CHILDREN’S SERVICES COUNCIL OF PALM BEACH … · feedback, and information processing. Boca Raton Housing Authority John Scannell, Executive Director • Supports CATS’ (Children

CHILDREN’S SERVICES COUNCIL OF PALM BEACH COUNTY May 26, 2016 Council Meeting – 4:30 p.m.

Agenda Agenda Item: Reference #:

1. Call to Order

A. Invocation B. Pledge of Allegiance C. Presentations

1. Pearl City C.A.T.S./STEM ‐ Kasha Owers, Director of Program Performance; John Scannell,

Executive Director, Boca Raton Housing Authority; Royce Deale, Program Director, Pearl City C.A.T.S.; Mariah Jones, Robotics student participant.

2. Minutes

A. April 28, 2016 Council Planning Session 1

Recommendation: I recommend the Council approve the Minutes of the April 28, 2016 Council Planning Session as presented.

B. April 28, 2016 Council Meeting 2

Recommendation: I recommend the Council approve the Minutes of the April 28, 2016 Council meeting as presented.

3. Individual Appearances – Agenda Items

4. Council Committees:

Finance Committee

Personnel Committee – (no report)

5. Consent Agenda

1. Additions, Deletions, Substitutions 2. Items to be pulled from Consent Agenda 3. Adoption of Consent Agenda and walk‐in Warrants List

A. Program

1. Resolution #16‐014 Authorizing Renewal of ACCESS Agreement 3

Recommendation: I recommend the Council approve Resolution #16‐014 authorizing the renewal of the Department of Children and Families’ ACCESS agreement and authorizing the Chief Executive Officer to execute the necessary agreement for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2018 in an amount not to exceed $175,000, subject to the Council’s annual budget and TRIM approval process.

CHILDREN’S SERVICES COUNCIL OF PALM BEACH COUNTY Council Meeting Agenda – May 26, 2016 Council Meeting Page: 2

160526 Council Agenda

2. Revision to Resolution #15‐017 Authorizing Agreement for Child First Evaluation 4

Recommendation: I recommend the Council approve a revision to Resolution #15‐017 to revise the funding period of the agreement with Research Triangle Institute to June 1, 2016 through May 31, 2020. The Chief Executive Officer is still authorized to sign the agreement.

B. Business

1. Warrants List 5

Recommendation: I recommend the Council approve the Warrants List, in accordance with the established budgets for each of the expensed items, as presented.

2. Resolution #16‐015 Authorizing Renewal of Interlocal Agreement with the School Board 6 of Palm Beach County

Recommendation: I recommend the Council approve Resolution #16‐015 authorizing the Chief Executive Officer to execute an “Interlocal Agreement between the School Board of Palm Beach County, FL and the Children’s Services Council of Palm Beach County Concerning Student Information”, for the period October 1, 2016 through September 30, 2017.

3. Resolution #16‐016 Accepting Changes to CSC’s Procurement Policy 7

Recommendation: I recommend the Council approve Resolution #16‐016 and Exhibit “A” authorizing an amendment to the Procurement Policy by revising the “no quote” spending threshold to $5,000 and to change references from “Director of Operations” to “Director of HR and Operations”, with these changes to be effective June 1, 2016.

4. Resolution #16‐017 Accepting Changes to CSC’s Sustainable Purchasing Policy 8

Recommendation: I recommend the Council approve Resolution #16‐017 and Exhibit “A” accepting the proposed changes to the Sustainable Purchasing Policy as outlined, effective June 1, 2016.

5. Resolution #16‐018 Authorizing Additional Functionality to the EmbraceEachDay Universal 9 Parenting Campaign Website

Recommendation: I recommend the Council approve Resolution #16‐018 authorizing the Chief Executive Officer to execute an amendment to the existing contract with Svanaco, Inc. d/b/a AmericanEagle.com to add Hawk Search functionality to the website providing public education and awareness for the universal parenting campaign, in an additional amount not to exceed $1,500, effective May 27, 2016, through September 30, 2016.

CHILDREN’S SERVICES COUNCIL OF PALM BEACH COUNTY Council Meeting Agenda – May 26, 2016 Council Meeting Page: 3

160526 Council Agenda

6. Non Consent Agenda

A. Business – N/A B. For Informational Purposes Only – N/A

7. Walk‐In Items 8. Chief Executive Officer’s Report

9. Legal Reports

1. Review of Sunshine Law and Public Records Law

2. Dates of September Council Meetings and TRIM Hearings

Thursday, September 8, 2016 – Council meeting anticipated start time estimated at 5:30 p.m; TRIM Hearing will begin at 6:00 p.m.

Thursday, September 22, 2016 – Council meeting anticipated start time estimated at 5:30 p.m; Prevention Partnerships for Children, Inc. Board meeting will begin directly upon conclusion of the Council meeting; TRIM Hearing will begin at 6:00 p.m.

3. Reminder: Financial Disclosure Filing(s) Due July 1, 2016

10. Individual Appearances – Non Agenda Items 11. Council Comments 12. Adjournment

RoboticsBoca Raton Housing Authority ‐ Pearl City CATS

ROBOTICS

Robotics is the branch of mechanical engineering, electrical engineering and computer science that deals with the design, construction, operation, and application of robots, as well as computer systems for their control, sensory feedback, and information processing.

Boca Raton Housing Authority

John Scannell, Executive Director

• Supports CATS’ (Children Achieving Their Success) afterschool and summer program for children between the ages of 5‐12.

• The program serves the children of Dixie Manor and the Pearl City neighborhood.

Pearl City CATS

Royce Deale, Program Director

• Our goal is to inspire students to pursue careers in engineering and technology.

• While building self‐confidence, the Pearl City CATS robotic program motivates students to explore educational and career opportunities in STEM.

• Robotics enables students to have hands‐on experience that helps the student translate abstract mathematics and science concepts into real‐world‐applications.

Pearl City CATS ‐ Robotics15 students participating in the Robotic program

◦ 11 boys and 4 girls

◦ ages 7 to 12 years

◦ all African American

◦ from low income to extremely low income households

◦ majority single parent working households

We have now incorporated robotics in our daily programming.

◦ Interest in robotics has increased significantly.

◦ Next school year numbers expected to triple.

◦ Robotics has been a fun stepping‐stone for getting students interested in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) subjects that can lead to amazing careers later in life.

Pearl City CATS ‐ Robotics









Thank you

#: 1

AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY May 26, 2016 Council Meeting

AGENDA ITEM: 2A TITLE: Minutes – April 28, 2016 Council Planning Session RECOMMENDATION: I recommend the Council approve the Minutes of the April 28, 2016 Council Planning Session as presented.

160428 Planning Session Minutes Page 1 of 17

MINUTES

Meeting Title: 2016/2017 CSC Annual Planning Session

Date: 4/28/16 Time: 4:00 p.m.

Location: 2300 High Ridge Road, Boynton Beach

Facilitator: Greg Langowski

Scribe: Lisette Usborne

Participants:

Council Members: Thomas Bean; Vince Goodman (arrived 5:50 p.m.); Judge Kathleen Kroll; Greg Langowski, Tom Lynch; Debra Robinson, M.D.; Tom Weber Staff: John Bartosek, Karen Brandi, Jen Diehl, Debra Gotlib, Michelle Gross, Adrienne Heritage, Robert Kurimski, Kasha Owers, Tanya Palmer, Randy Palo, Christy Potter, Charice Robinson, Elsa Sanchez, Alissa Scuderi, Leah Shaw, Tom Sheehan, Shay Tozzi, Lisette Usborne, Lisa Williams‐Taylor, Ph.D. Members of the Public: Karen Mayer (Office of the Inspector General); Keith Oswald (School District)

WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION Chair Greg Langowski

Chair Langowski welcomed everyone. Participants and attendees introduced themselves.

PROGRAM PLANNING PROCESS Lisa Williams‐Taylor, Ph.D.

Overview – Guiding Principles Lisa Williams‐Taylor, Ph.D. – Over the past 20 years while CSC’s focus has continued to be refined we have remained constant on the following:

We are prevention‐focused. We know that targeting the earliest stages in a child’s life and development gives us the best opportunity to improve child and family outcomes. We also know, based on research, that the earlier you start the higher your return on investment.

We are data‐driven. Our focus and investments are research and data‐driven.

We are accountable. Our data‐driven focus enables us to remain accountable and ensure that those we fund are accountable. We invest in research, evaluation, and data collection so that we can ensure good results for our community, and we adjust accordingly based on the results.

We remain innovative. While we invest in evidence based programs when available, we also know that there is not a program to meet every need within our community so we fund the development and implementation of new and creative programs and services.

Services are needs‐appropriate. We recognize that families voluntarily engage in services we fund, and that they are the experts within their own families. Our programs work with the families to determine what they need and what will meet their goals, keeping an eye on providing the minimal amount of intervention necessary.

These guiding principles have provided a very strong foundation for CSC’s investment and accountability model, helping us to ensure that we are meeting child outcomes in the community. Goals When we started 30 years ago we had approximately 10 funding categories, but over time, based on research and Council policy and decisions, we have continued to refine our focus, goals, and the outcomes we want for our community. Our goals are:

Children are born healthy

Safe from abuse and neglect

Ready for Kindergarten

Access to quality afterschool and summer programs Steps to Success – Birth to 22 The first four steps in the “Steps to Success – Birth to 22” model are primarily funded by CSC. We are the main funder that focuses on creating the foundation for our children’s success early on. We are charged with ensuring that the children we serve are born healthy, attach to caregivers, developmentally on track, ready for school, and that we minimize any effects of toxic stress. Why is this so important? We know that the health of an infant at their time of birth and that their early childhood development can have profound effects on their life success. Infants born with no prenatal care are likely to be born too small and too soon: these children are at a greater risk of developmental delays. Parental depression can negatively threaten the development of children and threaten the bonds of attachment


between parent and child. Knowledge of parenting and child development decreases the likelihood that our children will experience abuse and neglect. We know that maltreated children are more likely to suffer later from depression, substance abuse, poor physical health, and engage in criminal activity. High quality early care and education programs can reduce grade level retention and special education placement while increasing school achievement and social skills, and is currently the most promising strategy for achieving school success, especially for our most vulnerable children. However, we also focus on the other stages of a child’s life such as our contributions towards helping children read on grade level, being connected to peers and adults, engaging in pro‐social behaviors such as avoiding teen pregnancy and adolescent substance abuse. We do this through our investments in things liked BRIDGES, quality afterschool, mentoring, programs like: Primary Project, summer reading, Teen Outreach Program (TOP®), Triple P, and investments with the Substance Abuse Awareness Coalition. Early Childhood System of Care Our primary focus has been on early steps to success, and we do this through our investments in an Early Childhood System of Care. It takes a great deal of effort from CSC and our providers to develop this system, one that has been nationally recognized. This type of system takes sustained funding which is important for our budget conversation later. It means that programs continue to receive funding unless our strategies and organizational goals change, or if a provider is not performing well. This is also important because these outcomes and the system of care concept is really what improves child outcomes long‐term, according to research. Our system has three main components:

Healthy Beginnings System – this primarily delivers individual and family services

BRIDGES – this is our neighborhood‐based work in our most vulnerable communities

Quality Child Care System Strong Minds is the early childhood component Afterschool component – focusing on improving quality and access for children Summer component – focusing on improving quality and access for children

We know that these systems cannot function without the infrastructure and supports needed through professional development, public awareness and outreach, and our data and research supports to ensure we are spending our investments in reaching child outcomes. By the Numbers CSC directly contracts with 36 agencies to deliver 53 programs. We know that the work is carried out by many more organizations acting either as subcontractors or sub‐recipients of our funding, such as the many child care and afterschool providers who provide services directly to children. Tom Lynch – How many of the 36 agencies are government agencies? Tanya Palmer – Two. We took on a new initiative over the past year of tracking CSC dollars and what it truly takes in the community to carry out CSC’s Mission and Vision. It takes over 530 organizations to do CSC’s work in the community, there are 530 organizations that receive CSC dollars. Many organizations are not aware of the amount of funding that comes from CSC as their relationship may be with entities such as the Early Learning Coalition, Prime Time, Palm Beach County, or a non‐profit lead agency such as Community Partners, Children’s Home Society, or the Urban League. Other examples include the Boys & Girls Club which receives $1.5 million, Pahokee Youth Enrichment Academy receives $358,000, Junior Achievement receives $111,000, and the School District through the early childhood and afterschool programs receives $6.8 million. A detailed list of all subcontractors/providers receiving CSC dollars has been provided at your table so that you have that information at your fingertips. Program Planning Process – Investment & Accountability Model Tanya Palmer – We reviewed the Plan/Do/Check/Act cycle with the Council last year. This is the framework in which we organize the work happening in the Program Division. Planning stage – the Strategy Review and Allocation Analysis (SRAA) gives a comprehensive look at what the national literature is telling us about what is the most impactful way to achieve the targeted outcomes. It’s a very robust process which we undertake every six years, the most recent SRAA performed was in 2013. The result of the SRAA has guided how we continue to carry out the work defining our early childhood system of care. On an ongoing basis we also engage in exploratory work. When we think about the gaps or service needs identified by the strategy review we begin to think about programs we’d like to bring to Palm Beach County. Staff then begins a very thoughtful due diligence process and exploration. We want to make sure that the program is well‐situated to be successful in Palm Beach County, that it’s not duplicative or in conflict with other programming efforts in place.


Do stage – this stage focuses on program selection. We typically go through a competitive procurement process to identify the provider(s) that would be most successfully positioned to implement that service. It includes the contracting process and the actual implementation of the program. In terms of timelines, we know that it can take up to three years for a provider to feel very comfortable in delivering the service with the anticipated degree of fidelity and achieving the desired outcomes. The installation period where the provider considers workforce need, how to organize to deliver the service, and the initial implementation period where the provider begins to provide the service can take one year. Then the provider makes continued refinements and we see consistent service provision and implementation in the second year, which is the typical life cycle of bringing a new service into the community. Check stage – the check stage includes the Comprehensive Program Performance Assessment (CPPA). Programs are put through the CPPA at least twice per year, sometimes three times. The Council receives regular updates about the CPPA results. The second check process includes program and system evaluation. Both of these activities in the check stage will inform the type of work that needs to be done. Act stage – Once data is received through the check stage the act stage includes the continued program and system refinements that are underway. It is an ongoing cycle of work. Accomplishments in the Last Year Plan – What we recognized through the SRAA is that there is a need to have an array and intensity of services for programs within the community. Some families have the need for a two‐year long program with weekly home visits, but others do not need or want to engage in this way. There was a need to consider light touch or less intensive services that were still going to contribute to CSC’s outcomes but that would become another viable options for families needing ongoing support. We have begun exploring family engagement for an early literacy program, and a program has been identified that we think will encourage families by enabling them to support their children in developing literacy, as well as working with child care centers. By working with the child care centers they can reinforce the program and there are books that can be sent home with the children, and once the book gets into the home the family knows how to support the child and the child would read to the parents, which in turn would reinforce the work of the child care center. We have recently been engaged with work around a community needs assessment to understand more fully the needs around maternal child health, which is something that needs to be done as the Healthy Start (HS)Service Delivery Plan is being developed; the HS Service Delivery Plan must be completed in order to continue to receive State funding, which is used in the Healthy Beginnings system. Do – In terms of development, Child First began delivering services October 1, 2015 and is currently serving 96 families. It is a fairly intensive program that partners a mental health clinician with a care coordinator to meet the needs of the most at‐risk families. We have also been conducting implementation around the Conscious Discipline program, which is a behavior management tool that our child care staff have been asking for. It involves consistency around how they engage with children, enabling the child to be successful within that child care environment. Teen Triple P is another area we have been implementing since June, 2015; at this point in time it has served 165 teens. Check – Over the past year we have completed CPPA and there have been four providers that were on a performance improvement plan. This is part of the process, and from time to time there will be programs identified that need to spend more attention in focused areas. The Prenatal Plus evaluation was shared with Council members in February and we saw that the program had made an impact. Act – In the refinement of our system there has been major effort underway in terms of screening and assessment, ensuring we have the most appropriate assessment tools to connect families with the services that are available. Programming for FY 2016/17 Plan – There are fewer items outlined in the planning stage of the slide (page 6) which is a natural evolution because we are now three years into the implementation of the strategy review. We will continue to do exploration around the less‐intensive light touch model, as well as continuing to build out mental health supports. Do – Development activities can take up to 3 years before we get a program firmly established. We will continue to look at how we increase our reach for developmental screening, an important tool used to identify children who may benefit from services. Check – In the check area of work for 2016/17 we will be undertaking an evaluation for the Strong Minds program, the redesigned system that is in place to improve the quality of our early care and education system. It was launched in January, 2015. BRIDGES is a program that has been underway for five years, and during that time there has been some developmental evaluation, but we are now at the point of maturity where we can do an evaluation to look at outcomes and the capacity‐building of those communities. Child First, Community Voice, and Growing Smart are also slated for


an evaluation in 2016/17. Act – The refinement of programs is ongoing, there is always something we can do to improve our service delivery system.

