First 5 and Developmental Services

Report
FIRST 5 AND DEVELOPMENTAL
SERVICES
Building Partnerships for Our Youngest
Children
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 servicedeliver 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 2009-10 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 Account
State Dept to which funds are allocated
Counties account (account from which funds are
transferred to county Children and Families Trust
Funds)
DDS
$
194.0
Mass Media account
DDS
$
6.0
Mass Media account
DSS
$
87.0
Education account
DSS
$
97.0
Child Care account
DSS
$
52.0
R&D account
DSS
$
68.0
Admin. account
DSS
$
22.0
Unallocated account
DSS
$
24.0
$
550.0
TOTAL
Amount
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.....

similar documents