system. CDE has asked the Regional Leads for their input on the work plan and the system and the Regional Leads have been working together on this topic.

The existing requirements for the Regional Leads:

Committee member Christianson asked if there is a matrix that shows if a Regional Lead is meeting the standard adequately, poorly, or not addressing at all the specific areas, or is this subjective as to what CDE is expecting from each region. Mr. Malloy replied that CDE consultants work with the regional leads on an ongoing basis and reviewed each region’s last semi annual report. Consultants are going through a norming process. There is no matrix or rubric available now, but that will be the result of the norming process.

Committee member Sanger stated that she thought that the work plan looks very solid and asked for clarification about the title regional lead and what it really means now. There was no competitive process or criteria for inclusion in the selection process; are the current people sitting in the regional lead position going to remain, or is a whole new delivery system being developed? Mr. Malloy explained that the people who are currently working as the employed regional leads are still in their positions. It is important to understand that CDE did not appoint the regional leads. Mr. Malloy explained that the Curriculum and Instruction Steering Committee (CISC) has made it very clear to CDE staff that it is the county superintendent that signs the grant award is actually the lead and that they hire or appoint the regional lead. CDE staff doesn't choose the regional leads. The region system was determined by CISC. For example in Region Two it was decided that Butte County Office of Education (COE) would be the regional lead office, and Butte COE in turn decided upon the staff to be the regional lead.

The Chair stated that the members should note that it is up to CISC to determine which COE will be the lead and that county office will determine who the staff will be. The CDE does not have any power to say, "We don’t like that person." The CDE is now putting into place provisions that if the lead County Office of Education is not meeting the requirements of the grant, they can have some recourse to communicate with the COE. That county office would then make the decision as to if a different staff person should be assigned.

Committee members Hoshiko offered that in terms of accountability, the CDE does not go directly to the staff person assigned as the Regional Lead, saying "we’re holding you accountable for the implementing plan." The CDE rather should go to his or her supervisor and it’s up to them to hold him or her accountable. The Chair clarified that the CDE must actually go not to their supervisor, but to the County Office superintendent.

Committee member Clark-Roehrs asked for clarification if the county superintendent designates a certain staff member as the regional lead, and that staff members also manages an after school grant, is that a conflict of interest? Mr. Malloy said that he believed that it would be. He continued to explain that the Regional Lead may sit in the same office as a grant manager, often times that is the case, but he could not imagine anyone working as a Regional Lead, knowing the amount of work we ask from them and at the same time running an after school program.

Committee member Funk asked about how prescriptive the CDE is in terms of how grantees actually implement these action items required in the grant. Are there strategies, methodologies, and etc. that are more prescribed, or is it up to each entity? Mr. Malloy stated that because it is a grant, it is far less prescriptive than any contract. While specific work is identified and required in the grant outline, it is ultimately up to the regional lead agency, in collaboration with the other COEs in the region, to decide upon the best strategies to employ to complete the work.

Mr. Funk asked a second question: As a person associated with a non-profit organization that contracts with the grantee, he doesn't personally touch the regional lead nor have any kind of interaction with them; How does the CDE know when these folks (the leads) are doing their job and how is there feedback to CDE to say that these things are really being done and that there really is support to the field and grantees? Mr. Malloy stated that the feedback related to that comes to us from the mid year report. Feedback is primarily from the grantees themselves. Mr. Funk commented that that is really an informal feed back process as opposed to using benchmarks. Mr. Malloy stated that there will benchmarks in the new work plans.

Committee member Sanger added that she feels that a lot of money is put into the regional TA system in the state without any user satisfaction information. She stated that just as you would monitor any grant with an expectation of user satisfaction, she would hope that the state would think about that before expending that much money again throughout the state without any feedback from the field.

Committee member Amick asked if CISC or county offices have the authority to change the staff. Mr. Malloy John replied yes, at any time. Most of the Regional Leads for before and after school programs are the same as the healthy start program regional leads. The CISC is really the body that has the final say relative to this decision, and CDE consults with them.