WHO WE SERVE AND CHILD OUTCOMES

FY 2015 Demographics of the CSC Population Tanya Palmer – We have talked in the past about the efforts to collect data and understand the populations that we serve, and in the past fiscal year of 2014/2015 we have detailed demographic information on 36,000 children who were served through CSC programs. The composition of the CSC population is 53% Black, 39% White, and 8% Other. From an ethnic background clients are 35% Hispanic and 65% non‐Hispanic. Demographics Compared to County When compared to the County’s population, a larger percentage of CSC’s clients are Black than the County’s makeup (53% served vs. 25% in the general population), and we serve fewer clients that are White than the County’s makeup (39% served vs. 65% in the general population). Within the ethnic demographic there is a slightly higher number served that are Hispanic than the County’s makeup (35% served vs. 29% in the general population.) Child Outcomes You are familiar with our child outcomes and we have specific areas of measurement to populate our Report Card and determine success within those outcomes. To measure: i) Children are Born Healthy – the percentage of premature births, and the percentage of low birthweight babies are

assessed. ii) Safe from Abuse and Neglect – the percentage of children (birth to five) with a verified case of abuse or neglect is

assessed. iii) Ready for Kindergarten – the percentage of children scoring ready on the State Kindergarten Readiness Assessment

is measured. iv) Access to Quality Afterschool and Summer Programs – the number of children enrolled in quality afterschool or

summer programs is measured. We are looking at how the percentages line up when compared to ourselves in previous years, what it looked like in the baseline year when we started the Report Card process, and how it looks now. Are we making a difference with our clients? What is the effect when you compare CSC clients to themselves (fro m previous years), and what is the eff ect when CSC clients are compared to a matched co mparison gro up (name d ‘o thers’). FY 2014‐15 Child Outcome Measures ‐ CSC Compared to Itself Scorecard I am happy to report that everything is “in the green”. This applies for birth outcomes as well as abuse and neglect. When we use the baseline year (2012) and compare it to now (2015), CSC has improved in each indicator. We did not compare baseline and current year as it relates to school readiness because there has been such a change with the school readiness instrumentation that it would be an unfair comparison. FY 2014‐15 Child Outcome Measures – Access to Quality Afterschool & Summer Programs When we look at our fourth area of work, the access to quality afterschool and summer programs, what you will see from 2014 to 2015 is that we have increased the number of children being served both in afterschool and summer programs (that CSC directly funds – i.e. the scholarship component). We have also increased the percentage of children who are attending high quality afterschool and summer programs. Summary of Changes All measures show progress. Guiding Questions We took a deeper look and looked at it from the standpoint of propensity score matching which is a rigorous methodology, the thing closest to a randomized controlled trial. FY 2014‐15 Child Outcome Measures – CSC vs. Comparison Group Scorecard When CSC clients were compared to a matched comparison group in the baseline year the data showed that CSC clients had fared better than the comparison group in the category of babies born low birthweight, had fared worse in the preterm birth category, and had fared better in the percentage of verified abuse and neglect for children ages 0‐5. When the current year’s data was compared (FY 14/15) the CSC population had scored better than the matched comparison group in all categories (low birthweight, preterm births, and abuse and neglect), and had scored better in school readiness. The scorecard measures the impact of the Early Childhood System of Care, namely the Healthy Beginnings system,


BRIDGES, and quality childcare. We want to talk about our accomplishments related to public education and outreach, which is an important part of our Early Childhood System of Care. We are in the fifth cycle of the Happily Ever After reading campaign, and over 500,000 books have been distributed to elementary schools since 2013. More than 600 children have been provided swimming lessons by CSC matching Drowning Prevention dollars; the SafeMap app was released in 2016 and is focused on child safety, and the process of installing Little Free Libraries has begun throughout the community. Kathleen Kroll – what age group are served in the after school and summer programs? Tanya Palmer – it is for children up to age 12 for after school programs. For summer programs it covers children up to age 15. Kathleen Kroll – is that in the school environment, both in school settings and other outside settings? Tanya Palmer – afterschool is definitely in community settings or in afterschool programs run by school‐based sites. Summer programs are community based, although there could be some that were school based. Lisa Williams‐Taylor, Ph.D. – all CSC dollars for summer camp funding is processed through the County because they have available staff to oversee licensing and other necessities. Kathleen Kroll – do the afterschool programs all go through the school system? Tanya Palmer – it’s through the Early Learning Coalition: the families receive scholarships and then they select the program where they would like their child to attend. Tom Lynch – do all the children who need these programs get them, or are the programs full? Tanya Palmer – there are currently children on the wait list; ELC had undertaken a massive enrollment in the fall of 2015 and had got the list down to zero, in January it started to climb back up, and the latest numbers show that the wait list is back up to 4,500 within 3 months. They are in the process of doing enrollments for summer programs, in 2015 CSC had made additional funding available and CSC funding is slated to serve 1,800 for this summer. Lisa Williams‐Taylor, Ph.D. – what we are hearing is that when there is a wait list of 3,500 children the families do not sign up to become number 3,501. However, when the wait list goes down the families come back out and start to sign up again. Tom Lynch – if we want to put more money into it, is there capacity? Lisa Williams‐Taylor, Ph.D. – yes, there is still capacity in many of the programs. Tanya Palmer – in certain age groups there may be less capacity, such as the infant toddler age group. As we scholarship families into high quality environments through Strong Minds and the tiered reimbursement system we recognize that quality child care is more expensive and therefore there is an impact in terms of our budget. Tom Lynch – it would be interesting to know in the Kindergarten, 1st, 2nd and 3rd grade whether children could learn any better because that is our area of focus. Do we have statistics on this? Lisa Williams‐Taylor, Ph.D. – you mean as far as after school and summer camp? I know that it was getting near capacity for summer camp but I’m not sure about afterschool. Tom Lynch – is reading a major focus in after school and summer? Tanya Palmer – this year the County increased the number of school readiness providers for summer camp. They previously had 8 providers, and this year they have 16 providers who will have a focus on reading with a curriculum. In the afterschool programming, most providers do allow time for reading, although the level where actual support would be available may vary. Tom Lynch – are those programs in the lower socio‐economic geographic areas? Tanya Palmer – the availability of the programs are throughout the community, there is not necessarily any community that is underserved because of lack of an available provider. Keith Oswald – because of the issue of quality we are looking at a number of things, in particular with Boys & Girls Clubs who are running a lot of programs in the Glades, we will go and give them our district reading curriculum and train their providers, plus try to push in some certified teachers throughout the summer to help them out. We are looking at trying different ways to see how we can expand, such as opening up media centers. In Riviera Beach there are not a lot of School District programs so we are looking at how we can extend our reach by opening up media centers. We can use some Title 1 funding for this but it is limited, there is definitely an opportunity to grow. We are working with Palm Beach County, the United Way and anyone working with a summer program to provide adaptive technology. We will be bringing something to the School Board next month for a literacy and math program that will give access to the Internet at the elementary level, and also at the secondary level Reading Plus and Kahn Academy, we will give them access to use these programs throughout the summer. Therefore, if a program doesn’t have any type of literacy structure it could at least have access to these programs. We are going to try to expand and step up. Kathleen Kroll – can we get a map with dots that show where the programs are, so we can be sure they are hitting the


mark, because when we hear things like that, that Riviera Beach does not have many School District programs, that’s my concern. Maybe we should spend more of our dollars in those areas where, for whatever reason, the School District can’t do it. Lisa Williams‐Taylor, Ph.D. – yes, we can get that. Debra Robinson, M.D. – just to clarify, the comment about the scarcity in Riviera Beach – was that for summer programming? Keith Oswald – yes, there are some community‐based organizations running summer programs. Kathleen Kroll – Do those community‐based organizations hold their camps at schools? Keith Oswald – there may be one, but I think the majority of them are in separate locations, Boys & Girls Clubs have a couple of centers. We are working with them to enhance their academic component so we will give them our curriculum that we developed for our summer program, train their people, even provide the curriculum if they can’t afford it. Debra Robinson, M.D. – Referring to page 11 of the Planning Session booklet, quality outcome measures bottom line, the percentage of school age children who attended a high quality afterschool or summer program – what’s the denominator? Tanya Palmer – the total population receiving afterschool or summer programming (by virtue of CSC funding) in 2014 was 13,891, and in 2015 was 14,007. The demarcation of high quality for aftercare would be Prime Time (the intermediary that works to have the quality improvement system for aftercare and summer programming); they go through a quality assessment process called the PQA (Program Quality Assessment) and the threshold that is established is that which differentiates a high quality program vs. programs that have at least met the basic standards and were working towards quality. That is the demarcation. Debra Robinson, M.D. – (clarified) the numbers on the top have met the basic guidelines and the numbers on the bottom have met them at the high quality standard. When we talked about capacity being available, does that mean there were empty seats that have funding available, or that they were just empty seats? Lisa Williams‐Taylor, Ph.D. – specifically for the afterschool? It depends on the site, I’m not sure whether there’s a low enrollment for some of them or not. Tanya Palmer – CSC, at this point in time, is putting almost $30 million into scholarships for early care and education, afterschool, and summer camp. There are definitely waiting lists because the dollars have been exhausted. There are seats but there is no funding. Debra Robinson, M.D. – OK, that’s what I wanted to be clear about because it wasn’t making sense. The comment about the waiting list, it sounded like you said that when the waiting list comes down to zero that people come out to enroll, but when the waiting list is high, they don’t bother. Is that what you’re saying? Lisa Williams‐Taylor, Ph.D. – Yes, when they are told that they are 3,501 on the wait list they decide they are not going to fill out all the paperwork and pull back, but when the wait list comes down they come back out. I’m not sure what the process is, whether we call people to let them know the wait list is down. Tanya Palmer – there’s a lot of community contact, and word of mouth travels far. The Early Learning Coalition was attending various community fairs where families could sign up. Debra Robinson, M.D. – the need is much greater than the waiting list reflects. Lisa Williams‐Taylor, Ph.D. – absolutely. Debra Robinson, M.D. – With regard to using the District’s curriculum – could we please make sure we are putting creativity in there? My four year old granddaughter asked to change schools because she complained that all they did at school was work, work, work. If this continues, at some point she will get turned‐off of school. If we are talking about children who may not get that support and stimulation at home we need to make it fun. Keith Oswald – this is an integrated curriculum, and we are also looking at another partnership with Discover Ed. around creating an integrated STEM and really developing middle school teachers in general, and in an integrated curriculum. They will get professional development, but at the same time we would push into some community‐based organization partners around that particular issue, and they are going to give the actual curriculum some fun stuff.

BUDGET AND POLICY DISCUSSIONS

Lisa Williams‐Taylor, Ph.D. – Now that we have had the chance to review what has taken place in the past year, as well as talk about some plans for next year, we want to turn this into a conversation and workshop session around our budget. The following conversations will include what is needed from a sustainability aspect for CSC’s own system of care, newly identified needs within the Program Division, newly identified needs within the community, and reviewing and prioritizing Council member interests based upon needs identified by Council members. Because the budget needs to be set for 2016/17 we need firm recommendations in order to have policy direction in areas in which to move forward. At the end of discussions there will be a spreadsheet that outlines ‘Go’ decisions to move forward, ‘No Go’ decisions would be areas CSC should not invest in, and ‘Exploration’ ‐ areas to be explored further, and bring recommendations/budget/plan of action back to the Council.


FY 2016/17 Expenditure Assumptions Jen Diehl – As far as program budgeting goes, allocations to children’s programs and initiatives will be at the level necessary to sustain the programs and support needed growth (which Tanya will talk about shortly). For administrative expenditures our staff will remain the same at 104. Merit increases in salaries are budgeted at 3%, promotional increases in salaries are budgeted to increase at the rate of 0.5%. Health insurance costs are budgeted to increase at the rate of 10%, and costs associated with facility operations were budgeted to increase at 3%. We are also expected to replace our computer equipment. Tom Lynch – What’s the cost on that? Robert Kurimski – We have about $200,000 set aside for computer replacement. FY 2016/17 Revenue Assumptions Jen Diehl – The proposed millage rate is going to be .6952 in light of new information just shared at the Finance Committee meeting, which will be an increase over the prior year millage. Income from Palm Beach County will reduce by $1,000,000 per year until FY 18/19 when CSC will be providing the entire local match for the Head Start program. The fund balance will continue to be drawn down until it reaches 27.5%, as provided‐for in the recent fund balance policy. CSC will continue to experience a projected under‐expenditure rate of 5% which is our standard. FY 2016/17 Budget Recommendation Based on these assumptions the initial budget recommendation (for purposes of modeling) shows a tax base increase of 8% which we think will be closer to 6.56%. In the yellow highlighted row we have our millage rate of 0.6865 which should now reflect 0.6952. We have a total projected budget of $128,730,000, and of that $128 million, $104.6 million is for programs which Tanya will expand upon. Children’s Program Budget Tanya Palmer – In the model there is currently $104.6 million available to support children’s programs. We want to discuss with you what it takes just to sustain the current system of care (FY 15/16)

Healthy Beginnings’ cost was $28.5 million (screening and assessment of pregnant women and young children up to age 5, referrals to a range of services from evidence based to locally designed programs focusing on achieving birth outcomes, reducing instances of child abuse and neglect, and doing the building blocks of school readiness)

Quality Child Care and Afterschool’s cost was $51.9 million, of which $30 million was designated to facilitate access to early care and education, afterschool, and summer programming. This includes scholarships, match to the Head Start program, and other slot considerations. The remaining balance of $20 million includes necessary supports to ensure high quality such as technical assistance, and provider professional development for afterschool practitioners and early care and education teachers. It’s not enough to just have access, it needs to be high quality child care.

BRIDGES cost was $5.9 million. Ten communities have BRIDGES locations as described by LaNita Sanders at the March 31, 2016 Council meeting.

Community Initiatives cost was $6.2 million, a group of programs and supports aimed at things like drowning prevention, Safe Kids Coalition, Palm Beach County Food Bank, and CSC’s legal advocacy program.

We need infrastructure for data systems, evaluation, professional development for the staff associated with Healthy Beginnings and the broader community, and these costs combined total $7.1 million. With the above initiatives and the infrastructure it totals $99.5 million. This would be if everything stayed exactly as‐is. Children’s Programs Budget Projected There are increases associated with the cost of staff increases in salary and health insurance, and we have to be mindful of including these increases for the staff of our funded programs, the actual personnel that CSC funds. There is an amount of $1.2 million associated with salaries and health insurance. There is another $840,000 associated with planned expansion and growth, as per the SRAA (strategy review) which identified the gaps that need to be filled in. This amount speaks to new staff that need to be brought in because of the demand for services, a new service that will be offered, or funding to increase the number of high quality child care programs. In light of how much need there is for summer camp scholarships we are planning to add another $500,000 in this area. When this is added together it is $99.5 million just for the early childhood programs for 15/16. The $2.5 million is for costs associated with allowing it remain intact, which totals $102 million, which gives us a potential of $2.6 million that we can direct to other areas of interest. The areas for consideration that I will cover have more background information on page 21.


COUNCIL WORKSHOP DISCUSSIONS

Workshop: Areas for Consideration

Proposed Initiative to Support Workforce in HB: $500,000 Tanya Palmer – One of the areas of work is an initiative to support the workforce in Healthy Beginnings. We recognize that we continue to bring programs into the community and there is a challenge and shortage of a qualified workforce: nurses, licensed clinical social workers (LCSWs), and mental health providers. The shortage intensifies when we try to find professionals that match the demographic and cultural needs of our population. We’ve conducted a lot of work in quality child care to help promote professional development such as scholarships for the workers to go back to school, and wages supplements. But we don’t have the same supports in place for the Healthy Beginnings (HB) workforce. Whatever degree the HB workforce joins with, if they want to pursue higher education it’s currently on their own dime.

Proposed Areas of Community Need There are other proposed areas of community need, we have the opportunity to do a needs assessment and service delivery plan in order to plan organized approaches. Special Needs: $275,000 – The Unicorn Children’s Foundation together with a number of funding partners undertook a very comprehensive needs assessment and have released a business plan for the next five years, developing a system of care for everyone from birth till death. Clearly, CSC wouldn’t be involved in the whole array, but there are definitely needs identified for the 0 to 18 population. We propose setting aside $275,000 to help support implementation of their business plan, as it relates to CSC’s areas of interest. Birth to 22: United for Brighter Futures – There has been a series of fantastic community conversations underway, and in the late summer they will be developing a Youth Master Plan. Based on what they heard in the community they will be addressing what the areas of gaps are in the community. We can anticipate that there will be areas of interest to CSC and requests for funding. Training on Evidence Based Programs for Therapeutic Interventions: $120,000 – We put this out to our staff because we do have the experience in bringing evidence based programs to Palm Beach County, and we have the experience in supporting the training, and giving staff the potential to be able to deliver programs. To be very clear, we are not looking to underwrite the costs of staff and services, but we can be an effective partner in getting training into play. We would be great if we had family functional therapy or multi‐systemic therapy, but there are not currently staff trained in those particular modalities to give such training. If there is interest in the community to underwrite the cost of the services and staff, we believe we can be an effective partner in bringing that training into play, and letting those therapists have the opportunity to skill‐up in those two modalities. Tom Lynch – For the therapeutic interventions, shouldn’t the Health Care District underwrite the cost of that? Tanya Palmer – the Health Care District currently fund things like medication related to mental health, they haven’t necessarily paid for the underlying therapy. We believe they currently fund things that are more physical health‐oriented, and they have not had much activity in the mental health arena. Chair Langowski – In terms of afterschool, we are talking about raising CSC’s contribution by $500,000. Would raising it to $1 million help? Tanya Palmer – everything will help, there will be more children served, but the way the County has organized its outreach is to determine how much money will be available and target the outreach so that they don’t have huge waitlists. Based on policy approved by the Council, when we know we are going to have under expenditures we reinvest it in this area. We’ve done that already. By us putting $500,000 from our base budget we’ve already got that base operating and we can tell the County up front that we will continue to make that amount available. Debra Robinson, M.D. – It wouldn’t address the immediate need, but have we partnered with some of our Choice programs that are creating Nurse’s Aids and Medical Assistants, to start them being trained to step into being assistants in this area, and then they might then be the ones we would train to maintain the community where they came from? I really don’t understand why we would want to train therapeutic interventions under evidence based programs. Do you mean that CSC would share how to look at the data to determine what an evidence based program looked like, or actually do the training? Tanya Palmer – with most of those modalities there are developers who have training and there are costs associated with that. To send a team to be trained and have the staff re‐credentialed there are costs. It could be upwards of $60,000 to $70,000. In many cases there may be a mental health agency eager to offer the service, but they outline that they don’t have the funding to underwrite the cost of training. Or there may be a funder willing to refer the families to the service, but they are typically unwilling to write the check to have the professionals train. CSC wouldn’t be paying for services or for staff, but would be paying to reduce the barrier about how to come up with the funding to


get the staff trained. Debra Robinson, M.D. asked for the two modalities outlined. Tanya Palmer – FFT is Family Functioning Therapy. Lisa Williams‐Taylor, Ph.D. – MST is Multi‐Systemic Therapy. These two therapies have been raised by folks in the community because they focus on juveniles with substance abuse and behavioral issues. I wouldn’t want to limit trainings to only these two modalities, because if something was identified through the Birth to 22: United for Brighter Futures, because another modality may be identified if there were some other target populations where there were gaps. Each evidence based program targets a different age group or a different issue. It depends whatever the needs are from a training perspective. Kathleen Kroll – I can tell you from a realistic setting, from juveniles in dependency and delinquency court, those therapies are known in the field to be successful. Delinquency is just now trying to get FFT, dependency has had it for a while, very successfully. Family Functional Therapy is now being funded somewhat by the Department of Juvenile Justice because it’s so successful in turning kids’ behaviors around. Lisa Williams‐Taylor, Ph.D. – The idea here is, if there is willingness, we could partner so that the other entities don’t have to bear the training costs, their funding can go directly into the treatment of families.

Proposed Areas of Council Member Interest: Lisa Williams‐Taylor, Ph.D. – I would like to move now to discuss areas identified by Council members as they work in the community. Council members will discuss their areas of interest and why it is important to them, and have group discussions. Superintendent Avossa has sent a video regarding summer learning as he was unable to be present.

