Skip to main content
California Department of Education Logo

Advisory Committee Minutes August 16, 2022

The Advisory Committee on Before and After School Program minutes are considered to be draft until the November 2022 meeting.

Advisory Committee on Before and After School Programs

August 16th, 2022—9:30 a.m. to Noon

Members Present

  • Sandy McBrayer—Chair
  • Jennifer Cisneros
  • Tiffany Gipson
  • Tony Brown
  • Brad Lupien
  • Luis Santana
  • Beth Chaton
  • Eric Gurna

Others Present

  • Michael Funk, California Department of Education (CDE), Expanded Learning Division (EXLD) Director
  • Joshua Brady, CDE, EXLD Administrator
  • Fred Buggs, CDE, EXLD Consultant
  • Steve Fowler - Citizen

Commencement

The meeting was called to order at 9:35 a.m. by Sandy McBrayer, Chair.

Member Updates

Sandy welcomed everyone and asked everyone to introduce themselves.

Review of Meeting Materials

The meeting materials were reviewed by members.

Approval of Minutes

Sandy asked for a motion to accept the minutes. Beth made a motion to approve the minutes and Jennifer and Brad seconded the motion. All members were in favor of accepting the April 19, 2022, Before and After School Advisory Committee minutes.

Legislative Update: Sandra and Michael

Assembly Bill (AB) 2501 and AB 2507 were both held under submission, which means the author or legislator of bill has elected to not discuss or comment any further, however they could be revisited by August 31st.

Michael comments that Governmental Affairs notified him that AB 2501 and AB 2507 have been suspended in Appropriations and are both dead.

Neither bill will move forward.

Expanded Learning Division Staff Report

Josh Brady provided an update for 21st Century Community Learning Centers (CCLC) and After School Safety and Enrichment for Teens (ASSETs) Final Intent to Award. Josh provided an explanation regarding Sub-Grants, funding ranges, and amount awarded. The minimum award will be $50,000 for this cohort. Final intent to Award e-blast has been sent to grantees. Cohort 14 has been completed, with submittal to Branch and, hopefully, the RFA will be posted by Sept 16th, with a proposed deadline of Nov. 16, 2022. Unfortunately, due to delays in Branch, new staffing, etc. Josh anticipates a delay in the approval process, hence a delay in posting.

Tony Brown asked a question regarding the amount that has been requested compared to last year, Josh referred to California Afterschool Network’s State of the State report, he would go back and double check. Josh anticipated it being similar to last year.

Beth asked a question as to whether we would see an increase, decrease or the same in the requests due to Expanded Learning Opportunities Program (ELOP) funds being available to local education agencies (LEA’s).

Josh highlighted the low number of applications submitted for Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief III (ESSER III) summer funds that may be due to the availability of ELOP funds, only 132 applicants for 68 million in requests. The ESSER III funds were only open to the current After School Education and Safety (ASES), 21st CCLC and ASSET grantees.

ASES intent to award has been approved, although delayed, it has been approved by Branch and sent out via email today, which will trigger the 10-day appeal process. Once the appeal process is complete, we will continue to fund down the list, due to the fact, we hold back 2 million, just in case appeals are awarded. Josh will provide an update regarding ASES applicants in the next meeting.

Michael provided an explanation regarding ASES Universal funding, due to the Attendance Reduction suspension and COVID, he explained to the committee the funds are from school site closures and/or the decision to not accept funding because of ELOP funding. Josh asked the committee to communicate to the field the importance of reading the Request For Application (RFA) for content and comprehension. There were 13 disqualifications for ASES, due to the lack of incomplete applications, we allowed for grantees to re-submit, however, we will not allow this for 21st CCLC due to the competitive nature.

Josh addressed the Co-Applicant process for the 21st CCLC application, he provided a few examples to help the committee have a better understanding of issues raiseed during the last Cohort. The Co-Applicant will provide a Priority point for grantees that use a Co-Applicant. Brad explained his experience with Charter Schools and Co-Applicants selecting various partners depending on schools, but have various letters of intents to provide services by multiple providers. Josh shared we had 4 appeals for the 21st CCLC cohort, three were denied, however, the fourth appeal we took a neutral position, due to confusing language regarding signatures and assurances. The panel approved the appeal, which resulted in a change in our process. Josh emphasized we need assurances signed and returned, which we haven’t asked for before now, but due to Youth Policy Institute we are collecting this information going forward.