Mr. Funk asked if he was correct in his understanding that some Regional Leads are sub-contracting to other County Offices of Education in the same region for some of these TA provisions. The Chair responded yes, they can do that, and many of them do that now. Mr. Pisi stated that the intent of these funds regardless of whom they flow through is that they are used for all counties. The funds are intended to be dispersed for regional purposes. For example county A is receiving the grant to provide services to counties B, C, and D, and all the other counties within the region. Staff wants to make it clear that this grant isn’t just for the county receiving the money, but truly it is to provide service throughout the region. Some counties do sub contract out in order to be able to facilitate this and others will have the resources within their organization to be able to deploy people out to do that service. Mr. Funk voiced a concern that multiple layers of sub contracts make the feedback more difficult for quality and accountability. Mr. Funk stated that he doesn't know what that looks like on the ground, but feels that there must be some type of work to ensure that if the TA is subcontracted out to other county offices that there be some type of solid monitoring, benchmarks, and feedback to ensure quality.

Committee member Hoshiko stated that she would like to echo the concern and believes that it would, at this point in time, be premature to mandate that a county subcontract out to other county offices because they would have to set up systems as well.

Committee member Campos stated that it is great to see that there is a work plan that is comprehensive. Mr. Malloy noted to the members that they should be aware that the work plan is the product of the After School Programs Office under the direction of Jane Ross who actually put it together and that they worked very hard on this project. Ms. Campos stated that it definitely shows and that’s its really very good. Ms. Campos then asked about the developmental process of the regional plans; are they submitted with a budget and then awarded? Mr. Pisi explained the proposed process and added that the CDE has the ability to not grant the funds until we are satisfied that the work plan is good and approved.

Ms. Campos commented that she was concerned because her region is such a large region and there is an issue as to whether or not there are adequate funds coming into the regions to enable them to implement this work plan in an effective way that will accomplish the goals and objectives that were set up to begin with.

Committee member Cortes stated that he agreed that this work plan is wonderful and looks good as far as consistency and continuity, however the concern is again, how is this actually going to be rolled out and more importantly what is in place for accountability as far as the feedback or feedback loop from the committee in regard to that.

After School Education and Safety (ASES) Update

Mr. Malloy reported that one of the biggest projects that staff wants to complete is to start moving to consolidate grants. The CDE has checked with many ASES grantees and has found no one so far who has any problem with consolidation. We are working with Technical Services Division to complete this work and are hoping to have this done by July.

21st Century Community Learning Centers (CCLC) Update

Mr. Malloy reported that the 21st CCLC competitive process is not over because the appeals have not yet been filed. Ninety seven After School Safety and Enrichment for Teens (ASSETs) applications were received requesting over $60 million and 111 Elementary/middle applications were received requesting over $90 million. In sum, CDE received more than twice as many applications than could be funded. Preliminarily, 141 high schools and 216 elementary/middle schools were selected for funding.  Mr. Malloy then explained the priority process used to award grants. Appeals are due to CDE by June 8, 2007. If the CDE is not able to get the regret letter out in time, the date of the appeal may be extended. Mr. Malloy expects to be able to send out grant award letters as soon as the budget is signed.

Committee member Hoshiko asked for an update on the status of the funds remaining from the ASES appeals process. Mr. Malloy informed the committee that this has been a lengthy process, because some schools that originally applied for ASES (but were denied) also applied for, and could subsequently received, CCLC funding. They now could be funded with ASES funds remaining from appeals. CDE staff is working on this process and expects it to be completed soon.

Committee member Amick asked that if for some reason, a school applied for a 21st CCLC grant and is being notified that they have received the award, and is also then selected to receive an ASES grant; do they have the option of retaining both grants? Mr. Malloy replied no, because if they had received ASES funds originally, they would not have been a priority school and eligible for funding.  