STEM Initiative Thomas Bean ‐ STEM is an acronym for Science, Technology, Engineering and Math curriculum and initiatives, focused on trying to drive those four skills and knowledge bases forward. There are many jobs that are STEM‐based, these include the engineering field, finance and accounting, technical writing field and even the legal field. Florida Power and Light (FPL) has a great need for highly skilled STEM employees. One thing that scares kids away from them thinking they are able to approach these careers is that they consider themselves no good at math. As Dr. Robinson stated earlier, kids may have run into some type of wall which made them equate math as not fun, or that they were not skilled. I propose pursuing the STEM initiative around robotics; in this area there could be large 120lb to 150lb robots to small scale robotics. I have found that kids going through a STEM program will not always fall into a STEM career, although most would. Early on kids may be intimidated, but since they had expressed an interest there was an opportunity for them to develop those skills; it didn’t start at High School or college, they needed to start early on. Tom Weber – When can we give kids more real‐life activities using STEM so that we can avoid the usual questions of ‘why do we have to learn this?’ Thomas Bean – one key piece is hands‐on learning and small successes. They can discover that they can program a model and get it to do what they want it to do. Many STEM programs teach kids how to fail, to learn from those failures and to keep working towards success, which is basic program management. When working as a team, collaboratively, they work towards solving a problem. Kids are not discouraged because of the fun aspect, as if they are at play. Kathleen Kroll – I sit on the Board of the Community Foundation; funding had been supplied in a total amount of more than $2 million for a 3‐year project set forth by a collaboration between the Pew Foundation, MacArthur, the School District, and the Court system. Is this project still in progress? I’d like to see what the evaluations depict before investing more money. Keith Oswald – It was funded through the Quantum and Community Foundations, and the Pew Public Education Fund. It was in partnership with the University of Florida, and there was a STEM Council in the community. Curriculum is being developed through this project, and they are providing professional development for teachers around STEM. The project has sunset but Pew will extend to the STEM Council for them to build a strategic plan. One area of work is to extend extra chips to teachers for them to go out and work in different fields for them to see what happens in the real world and bring that work back into the classroom. This particular grant touched mostly around out‐of‐school programming time. Tom Lynch – reading is always critical, and unless kids’ reading levels are at the level they needed to be they need to focus on that. What is the percentage of kids reading on grade level? Keith Oswald – 51%, about half. Tom Lynch – Let’s do the reading first and hopefully bring them to a certain level, and then you could bring in STEM and STEAM. Debra Robinson, M.D. – Many boys don’t want to read, but when they are given a reason to read, they read. If the reason to read was to create a better robot to beat the other team, they would be reading. I agree with Mr. Lynch that reading is fundamental. We have to figure out ways to get kids to engage in their own learning process. Kids are


disengaging by second grade, especially children of color and especially boys, are tuning out. We are not connecting with them and we don’t have a peer adult motivating them to read. We can tie it in, and they are competitive, we can teach them to read because they want to beat the other team in robotics. Are you saying FPL wants to fund some robotics teams in inner‐city schools? Thomas Bean – We do. FPL is covering half the state, it sponsors approximately 50 different afterschool teams from Miami‐Dade, the west coast, and Palm Beach County. There are high school teams, middle school teams and Lego Leagues. A Lego League around the state, typically for elementary schoolkids is sponsored by FPL to encourage interest. FTC is the first robotics version, and FRC is the bigger robots typically from 9th grade up. For FPL there is a capacity issue for funding because requests come in from all over the state. FPL has made it their signature program for STEM education because they can see other elements such as working collaboratively, presenting, and fundraising. Kids have to work together to move a project forward which develops other soft skills. They have funded camps for referrals in Broward County and have spent approximately $16,000 for approximately 20 girls for several weeks at camp which covered an instructor and all equipment. They tried to do a varied approach in order to build the overall capacity, some of it was dependent on the communities, and in Miami Superintendent Carvallo was interested in the the teacher training around Lego Leagues. A grant was provided for him to train the teachers and for them to have it in their schools. Bean (cont'd.) Would CSC like to consider a pilot? I see a lot of promise in this area, but do not want to steer CSC away from its mission. I would recommend programming in elementary schools, potentially middle schools, but not touching high schools. Lego Leagues or Lego Light League would be the better avenue because it is more cost‐effective and it could be put in front of more kids. It would give kids back some creativity and attract their interest. Tom Lynch – Are there grade schools in Palm Beach County with a lego curriculum? Keith Oswald – there are a number of schools that have a STEM base but it was a small number. Tom Lynch – this is an important field but it would take a lot of money and ability to do it. We could bring some of it as a pilot. Debra Robinson, M.D. – Dr. Ruth Doran was conducting a pre‐K STEM/STEAM initiative – what happened to that? Karen Brandi – Palm Beach State College in partnership with what was Family Central is continuing to do STEAM with the early care and education programs. They are getting funding from PNC (bank) as well as partnering with the local science museum, and it would continue. Debra Robinson, M.D. – I recall it was more like professional development for the adults. Karen Brandi – that is correct, for the adults to implement it in their classrooms. But with their connections with the science museums there would be field trips for the children, and activities for parents to help their children. Debra Robinson, M.D. – could we get some interim outcome measures or a status check on how it is progressing? Karen Brandi – yes we can do that. Lisa Williams‐Taylor, Ph.D. – with the STEM initiative it was more to determine whether the Council had an interest to continue to explore in this area (what a pilot would look like for CSC) rather than a ‘go’ or ‘no go’ decision.

Pre‐K Collaborative in Targeted Communities Debra Robinson, M.D. – A collaborative was formed in Riviera Beach around early childhood. It consists of community‐based providers, School District, CSC, Early Learning Coalition, City officials, State Representative, and others. The goal is to create a plan to have high quality education for every three and four year old in the City of Riviera Beach, a high‐ needs area. Information is being shared, obstacles are being reviewed, and relationships are being developed. One thing that has become apparent is that a summer camp would go to the community to pick up kids for summer camp and the societal infrastructure has broken down so much that the parents would not even get up to put the kids on the van. A lot of it could be attributed to depression from multi‐generational poverty, although this belongs to another conversation. One solution proposed is “the crazy old lady down the street”. (An involved community resident was depicted who would stop neighborhood kids and ask why they weren’t in school, and check the grades on their report cards.) I have the Stonybrook community in mind because it is a concentrated area of need in Riviera Beach. The community resident (employee) would get training and would be paid to knock on doors, in a proactive fashion. They would engage with young parents in the community to affirm them as parents, and affirm their children, taking them by the hand and lead them where they needed to be. It would also involve a re‐training of perspective, from a parent considering their child ‘bad’ because he was getting into a lot of stuff, to teach that parent to consider their child bright, offering hope and direction to the parent, even suggesting a possible career path for their child. It would affirm the parents and help change their mindset, telling them (from a peer) what they wanted the parent to do, whatever needed to be done to get the parent engaged. The point is to work together. Initiatives had been working in isolation and they had been about to create a dynamic


where it would have been School District vs. community, and children would have been hurt. I look forward to good forward progress, even though the mountain is steep. Lisa Williams‐Taylor, Ph.D. – it’s around exploring what this could possibly look like, exploring some grassroots organizing around early childhood and engaging the community in different ways, helping kids get to school and read. Debra Robinson, M.D. – Page 35 of the Planning Session notebook talks about in order to make the biggest impact in a child’s life we must identify the issues a child or family is facing as early as possible. With this initiative in play, now there could be someone from the community, trusted and known, who the family could talk to. On page 36 (of the Planning Session notebook) it states that it was most effective when that person was located within the community in which the child and family live. There is a grant that is funding some work in Riviera Beach for a woman to knock on the door after 10 school absences. I want to get way ahead of that and knock on the door during the summer before school starts and affirm the family. Another aspect would be to bring in the immunization van on a specific day. It will be teambuilding and taking ownership “this is how we roll here”, it has to be someone from the community. Two individuals have already been identified to start this work. Tom Lynch – there is a program like that currently in existence in Delray Beach. Janet Meeks is a full time city employee and coordinates with the library, police department, reading program in the summer, etc. If you don’t have an entity like the government running it then everyone becomes territorial. It might be a good model to follow in Riviera Beach. Debra Robinson, M.D. – Janet Meeks does good work but it’s different than this work. The collaborative is coordinating the people who do the work with the people who fund the work. There are things that we believe are true but their view is different, there is a disconnect which needs to be fixed. Instead of having a coordinator from the City, the City was at the table, but the City has the same responsibility to contribute that the providers do, and everyone else who is at the table. It will be everyone working together. Tom Lynch – What are you looking to fund? Debra Robinson, M.D. – the old lady down the street. Tom Lynch – this would be a full time employee? Debra Robinson, M.D. – The logistics need to be worked out, possibly half a full‐time employee (FTE). It’s changing the community norms to say we don’t do that here. Families are so disconnected, and then there are 35 year old grandmothers, the knowledge is no longer in the community, or not being shared. Tom Lynch – if you do programs like these as pilot programs, do you have the ability to evidence‐base them to ensure they were working? Lisa Williams‐Taylor, Ph.D. – we could put together some sort of evaluation plan. We would evaluate it and then determine whether it works, and see how it could be expanded. This would be around exploration: what would it look like, what are the qualifications, how much time, what is the cost. Staff would then bring those details to the Council to decide whether they would like to move forward. Tom Lynch – our role would be to help, with some oversight and funding.

Summer Camp/Afterschool Programming for Special Populations (Dependency/Delinquency) Kathleen Kroll – CSC funds summer camps, and the County gives preference to dependency kids in some cases. There is no such camp available for delinquency kids, and most camps don’t want to touch those kids. If a kid has a juvenile record at all they are excluded, and the parents are probably not around, and if they are, they are not knowledgeable to go after any scholarships. We could get these kids into summer camps through the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) and through probation. There is already a program in Palm Beach County (not funded by CSC) called VisionQuest. The general view of the courthouse is that it is a horrible program, mostly dealing in dependency kids, and probably the major source of trafficking girls. Lisa Williams‐Taylor, Ph.D. – it’s listed as an evidence based program. Kathleen Kroll – a few years back I went to the School District and the Secretary of Juvenile Justice and they started a program at Lakes. I asked what the five worst communities for high schools were, and Lakes was one of them. A summer camp was started with 100% of kids involved in juvenile justice, even if they were Youth Corps (a diversion program). They were 8th and 9th grade, the School Board ran the academic morning session, DJJ did the transportation, and the Sheriff funded the ‘fun’ part in the afternoon – a boxing program. I don’t know how successful the program was because there was no oversight. The School Board got a grant of a couple of million to expand the program to other areas. I’m asking to look at a population a little younger than the Lakes program, looking at middle school years so that they are still vested, in general. In 8th to 9th grade there is usually a blockage because in three years if you flunk you automatically get passed up because of your age. But at 8th to 9th you need to meet the criteria to get up there. I would like the program for the summer, 8th to 9th grade. I am interested in wraparound collaborative partnerships with some academics. There are many honor roll delinquent children who fall through the cracks because they are not given the advantages of getting into AP courses. We could do something in the summer, because we know, statistically, that summer programs produce better education. If we succeed in getting an evidence‐based pilot it could


be a model for the country. It would be a collaborative between the schools, CSC, and the Department of Juvenile Justice. Tom Weber – I went to Judge Kroll’s court and the impact that Judge Kroll had was eye‐opening because it was a last chance for those kids. If you aren’t able to get with those kids because of lack of mentors, lack of programs, or lack of afterschool, the next step would potentially be the state penitentiary. Trying to get them into a summer program would be preventative, otherwise the cost to the taxpayer goes way up paying for their other criminal activities. Tom Lynch – Can we make it mandatory? Kathleen Kroll – Yes, if they are on probation. About 6,000 kids per year in Palm Beach County are diverted into diversion programs such as community service, Youth Court, but not probation. But anyone touching the Department of Juvenile Justice would be invited to the camp. The school would provide the facility, and the probation officers were trained in these kinds of kids. The Sheriff denied the funding for the afternoon ‘fun’ portion but we will work it out. Tom Lynch – It’s only in one school? Keith Oswald – Yes, I think it’s a variation right now. Kathleen Kroll – Dr. Bess told me she was going to try to expand it to other ones. Based on Lakes they went after a grant that expanded the program. Not the summer program, but a much bigger program coordinating probation, services, and school.

Summer Learning Programs (Video from Dr. Avossa) Robert Avossa (via video) – At the School District we have been very busy engaging the community in a deep conversation about our work, and have spoken to approximately 20,000 people in the development of our strategic plan. We have created four goals: i) to read on grade level by third grade; ii) high school readiness for middle school which includes behavior, attendance, and suspension; iii) increasing the high school graduation rate; and iv) post‐secondary success – increasing CTE certification, industry certification, AP and IB – looking carefully at disparities between White, Black and Hispanic students; and college entry and completion. Opportunities for investment for CSC: aligning resources, energy and effort matters. It’s important that I begin looking at the way dollars are invested at CSC, and do they align with some of the things the School District is trying to work on. It’s important that we create proof points. Short Term Opportunities:

Year‐Round Schools – partnering with a group like CSC might allow the School District, if funding is available, to create year‐round schools in Riviera Beach or the Glades. We might be able to fund 4 year‐round schools in each of those communities.

Summer Bridge – it is so important that students, particularly in the at‐risk communities, have enrichment activities. Children are stuck inside, not reading, writing, or doing math, and unfortunately it impacts the most at‐risk students: children living in poverty, Latino and African‐American students. I hope CSC would consider providing enrichment opportunities across the county, maybe providing science camps or STEM camps. There are some very good opportunities partnering with Discovery Education and really thinking about investing in enrichment, rather than remediation. Long‐Term Opportunities:

Dramatically expand pre‐K options. In next year’s budget cycle we may be able to increase the number of seats by 75% which will impact 1,000 more students. But we are not even close to being able to cover the number of kids that we need.

Creation of an Innovation Center – where community members and others can provide 12 months worth of resources and development for both pre‐K providers as well as the School District’s own students and its teachers.

Keith Oswald – When students were behind, even if they had a quality teacher, in a 6 hour day they would still always be behind what’s needed. The expanded learning opportunities for after school and the summer had not really been accessed in the past so there was a huge opportunity for CSC and the School District to work together. It was a great avenue for enrichment opportunities like STEM, such as providing all 2nd graders STEM enrichment activities and having fun with them. My frustration in 20 years as an educator is discussing the same disparities and gaps. Tom Lynch – We did a test project on summer reading three years ago in collaboration with the BRIDGES and some library systems, and we found that it really did work. We found that kids came back to school without a slide. Lisa Williams‐Taylor, Ph.D. – They actually had some gains. Tom Lynch – When they took the test they were up 15% to 20%. We can prove it is worth putting the money in. We found that, for many of the kids, it was the first time they had ever had their own book. Keith Oswald – We’d love all kids to have the same opportunity but we need to concentrate on those poverty areas. We are exploring opening up our media centers and libraries in schools one day per week so that kids could come in. Some of the research shows that if kids could have access to 10 different books throughout the summer it maintains


the slide that occurs. A lot of summer camps don’t have an academic component, they don’t have a certified teacher, and they don’t have curriculum. Quality in summer camps is an issue, especially at the adolescent age. Some summer camps have drop‐in programs. It would be relatively inexpensive to expand at the secondary level and provide those supports. Prime Time addresses mainly the elementary school age. We worked closely together in Delray Beach with Janet Meeks and are seeing a lot of good outcomes there, as well. Vince Goodman asked what plans were in place concerning discipline. Keith Oswald – There is a student code of conduct, and with new research it’s now called school‐wide positive behavior support. A data dashboard exists so any discipline referrals can be disaggregated – where they are being written, who was getting the referrals, so that targeted interventions could occur with individual students to provide those interventions. It was re‐writing your schoolwide expectations in a very positive way, but then it was explicitly teaching the expectation, something as simple as explicitly teaching the kids the expectation that after going to the bathroom they should wash and dry their hands, not assuming they know that. We’ve seen some reductions in our referrals and we still have a way to go to continue that training. It’s a comprehensive plan and it is tiered for those students receiving multiple discipline referrals or suspensions, how to connect them with services in the community so they could get that support. This is the area of our biggest challenge because we don’t have the social workers or the deep‐end supports that the kids need. Vince Goodman – do we have an effective in‐school suspension program in Palm Beach County, instead of sending a student home they could go to in‐school suspension instead of disrupting classes. Keith Oswald – part of our progressive discipline plan is that they would do in‐school suspension first, and all schools are supposed to have this in place as a first intervention. We need to work on quality, as some schools do it very well and some need work, but we are working more and more with our schools to not do the out‐of‐school suspension. You may have seen some of our data about what happens to an 8th grader suspended three times, their graduation rate is at 33%. Lisa Williams‐Taylor, Ph.D. – we need to start the Council meeting at 6:00 p.m., we will recess the meeting here and reconvene after the Council meeting. Tom Lynch – If we could concentrate on Riviera or the Glades and bring in STEM and reading, we could try a pilot and tie two or three things together. It could be funded through some of the excess surplus we have as a one‐time summer pilot. The key is whether or not it could be evaluated well enough to determine whether it is a project that works. Lisa Williams‐Taylor, Ph.D. – we could probably pull some preliminary results working with the School District, it takes some time to implement it before you can pull that data. Some preliminary results could be reviewed before we decide what we would do for next year. That’s what we did with the BRIDGES summer program, we were able to do enough of an evaluation to say let’s continue this the following year. We would have something but not a full scale evaluation, that would take some time. Tom Lynch – the good news is that you already have the people in place, the facilities, transportation, and know what needs to be done, which is half the battle. Lisa Williams‐Taylor, Ph.D.thanked everyone for their thoughtful participation. The meeting was recessed at 5:58 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 6:21 p.m. Lisa Williams‐Taylor, Ph.D. asked whether there were any other outstanding questions regarding previous discussions. Thomas Bean asked for more description around Birth to 22. Lisa Williams‐Taylor, Ph.D. – Birth to 22 is the collaboration between CSC, School District, Board of County Commissioners, United Way, and Career Source. There are twelve different community conversations happening where they are being updated about issues prevalent in the community, as well as a data team looking at all the indicators around “Steps to Success” (from the Planning Session PowerPoint slide) such as birth outcomes to graduation and career readiness. For each step identified they were looking at the data and breaking it down by race, ethnicity, English as a second language, and special needs. They were looking at gaps in services identified by the community conversations, and they wanted to have some funding set aside to allow CSC to partner with other organizations, whether it be in the 0 to 5 (age) area, or in other areas. There will be a Youth Master Plan coming forward at the end of summer/early fall which will identify those needs. When the Youth Master Plan was released they would come back to the Council to determine in which areas they would like to partner. Thomas Bean asked how many kids the $275,000 proposed for special needs would provide services for. Tanya Palmer – it was not currently assigned to any particular number of children at this point in time. The business plan that has been developed has talked about needing to fill gaps as it relates to:

Ensuring that families with children with special needs had appropriate information about how to access services, and how to sustain that;


Having a more robust website for families to access and find out where programs are available;

Supporting children with special needs in a variety of environments: after school and early care and education – how are the professional development needs of the staff supported, ensuring the staff were comfortable and capable of serving those children;

Addressing needs in the respite workforce. There has been a myriad of areas identified, and we are looking at continuing to build upon these areas over the upcoming years through the service delivery system. The funding would go towards supporting opportunities to support inclusion within the early care and afterschool system (and ensuring the workforce was prepared to do that), and looking at whether additional support was necessary for special needs equipment within those environments. Another consideration of the funding would be to continue to support the special needs helpline. Thomas Bean asked whether $275,000 was the right amount for this work, because the work sounded ambitious. Tanya Palmer – CSC would not be the only funder involved, it would be similar to the collaboration around the Youth Master Plan, the vision behind special needs was that it was a multi‐funder multi‐gear initiative. This would be the portion that CSC would recommend to have available as CSC’s amount of support. Thomas Bean clarified that $275,000 would be for the first year. Tanya Palmer – it would be an expense that would need to be sustained and annualized. Debra Robinson, M.D. asked whether there was a number attached to the Birth to 22 initiative. Lisa Williams‐Taylor, Ph.D. – there is no number attached at this point in time. We could put a $ limit. Tanya Palmer – what we really wanted to get from today’s discussion was what the costs may be (of areas to pursue) so we could begin to build those areas into the 16/17 budget. Lisa Williams‐Taylor, Ph.D. – reminded Council members that there was $2.6 million available to support any number of these areas suggested. Kathleen Kroll – Until you receive the Youth Master Plan how can you assess the extent of involvement from CSC? This also applies to the special needs area, I haven’t read that report but it’s the report that you’re responding to. Tanya Palmer – there is a report which outlines what they’d like to accomplish in years one, two and three, and the next step in the special needs area would be to convene a funder’s summit. At the summit each funding agency would outline the amount their Board had earmarked for the project and they could then build the work and plan around that budget. Lisa Williams‐Taylor, Ph.D. clarified that the earmarked amount would be an “up to” amount. Vince Goodman – asked how the amount of $275,000 would be utilized once the money was given to special needs. Lisa Williams‐Taylor, Ph.D. – staff would come back to the Council with a plan of exactly how the expenses would be used, and it was being proposed from a budgeting standpoint at the current time. Thomas Bean asked for clarification between the special needs set‐aside and the EBP training. Tanya Palmer – the EBP programming for therapeutic intervention is not associated with a special needs population. When talking about a special needs population they were discussing children with an established developmental delay. Some of the children may be in the delinquency or the dependency system at some point in time. The special needs area would be to work with children with autism or Down’s Syndrome, the full range of developmental special needs. Lisa Williams‐Taylor, Ph.D. – EBP would be mental health interventions around multi‐systemic therapy or functional family therapy. Thomas Bean asked whether $120,000 would be the right amount for the EBP work. Tanya Palmer – the amounts were determined looking at the costs associated with funding a team with the two modalities – FFT and the MST, and if there was interest in the community to bring in a different one they would have to take a look at that proposal. Debra Robinson, M.D. – I am having difficulty clarifying the difference between exploration and “go”. Tanya Palmer – Exploration in the case of the initiative to support the workforce in Healthy Beginnings may look at ways to do that, such as tuition support, and there would be much more discussion regarding take‐up rates, and whether CSC wanted to partner with a Choice school and think about different career paths. Because there is a lot more due diligence that needs to be conducted there would not be much of an opportunity to expend funding in this exploration during FY 16/17. They would, however, need direction from the Council to continue to explore this area because the Council thought it was an area of significant interest, and that would indicate that the Council was prepared to invest the human capital to conduct such exploration. In the case of a “go” or “no go” decision, there was a business plan in place which outlines what the funding needed to be, and it was a matter of the funders coming together to determine which piece of the pie they were committing to. The “go”/”no go” decisions would allow for