21st CCLC Final Intent to Award

2021 Competition Results Biannual Call Data
Number of new subgrant awards 22
Number of applicants 71
Number of sites served by subgrants 22 subgrants, serving 105 sites
Funding range of 21st CCLC awards Site funding range: $73,296.00-$208,893.60 (Base)
Total Amount Awarded $17,551,116.44
Total Amount Requested $92,568,824.62

ASSETs Final Intent to Award

2021 Competition Results Biannual Call Data
Number of new subgrant awards 23
Number of applicants 48
Number of sites served by subgrants 23 subgrants, serving 78 sites
Funding range of ASSETs awards Site funding range: $54,000-$254,500
Total Amount Awarded $18,436,023.00
Total Amount Requested $48,662,563.00

ESSER III Summer RFA

Brad raised a question regarding the ESSER III Summer Funds, and questioned whether or not ESSER funds will be extended to 2024, will money be rolled over into next summer? Grantees are able to expended funds for Summer 2022, the opportunity to recoup expenses through Sept 2023. Josh said the Division will reach out the Government Affairs about a possible extension along with a re-release for all LEA’s, not just current ASES, 21st CCLC and ASSETs grantees.

Michael shared the Department’s praise for the grant process Josh’s team has implemented, in addition, he shared a number of Divisions have reached out to the Expanded Learning Division for guidance and consultation. Also, we will continue to utilize the Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) process in order to improve our processes after every RFA cycle. Michael shared in 2019, CDE began looking to improve our antiquated database system by beginning to research an enterprise grant management system to track data for all grants within the Department, due the pandemic, the process slowed. The Department has started the process again, along with a Pilot project, and has selected Grants.gov, that will change the way grantees interface with the Department starting in the Fall under Josh’s leadership. Michael shared we don’t have a clear date for implementation of the new enterprise level grant management system at this time. The ability to use this system will allow for the Department to track data across all funding sources for LEA’s, possibly this Fall.

Michael shared ELOP funding level is at $4 billion, which is an increase from $670 million in 2012, which was a combination of Federal and State funds. The increase in funding has amplified both positive and challenges within the system. The $4 billion is sent to LEAs as an apportionment, not a grant like ASES or 21st Century, money provided to district similar to Local Control and Accountability Plan. Also, we were able to secure an additional $5 million for the System of Support (16 Counties) to provide technical assistance to LEA’s without ASES or 21st CCLC funds. The breakdown of funds are as follows: California Afterschool Network, ASAPConnect, WestEd, and funds the 16 county offices for the System of Support for Expanded Learning, funds come from a set aside of 1.5% of ASES funding, per Ed Code for support to the field, not to be used for state operations. The 1.5% set aside is only for the $550 million for Prop 49, not a part of the $100 million budget act use for the program rate increase to grantees. In addition, the Federal government allows 7% of the grant to the State of California to be used as set aside for local assistance and state operations, 2% of set aside used for state operations and 5% set aside for local assistance for the System of Support. Michael shared when the Expanded Learning Division was given the Expanded Learning Opportunities Grant a little of a year ago, no additional funds were given to the System of Support for technical assistance. The Division has created a work group to determine an equitable formula to distribute funds among the 16 County offices responsible for support, based on apportionment to LEAs not receiving ASES or 21st CCLC funds.

Non-Profit Role

Luis shared his opinion regarding the role of non-profits participation in working with LEAs, he has seen limited participation by local non-profits in his area.

Sandy suggested we ask for a few successful non-profits program working with programs to join our next meeting to discuss examples and their successes with working with County offices and LEAs.

Luis would like to explore how many non-profits are actually working with County offices and programs currently in the System.

Michael shared that the Fireside Chats uses the platform to bring in local non-profits to join the conversation regarding their work with LEAs, however, it is difficult to pin-point a real time record because of the influx in Community Based Organizations (CBOs) working with programs. Michela highlighted the amount of money being sent to schools, for example, transitional kindergarten, Universal Meals, and Community Schools, which do not function in a bubble, community is very important and worth elevating examples what the add value is.

Eric talked about the importance of using the database to track non-profit involvement even though it would be a monumental task, the data will be integral in the success of Expanded Learning programs. He believes the new Enterprise system will allow for LEAs to engage communities in advocacy for programs and a benefit to know which CBOs are working with schools would be a huge contribution to the field, those hard numbers could go a long way.

Tiffany agreed with Eric in regards to the role of the CBO. She spoke to the process used in the Oakland Unified School District tracking of partners in their afterschool programs.