Frank Pisi reported that at the last meeting the members wanted a report on who the advisory groups were for the upcoming TA Contracts. Mr. Pisi referred the members to a handout entitled Summary of Advisory Groups for After School Technical Assistance program. The way that these are going to be solicited is via CASRC as well as getting information out on the After School Network listserv. Mr. Pisi asked the members to keep checking their e-mail and check CASRC as well for these different pieces of information.

Mr. Malloy then asked the Committee to address the two questions asked of staff at the last meeting. The first question is:

A recommendation was made to consider TA projects around support for evaluation training, technical assistance for evaluation, both in terms of data collection, analysis, and reporting, but also the reporting or dissemination for use by multiple stakeholders and that community sites would have more funding interests and how to best use the data that they are collecting and recording and to be able to present that in a compelling way. At a minimum some support for some training and technical assistance around evaluation.

Committee member Campos recommended that there should be a piece around how to actively engage the voices of our students and the sharing of best practices will really incorporate youth and youth leadership in the decision making powers of building a middle school program.

Committee member Clark-Roehrs called to mind a recommendation made by Committee member Christianson at the last meeting; to consider a tiered approach and TA related to different levels and experience of program implementation.

Ms. Clark-Roehrs also recommended that the idea of workforce recruitment and development should be an integral part of a strategy and suggested that it would be interesting to see some kind of an annual calendar of professional development opportunities that was set in April so that grantees can plan and look at what they have in the year ahead.

Committee member Amick applauded the CDE for coming to the field to get their input with regard to what project should be on this list in the first place. There has been some concern that contracts for technical assistance in the past have been entered into without significant amount of input from the field. Mr. Amick stated that active effort of CDE to make sure the money is being spent on things the fields needs is most encouraging.

Committee member Fernandez asked for clarification about how this effort fits with the Quality Self Assessment tool process. Mr. Malloy indicated that some of this work will start to be released next month; namely a draft of the quality self-assessment tool. Through these, grantees will be able to look at their own program and identify areas that they need help with. Whether the Regional Lead is the one who can most easily assist a grantee in that area or guide them to the proper resources will be determined by each program.

Committee member Cortes added that he wanted to echo the idea of a tiered approach as well as engaging students. Furthermore we must make sure that there are overt strategies that are designed to engage English Language Learners, specifically aimed at how to engage these students within our programs,  

Committee member Christianson stated that many of Regional Leads are using an online model as a way to pass on trainings with staff so that if staff miss, or aren’t able to attend a training, they may access it online. This is currently occurring through a university partnership among several regional leads, so it would be good to access this to ensure that there is not duplication.

The Chair then suggested that the committee move on to question two:

Before moving on, Committee member Funk asked about the Technical Assistance Needs Assessment survey that was recently released. He informed the committee that some folks thought it was long and cumbersome and designed in such a way that it might not get a lot of feedback. Mr. Funk stated that he was curious if there is feedback from the committee or anywhere else in terms of how the survey is being viewed.

Several Committee members concurred and agreed that yes, it is long and cumbersome. There was not a lot of difference between the grant manager’s questions and the site manager’s questions except for some wording differences. Given this, there was concern about the validity of the content for those two specific areas.

Committee member Sanger stated that she thought both the process and the product were weak. She stated that the process of informing the field through the network made no sense and suggested that, if she was going to be given a survey like that, which will affect 800 employees; it should have been sent by the contractor or from the CDE to make that kind of a mandate. In her opinion, putting out a survey in mid May that you expect some sort of authentic response for is to not understand that this is the busiest time of the year for closing out programs, for reports, for all kinds of things. The result is that you absolutely minimize, not maximize, any kind of authentic response. Ms. Sanger also has issue with the length of the survey, stating that ten pages of a survey for anything is just ill conceived and not well thought through. Additionally, the sample that is to be collected may serve no constructive purpose. The sample is far too large to be necessary.