funding to be spent in the 16/17 fiscal year, and there is a limited amount of due diligence that needs to be conducted. Debra Robinson, M.D. – I am still not clear on the Birth to 22 initiative because I am unclear what I would be supporting. I want to support it, and it feels like if I say “go” that there’s a plan somewhere that would be activated, and I haven’t yet read it. Thomas Bean – I was having the same issue. The clarification here is that this is more around authorization and not appropriation. By saying “go” and “explore” it does not mean CSC is automatically going to spend $275,000 on special needs or an untold $ number on Birth to 22. It is to approve staff moving forward, and the difference between “go”/”no go” and “exploration” is how “baked” it is. Lisa Williams‐Taylor, Ph.D. – Even with a “go” decision staff would still be coming forward to the Council with an agenda item to authorize funding. But by approving the “go” it authorizes staff to sit down with other funders and discuss what CSC’s role could be. It would then have to be approved at a Council meeting. It’s an up to amount that the Board would be approving as an area in which it wanted to invest. Debra Robinson, M.D. – Can you give us the up to amount for the Birth to 22 initiative? Tanya Palmer – If you have $2.6 million available, thinking about the degree of the scope the Council wanted to assume, it may be that the Council says for summer camp and after school programming we will allocate $1.7 million in summer camp. That is serving the entire population without a special focus on delinquency or dependency. Judge Kroll’s suggestion was to support a summer camp at approximately $1,000 per child. Kathleen Kroll – Because you’d be partnering with other agencies the school paid for the teachers for the academic component, the school paid for building expenses, DJJ did the transportation expenses and had the probation officers on staff already paid for. I tried to get a $ number, but, because no one has been very successful in running a program there was no number to be had. Tanya Palmer – A typical scholarship for summer camp was around $1,080. If there were a smaller number of kids such as 50 the costs would be higher, or if we decided we didn’t want to spend more than $100,000 because we wanted to pilot the program it encapsulates it and gives us an “up to” amount to build into the budget. Kathleen Kroll – My goal would be to target the same five general high‐crime low‐achieving areas that CSC and the Criminal Justice Commission have targeted. Debra Robinson, M.D. – I will let go of my need to have a $ number. Tom Weber – They will come back to us with a number and plan before we say completely go. Chair Greg Langowski – Let’s start with one of the initiatives outlined and determine “go” or “no go”. Is there one that is at the forefront of everyone’s list? Thomas Bean – I’d like to support Judge Kroll and propose summer camp special populations. Chair Greg Langowski – I agree. Kathleen Kroll – I’m very excited, mostly because you have knowledge here, in this building, that could really make a difference, maybe even nationally. Chair Greg Langowski – Maybe the Sheriff can pitch in too, because he has participated previously. Kathleen Kroll – The more people you get, the stronger the program. Chair Greg Langowski – Would we have to vote on this? Lisa Williams‐Taylor, Ph.D. – I would think no. Thomas Sheehan – At this point it’s the consensus of the Council, if there’s a split you might want to take a vote to see. Chair Greg Langowski – So summer camp is a go. Thomas Sheehan – What I’m hearing is you want us to go forward with summer camp, and staff will take it and come back with a specific proposal. Tanya Palmer – We need to come up with a figure for the June budget. We won’t have a lot of details between now and June, we will need time to do more exploration. We’ll have to have a rubric of how we come up with a number. Kathleen Kroll – I’ve already asked a whole bunch of people to think about it such as DJJ and the school system. Tanya Palmer – The detailed plan of how this is going to come together may not be in place until November. Debra Robinson, M.D. – Is it going to happen summer 2016? Tanya Palmer – No, it is proposed for summer 2017. Debra Robinson, M.D. – I mean is there going to be a program for these kids in summer 2016, not the program we are proposing to fund for next year. Kathleen Kroll – I haven’t got the Sheriff yet, but I’m working on it. I don’t know. Debra Robinson, M.D. – Is there a reason CSC can’t fund it for this summer? Chair Greg Langowski – Do we have the dollars?


Lisa Williams‐Taylor, Ph.D. – Our dollars go through the County because they have the oversight to do licensing and ratios, so we’d have to work with the County to see who has been approved as service providers. Kathleen Kroll – I heard Lakes was the one that was likely to go, but the problem was that the guy who did the boxing program is no longer salaried by the Sheriff. What used to be $800 which was for whatever equipment they needed for the kids, would now include the issue of a payment for a contractor. Vince Goodman – I heard it was a very good program and they were doing an excellent job up there. Thomas Bean – Would it be $800 per child? Kathleen Kroll – That was the equipment because he used to be an employee and now he’s not. I think it ran 6 weeks over the summer. Lisa Williams‐Taylor, Ph.D. – That’s definitely something we can fund, with your approval. We have it in the budget. Debra Robinson, M.D. – For this summer? Kathleen Kroll – If you can I would be very grateful. Thank you. Lisa Williams‐Taylor, Ph.D. – We can work to make sure we get the person so I can make a connection with them. Chair Greg Langowski – Let’s jump back up to the top, Workforce in HB, is that something we want to explore? Thomas Bean – Yes. Debra Robinson, M.D. – I want us to explore everything under “explore”. Chair Greg Langowski – OK great. How about special needs? “Go” or “no go”? Tom Weber – My opinion is that all the “gos” should be a “go”, and the summer camp should be of the first priority. I don’t know the dollar amount on that but I’d like to do them all. Kathleen Kroll – Of course you want to work with the County for the Birth to 22 initiative where so much has been invested. Lisa Williams‐Taylor, Ph.D. – So your first priority is with the summer camps. How would you prioritize (under the “go” category) a) Special Needs, b) Birth to 22, or c) Therapeutic Interventions? Debra Robinson, M.D. – Mine would be Birth to 22, I think that’s an important initiative even though it’s still foggy what we’re talking about doing. Chair Greg Langowski – So that would be priority #2. Training on EBP? If we were to rate special needs or therapeutic interventions, what would be #3? Thomas Bean – I would put therapeutic interventions. Chair Greg Langowski – OK, and #4 would be special needs. And we’ll explore the summer learning programs for the school board, and then STEM and then the Pre‐K. Thomas Bean – From your point earlier, the STEM, Pre‐K and summer learning might end up being wrapped into one. Lisa Williams‐Taylor, Ph.D. – I have one question because special needs is #4 on the priority list – has the funding meeting come together yet, and is there any timeline that you are aware of to get this funding locked in? Tanya Palmer – The Unicorn Children’s Foundation has been able to secure some initial funding from an outside funder, we are waiting on that commitment to convene the community funders to come together to determine what it would look like moving forward. In year one it would focus on building out the referral and information resources and having the capacity to help navigate families to areas of support they needed, and to begin to address issues as it relates to the respite workforce. We know that families who have family members who have special needs, it’s very hard for them to leave and have their own time for self‐care if they don’t feel comfortable in having someone come into the home. The respite workforce has been challenged because of available pay, so there are training opportunities where people would feel more comfortable. Those are some of the initial needs they wanted to address. Lisa Williams‐Taylor, Ph.D. – The reason I wasn’t clear on the timeline is because if the Birth to 22 Master Plan comes out in September, do you feel that there will be a need to lock that down (of how much money we want to put to special needs) before the September date? Tanya Palmer – For purposes of the budget, yes. Lisa Williams‐Taylor, Ph.D. – We may come forward to the Council with the special needs figure if there is a specific amount asked for by the community funders group for this area. Vince Goodman referred to page 14 of the Planning Session booklet and asked which way the child abuse and neglect was trending. Tanya Palmer – In terms of the data on page 13, the rate of child abuse and neglect for CSC clients in fiscal year 14/15 was less than in the baseline group. In terms of what was happening in the community in this area there continues to be refinement regarding how the definition of child abuse and neglect methodology is applied, so it always becomes challenging to compare one year vs. three years later. This is one reason why we take a look at how the CSC population


fares compared to a match comparison group, this gives us a better feel whether our programs are able to make a difference. In terms of community level data, in the past year there were 1,980 children that were abused and neglected in calendar year 2015. Unfortunately, 43% of those cases fell within the age group of zero to five, CSC’s area of most concern. Children of those ages are more vulnerable which is one of the reasons why CSC invests in the programs it does, programs like Child First, where we are really trying to make some inroads. Lisa Williams‐Taylor, Ph.D. – this is one of the main reasons we brought Child First into Palm Beach County; the two top reasons that children are removed from the home are because of substance abuse and domestic violence. Child First really helps families that are experiencing some of these deeper‐end issues. We will be evaluating it to see whether it is having the desired impact which is a significant concern in our community. Vince Goodman – how do we evaluate it? Lisa Williams‐Taylor, Ph.D. – I highlighted it in the CEO Report, we are receiving dollars from the JPB Foundation, CSC is matching those dollars, and we will be undertaking a randomized control trial. This will be the second evaluation being conducted on Child First to look at it to make sure it’s working. Vince Goodman – I have a question for Judge Kroll. In your daily travels on the bench do you see much abuse? Kathleen Kroll – They change the criteria as new Secretaries of the Department of Children and Families (DCF) come into office, and they have their own safety methodology. What we determine as a child “safe” in the home has changed. The quick answer to your question is that the number of kids coming into care in Palm Beach County has increased, but they changed their method of determining whether a child is safe in a home. This is part of the reason why the numbers were going up. In Palm Beach County a DCF case worker determines whether or not a child is safe. In Broward the numbers are astronomical this year because it’s the Sheriff who determines whether or not a child is safe. It depends on your system and your safety methodology, it’s hard to compare year to year. Last year Palm Beach County was not so good in this area and this year it looks like we’re better, but I’m not so sure we’re really good. CSC funded a team to implement Child First, and the Early Childhood Court has started, and interestingly enough, the first two families to appear in Early Childhood Court are both women who had been abused themselves, they are DCF children abused, abandoned, and neglected who have now had their own children. It’s just by chance that this has happened, but it’s fortuitous that the Child First team has these families, I’ll be very interested to see their success rate.Vince Goodman – When you see clientele coming into your court do you ever consider which programs to refer? Kathleen Kroll – I have all the CSC contacts and I refer them often. Vince Goodman – Is it very difficult to do? Kathleen Kroll – I love my job. It’s as difficult as everyone’s job here.

WRAP UP

Chair Greg Langowski – I wanted to say thank you to all the staff for all your work on the Planning Session, it is appreciated. The meeting was adjourned at 6:48 p.m.

_________ Vincent Goodman, Secretary Lisa Williams‐Taylor, Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer

#: 2


AGENDA ITEM: 2B TITLE: Minutes – April 28, 2016 Council Meeting RECOMMENDATION: I recommend the Council approve the Minutes of the April 28, 2016 Council Meeting as presented.

CHILDREN’S SERVICES COUNCIL OF PALM BEACH COUNTY COUNCIL MEETING

April 28, 2016, 4:30 p.m.

MINUTES 1. Call to Order

Chair Langowski called the meeting to order at 6:06 p.m.

Present: Thomas Bean Vince Goodman Kathleen Kroll Greg Langowski Thomas E. Lynch Debra Robinson, M.D. Thomas P. Weber

Excused: Robert M. Avossa, Ed.D.; Dennis Miles; Shelley Vana

A. Invocation – led by Vince Goodman B. Pledge of Allegiance – led by Chair Langowski C. Presentations

2. Minutes

A. March 31, 2016 Council Meeting

A motion by Bean/Goodman to approve the Minutes of the March 31, 2016 Council meeting as presented was approved by unanimous vote.

3. Public Comment – Agenda Items Cory Neering, Vice President of Education, Planned Parenthood of South Florida and the Treasure Coast, Inc. (“Planned Parenthood”) stated that for over 20 years Planned Parenthood had enjoyed a strong relationship with CSC. He stated that they had entered together into the shared goal of helping young people to be healthy and successful adults. He stated that CSC had been a great partner in programs such as The Adult Role Models program, and the Michael Carrera Teen Pregnancy Prevention model, Teen Time, and most recently the Wyman TOP® (Teen Outreach Program). He stated that Planned Parenthood had delivered the TOP® program through CSC funding via a grant from the Urban League of Palm Beach County, Inc. (“Urban League”). He recognized Patrick Franklin, CEO of Urban League. Mr. Neering stated that through the TOP® program young people had received the skills and tools needed to avoid risky behavior, and develop leaderships skills to carry them into the future. He stated that the curriculum included communication, goal setting, values, sexual health, relationships, and dealing with peer pressure. He stated that in 2016 the relationship with CSC would unfortunately end and that it was not because CSC or Planned Parenthood were walking

Children’s Services Council of Palm Beach County April 28, 2016 Council Meeting Page: 2

160428 Minutes.doc

away, but because Florida’s State Legislature had politicized the work of Planned Parenthood and had ignored the real impact their policies would have. He stated that H.B. 1411 which would go into effect July 1, 2016 prohibited State and local dollars from funding organizations that provide abortion care, even when those funds go to education and prevention services. Mr. Neering stated that they were deeply disappointed by this law which, while intended to damage Planned Parenthood, would instead remove a vital program which helps young people make mature, responsible decisions. He stated that they hoped to secure other funding which would allow them to continue this important work, and that they were truly grateful for the longtime commitment of CSC. He stated that he had personally been a part of helping thousands of young people craft and make decisions about post education, and not becoming a teen parent, and that he was a firm believer that it took a community to raise a child, and CSC could not solve all the ills in Palm Beach County alone. He stated that CSC nonetheless had always been at the forefront of helping young people make these decisions, and he was happy to have been a part of that. He thanked the Council for its investment in Planned Parenthood, and ultimately and most importantly, for its investment in young people in the community. Vince Goodman stated that the program had served approximately 660 students and that it had provided skills, he asked what kind of skills the program had provided. Mr. Neering stated that TOP® was about helping young people make mature, responsible decisions, but that it was done through a myriad of components. He stated that it was about giving the young people the authority and opportunity to express themselves, one‐on‐one, unlike typical afterschool programs. He stated that it was really about giving voice to the young people, and sexual health was just a small piece of it, it was really about communication, values, and adolescent youth development life skills. He stated that it was the decision of CSC that the program would continue in the community. He stated that there were many other great programs out there. Vince Goodman asked what percentage of the program worked with teenage boys, and what percentage girls, and suggested that Mr. Neering could break it down demographically and ethnically also if he desired. Mr. Neering stated that he would give a perspective, which was the perspective of Planned Parenthood. He stated that the majority of young people who worked with Planned Parenthood came from single parent homes and instances of low socio‐economic issues. He stated that most had exposure to some sort of cycle of teen pregnancy. He stated that the Wyman TOP® program figured that if you give a young person a vision, decisions of abortion and other such things don’t come up because a young person is too focused on finishing school and being a role model in the community. He stated that the young people were African American and Latino, Title I schools, and in afterschool settings. Lisa Williams‐Taylor, Ph.D. stated that they could provide the demographic breakdown to Mr. Goodman. Mr. Goodman stated that it sounded like a very good program, and normally when you had a good program you don’t get funded properly. He stated that many programs received only enough money to just get by, not to expand or do innovative things. He asked Mr. Neering whether he thought the program was adequately funded. Mr. Neering stated that the funding was going away so it was a moot point. He stated that there could always be an expansion of programming, and if they had an opportunity they would do it. He stated that this was true of any youth‐serving program out there, there was always a young person


160428 Minutes.doc

out there whose needs were not being met, who didn’t have the opportunity to be reached, typically because of funding.

4. Council Committees:

A. Finance Committee

Tom Lynch stated that the Finance Committee had met prior to the Planning Session and that the March 31, 2016 Financial Statements had been approved. He stated that the budget for 2016/17 had been discussed, and that the tax base for that period was expected to increase by 6.56%, which would call for a millage rate in the area of .6952. He stated that these figures didn’t need to be approved until the June Council meeting. Mr. Lynch stated that the Finance Committee, with the rationale that CSC needed two months of operational funding to carry it through until property taxes were collected by the Tax Collector’s office by November/ December, recommended that the fund balance be set at 27.5% of the CSC budget as surplus. A motion by Weber/Goodman to approve the March 31, 2016 Financial Statements, Finance Committee Minutes of March 31, 2016, and retention of 27.5% of CSC’s budget in the Fund Balance was approved by unanimous vote.

B. Personnel Committee – no report

5. Consent Agenda

1. Additions, Deletions, Substitutions Chair Langowski stated that there had been a substitution to Agenda Item 5A(2) (Reference #3): he stated that the verbiage had been revised, and that Resolution #16‐013 and a recommendation had been added.

2. Items to be Pulled for Discussion – There were no Agenda items pulled for discussion purposes. 3. Adoption of the Revised Consent Agenda and Walk‐in Warrants List

A motion by Goodman/Weber to approve the revised Consent Agenda and Walk‐in Warrants list was approved by unanimous vote.

A. Program

1. Update on Corrective Action Plan – Lutheran Services – For informational purposes only; no action required.


160428 Minutes.doc

2. Resolution #16‐013 authorizing changes to TOP® (Teen Outreach Program) with the Urban

League of Palm Beach County, Inc. (Revised) – Approved by Consent

B. Business

1. Warrants List – Approved by Consent

2. Proclamation Declaring May, 2016 as Teen Pregnancy Prevention Month – Approved by

Consent 3. Resolution #16‐012 Authorizing Amendment of Agreement with SRA Research Group, Inc. to

Conduct a Pre‐ and Post‐Campaign Market Survey – Approved by Consent

6. Non Consent Agenda

A. Business – N/A

B. For Informational Purposes Only – N/A

7. Walk‐In Items – N/A 8. Chief Executive Officer’s Report

1. Follow Up from Prenatal Plus Presentation

Lisa Williams‐Taylor, Ph.D. stated that the CEO Report included the follow up items from the Prenatal Plus presentation that was presented to the Council in February.

2. Communications Update Dr. Williams‐Taylor outlined two events to which Council members were invited: i) Happily Ever After Begins with Reading media event would take place Tuesday, May 10, 2016; ii) Safe Kids Day would take place Saturday, May 14, 2016 from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., a child

safety resource fair for families. Vince Goodman stated that he had noted in the CEO Report that some staff had been with CSC for 10 years and 15 years, and some a lot longer. He congratulated staff and encouraged them to keep up the good work.

9. Legal Reports 10. Individual Appearances – Non‐Agenda Items – N/A 11. Council Comments


160428 Minutes.doc

Chair Langowski stated that CSC’s longtime Chief Financial Officer, Bill Cosgrove, was not present that evening and that he would be retiring at the end of the month. He thanked Bill for all his hardworking years of service at CSC. He stated that Jen Diehl would be taking over as the Chief Financial Officer. 12. Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 6:20 p.m. ________________________________ _________________________________________ Vincent Goodman, Secretary Lisa Williams‐Taylor, Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer

#: 3


AGENDA ITEM: 5A(1)

TITLE: Consent Agenda – Program Resolution #16‐014 Authorizing Renewal of ACCESS Agreement CSC STAFF: Debra Gotlib, Director of Program Performance SUMMARY: CSC has had a contractual agreement with the Department of Children and Families (DCF) since August 2009 to jointly fund Economic Self Sufficiency Specialists (ACCESS) located at our Healthy Beginning Entry Agencies and at the Guatemalan Mayan Center (GMC). The three positions support the navigation services at our entry agencies and at GMC by processing Medicaid and other DCF program applications. The support of the DCF ACCESS workers simplifies the application process for the client and helps to eliminate delays. Timely and correct application leads to earlier identification of a medical home and earlier access to prenatal and infant medical care. Navigation services is one of the most utilized services in the Healthy Beginnings system. FISCAL IMPACT:

The total cost of renewing this contractual agreement from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2018 will not exceed $175,000. The funds to support this agenda item are budgeted in the Program Strategy Budget in the Other Program Services line item.