California Afterschool Network Updates – Jeff Davis

Jeff shared the 4 Organizational Strategies of the California Afterschool Network (CAN).

  1. CAN is “of the field and for the field”
    • Participates and supports the convening of the System of Support for Expanded Learning and its various committees and subcommittees
  2. CAN is a catalyst for quality
    • Provides Universal Technical Assistance by way of virtual convenings, Jeff provided examples, i.e. Expanded Learning Opportunity and Whole Child Approach to the AB 86 Expanded Learning Opportunities Grant
  3. CAN is a vehicle for advocacy
    • Develops and creates career pathways and opportunities in and out of the out of school time fields
  4. CAN is a conduit for communications.
    • Provided examples of fireside chats, newsletters and materials on various Expanded Learning initiatives.

Jeff provided an update on the Whole Child and Youth Opioid Response projects that CAN is heavily involved in with the Department of Health Care Services. Jeff highlighted the involvement with community-based organizations in Garden Grove and Tulare County. The partnership has created pathways into capacity building opportunities to support youth. Jeff talked about the work surrounding Fentanyl and ability to address issues within the community due to the relationships that has been develop in the community by trusted partners. CAN plan to hold a virtual convening to highlight the work.

Luis thanked Jeff for the work of CAN and their mission to support the field.

Eric thanks CAN for their work in the health and prevention work area as well as the workforce segments. Eric shared his experience with Community Schools in Los Angeles, in relation to the utilization of community-based organizations. Eric learned that community schools were being developed in a silo without community involvement because the teacher unions were the force behind securing funds, therefore, the teacher unions felt entitled to keep and make all the decisions regarding the process. He highlighted that the role of Expanded Learning in the community school movement as integral due to a large footprint in the communities being served. Eric talked about the importance of having representation on the community schools’ committees, in order to have a voice for Expanded Learning at the table.

Tiffany commented that CAN will continue to patriciate in other forums around community schools, in order to secure a place at the table for the expanded learning voice. She empathized that Expanded Learning is not just after school, it’s a strategy on how we support young people outside of traditional ways. Tiffany spoke to the importance of being present at the right tables in order to continue to elevate our work.

Emerging Issues

Jennifer shared her concerns regarding staffing for her programs. She has gotten creative with her marketing efforts to secure staff in her district. She spoke to the competitive and competing efforts to get staff from surrounding programs for the same staff. She lifted the opportunity to reach out to the retired population as a valued asset for programs.

Sandy added that she has the same concerns even though there is a 3 percent unemployment rate. She shared their approach to tap into the retired teachers every year to see if they are interested in working in Expanded Learning, as well as utilizing the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) mailing list as outreach.

Beth lifted concerns in rural areas of the state as well. She shared the realities of losing the one staff member and its impact on the program. She mentioned 71 percent of programs in Humboldt had staff issues. She is hopeful that staff could become full-time, with benefits due to increase in funding, in order to show an appreciation for all the work they due on behalf of their community.

Brad sought clarity on what expenses should be expended first i.e., ASES, 21st CCLC, is there guidance regarding this? What is the priority?

Brad questioned whether or not programs are allowed to charge overtime with Expanded Learning funds. Brad shared that he received forceful guidance for the System of Support for Expanded Learning team regarding this issue, he was told you absolutely can not charge overtime to Expanded Learning grants. Brad is seeking clarification on this issue.

Michael commented he has not had any conversations regarding charging overtime, he continued to address the challenges of a system and the responsibility to provide technical support by humans. He asked Advisory Members to come back to the committee for clarification on CDE issues, not outside entities looking to elevate themselves in the eyes of districts. He proposed having this conversation off-line and not as a part of the public record.

Next Meeting Date

The next meeting will be held on November 15, 2022 and will be virtual.

Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 a.m. by Sandra McBrayer.

Questions:   Expanded Learning Division | expandedlearning@cde.ca.gov | 916-319-0923
Last Reviewed: Tuesday, November 01, 2022
Recently Posted in Expanded Learning
  • After School Programs 2021 (added 30-Nov-2022)
    The 2021 Report to the Legislature, Legislative Analyst's Office and the Governor regarding characteristics of schools and students participating in After School Programs.
  • Advisory Committee Minutes August 16, 2022 (added 01-Nov-2022)
    The Advisory Committee on Before and After School Program minutes are considered to be draft until the November 2022 meeting.