Committee member Cortes commented on the importance of notify the appropriate people of the survey link. He echoed the concern that there was no feedback solicited from the field regarding the timing of the release.

The Chair turned the conversation back to responses to question two: recommendations for how to best ensure that services get to grantees in the field. Committee member Sanger stated that she is interested in equity in funding from region to region. For example, Los Angeles County (region 11) is getting a disproportionate share of technical assistance funding based on the number of programs and number of children served in the region. Specifically, region 11 is receiving 18 percent of the funding but has 30 percent of the state’s programs and kids. Ms. Sanger suggested that the funding formula more accurately reflect a region’s share of the state’s programs.

Committee member Clark-Roehrs stated that in her district she felt that the personal contact with her program officer (CDE representative) is critical. The more that we can keep these contacts and relationships working and positive, the better for grantee support.

The Chair asked for their input on the current regional technical assistance system; grants to the 11 regions, through 11 LEAs to support TA to the all counties in the region. She asked the Committee: Should the CDE continue with this system, or are there other things we should do with that system?

Committee member Hoshiko reported that she could only speak from her own experience within her region, but it is very collaborative and very connected to all counties. The region has an advisory board which is a system that works because there are grantees and practitioners that are directly advising the regional lead in the work. Ms. Hoshiko advised against any dilution of the funding that would separate a collaborative system. If regions are currently sub contracting with other county offices of education, and it’s working, it should be allowed to continue, but it should not be mandated.

The Chair stated that it’s important to encourage or direct regions to develop advisories as described by Ms. Hoshiko.

Committee member Moody offered to the committee that while some regions have a really good collaborative relationship among the counties, others do not. In the case of those regions, counties not typically well connected might like to receive a portion of the funding to serve their grantees. The Chair offered to summarize this feeling by saying it is not advisable to have one approach applied to the entire state, but to have multiple approaches depending upon the needs of the community and region. Mr. Moody agreed.

Committee member Clark-Roehrs expressed that is a need to have some specialization in assistance for the different age levels that we are addressing here. Not every region may have specialization in elementary, middle, and high school, but it should be addressed across the state as a system.

Discussion was had around the issue of technical assistance for high school programs. According to the regional leads on the Committee, while there was an augmentation in their funding when the CDE received their increased allocation from the US Department of Education, there were never specific requirements related to high school programs enumerated. An intermediary organization was originally tasked with providing TA to high school programs, but when that contract ended, the assumption was that the regional system was tasked with this. Members recommended that the CDE identify any TA requirements specific to high school programs in the next work plan guidance.

The Chair stated that as an action item the group should carry a motion forward. The motion is to recommend to the CDE the following:

The Chair put this motion forward, it was seconded by Committee member Cortes, and it was unanimously passed by the committee.

Committee member Sanger commented that having been involved with a lot of 21st CCLC technical assistance and Web site training; she would like to see an analysis of CASRC Web site usage. There is a lot of money put into that Web site, and a thorough analysis of hits, time on site, etc. will be very informative and guide future work related to this project.

After School Network Report

The Chair called Lynn DeLapp, interim Executive Director, to provide this update. Ms. DeLapp addressed an issue that was raised in earlier comments- Network listserv postings. The Network’s Leadership Team discussed this at a recent meeting and saw the need to put a disclaimer on any communication that is not from the Network itself. Be it from the CDE or any other organization, a disclaimer such as this will clear up any confusion about the source of the information.

Several Committee members noted that they did not receive the listserv posting regarding the technical assistance needs assessment despite being subscribed to the listserv. Ms. DeLapp assured the members that she would look into this issue and ensures that all Committee members are subscribed with the correct email address.

Ms. DeLapp also raised concern that there should be greater involvement of the field in developing surveys and protocols. As we go forward there is must an effort to work with the CDE and others to make sure this happens.