RECOMMENDATION: I recommend the Council approve Resolution #16‐014 authorizing the renewal of the Department of Children and Families’ ACCESS agreement and authorizing the Chief Executive Officer to execute the necessary agreement for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2018 in an amount not to exceed $175,000, subject to the Council’s annual budget and TRIM process.

16‐014 DCF ACCESS renewal

RESOLUTION #16-014

RESOLUTION OF THE CHILDREN’S SERVICES COUNCIL OF PALM BEACH COUNTY AUTHORIZING RENEWAL OF THE

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES’ ACCESS AGREEMENT

WHEREAS, the Children’s Services Council of Palm Beach County (“Council”) has jointly

funded three Economic Self Sufficiency Specialists (ACCESS) positions together with the

Department of Children and Families (“DCF”), to process Medicaid and other DCF program

applications; and

WHEREAS, the Council desires to continue such an arrangement; and

WHEREAS, DCF also desires to continue such an arrangement.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF THE CHILDREN’S

SERVICES COUNCIL OF PALM BEACH COUNTY that the Chief Executive Officer is

authorized to execute the necessary agreements for the renewal of agreement #PFP-15-10 with

the Department of Children and Families from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2018 not to exceed

a total of $175,000, with funding for future fiscal years to be subject to the Council’s annual

budget and TRIM process.

The foregoing Resolution was offered by Council Member ________________________

who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Council Member

_______________________ and upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:

Robert M. Avossa, Ed.D. Thomas Bean Vincent Goodman Kathleen Kroll Gregory A. Langowski Thomas E. Lynch

Dennis Miles Debra Robinson, M.D. Shelley Vana Thomas P. Weber

The Chairman thereupon declared the Resolution duly passed and adopted this 26th day of May, 2016. APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL CHILDREN’S SERVICES COUNCIL SUFFICIENCY OF PALM BEACH COUNTY BY: ___________________________ BY: ___________________________ Thomas A. Sheehan, III Gregory A. Langowski, Chair Attorney for Children’s Services Council of Palm Beach County BY: ____________________________ Lisa Williams-Taylor, Ph.D. Chief Executive Officer

#: 4


AGENDA ITEM: 5A(2) TITLE: Consent Agenda – Program Revision to Resolution #15‐017 Authorizing Agreement for Child First Evaluation

CSC STAFF: Randy Palo, Director of Community Planning & Partnerships; Laura Fleischman, Research & Evaluation Officer SUMMARY: On May 28, 2015 the Council approved receipt of a $750,000 grant from the JPB Foundation and authorized an agreement for up to $1,500,000 with the Research Triangle Institute (RTI) to complete a randomized controlled trial research study of the Child First program in conjunction with a study funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. As reported to the Council in the April 2016 CEO Report, the details of the research design and funding arrangements have been finalized, and the study is ready to begin on June 1, 2016. Due to the time it took to finalize the design, funding, and contract negotiations for the study it is necessary to revise the Resolution from the Council regarding the dates of the agreement with RTI. FISCAL IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATION: I recommend the Council approve a revision to Resolution #15‐017 to revise the funding period of the agreement with Research Triangle Institute to June 1, 2016 through May 31, 2020. The Chief Executive Officer is still authorized to sign the agreement.

DM#169469 15‐017 Accept Child First RCT Eval Grant‐Agmt w Research Triangle Institute for Eval

RESOLUTION #15-017 (revised 5/26/16)

RESOLUTION OF THE CHILDREN’S SERVICES COUNCIL OF PALM BEACH COUNTY AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF CHILD FIRST RCT EVALUATION

GRANT FROM JPB FOUNDATION AND AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT WITH RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE FOR EVALUATION

WHEREAS, in order to achieve the best possible child outcomes, the Children’s

Services Council of Palm Beach County (the “Council”) desires to implement evidence-

based programs for children in Palm Beach County, and has begun implementing the

Child First program in this endeavor; and

WHEREAS, the Child First program has been evaluated using the most rigorous

evaluation method, a randomized controlled trial (RCT); and

WHEREAS, the Council has the opportunity to partner with The Robert Wood

Johnson Foundation (RWJF) to conduct such an RCT evaluation. RWJF used a

competitive bid process and selected Research Triangle Institute to plan its four-year

evaluation of Child First in Connecticut for children ages 4 and 5, and the Council

desires to engage Research Triangle Institute for expansion of this RCT evaluation for

children ages 0-3; and

WHEREAS, match funds from the JPB Foundation (“JPB”) has been approved

by JPB for $750,000 in match funding (on a 1:1 matching ratio) for the RCT evaluation.


SERVICES COUNCIL OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, that the Chief Executive Officer is

authorized to: i) accept the Child First RCT Evaluation grant from the JPB Foundation in

the amount of $750,000; and ii) execute an agreement with Research Triangle Institute

for up to $1,500,000 based on an approved evaluation plan for the period June 1, 2016

through May 31, 2020, subject to the Council’s annual budget and TRIM approval

process.

The foregoing Resolution was offered by Council Member __________________




Dennis Miles Debra Robinson, M.D. Shelley Vana Thomas P. Weber The Chairman thereupon declared the Resolution duly passed and adopted this 26th day of May, 2016.

Resolution #15‐017 Page 2 of 2

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL CHILDREN’S SERVICES COUNCIL SUFFICIENCY OF PALM BEACH COUNTY BY: ___________________________ BY: ___________________________ Thomas A. Sheehan, III Gregory A. Langowski, Chair Attorney for Children’s Services Council of Palm Beach County BY: ____________________________ Lisa Williams-Taylor, Ph.D. Chief Executive Officer

#: 5


AGENDA ITEM: 5B(1) TITLE: Consent Agenda – Business Warrants List CSC STAFF: Jen Diehl, Chief Financial Officer RECOMMENDATION: I recommend the Council approve the Warrants List, in accordance with the established budgets for each of the expensed items, as presented.

Children's Services Council

Warrants List

May 26, 2016

Walk-In

PO-16-1265 Alpha Media Radio air time to support SafeMap App 4/11-6/15-16 $25,194.00

PO-16-1266 Empowering Champions Enrichment activities Summer Camp for Youth PB Lakes Summer Academy $7,000.00

PO-16-1267 American Express CPC Adobe Creative Suite update to Creative Cloud $599.88

PO-16-1268 American Express CPC Employment Ad for Director of Business Analytics $395.00

PO-16-1269 American Express CPC Ad for Hispanic Chamber - Triunfo Look Book 2016 $250.00

PO-16-1270 Elizabeth Clark Mileage reimbursement $31.32

PO-16-1271 American Express CPC Meeting supplies Wellness Fair 2016 $119.13

PO-16-1272 Tempera Graham Tuition reimbursement $1,773.10

PO-16-1273 NonProfit Technologies Prof SVC provided SWilliams assist with payroll import 4/12-16 $124.50

PO-16-1274 American Express CPC Meeting supplies for Celebrate Our Success $282.50

PO-16-1275 American Express CPC Meeting Supplies for Biometric Screening $249.23

PO-16-1276 American Express CPC CPP Booster Training - meeting supplies 5/23/16 $470.00

PO-16-1277 American Express CPC Photo Voice meeting supplies 5/23/16 $140.00

PO-16-1278 Mobile Services 5000 HMHB/CSC Imprinted plastic bags $2,940.00

PO-16-1279 American Express CPC Decor Balloons for Wellness Fair $61.44

PO-16-1280 Avis Rent A Car DGottlib toll adj from 3-16 $17.50

PO-16-1281 American Express CPC JBartosek hotel & gas rental car Championsgate FL Grade Level Reading Campaign $280.44

PO-16-1282 Avis Rent A Car JBartosek rental car Championsgate FL Grade Level Reading Campaign 5/31-16 $112.75

PO-16-1283 American Express CPC CPotter hotel Championsgate FL Grade Level Reading Campaign 5/31-16 $230.44

PO-16-1284 Regina Battle Travel reimbursement Washington DC EC-LINC Meeting 5/16-16 $30.67

PO-16-1285 Amazon.com Tilting Wall Mount & Proximity Card Reader $187.03

PO-16-1286 Office Depot Office supplies $22.40

PO-16-1287 Shelley Parker Travel reimbursement Daytona Beach FL Head Start presentation 4/19-16 $61.34

PO-16-1288 Laura Fleischman Travel advance Princeton NJ Child First meeting at RWJF 6/29-16 $61.33

PO-16-1289 American Express CPC LFleischman hotel train shuttle Princeton NJ Child First at RWJF 6/29-16 $61.33

PO-16-1290 American Express CPC LFleischman airfare Princeton NJ Child First at RWJF 6/29-16 $425.20

PO-16-1291 Diehl Jennifer Mileage reimbursement $25.92

PO-16-1292 American Express CPC CPP BoosterAll Day Training $329.60

PO-16-1293 FL Government Finance Officers Officers Association Membership Fee JDiehl $35.00

PO-16-1294 FL Government Finance Officers 2016 Annual Conference Registration JDiehl 6/11/15-16 $440.00

1


Warrant List

May 26,2016

Document No Vendor Name Description Total

PO-16-1130 Office Depot Office supplies $194.74

PO-16-1131 Avis Rent A Car JGoodman rental car Cocoa Beach Florida Children's Council Research Committee 5/3-16 $37.59

PO-16-1132 American Express CPC JGoodman gas rental car Cocoa Beach Florida Children's Council Research Committee 5/3-16 $40.00

PO-16-1133 American Express CPC Recertification fee for HR Certification Institute STozzi $150.00

PO-16-1134 American Express CPC Subscription renewal Progressive Business Compliance Posters $134.85

PO-16-1135 American Express CPC JColeman airfare two one-ways Baltimore MD NAEYC Professional Development Institute 6/4-16 $262.58

PO-16-1136 LaNita Sanders LSanders travel reimbursement Albuquerque NM Community Schools National Forum 4/5-16 $86.33

PO-16-1137 Amy Blechman ABlechman travel advance Baltimore MD NAEYC Professional Development Institute 6/4-16 $194.46

PO-16-1138 Jennifer Coleman JColeman travel advance Baltimore MD NAEYC Professional Development Institute 6/4-16 $199.34

PO-16-1139 American Express CPC Meeting supplies Celebrate Success $225.91

PO-16-1140 Outside Pubs Outside Pubs delivery of 3K books from the School District warehouse to CSC $302.50

PO-16-1141 Palm Beach Newspaper Marketing Strategy & plan to support Embrace Each Day parenting campaign website & app $7,500.00

PO-16-1142 American Express CPC Registration for STozzi FAU $185.00

PO-16-1143 American Express CPC 1 year renewal for MRoedel's HOW magazine subscription $29.96

PO-16-1144 American Express CPC JBart's registration the Palm Beach Chamber's Business Awards $40.00

PO-16-1145 News Service of Florida Annual Subscription $1,976.00

PO-16-1146 Three B. Corporation Reprint 100 Strong Minds Foam Board signs $1,042.00

PO-16-1147 PBC Tax Collector Prorated share of tax notice postage costs 2015 $7,796.00

PO-16-1148 American Express CPC HBPBC production & training domain name renewal (5 Years) $369.90

PO-16-1149 American Express AEBTA ABlechman airfare Baltimore MD NAEYC Professional Development Institute 6/4-16 $267.46

PO-16-1150 American Express CPC ABlechman registr hotel taxis airport parking Baltimore NAEYC Professional Development Institute 6/4-16 $1,464.38

PO-16-1151 American Express CPC JColeman registr hotel luggage taxis airport parking Baltimore NAEYC Profess Development Institute 6/4-16 $1,559.38

PO-16-1152 Ron Bazil Mileage reimbursement $87.43

PO-16-1153 American Express CPC 400 Promotional bracelets Teen Pregnancy Awareness Month $101.83

PO-16-1154 American Express CPC Vertical Hard Plastic Badge Holders $252.74

PO-16-1155 American Express CPC Registration LWilliams-Taylor to attend the 2016 Chamber of Commerce Business Award Event $40.00

PO-16-1156 Kaeser and Blair CSC 30th Anniversary Hats $690.36

PO-16-1157 OUTFRONT Media LLC New Vinyl art for 10 billboards HEA Summer Reading 4/29-16-5/6-16 $8,500.00

PO-16-1158 Eco-Product Plates & cutlery for staff $1,814.56

PO-16-1159 Amazon.com 12V APC Back-UPS CS 350 UPS batteries $87.80

PO-16-1160 Delores G Haynes Mileage reimbursement $57.78

PO-16-1161 Charles Palo Mileage reimbursement $104.66

PO-16-1162 Office Depot Spray adhesive & foam core Teen Pregnancy Awareness Display $21.85

PO-16-1163 American Express CPC JBartosek reimbursed CSC for Amex. charge $39.55

PO-16-1164 Maria A Peralta Mileage reimbursement $89.64

PO-16-1166 American Express CPC Planning Session/Council meeting supplies $101.26

PO-16-1167 Publix Planning Session/Council meeting supplies $20.17

PO-16-1168 American Express CPC EC LINC DULCE Webinar supplies 4/28-16 $138.89

PO-16-1169 American Express CPC CSCPBC.xyz domain renewal for 1 Year $37.99

PO-16-1170 American Express CPC TPalmer hotel baggage airport parking taxis Washington DC 5/16-16 $245.34

PO-16-1171 Children's Hospital Consultant CWilbanks registration Touchpoints Forum Providence RI 7/21-16 $450.00

PO-16-1172 American Express AEBTA Consultant CWilbanks airfare to Providence RI Touchpoints Forum 7/21-16 $506.70

PO-16-1173 American Express CPC Consultant CWilbanks hotel taxi Providence RI Touchpoints Forum 7/21-16 $336.88

PO-16-1174 Audra Agramonte MIleage reimbursement $14.04

PO-16-1175 Shana Cooper Mileage reimbursement $38.88

PO-16-1176 Anne Denis Travel reimbursement Columbia SC Triple P training 4/6-16 $126.68

PO-16-1177 Jean Lestage Travel reimbursement Columbia SC Triple P training 4/6-16 $124.01

PO-16-1178 Debbie Manigat Tuition reimbursement $1,675.00

PO-16-1179 Sharon Tozzi Meeting Supplies for Wellness Fair $28.62

PO-16-1180 Avis Rent A Car JColeman rental car Palmetto FL ELC Manatee County 5/12-16 $71.48

PO-16-1181 American Express CPC JColeman hotel & gas for rental car Palmetto FL ELC Manatee County 5/12-16 $139.00

PO-16-1182 American Express CPC Zero to Three Journal Author Spotlight Webinar 5/12-16 $15.00

PO-16-1183 SRA Research Group Amendment to increase agreement for Market Survey and Focus Groups $1,868.00

PO-16-1184 Dell Marketing LP Dell Monitors & Soundbars for new employees $1,230.00

PO-16-1185 Lori Miller-Rososhansky Mileage reimbursement $30.60

PO-16-1186 American Express CPC HSC Annual Report $70.00

PO-16-1187 Waco Filter-Miami HVAC filters $990.35

PO-16-1188 Air Around the Clock Service call ice maker $105.00

PO-16-1190 Solar Gard of Boynton Interior Window tint - ELC $130.00

PO-16-1191 MSP Electric Replace fuses $224.10

PO-16-1192 American Express CPC Internal Auditors Performing an Effective Quality Assessment Webinar 9-16 $850.00

PO-16-1193 Energy Solutions Voltage conversion site lighting parking lot rewire site lighting panel for LED lighting change out $2,142.25

PO-16-1194 Amazon.com Transcription earbuds and file sorters $51.97

PO-16-1195 Maria Alexandra Paladines Mileage reimbursement $67.50

PO-16-1196 Lisa Williams-Taylor Milleage reimbursement $320.41

1


Warrant List

May 26,2016

PO-16-1197 MTS Software Solutions Imaging project to scan CSC Council related permanent records $16,602.00

PO-16-1198 American Express CPC AGyauMoyer Tugg Movies Paper Tigers 4/25-16 $87.00

PO-16-1199 Deidra F Gibson Mileage reimbursement $61.02

PO-16-1200 John Bartosek Mileage reimbursement $132.30

PO-16-1201 FL Business Technologies RightFax Maintenance Renewal $2,876.00

PO-16-1205 American Express CPC CAFR submission GFOA FY 14-15 $505.00

PO-16-1206 Gold Star Graphic 30th Anniversary Banners Gommets $117.00

PO-16-1207 American Express CPC Employment Ad Director of Accounting $400.00

PO-16-1208 American Express CPC Employment Ad Director of Accounting $150.00

PO-16-1209 Irene Apolinar Mileage reimbursement $56.16

PO-16-1211 Clear Copy Business cards for staff $140.00

PO-16-1212 Publix CEO's Group Working $41.44

PO-16-1213 City of Boynton Beach Room rental Intracoastal Park Child first Workshop 9/22-16 $400.00

PO-16-1214 Corporate Executive Board Metrics That Matter Learning Analytics Software & Support 6-16-7-16 $18,000.00

PO-16-1215 American Express CPC LSanders & IZayas hotel Palmetto FL Raising A Reader Site Visit 5/12-16 $322.20

PO-16-1216 Amazon.com Network Wire Punch Down Impact Tool Universal Keystone Jack Punch Down Stand IT & supplies $54.82

PO-16-1217 American Express CPC RBattle hotel airport parking taxis baggage Washington DC 5/16-16 $245.34

PO-16-1218 Lisa Williams-Taylor Travel reimbursement Cocoa Beach- FLCSC Board meeting $15.34

PO-16-1219 American Express CPC Program Learning Day meeting supplies $127.77

PO-16-1220 Publix Program Learning Day meeting supplies $7.58

PO-16-1221 Karen Brandi Travel reimbursement Smart Start conference presenter Greensboro NC 5/3-16 $8.41

PO-16-1222 FL Dept. Children & Families Service Agreement ACCESS Employees provide support to outreach public assist applications 7/1-9/30-16 $21,339.00

PO-16-1223 Palm Beach Post Legal notice in PBPost for ECC meeting 5/10/16 $65.36

PO-16-1224 Jose Cabrera Tuition reimbursement $3,863.70

PO-16-1225 Charles Beneby Tuition reimbursement $1,414.85

PO-16-1226 Ron Bazil Travel reimbursement Miami FL Regional Compliance & Ethics Conference $80.64

PO-16-1227 Energy Solutions Wordwide Voltage Conversion site lighting & additional lighting to improve building security $8,682.25

PO-16-1228 Research Triangle Institute Evaluation Child First fy1516 $154,101.33

PO-16-1229 PB Behavioral Health Welness Training and Consultation recarding Columbia Suicidality Scale $750.00

PO-16-1230 Office Depot Office Supplies for Admin & Staff $383.96

PO-16-1231 American Express CPC ITMPI Membership SDavey $199.00

PO-16-1232 American Express CPC STozzi hotel Stuart FL Certificate Program in Public Records 5/19-16 $91.00

PO-16-1233 Jennifer Coleman Travel reimbursement Palmetto FL ELC Manatee County RAR 5/12-16 $30.67

PO-16-1234 Gold Star Graphic Reprint of 4750 Baby Blues & 4750 Coping with Crying brochures HomeSafe $735.00

PO-16-1235 American Express CPC Replacement Battery MRoedel's MacBook Pro 17 $154.75

PO-16-1236 Amazon.com Tableclothes for employee events $54.20

PO-16-1237 Clear Copy Reprints of 4750 Better Sleep flyers & 4750 Congrats on the Birth $740.00

PO-16-1238 American Express CPC Constant Contact email marketing training registration fee $30.00

