Building Partnerships for Our Youngest Children FIRST 5 AND DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES

GOAL OF DISCUSSION TWO CALIFORNIA SYSTEMS CHARGED WITH MEETING CHILDREN’S NEEDS  First 5 Commissions What they look like and how they function  Regional Centers What they look like and how they function  WHERE DO THEY MEET AND WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THEY DO?

BACKGROUND ON FIRST 5 COMMISSIONS  County entities  Difference between state and county commissions  Role of Board of Supervisers  Autonomy of commissions  Required to address health, early learning, family functioning, systems change  58 learning laboratories  Traditional focus on school readiness  High need target neighborhoods  Family literacy  Access to preschool and high quality ECE  Full inclusion

BACKGROUND, cont. Constraints on First 5 Commissions  Non-supplantion provision  Can only serve children 0 – 5 and their families  County commission funds must serve children in their own counties  Unusual structure, compared to other major service- deliver systems  Constraints on Regional Centers  Entitlement without commensurate funding  Need to manage demand  Unusual structure, compared to other major service- deliver systems

COUNTY FIRST 5 COMMISSIONS AND CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS  Most commissions address behavioral and social/emotional issues – what regional centers do not address – through various programs.  Commissions are increasingly funding screening in settings such as pediatricians offices and ECE settings.  Commissions aim to reduce pressure on regional center system by promoting healthy births.  Many commissions are trying to absorb children not eligible for services from regional centers.

QUESTIONS ON BACKGROUND, STRUCTURE, OR ACTIVITIES OF FIRST 5?

IMPACT OF BUDET CRISIS  First 5 commissions’ response State First 5 commission County First 5 commissions  Poll #1 The state budget crisis started three years ago. In your experience, are families having a harder time getting services now? NO--I haven't seen any change; YES--harder to get agencies to answer the phone; YES--longer wait times; YES--families are paying more out of pocket now; YES--families aren't qualifying for as many services

RECENT BUDGET HISTORY  Last year’s interim budget agreement pitted the Regional Center system against First 5 by placing Prop 1D on the May ballot.  Prop 1D called for diversion of more than 50% of First 5 funds for 5 years.  In the Governor’s proposed budget, the diverted funds were directed toward several programs, but most significantly, the DDS budget.  Prop 1D failed passage statewide by a margin of 65% - 35%.

RECENT HISTORY, cont. When the Legislature passed the final budget-related bills in July, 2009, the Governor vetoed $50 million for the Early Start Program with this message: “I am reducing Regional Center Purchase of Services by $50,000,000 for services to children up to age five, as these services are due to program growth and thus eligible for funding from the California Children and Families Commission. I am directing the Secretary for the Health and Human Services Agency, the Department of Developmental Services, and the Department of Finance to immediately request funds from the Commission for this purpose. I do not intend to pursue separate legislation changing eligibility or services for these children for purposes of achieving these savings. I urge the Commission to provide supplemental funding for the growth in these services.”

CURRENT STATUS  Last month, First 5 CA approved contribution of $50 million to DDS for current year.  This does not address the previous reduction that resulted in a higher bar to entry into Early Start (Prevention Program) or next year’s need.  Poll #2  Since eligibility for Early Start has changed, are families less likely to be referred to Early Start program? YES/NO

GOVERNOR’S JANUARY BUDGET PROPOSAL First 5 AccountState Dept to which funds are allocatedAmount Counties account (account from which funds are transferred to county Children and Families Trust Funds) DDS$ Mass Media accountDDS $ 6.0 Mass Media accountDSS $ 87.0 Education accountDSS $ 97.0 Child Care accountDSS $ 52.0 R&D accountDSS $ 68.0 Admin. accountDSS $ 22.0 Unallocated accountDSS $ 24.0 TOTAL $ 550.0

CHALLENGE: MEETING ALL CHILDREN’S NEEDS  How can we resist pitting some children’s programs against others?  Example: CWS advocates response  Bringing DD and First 5 advocates together  Importance of Early Intervention: Collaborating for Our Children’s Future – Principles of Agreement

Principles of Agreement:  Regional centers – through the Early Start program and the Lanterman Act – provide critical services to children born with developmental needs and/or experiencing developmental delays, with the goal of linking them to needed services and optimizing their development.  First 5 commissions provide critical services to children whose needs are not otherwise met by state-funded/state-mandated services, with the goal of promoting child health, school readiness (including social, emotional, and cognitive development), and improved family functioning.

Principles of Agreement:  The earliest and most targeted interventions are the most effective.  Early screening and assessment are critical to ensure access to the most appropriate services.  Families and children frequently have multiple needs and require services from multiple programs or agencies.

Principles of Agreement:  Regional centers are statutorily responsible for only a segment of the child population that experiences developmental and/or health problems.  First 5 commissions are statutorily responsible for identifying and addressing needs of children that are not addressed by other state- or locally-funded programs.

Principles of Agreement:  No single agency can meet the wide range of child and family needs in California; therefore, it benefits all agencies and the children they serve to collaborate and coordinate so as to maximize available assistance to all children with health, development, social-emotional, and cognitive needs.  California’s children are ill-served when programs that meet the needs of different groups are pitted against one another.

Is there an upside?  Can the struggle to meet children’s early needs lead to any new models of collaboration? What are model approaches?  Poll #3 Are there new partnerships in local service delivery systems that are helping to assist families in light of budget cuts? YES/NO  Follow-up survey question: What new partnerships in local service delivery systems do you know of that are helping families get access to needed services?

QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION  Discussion of local experience and protection of children’s programs.  Questions about controversy and/or attacks on First 5?  Anything else.....