Ms. DeLapp then asked for the Advisory Committee's support and endorsement of a grant proposal to the David and Lucile Packard Foundation. The Network has developed an outline, a menu of projects that will be the substance of a proposal to the David and Lucile Packard Foundation requesting $240,000 over two years to fund the Network. Each of the projects included in this list has come out of the Network’s strategic plan. Realizing that $240,000 is not going to fund all, the Network is in discussion with the Packard Foundation as to where their preferences lie.

Ms. DeLapp then introduced the strategies and activities being proposed:

Committee member Campos voiced concern about the GIS mapping activity. In her estimation, this would be a very expensive thing to do and maintain, and its value to the field is not very apparent. Committee member Cortes echoed the concern and suggested that resources allocated to this activity may be better focused elsewhere.

Several Committee members expressed interest in strategy three, the regional forums, and offered that it could be a very powerful thing to do.

Committee member Sanger informed the Committee that she would not support the Network's proposal and explained that she felt that private funding should only be allocated to projects that had the flexibility to act in the best interest of children. Ms. Sanger offered that she believes that much of what the Network can be seen as acting as an arm of the CDE, which can be a function of the Network, but and there’s a real concern that the Network has not demonstrated that it can act with freedom and flexibility that may be contrary to the CDE. Ms. Sanger reiterated her belief that private funding should not be allocated to an organization based upon the promise of future work, but rather upon demonstrated capacity and ability.

Committee member Amick responded that private funding for the Network could actually help to minimize the Network acting exclusively as a vehicle of the CDE; if the Network’s only funding came from the CDE, it would be difficult for them to not do what the CDE wished them to do.

Committee member Funk reminded the Committee that the Network’s larger charge is to act on behalf of all out of school time programs, not merely state or federal programs. To that end, he believes that one must look at the network through that lens.

Committee member Moody offered that he felt that the Network was at a point of change and that it is important to not just look at past practices or action, but rather consider that it is important to build and develop new infrastructure and systems across the state to better support programs.

With those concerns voiced, the chair asked for a motion to support the Network’s proposal to the Packard Foundation and draft a letter of support to be sent along with the proposal. Committee member Christianson made the motion and Committee member Moody seconded it. Committee members Sanger and Campos voted against the motion, all others present voted for it; the motion passed.

Workforce Development Subcommittee Report

Frank Pisi, CDE, provided this report. Mr. Pisi introduced a set of documents collected prior to and presented at the April 25 Workforce Development Subcommittee meeting. The document presented were collected sample, local board approved instructional aide qualifications in use by ASES and 21st CCLC grantees. The Subcommittee is committed to solicit and collect these policies as a resource for grantees across the state.

The next meeting has not yet been set, but it is anticipated that the Subcommittee will meet in June or July.

Outcomes and Evaluation Subcommittee Report

Due to time limitations and the volume of discussion and action required under this agenda item, the Chair suggested that this report be tabled until the next Advisory Committee. All members presented concurred, with the request that this report be placed very early in the agenda.

Items for Next Agenda

The following items were suggested (beyond the standing items):

Public Comment

Jennifer Peck, Bay Area Partnership, addressed the Committee on the issues of the regional lead system and COE contracts:

Ms. Peck supports the idea of regional advisory boards to support TA to grantees. Ms. Peck expressed a concern that there is no advisory board in her region. She informed the Committee that there is a variety of technical assistance providers in her region and she has experienced a fair amount duplication which she feels does not serve the field well.

There's a need for a good feedback loop from grantees. This feedback should come from outside the regional system, as grantees may not give authentic feedback if they have to go through the regional lead.

There's a concern about the large amount of TA dollars allocated to projects through one COE. There is not a lot of transparency about how those decisions were made, so there will be inherent concern about that. Ms. Peck appreciates the recent information about TA contracts and recommends that this continue. She also recommended that future TA projects do go through a competitive process and that it is well publicized.

Adjournment

The Chair thanked the committee and the meeting was adjourned at 12:15 p.m.

Questions: After School | afterschool@cde.ca.gov | 916-319-0923 
Download Free Readers