PO-16-1239 American Express CPC Google Play developer registration fee Android version of SafeMap app $25.00

PO-16-1240 American Express CPC Constant Contact Email marketing training level 2 registration fee $59.00

PO-16-1241 American Express CPC FL Chamber of Commerce Earners Learners Summit registration JBart & CPotter $390.00

PO-16-1242 international Buiness Machine Annual Mnt SPSS Statistics Custom Tables & Decision Trees $12,882.60

PO-16-1243 Centric Consultant Development of SafeMap App for Android Devices $5,000.00

PO-16-1244 Office Depot Meeting supplies for Child First Training $35.63

PO-16-1245 Florida Philanthropic Network Florida Philanthropic Network Annual Membership $2,500.00

PO-16-1246 Robert Kurimski Travel reimbursement Tallahassee Florida Government Technology Conference 5/11-16 $76.67

PO-16-1247 American Express CPC Employment Ad for Budget Specialist with GFOA May 2016 $150.00

PO-16-1248 American Express CPC Employment Ad for Communications Specialist with PRSA May 2016 $350.00

PO-16-1249 Alejandro Esquivel Second travel advance mileage Daytona FL FRMA conference 5/24-16 $217.03

PO-16-1250 Amy Blechman Travel advance Summer One Goal conference Tampa FL 7/20-16 $122.66

PO-16-1251 American Express CPC ABlechman hotel gas rental car Tampa FL Summer One Goal conference 7/20-16 $304.56

PO-16-1252 Avis Rent A ABlechman rental car Tampa FL Summer One Goal conference 7/20-16 $135.34

PO-16-1253 American Express CPC Employment Ad for AWC for Communications Specialist May 2016 $135.00

PO-16-1254 PC Solutions & Integration Purchase of new core switch infrastructure& reconfigure routing on new switches $39,753.00

PO-16-1255 Triple P America Triple P Standard Level 4 Training $33,085.00

PO-16-1256 United Protection Service Provide Clean Agent Fire Suppression System Testing & annual/semiannual inspections $700.00

PO-16-1257 MDH Graphic Services Reprints of 5000 HMHB Safe Sleep Brochures $992.00

PO-16-1258 School District of Palm Beach CountyAmendment Salary & Benefit Increase Sepcialist Evaluation & Test Development fy1516 $3,205.00

PO-16-1259 The McGraw Hill Reprint Homesafe Quarterly 5K Developmental Stages Loving Bond Safe Sleep CSC Folders $3,098.00

PO-16-1260 Burstein Jon Mileage reimbursement $118.80

PO-16-1261 Publix Leadership Roundtablemeeting $34.46

PO-16-1262 American Express CPC Healthy Start Coalition meeting $72.00

PO-16-1263 American Express CPC Youth Master Plan Task Force meeting $338.16

PO-16-1264 Publix Youth Master Plan Task Force meeting $22.56

2

Allocations Children's Services Council

May 26, 2016

Warrant Payable To Description

TR241CB15/16 Cathy Belle dba Taking Care Babies Reimb Exp Apr - Sept 15/16Strong Minds 835.20TR237LL15/16 Lo's Little Learners Reimb Exp Apr - Sept 15/16Strong Minds Pending TR243HS15/16 Home & School Connection University Reimb Exp Apr - Sept 15/16Strong Minds Pending

June 2016Payroll

Children's Services CouncilMay 26, 2016

Check Amount Check Date Description13915 6/15/16 Wells Fargo Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613916 $2,141.33 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613917 $1,558.89 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613918 $1,814.37 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613919 $1,579.19 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613920 $1,869.20 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613921 $1,863.47 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613922 $3,854.26 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613923 $1,909.07 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613924 $3,129.70 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613925 $1,322.89 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613926 $4,256.25 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613927 $2,046.05 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613928 $4,470.28 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613929 $833.57 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613930 $1,559.00 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613931 $2,359.42 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613932 $2,617.08 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613933 $2,242.97 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613934 $1,301.52 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613935 $3,082.65 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613936 $2,514.54 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613937 $1,657.18 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613938 $2,359.25 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613939 $2,051.00 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613940 $1,886.72 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613941 $2,137.28 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613942 $2,124.49 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613943 $2,027.14 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613944 $1,559.54 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613945 $2,367.12 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613946 $2,861.15 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613947 $2,757.35 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613948 $1,830.21 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613949 $1,871.02 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613950 $2,328.33 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613951 $1,706.70 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613952 $1,275.45 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613953 $1,501.26 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613954 $1,921.28 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613955 $2,608.65 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613956 $2,673.69 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613957 $1,541.77 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613958 $1,695.78 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613959 $2,133.04 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613960 $1,963.01 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613961 $1,291.18 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613962 $1,057.71 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613963 $2,299.66 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613964 $2,032.35 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613965 $2,214.69 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613966 $2,809.05 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613967 $1,371.15 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613968 $2,082.31 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613969 $1,444.95 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613970 $2,084.09 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613971 $2,272.74 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/16

June 2016Payroll


Check Amount Check Date Description13972 $1,829.52 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613973 $2,021.35 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613974 $1,843.32 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613975 $2,070.98 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613976 $1,457.56 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613977 $1,817.33 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613978 $2,131.59 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613979 $4,996.13 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613980 $1,887.18 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613981 $2,913.24 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613982 $2,472.34 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613983 $3,171.38 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613984 $2,545.09 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613985 $3,317.89 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613986 $1,595.80 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613987 $1,595.80 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613988 $1,234.91 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613989 $2,040.66 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613990 $2,325.01 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613991 $3,441.57 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613992 $3,809.52 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613993 $2,051.00 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613994 $3,032.66 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613995 $1,799.17 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613996 $1,604.20 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613997 $4,382.26 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613998 $1,093.35 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1613999 $2,961.96 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1614000 $1,335.29 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1614001 $2,295.18 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1614002 $2,016.28 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1614003 $1,929.27 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1614004 $1,641.20 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1614005 $1,981.64 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1614006 $3,765.61 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1614007 $1,400.89 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1614008 $1,504.63 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1614009 $2,848.22 6/15/16 Pay Prd 06/01/16-06/15/1614010 TBD 6/15/16 Potential New Hire Budget Specialist14011 TBD 6/15/16 Potential New Hire BA Officer14012 TBD 6/15/16 Potential New Hire Comm Specialist14013 TBD 6/15/16 Potential New Hire Comm Specialist14014 TBD 6/15/16 Potential New Hire Director of Acct14015 TBD 6/15/16 Potential New Hire Director of BA14016 TBD 6/15/16 Potential New Hire Learning Position 14017 TBD 6/15/16 Potential New Hire Prg Officer14018 TBD 6/15/16 Potential New Hire Procurement Pos

June 2016Payroll


Check Amount Check Date Description14019 TBD 6/30/16 Wells Fargo Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614020 $2,141.33 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614021 $1,558.89 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614022 $1,814.37 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614023 $1,579.19 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614024 $1,869.20 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614025 $1,863.47 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614026 $3,854.26 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614027 $1,909.07 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614028 $3,129.70 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614029 $1,322.89 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614030 $4,256.25 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614031 $2,046.05 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614032 $4,470.28 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614033 $833.57 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614034 $1,559.00 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614035 $2,359.42 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614036 $2,617.08 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614037 $2,242.97 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614038 $1,301.52 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614039 $3,082.65 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614040 $2,514.54 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614041 $1,657.18 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614042 $2,359.25 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614043 $2,051.00 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614044 $1,886.72 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614045 $2,137.28 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614046 $2,124.49 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614047 $2,027.14 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614048 $1,559.54 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614049 $2,367.12 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614050 $2,861.15 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614051 $2,757.35 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614052 $1,830.21 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614053 $1,871.02 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614054 $2,328.33 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614055 $1,706.70 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614056 $1,275.45 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614057 $1,501.26 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614058 $1,921.28 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614059 $2,608.65 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614060 $2,673.69 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614061 $1,541.77 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614062 $1,695.78 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614063 $2,133.04 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614064 $1,963.01 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614065 $1,291.18 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614066 $1,057.71 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614067 $2,299.66 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614068 $2,032.35 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614069 $2,214.69 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614070 $2,809.05 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614071 $1,371.15 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614072 $2,082.31 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614073 $1,444.95 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614074 $2,084.09 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614075 $2,272.74 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/16

June 2016Payroll


Check Amount Check Date Description14076 $1,829.52 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614077 $2,021.35 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614078 $1,843.32 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614079 $2,070.98 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614080 $1,457.56 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614081 $1,817.33 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614082 $2,131.59 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614083 $4,996.13 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614084 $1,887.18 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614085 $2,913.24 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614086 $2,472.34 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614087 $3,171.38 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614088 $2,545.09 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614089 $3,317.89 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614090 $1,595.80 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614091 $1,595.80 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614092 $1,234.91 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614093 $2,040.66 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614094 $2,325.01 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614095 $3,441.57 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614096 $3,809.52 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614097 $2,051.00 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614098 $3,032.66 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614099 $1,799.17 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614100 $1,604.20 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614101 $4,382.26 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614102 $1,093.35 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614103 $2,961.96 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614104 $1,335.29 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614105 $2,295.18 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614106 $2,016.28 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614107 $1,929.27 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614108 $1,641.20 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614109 $1,981.64 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614110 $3,765.61 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614111 $1,400.89 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614112 $1,504.63 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614113 $2,848.22 6/30/16 Pay Prd 06/16/16-06/30/1614114 TBD 6/30/16 Potential New Hire Budget Specialist14115 TBD 6/30/16 Potential New Hire BA Officer14116 TBD 6/30/16 Potential New Hire Comm Specialist14117 TBD 6/30/16 Potential New Hire Comm Specialist14118 TBD 6/30/16 Potential New Hire Director of Acct14119 TBD 6/30/16 Potential New Hire Director of BA14120 TBD 6/30/16 Potential New Hire Learning Position 14121 TBD 6/30/16 Potential New Hire Prg Officer14122 TBD 6/30/16 Potential New Hire Procurement Pos

#: 6


AGENDA ITEM: 5B(2) TITLE: Consent Agenda ‐ Business

Resolution #16‐015 Authorizing Renewal of Interlocal Agreement with the School Board of Palm Beach County

CSC STAFF: Thomas A. Sheehan, III, General Counsel SUMMARY:

For a number of years the Council and the School District of Palm Beach County (the District) have had an agreement through which the Council was able to obtain information from the District on children who had gone through Council‐funded programs and comparison groups of children who had not. That agreement expired in 2014 and was replaced by an Interlocal Agreement (for a two year period, renewable for three one‐year periods) providing similar information, on a de‐identified basis. This information will continue to be used for evaluating and improving programs for children. The first two‐year period has expired and staff is recommending renewal of the Agreement. As an Interlocal Agreement, our procedure is for the Council to approve such an agreement. FISCAL IMPACT:

None RECOMMENDATION: I recommend the Council approve Resolution #16‐015 authorizing the Chief Executive Officer to execute an “Interlocal Agreement between the School Board of Palm Beach County, FL and the Children’s Services Council of Palm Beach County Concerning Student Information”, for the period October 1, 2016 through September 30, 2017.

16‐015 Interlocal Agreement‐School Board

RESOLUTION #16-015

RESOLUTION OF THE CHILDREN’S SERVICES COUNCIL OF PALM BEACH COUNTY APPROVING RENEWAL OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE

COUNCIL AND SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PALM BEACH COUNTY

WHEREAS, the Children’s Services Council of Palm Beach County (“Council”)

continues to develop a close relationship with the School District of Palm Beach County

(“School District”) for the delivery of developmental, social and cultural programs in support of

children in Palm Beach County; and

WHEREAS, renewal of the interlocal agreement between the Council and School

District is necessary in order for the School District to provide information, on a de-identified

basis, on those children who have attended Council-funded programming and comparison

groups who have not.


SERVICES COUNCIL OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, that the Chief Executive Officer or

designee is authorized to execute an “Interlocal Agreement between the School Board of Palm

Beach County, FL and The Children’s Services Council of Palm Beach County Concerning

Student information”, for the period October 1, 2016 – September 30, 2017.

The foregoing Resolution was offered by Council Member _______________________________



Robert M. Avossa, Ed.D.

Thomas Bean Vincent Goodman Kathleen Kroll Gregory A. Langowski Thomas E. Lynch

Dennis Miles Debra Robinson, M.D. Shelley Vana Thomas P. Weber The Chairman thereupon declared the Resolution duly passed and adopted this 26th day of May, 2016. APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL CHILDREN’S SERVICES COUNCIL SUFFICIENCY OF PALM BEACH COUNTY BY: ___________________________ BY: ___________________________ Thomas A. Sheehan, III Gregory A. Langowski, Chair Attorney for Children’s Services Council of Palm Beach County BY: ____________________________ Lisa Williams-Taylor, Ph.D. Chief Executive Officer

#: 7


AGENDA ITEM: 5B(3) TITLE: Consent Agenda ‐ Business Resolution #16‐016 Accepting Changes to CSC’s Procurement Policy

CSC STAFF: Deborah Tatonetti, Director of Operations; Shay Tozzi, Director of HR and Operations SUMMARY:

At the February 25, 2016 Finance Committee meeting the Finance Committee reviewed two recommendations from CSC’s independent auditing firm, Caler, Donten, Levine, Cohen, Porter and Veil, P. A. One of the recommendations related to the Council’s procurement policy. Currently, the Council’s procurement policy requires three written quotes or a CEO waiver for purchases between $1,000 and $35,000. In performing the audit, CSC staff could not provide documented support to the auditing firm to demonstrate that a bid process had taken place in the selection of a temporary staffing agency. The auditor suggested that the $1,000 amount in the procurement policy may be too low and that the Council should consider increasing that amount. As a result of the auditor’s suggestion, CSC staff surveyed seven governmental entities regarding their purchasing thresholds. All thresholds associated with informal quotes and formal bid requirements were in line with the majority of governmental agencies. CSC’s management approval threshold for purchases less than or equal to $1,000, fell within the mid‐range of other entities. A recommendation for increasing the “no quote” threshold was brought to the Council’s Finance Committee in March. The Committee unanimously recommended changing the “no quote” threshold to $5,000. Additionally, due to a reorganization in the Talent and Operations Division, references in the Procurement Policy to “Director of Operations” will be changed to “Director of HR and Operations”. FISCAL IMPACT:

None. RECOMMENDATION: I recommend the Council approve Resolution #16‐016 and Exhibit “A” authorizing an amendment to the Procurement Policy by revising the “no quote” spending threshold to $5,000 and to change references from “Director of Operations” to “Director of HR and Operations”, with these changes to be effective June 1, 2016.

16-016 Revising CSC Purchasing Policies

RESOLUTION #16-016

RESOLUTION OF THE CHILDREN’S SERVICES COUNCIL OF

PALM BEACH COUNTY AUTHORIZING A REVISION TO THE COUNCIL’S PURCHASING POLICIES

WHEREAS, by Resolution #10-016 the Children’s Services Council of Palm Beach

County’s (the “Council”) revised its purchasing policies; and

WHEREAS, a further revision is necessary to revise the “no quote” spending

threshold to $5,000 and to change references from “Director of Operations” to “Director of

HR and Operations”; and

WHEREAS, these revised purchasing policies will be effective June 1, 2016.


SERVICES COUNCIL OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, that the Council’s Purchasing

Policies are hereby amended as reflected in the attached Exhibit “A”.

The foregoing Resolution was offered by Council Member ___________________ who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Council Member _______________________ and upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:





Exhibit “A”

CSC Purchasing Policies

PROCUREMENT POLICY

2016 - 2017

Revised Effective Date: June 1, 2016


Table of Contents

Purpose ......................................................................................................................................................... 4

Code of Conduct ............................................................................................................................................ 4

Doing Business with Children’s Services Council of Palm Beach County .................................................... 4

Definitions ..................................................................................................................................................... 5

Procurement Approval Levels ...................................................................................................................... 6

Planning & Budget Restrictions .................................................................................................................... 6

Vendor Selection ........................................................................................................................................... 6

Local & Minority Vendor ........................................................................................................................... 6

Sole Source Vendors ................................................................................................................................. 7

Government Procurement Programs ........................................................................................................ 7

Procurement Waivers ............................................................................................................................... 7

Emergency Purchases ................................................................................................................................... 7

Sales Tax Exemption ..................................................................................................................................... 7

Indirect Cost Limits for Universities ............................................................................................................. 7

Sustainable Purchasing Policy ...................................................................................................................... 7

Formal Purchasing Procedures and Processes ............................................................................................. 8

Formal Competitive Bid Guidelines ........................................................................................................... 8

Specifications ............................................................................................................................................ 8

Formal Contracts ....................................................................................................................................... 8

Exceptions to the Formal Competitive Bidding Process ........................................................................... 8

Types of Bid Documents ............................................................................................................................... 9

Informal Written Quotes ........................................................................................................................... 9

Invitation for Bid (IFB) ............................................................................................................................... 9

Request for Proposals (RFP) ...................................................................................................................... 9

Request for Information (RFI) ................................................................................................................... 9

Request for Qualifications (RFQ) ............................................................................................................... 9


Children’s Services Council of Palm Beach County

Procurement Policy

Purpose The purpose of the Procurement Policy (“Policy”) is to ensure that all disbursements of Children’s Services Council of Palm Beach County (CSC or Council) funds are made in a fiscally sound manner and in compliance with applicable Council policies, as well as state and federal laws. The focus of the Procurement Policy is:

To provide user departments with quality goods and services as ordered, and in a timely manner;

To ensure that all goods and services are purchased in accordance with the annual budget approved by the Council;

To ensure that appropriate authorization is received prior to making a purchase based on various approval thresholds established through this Policy; and

To ensure that impartial and equal treatment is afforded to all vendors who desire to do business with the Council.

This policy will apply to all purchases of the Council regardless of the source of funding. Exception – Funding agreements may contain provisions or requirements related to procurement policies that differ from Council policy. In the event that there is a conflict between a funding agreement provision or requirement and a Council policy, the funding agreement provision or requirement will take precedence over the Council policy. All purchasing‐related documents are public records, unless exempted from Chapter 119. F.S., and will be made available to citizens, vendors, or the media upon a request made to the records manager.

Code of Conduct In an effort to fulfill CSC’s fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers of Palm Beach County, all interaction with vendors and contractors must be handled in an ethical manner. CSC staff will protect CSC’s best interest in all business transactions and:

A. Afford equal opportunity to all qualified suppliers in the competition for business.

B. Promote positive supplier relations through professional courtesy and good faith dealing in all phases of the procurement cycle.

C. Respect the supplier’s proprietary information/property from an ethical standpoint in addition to potential legal ramifications, subject to the requirements of Chapter 119, Florida Statute.

D. Enhance CSC’s purchasing and overall business reputation by acquiring and maintaining current market knowledge, and adopting and applying sound business practices at a professional level.

E. Avoid any behavior that may be perceived as unethical or compromising in the award of business. Purchasing standards at CSC prohibit the acceptance of gifts, personal discounts, entertainment, favors, personal services, participation in supplier sponsored promotions/contests, or any other activity that could be perceived to compromise the integrity of CSC’s purchasing.

F. Refrain from any private business or professional activity that would create a conflict between personal interests and the interests of CSC. However, when certain affiliations cannot be avoided, the employee shall disclose the relationship to his/her supervisor and recuse himself/herself from the decision making process.

Doing Business with Children’s Services Council of Palm Beach County

A. CSC’s conflict of interest policy prohibits staff from accepting gifts, gratuities, or other favors from

vendors/contractors.

B. CSC allows the use of and acceptance of “electronic signatures”, as defined in Chapter 668.50, Florida

Statutes for agreements or any modification to agreements.

C. CSC’s procurement process provides equal opportunity to all participants and bids are awarded based on

maximum value offered. Vendors/contractors will be notified of awards by CSC Operations or the bid

coordinator.

D. CSC may conduct an annual vendor/contractor performance review for vendors/contractors holding long‐

term contracts with CSC.

E. Vendor performance issues/concerns should be directed to CSC’s Operations/Purchasing department

along with any questions or concerns related to the procurement process. Unresolved issues should be

presented to the Director of Human Resources & Operations.

F. CSC’s bidding policies prohibit proposers from contacting CSC personnel or board members regarding the

solicitation, other than the person identified in the bid document. If not designated, proposer/vendor should


contact the Director of Human Resources & Operations or CSC General Counsel. Any occurrence of a violation

may result in the disqualification of the proposer. During the open bid period, proposers must not submit any

forms of marketing or promotional materials that would raise the proposer’s profile or give the proposer an

advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other perspective proposers.

G. Non‐profit agencies providing programmatic services must comply with the following CSC Nepotism Policy:

“No individual shall be employed, serve as a member of the Board of Directors, or be hired as a consultant,

vendor or contractor by any agency, with respect to any Children’s Services Council of Palm Beach County (CSC)

funded program, which will (i) result in the existence of a subordinate‐superior relationship between such

individual and any family member of such through a direct line of authority or (ii) result in multiple family

members serving as members of the Board of Directors.

The Executive Director, or other person authorized to bind the organization, will present certification of

compliance to CSC as part of all Requests for Proposal (www.cscpbc.org/openprop). Agency must continue to be

in compliance throughout the course of the Contract.”

H. The Inspector General of Palm Beach County has the authority to investigate and audit matters relating to the

negotiation and performance of all CSC agreements, and may demand and obtain records and testimony from

vendors/consultants, subcontractors and lower tier subcontractors. Failure to fully cooperate with the Inspector

General when requested may be deemed to be a material breach of the CSC agreement, justifying termination.

Definitions The following words, terms, or phrases as used in this policy, shall be defined as follows: A. Competitive bids or competitive offers is the solicitation of three or more bids or offers submitted by responsive

and qualified bidders or proposers. B. Competitive shopping is the practice of obtaining quotes from vendors based upon providing like goods or

services. C. Contract refers to all types of binding agreements, including purchase orders, of the Council, for the

procurement of supplies and contractual services. D. Contractor is any person or business entity having a contract with the Council. E. Contractual services refers to work performed by an independent contractor who has specialized knowledge,

experience, expertise or similar capabilities wherein the service rendered does not consist primarily of acquisition by CSC of equipment or materials.

F. Cooperative Purchases provide governmental entities the option to participate in, sponsor, conduct, or

administer a cooperative purchase with other governmental entities for the procurement of goods or services. In this instance, CSC would join one or more entities that share the same requirement and combine their estimates usages with a common goal to achieve the best price based on economies of scale.

G. Designee is a duly authorized representative chosen based on capacity and skill set. H. Emergency Purchase is a procurement made in response to a need when the delay necessary to comply with all

procurement rules, regulations or procedures would be detrimental to the interests, health, safety, or welfare of CSC.

I. Independent Contractor is a person who contracts to do work with CSC according to his or her own processes

and methods; the contractor is not subject to another’s control except for what is specified in a mutually binding agreement for a specific job.

J. Piggyback Purchases provide governmental entities the option to purchase goods or services off an existing

contract between a vendor and the federal government; a state or municipal government; another governmental agency; or a government related association. Purchases made through these contracts meet the requirements of competitive bidding.

K. Qualified is used to describe an individual or business entity that has a recognized certificate, degree or

professional standing and/or has demonstrated the ability to handle and successfully complete tasks. L. Request for Proposals (RFP) is a written solicitation for sealed proposals with the title, date and hour of the

public opening designated. A request for proposal shall include, but is not limited to, general information, functional or general specifications, a statement or scope of work, proposal instructions and evaluation criteria. The Council may engage in competitive negotiations with qualified proposers for the purpose of clarification to assure full understanding of conformance to the solicitation requirements.

M. Sole Source is an award of contract to the only known source for the required goods or services, occasioned by

the unique nature of the requirement, the vendor, and the impracticality of obtaining competition or market


conditions. The Chief Executive Officer may approve all sole source purchases without competitive bidding for goods and services valued less than or equal to $50,000. Procurement of sole source goods or services valued over $50,000 without competitive bidding requires approval by the Council. Examples of sole source procurement include, but are not limited to, the following:

Certain curriculum or training, or equipment that is available only through the developer or manufacturer or consultant with specific expertise;

Items that are available from one source because of patents, copyrights, secret processes, or natural monopolies;

Films, manuscripts, or books published and available from only one source;

Electricity, gas, water and other utility services;

Captive replacement parts or components for equipment;

Books, papers and other library materials for a public library that are available only from the person holding exclusive distribution rights to the materials;

Maintenance services required to maintain warranty coverage.

Procurement Approval Levels All procurement must be approved. The table below illustrates the required approvals based upon the dollar value of the transaction.

≤$5,0001

>$5,000 and <$35,0002

≥$35,000 and ≤$50,0003

>$50,000

Council x

CEO or designee: Chief Financial Officer Director of Human Resources & Operations

x x

x x

x x

Chief or Director x

CSC General Counsel or designee4: Director of Human Resources & Operations

Contract review Contract review Contract review

1For supervised area; comparison shopping encouraged; procured with purchase order; paid by invoice 2Requires an informal written bid process, sole source, or CEO/designee waiver

3Requires a formal written bid process, identification as sole source, or CEO/designee waiver 4Reviews contracts for legal sufficiency and compliance with CSC’s Procurement Policy & Procedures

CEO or designee shall have the authority to authorize contracts for different scopes of work, per vendor, up to an annual (fiscal year) cumulative total of $100,000. After meeting the annual threshold, any additional contract with the vendor during the same fiscal year, must be approved by the Council. Purchase amounts shall not be artificially divided to circumvent the approval requirements. Willful violation of these rules will result in termination of purchasing authority for the individual and/or department and may result in disciplinary action against the individual committing the violation. CSC General Counsel or designee shall review all contracts with a dollar value greater than $5,000 for legal sufficiency and compliance with CSC Procurement Policy and procedures. Programmatic agreements must be created with the assistance of the General Counsel and, if in excess of $50,000, authorized by the Council by annual or special resolution. All other contracts must be processed utilizing the Contract Request form and process.

Planning & Budget Restrictions Planning for purchases is to be done on both a short‐term and long‐term basis by Council staff. The CSC Operations cannot always guarantee the timely processing of small orders and last minute, unplanned purchases. No purchases will be authorized or processed unless there are budgeted funds available.

Vendor Selection Quality buying is the buying of goods or services that will meet, but not necessarily exceed, the requirements for which they are intended. In some instances the primary quality consideration will be durability. With other purchases, it may be a question of immediate availability, ease of installation, frequency of repair, or efficiency of operation that must be given primary consideration. It is the responsibility of both the requesting department and CSC Operations to secure the best quality for the intended purpose.

Local & Minority Vendor

CSC shall make a concerted effort to solicit bids from local and minority business owners in Palm Beach County. Bids and quotations received from all vendors will be evaluated based on the following criteria:

1. Lowest qualified prices; and 2. Best quality of goods or services


Sole Source Vendors

In the event there is only one vendor (sole source) capable of providing a particular good or service, the Chief Executive Officer may approve all sole source purchases without competitive bidding for goods and services valued less than or equal to $50,000. Procurement of sole source goods or services over $50,000 without competitive bidding requires approval by the Council.

Government Procurement Programs

Wherever cost beneficial, the Council shall make purchases through piggyback contracts or cooperative purchasing programs sponsored by the federal government, a state or municipal government, another governmental agency, or a government related association. Piggyback contracting and cooperative purchasing can prove advantageous to CSC by taking advantage of the large quantity purchases made by governmental entities. Purchases made through these programs meet the requirements of competitive shopping.

Procurement Waivers

The Chief Executive Officer or designee is authorized to waive the Children’s Services Council of Palm Beach County Procurement Policy (the “policy”) and, specifically, the requirement that: 1) three written quotes be obtained for all purchases greater than $5,000 and less than $35,000; and 2) formal competitive bids be obtained for all purchases equal or greater than $35,000 and equal or less than $50,000 where conditions, circumstances, and the public interest do warrant an exception. Waiving the competitive bid process for purchases greater than $50,000 requires the approval of the Council. All waivers must be obtained in advance and documented prior to the purchase of goods or services.

Circumstances that may permit the CEO/or designee to waive procurement policies include, but are not limited to, the following:

Where a valid emergency exists such that any further delay in procuring the goods or services is detrimental to CSC;

Where standardization or compatibility is the overriding consideration (i.e. existing furniture, computer systems/equipment)

Where a grantor or donation predicates the source of supply and such a condition is specifically defined in the award document (i.e. research grant or contract) but the grantor or donor is not the source;

Where additional commodities or services are essential to the completion of an ongoing job or task under which any substitution will negatively affect the desired outcome;

Where a particular commodity or service is required for recognized experimental, developmental, or research work;

Where the requirement is for an authorized collaborative project with other governmental unit(s) or non‐profit organization(s);

Where a recent competitively bid purchase provides a satisfactory price and can be reasonably extended to the instant requirement. Note that "recent" is generally defined as within the past six (6) months or 180 days.

Emergency Purchases In the event of a declared state of emergency by the President of the United States, the Governor of the State of Florida or by the Palm Beach County government; the CEO or designee is authorized to enter into agreements necessary for the continuation of CSC operations. In situations posing immediate danger to the health, safety, or welfare or other substantial loss (i.e. disaster response, facility repairs, equipment purchases, etc.), the CEO or designee may enter into agreement(s) with pre‐approved vendors or following an informal bid process and consultation by the CEO, or designee, with the Council Chair (Council Vice‐Chair in the event Chair is unavailable). Staff will report all emergency contract expenses to the Council at its next regularly scheduled business meeting.

Sales Tax Exemption The Council is exempt from all local sales taxes, state sales taxes, and Federal excise taxes.

Indirect Cost Limits for Universities When contracting with universities or other academic institutions, the indirect cost rate allowed by CSC will not exceed the then‐current maximum indirect cost rate approved for other CSC providers.

Sustainable Purchasing Policy A Sustainable Purchasing Policy has been adopted in an effort to encourage and increase the use of environmentally preferable consumable products and services. By including environmental considerations in purchasing decisions, the Council can promote practices that improve employee and public health, conserve natural resources and reward environmentally conscious manufacturers, while remaining fiscally responsible. Sustainable Purchasing Policy


Formal Purchasing Procedures and Processes Staff is not permitted to purchase items or services directly from vendors, bypassing the internal purchasing process. The CEO or designee reserves the right to reject said purchases and assumes no liability for such activities.

Formal Competitive Bid Guidelines

Formal competitive sealed bids are to be solicited when goods or services to be purchased are estimated to be greater than or equal to $35,000. This process is to be coordinated through CSC’s Director of Human Resources & Operations and General Counsel, to ensure compliance with all Council policies. Formal quotes are required for commodities and trade services, professional services, and construction contracts as follows:

- ≤$5,000 Chief or Director discretion - >$5,000 and <$35,000 Three written quotes required; or CEO/designee waiver ‐ ≥$35,000 and ≤$50,000 Formal competitive process; or CEO/designee waiver ‐ >$50,000 Council approval or waiver of formal competitive process; CEO

executes documents The quotation levels identified above are for individual items with the following exceptions:

1) If two or more items are purchased of the same kind the combined purchase amount must be used to determine the appropriate quotation level.

Specifications

When goods or services are to be bought under the formal competitive bidding process, specifications are to be prepared by the requesting department.

Formal Contracts

Formal contracts detail obligations for the purchase of goods or services and the payment arrangements between the Council and the contracting party. The Council’s General Counsel or designee will review contracts in excess of $5,000 prior to execution to ensure that all applicable Council policies are adhered to. The Chief Executive Officer or designee is authorized to execute contracts with a value of less than or equal to $50,000. The Council must approve all contracts in excess of $50,000 and authorize the Chief Executive Officer to execute such contracts. The CEO and/or designee are authorized to execute contracts on behalf of the Council. In the event that Council staff wishes to recommend the renewal of an existing contract, the recommendation will be placed on the Council’s consent agenda for approval when the contract exceeds $50,000. If the contract being recommended for renewal is less than, or equal to $50,000, it may be executed by the Chief Executive Officer.

Exceptions to the Formal Competitive Bidding Process

The following purchasing activities are by their nature, exempt from the formal competitive bidding process:

Certain curriculum or training, or equipment that is available only through the developer or manufacturer or consultants with specific expertise

Items that are available from one source because of patents, copyrights, secret processes, or natural monopolies

Electricity, gas, water and other utility services

Captive replacement parts or components for equipment

Books, papers and other library materials that are available only from the person holding exclusive distribution rights to the materials

Maintenance services required to maintain warranty coverage

Advertising, radio, newspaper, television and other media, if exclusive area of coverage or other factor(s) preclude competition

Perishable goods used in the preparation of meals

Professional services such as architects, engineers, and others, who in keeping within the standards of their discipline, or pursuant to applicable law, will not enter into a competitive bidding process (RFQs may be available)

Purchases from governmental entities (i.e. County, State, Federal) or vendors identified through governmental cooperative purchasing contracts

Postage

Membership dues and sponsorships

Publications (including subscriptions) from publishers or exclusive distributors of such publications

Processed media movies, slides, video, software, etc. from exclusive an processor, producer or exclusive distributor

Conference, training, travel, and educational expenses

Licenses (payable to governmental entities or for proprietary software)

Permits (payable to governmental entities)

Emergency purchases


Types of Bid Documents

Informal Written Quotes

CSC will accept informal written quotes for all purchases with a dollar value greater than $5,000 and less than $35,000. Vendor provides quotes for pricing or services information in writing for commodities or contractual services.

Invitation for Bid (IFB)

The IFB shall be used when the Council is capable of specifically defining the scope of work for which contractual service is required or when the Council is capable of establishing precise specifications defining the actual commodities required. The award will be to the respondent who can provide the specified goods or services at the lowest qualified price.

Request for Proposals (RFP)

The RFP shall be used to provide potential respondent latitude to develop and recommend items or services that satisfy the need as stated in the RFP. In securing goods or professional services it is the primary goal of the Council to obtain these items from a vendor who has a proven record of providing, in a professional manner, the goods or services required. The award will be based upon several factors, including, but not limited to, creativity, innovation, and thoroughness of solution of need. Price is an important factor, but only when the function offered satisfies the need. The Council may engage in competitive negotiations with responsible proposers for the purpose of clarification to ensure full understanding of conformance to the solicitation requirements. A contract will be negotiated by staff and approved with the respondent deemed to best meet the Council’s need.

All IFBs and RFPs will contain, as a minimum, the following details:

Vendor qualifications and experience

Scope of work or specifications of the goods or services sought

Notices and deadlines

Modifications and notifications

Methods of billing and payments

Applicable insurance requirements

Request for Information (RFI)

The Request for Information shall be used to request from vendors information or specifications concerning commodities or contractual services. Responses to these requests are not offers and may not be accepted by the agency to form a binding contract. Information obtained through an RFI will be used to define the scope of work or develop specifications for a formal bid document.

Request for Qualifications (RFQ)

The Request for Qualifications shall be used to obtain a statement of qualifications from proposers. CSC may request the proposer submit a fee schedule in addition to their qualifications in an effort to secure fixed and firm fees. The purpose of the RFQ process may also be used to identify one or more qualified certified vendors. CSC, at its option, may issue a subsequent bid document to those determined to be qualified.

#: 8


AGENDA ITEM: 5B(4) TITLE: Consent Agenda ‐ Business Resolution #16‐017 Accepting Changes to CSC’s Sustainable Purchasing Policy

CSC STAFF: Deborah Tatonetti, Director of Operations; Shay Tozzi, Director of HR and Operations SUMMARY:

CSC’s Sustainability Procurement Policy was first authorized by the Council in June 2010, allowing implementation of CSC’s green purchasing program and pursuit of Energy Star and U.S. Green Building Associations Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification under existing building (EB). Since that time, several major projects and corresponding certifications were completed. The original policy language was adapted for our use from early “green” policies instituted in the State of California and proved to be more than we required for our small organization. A recent internal audit identified a minor inconsistency in our process, as well. As a result, the policy is being revised to delete aspects of the policy that became obsolete in general practice. The Council is asked to approve the following revisions effective June 1, 2016:

Delete Section 8.0 Performance Evaluation

Renumber Section 9.0 to 8.0 Time Period; and include amended date of June 1, 2016

Replace all references to the Director of Operations with the Director of HR and Operations and remove signature line for Director of Operations .

FISCAL IMPACT:

None RECOMMENDATION: I recommend the Council approve Resolution #16‐017 and Exhibit “A” accepting the proposed changes to the Sustainable Purchasing Policy as outlined above, effective June 1, 2016.

16‐017 Revising Sustainable Purchasing Policy

RESOLUTION #16-017


PALM BEACH COUNTY AUTHORIZING A REVISION TO THE COUNCIL’S SUSTAINABLE PURCHASING POLICY


County (the “Council”) created a Sustainable Purchasing Policy in its desire to serve as a

community model for environmental leadership; and

WHEREAS, the Council wishes to amend the Sustainable Purchasing Policy as

attached in Exhibit “A”.


SERVICES COUNCIL OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, that the Council hereby adopts the

revised CSC Sustainable Purchasing Policy as presented in the attached Exhibit “A”,

effective June 1, 2016.

The foregoing Resolution was offered by Council Member ___________________ who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Council Member _______________________ and upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Robert M. Avossa, Ed.D. Thomas Bean Vincent Goodman Kathleen Kroll Gregory A. Langowski Thomas E. Lynch




Exhibit “A”

CSC Sustainable Purchasing Policy

SUSTAINABLE PURCHASING POLICY

June 1, 2016


TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................ 4

2.0 NEED .................................................................................................................................. 4

3.0 RESEARCH, EVALUATION, IMPLEMENTATION ..................................................................... 4

4.0 SPECIFICATIONS ................................................................................................................. 5

Recycled Content Products ................................................................................................... 6

Less Harmful and Non‐Toxic Materials and Processes .......................................................... 6

Energy and Water Efficient Products and Processes ............................................................. 6

Natural Resource and Landscaping Management ................................................................. 6

Renewable Products ............................................................................................................. 7

Disposal and Pollution Reduction ......................................................................................... 7

Packaging ............................................................................................................................. 7

Green Building Program ....................................................................................................... 7

5.0 PERFORMANCE, PRICE, AND AVAILABILITY ......................................................................... 7

6.0 RESPONSIBLE PARTY ........................................................................................................... 7

7.0 PROCEDURES AND STRATEGIES .......................................................................................... 7

8.0 TIME PERIOD ...................................................................................................................... 8


SUSTAINABLE PURCHASING POLICY 1.0 PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES The goal of this Sustainable Purchasing Policy is to encourage and increase the use of environmentally preferable ongoing consumable products and services by Children’s Services Council of Palm Beach County (CSC). By including environmental considerations in purchasing decisions, CSC can promote practices that improve public and employee health, conserve natural resources, and reward environmentally conscious manufacturers, while remaining fiscally responsible. The policy objectives for ongoing consumables and services are to:

Expand the purchase of environmentally preferable products;

Identify environmentally preferable alternatives;

Adopt alternative processes, where practicable, that will reduce the use/disposal of hazardous substances and promote resource conservation; and

Collect and maintain up‐to‐date information regarding manufacturers, vendors, and other sources for locating/ordering environmentally preferable products.

2.0 NEED Local and state governments combined, purchase more than $1 trillion of goods and services each year. Many of these products contribute to problems in the overall environment, including contamination of the air and water, and depletion of environmental resources. In some instances, products require special waste disposal and reporting procedures which can be cumbersome and expensive. Furthermore, local government employees using these products may be exposed to compounds that are potentially harmful to their health. CSC has an opportunity to serve as a community model for environmental leadership by incorporating a plan of action that will conserve precious resources such as water, raw materials and energy, reduce the use of hazardous substances, and potentially improve the environmental quality of the region. By incorporating environmental considerations in public purchasing, CSC can reduce its burden on the local and global environment, remove unnecessary hazards from its operations, protect public health, reduce costs and liabilities, and help develop markets for environmentally responsible products. 3.0 RESEARCH, EVALUATION, IMPLEMENTATION An Environmental Purchasing Committee (Committee) will be composed of representatives from various CSC departments to research, evaluate, and implement the environmental purchasing objectives. The Committee will focus on the following areas: Ongoing Consumables. Durable goods Building materials used in facility alterations and additions Mercury‐containing lamps

This policy includes, but is not limited to, the following products and services:

Recycled Content Products (paper, playground equipment, motor oil, carpets, plastic lumber)

Less Harmful and Non‐toxic Materials and Processes (janitorial products, pest management chemicals, phosphates, paint)

Energy and Water Efficient Products and Processes (energy efficient lighting, appliances, and equipment)

Natural Resource and Landscaping Management (integrated pest and vegetation management, drought tolerant plants)

Renewable Products (certified forests, renewable energy resources)

Disposal and Pollution Reduction (integrated waste management, double‐sided copies, reusable binders and dividers, reusable holiday trees)

Packaging (bulk packaging, reusable boxes, shipping pallets, etc.)

Green Building Program (using recycled products in construction and renovation, disposal of building materials in an environmentally sensitive manner, designing and renovating for energy and resource conservation)

Food and beverages are not included in the scope of this policy.

The Committee may recommend changes in awareness, behaviors, practices, and procedures. The Committee will meet periodically to monitor and evaluate CSC’s progress.


4.0 SPECIFICATIONS Sustainable Purchasing of Ongoing Consumables The term “ongoing consumables” refers to low‐cost‐per‐unit materials that are regularly used and replaced through the course of daily business operations. These products may include, but are not limited to: printing and copying paper, notebooks, envelopes, business cards, sticky notes, paper clips, toner cartridges, and batteries. CSC’s goal is that at least 40% of the cost of goods purchased will comply with one or more of the following criteria: Contains at least 10% post‐consumer and/or 20% post‐industrial material Contains at least 50% rapidly renewable material (e.g., bamboo, cotton, cork, wool) Contains at least 50% materials harvested and extracted and processed within 500 miles of the

facility Consists of at least 50% Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)‐certified paper products Rechargeable batteries

CSC acknowledges the value of purchasing sustainable products and requires that vendor(s) support that effort when appropriate and/or possible. CSC requests that vendor(s) notify them of recycled content and reduced packaging options or alternative products that would comply with the above specifications. Nothing contained in this policy shall be construed as requiring CSC to procure products that do not perform adequately for their intended use, exclude adequate competition, or are not available at a reasonable price in a reasonable period of time. Sustainable Purchasing of Durable Goods The term “durable goods” refers to higher‐cost‐per‐unit materials that are replaced infrequently and/or may require capital outlays to purchase. These products may include, but are not limited to: office equipment (such as computers, monitors, printers, copiers, fax machines), appliances (refrigerators, dishwashers, water coolers), external power adaptors, televisions, and furniture. The purchasing criteria for these products fall into the following two categories. Electronics and Appliances CSC’s goal is that at least 40% of the cost of goods purchased will comply with one or more of the following criteria: Energy Star labeled products, when available Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tools (EPEAT) rated products (at least bronze level) The equipment replaces conventional gas‐powered equipment, i.e. maintenance equipment and

vehicles Furniture CSC’s goal is that at least 40% of the cost of goods purchased will comply with one or more of the following criteria: Contains at least 10% post‐consumer and/or 20% post‐industrial material Contains at least 70% salvaged material from off‐site or outside the organization Contains at least 70% salvaged material from on‐site through an internal materials and equipment

reuse program Contains at least 50% rapidly renewable material (bamboo, cotton, cork, wool) Contains at least 50% materials harvested, extracted, and processed within 500 miles of the

facility/site Consists of at least 50% Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)‐ certified wood

CSC acknowledges the value of purchasing sustainable products and requires that vendor(s) support that effort when appropriate and possible. CSC requests that vendor(s) notify them of Energy Star and sustainable furniture opportunities that would comply with the above specifications, as well as reduced packaging options. Sustainable Purchasing: Facility Alterations and Additions This policy covers materials that are permanently or semi‐permanently attached to the building itself in the course of facility renovations, demolitions, refits, and new construction additions. These products may include, but are not limited to: building components and structures (wall studs, insulation, doors, and windows), panels, attached finishes (drywall, trim, ceiling panels), carpet and other flooring materials, adhesives, paints and coatings. CSC’s goal is that at least 50% of the cost of goods purchased will comply with one or more of the following criteria: Contains at least 10% post‐consumer and/or 20% post‐industrial material Contains at least 70% salvaged material from off‐site or outside the organization


Contains at least 70% salvaged material from on‐site through an internal materials and equipment reuse program

Contains at least 50% rapidly renewable material (bamboo, cotton, cork, wool) Contains at least 50% materials harvested/extracted and processed within 500 miles of the

facility/site Consists of at least 50% Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certified wood Adhesives and sealants comply with SCAQMD rules governing allowable VOC content Paints and coatings comply with Green Seal’s GS‐11 requirements governing VOC emission levels Finished flooring is FloorScore ‐ certified and constitutes a minimum of 25% of the finished floor

area Carpet and carpet cushion meets the requirements of the Carpet and Rug Institute (CRI) Green

Label Plus carpet testing program Composite panels and agri‐fiber products contain no added urea‐formaldehyde resins

CSC acknowledges the value of purchasing sustainable products and requires that vendor(s) support that effort when appropriate and/or possible. CSC requests that vendor(s) notify them of potential opportunities that would comply with the above specifications, as well as reduced packaging options. Sustainable Purchasing: Toxic Material Source Reduction – Reduced Mercury in Lamps CSC seeks to reduce the amount of mercury brought into all sites through purchase of lamps for the buildings and associated grounds. CSC’s goal is that at least 90% of the number of lamps purchased will meet the following overall mercury‐content target: No more than 90 picograms of mercury per lumen‐hour

CSC representatives acknowledge the value of purchasing low‐mercury lamps and require that vendors support that effort when appropriate and possible. CSC requests that vendor(s) notify them of specific lamps and other opportunities that would comply with the above specifications, as well as reduced packaging options. Recycled Content Products To the extent practicable, all printing and copy paper products shall meet U.S. EPA guidelines for post‐

consumer recycled fiber content. To the extent practicable, all janitorial paper products shall meet U.S. EPA guidelines for post‐

consumer content. All re‐refined oil must be American Petroleum Institutes certified. Carpets purchased by CSC shall consist of recycled material and shall contain the lowest volatile

organic compound (VOC) content available in its installation system. Any other products with recycled content used by CSC that are not identified in this policy shall meet

the U.S. EPA recommendations and specification guidelines for recycled content. If the State of Florida adopts recommendations and specification guidelines for recycled content

products that are more stringent than the U.S. EPA guidelines, CSC will follow the State guidelines. Less Harmful and Non‐Toxic Materials and Processes To the extent practicable, no cleaning or disinfecting products (i.e. for janitorial or automotive use)

shall contain ingredients that are identified by the United States Environmental Protection Agency or the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health as carcinogens, mutagens, or teratogens.

All surfactants shall meet U.S. EPA standards as “readily biodegradable.” Where practicable, no detergents shall contain phosphates.

All paint used by CSC shall contain the minimum amount necessary of volatile organic compounds, and shall contain maximum recycled content where practicable.

CSC shall reduce or eliminate its use of products that contribute to the formation of dioxin and furan compounds. To the extent practicable processed chlorine‐free or less bleached paper shall be purchased for photo‐copy‐grade and janitorial paper products. The 10% price preference applies to the purchase of chlorine‐free paper. Additionally, CSC shall eliminate the use of Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) plastics to the extent practicable.

Energy and Water Efficient Products and Processes Where practicable, purchased or leased electronic equipment including photocopiers, computers,

printers, lighting systems, HVAC, kitchen appliances, and energy management systems must meet U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) energy efficiency standards. Where applicable, the energy efficiency function must remain enabled on all energy‐efficient equipment.

Natural Resource and Landscaping Management CSC shall implement an integrated pest management program for pest control. Any chemicals used to

eliminate or deter insect pests and undesirable vegetation shall be the most readily and completely


biodegradable product available for the given application, and shall be applied in a manner that is least likely to come into contact with humans and any other animals for which treatment is not intended.

CSC shall implement a Vegetation Management Program. The program will develop a policy to utilize drought‐resistant, native, and less chemically dependent plant species.

Renewable Products CSC shall not procure products that originate from rainforest hardwood or tropical wood. To the extent practicable, CSC will use products from certified forests. Disposal and Pollution Reduction CSC shall implement an integrated waste management that is: waste prevention and reuse (source

reduction) first, followed by recycling and composting, with only the residual being disposed of as trash or garbage. Recycling programs are currently available at CSC for paper, cardboard, telephone books, laser‐jet cartridges, wood pallets, scrap metal, batteries, glass and plastic bottles, and aluminum cans. CSC will evaluate and implement, where practicable, expansions of and additions to the current programs in order to increase waste diversion.

All departments shall ensure that they and their contractors/consultants use double‐sided copying. Where practicable, all photocopiers and printers acquired by CSC following adoption of this policy are required to be capable of double‐sided copying.

Preference shall be given to products that are reusable or refillable rather than disposable, long‐lasting, durable, and able to be recycled or composted at the end of their life.

A pre‐purchase review shall be done before purchasing disposable or single‐use items to determine their necessity and to compare these items to long lasting, reusable or refillable alternatives. Occasional use items shall be shared to the extent practicable. Preference shall be given to the lightest, smallest, most durable product that will complete the task (photocopiers, microwaves, etc.) For large purchases, life‐cycle cost analysis shall be taken into consideration for cost comparisons of alternative products. Life‐cycle cost analysis includes an assessment of a product’s maintenance, energy and water use, and disposal costs.

Packaging To the extent practicable, CSC shall require packaging to be reusable, recyclable or compostable. Items

purchased shall be bulk‐packed if possible and carded items shall be avoided. Vendors shall be encouraged to take back and reuse pallets and packaging materials. Purchasing will work with vendors to ensure the most effective packaging of products. Green Building Program CSC shall implement a green building program that promotes the use of recycled products in

construction and renovation, disposal of building materials in an environmentally sensitive manner, and designing and renovating for energy and resource conservation.

5.0 PERFORMANCE, PRICE, AND AVAILABILITY Nothing contained in this policy shall be construed as requiring a department or contractor to procure products that do not perform adequately for their intended use, exclude adequate competition, or are not available at a reasonable price in a reasonable period of time. CSC is aware that there is an increased initial cost to purchase environmentally friendly products. CSC and/or vendor will record and track purchases on a monthly basis. CSC personnel and/or vendor responsible for purchasing will report CSC’s purchases to the appropriate CSC representative using the provided Materials Purchasing Worksheet. Vendor is required to track and report CSC’s purchases monthly. Vendor will use CSC Materials Purchasing Worksheet or a CSC approved alternative reporting method. Vendor is prepared to report the manner by which each product purchase meets the following purchasing criteria. Whenever possible, CSC personnel should include an evaluation of the environmental and public health benefits achieved through sustainable purchasing of the goods described under Section (4). 6.0 RESPONSIBLE PARTY The Director of HR & Operations shall implement this policy in coordination with other appropriate organization personnel, including but not limited to, CSC’s Purchasing Agent, Head of Facilities, and Chief Information Officer, other CSC employees, parties purchasing materials on CSC’s behalf and/or companies contracted to provide goods to CSC. 7.0 PROCEDURES AND STRATEGIES This policy covers purchases that are within the building and site management’s control. CSC personnel may use any qualifying vendor to procure the products described in Section (3), and are encouraged to also consider the following areas of interest:


Packaging CSC desires to reduce waste generated through daily operations and recognizes that such reduction begins with the material that enters each facility/site. CSC will request that all items purchased be packaged and delivered with minimal packaging material. CSC reserves the right to request that vendors alter the packaging of goods delivered, when appropriate and possible. Recycled Content CSC requests that all vendors provide recycled content options for goods when available. If a product is available with recycled content, vendor will disclose that option to the appropriate CSC representative. Recycled content targets may be overridden at the discretion of CSC representatives if certain products with recycled content present themselves as cost‐prohibitive. 8.0 TIME PERIOD This revised Sustainable Purchasing Policy shall take effect on June 1, 2016 and shall continue indefinitely or until amended or replaced by a subsequent sustainable purchasing policy.

#: 9


AGENDA ITEM: 5B(5) TITLE: Consent Agenda ‐ Business Resolution #16‐018 Authorizing Additional Functionality to the EmbraceEachDay Universal Parenting Campaign Website CSC STAFF: Mike Roedel, Digital Communications Administrator; John Bartosek, Chief

Communications Officer SUMMARY:

Following introductory discussions with Svanaco Inc./American Eagle, the website developer for EmbraceEachDay.org parenting campaign, CSC intends to add the Hawk Search function on the new website. Hawk Search, which was quoted as “optional” in the Svanaco/American Eagle RFP proposal, will significantly improve the user’s experience with the site by analyzing the choices visitors make as they search and navigate through our online content. Hawk Search helps visitors get to results faster with the AutoComplete feature that completes the search term for the searcher, offers suggestions, and allows CSC to monitor when searches are not effective (does not provide what the user is seeking). This feature will help us continually refine and improve the availability of our content. Svanaco/American Eagle has agreed to discount the set‐up charge for Hawk Search from the $3,500 initially quoted to $1,500. The result will be a $1,500 increase in the total cost and will require a contract amendment to Exhibit A. After public launch of the website, Hawk Search will carry a monthly fee. The initial Svanaco/American Eagle proposal listed $1,500 a month, and the vendor has agreed to drop that to $1,000 a month for the first year for CSC. The total annual charge of $12,000 for Hawk Search will be part of a separate contract put in place at or after public launch, likely in FY 2016‐2017, for maintenance and hosting, and will be below the expenditure level (of more than $50,000) that requires Council approval. We want to inform the Council of this ongoing cost now to be transparent as the parenting campaign develops. FISCAL IMPACT:

The total cost of funding this item for FY 2015‐16 is $1,500 (in addition to the $144,999 contract authorized in Council Resolution #16‐001 in January, 2016); the funds to support this agenda item are budgeted in the Communications budget in the Public Education line item. RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend the Council approve Resolution #16‐018 authorizing the Chief Executive Officer to execute an amendment to the existing contract with Svanaco, Inc. d/b/a AmericanEagle.com to add Hawk Search functionality to the website providing public education and awareness for the universal parenting campaign, in an additional amount not to exceed $1,500, effective May 27, 2016, through September 30, 2016.

RESOLUTION #16-018


PALM BEACH COUNTY AUTHORIZING ADDITIONAL FUNCTIONALITY TO THE EMBRACEEACHDAY.ORG WEBSITE CREATION

FOR THE UNIVERSAL PARENTING PUBLIC AWARENESS CAMPAIGN


County (the Council) approved the creation of a dedicated website for its Embrace Each

Day universal parenting campaign; and

WHEREAS, the Council desires to add additional functionality to the website by

adding the Hawk Search function which was quoted as optional in the RFP proposal; and

WHEREAS, addition of such a search function will significantly improve the user’s

experience with the site by analyzing the choices visitors make as they search and

navigate through the online content.



authorized to execute the necessary amendment to the existing contract with Svanaca, Inc.

d/b/a AmericanEagle.com to add Hawk Search functionality to the EmbraceEachDay.org

website in an additional amount not to exceed $1,500, effective May 27, 2016 through

September 30, 2016..

The foregoing Resolution was offered by Council Member ___________________



Robert M. Avossa, Ed.D. Thomas Bean Vincent Goodman Kathleen J. Kroll

Gregory A. Langowski Thomas E. Lynch

Dennis Miles Debra Robinson, M.D. Shelley Vana Thomas P. Weber The Chairman thereupon declared the Resolution duly passed and adopted this 26th day of May, 2016.

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL CHILDREN’S SERVICES COUNCIL SUFFICIENCY OF PALM BEACH COUNTY BY: ____________________________ BY: ____________________________ Thomas A. Sheehan, III Gregory A. Langowski, Chair Attorney for Children’s Services Council of Palm Beach County BY: ____________________________ Lisa Williams-Taylor, Ph.D. Chief Executive Officer

CEO Report May 26, 2016

CHILDREN’S SERVICES COUNCIL OF PALM BEACH COUNTY May 26, 2016 CEO Report

1

Chief Executive Officer Report

Follow Up from Planning Session

Staff is moving forward with initial exploration and budget estimation for the areas of interest identified by the Council at the April Planning Session. As the Council expressed interest in pursuing all of the areas and the need to have evaluation plans in place for any pilots, staff will be developing a phased approach to implementation. The budget for FY 2016‐17 will reflect a phased implementation. Items have been listed in the priority order expressed by the Council:

Summer programs/afterschool programs for special populations (children in delinquency, dependency systems)

Workforce capacity for Healthy Beginnings/BRIDGES staff

Birth to 22: United for Brighter Futures

Training for Evidence‐Based Programs for Therapeutic Interventions

STEM Pilot (focusing on elementary and possibly middle school)

Pre‐K Collaborative in Targeted Communities

Summer Learning Program

Special Needs Birth to 22: United for Brighter Futures, Summer Learning Program, and Special Needs are impacted by community/strategic plans that fall under the auspices of organizations other than CSC (Birth to 22‐ collaborative between County, School District, CSC, Career Source, United Way‐ Youth Master Plan is anticipated in late Summer; Summer Learning‐ Phase 2 of the School District’s strategic plan; Special Needs – Special Needs Advisory Committee‐ Funders Summit to be convened in September). The timelines associated with these strategic plans will be taken into account when considering the budget and implementation timelines.

Follow‐Up from Planning Session At the April Planning Session Tom Lynch had asked how many of the 36 agencies that contract directly with CSC were government agencies. It was stated that there were only two, however, after further evaluation we want to clarify that there are five government agencies included within the 36 agencies. The five agencies are outlined below:

1. The School District of Palm Beach County 2. Palm Beach County 3. Health Care District 4. Health Department 5. Palm Beach State College


2

Follow Up from April Council Meeting

Teen Outreach Program® TOP© Student Demographic Data

Students Served

Gender Race/Ethnicity Middle School/ High School

Total 733 57% Female 41% Male 2% Transgender

71% Black or African‐American 16% Hispanic/Latino 3% White, non‐Hispanic 5% Multi‐ethnic

51% 6th ‐ 8th grade 49% 9th ‐ 12th grade

Children’s Home Society

164

51% Female 44% Male 5% Transgender

81% Black or African‐American 8% Hispanic/Latino 4%White, non‐Hispanic 2%Multi‐ethnic


Housing Partnership

349

60% Female 39% Male 1% Prefer Not to Answer

50% Black or African‐American 31% Hispanic/Latino; 5% White, non‐Hispanic 5% Multi‐ethnic 1% Prefer not to answer 1% Asian/Pacific‐Islander


Urban League of Palm Beach County

220 60% Female 40%Male

81% Black or African‐American 10% Hispanic/Latino 7% Multi‐ethnic <1% Native American/ Alaskan Native <1% Prefer not to answer


Healthy Start Coalition On‐Site Monitoring

Children’s Services Council serves as the fiscal, administrative and programmatic agent for the Healthy Start Coalition of Palm Beach County, also known as the Healthy Beginnings Coalition of Palm Beach County (“the Coalition”). The Coalition has two contracts for Healthy Start services:

with the Florida Department of Health; and

with the Healthy Start MomCare Network, Inc. The funding from these two contracts supports direct service staff in our nursing programs (Nurse Family Partnership, HB Nurses and WHIN), as well as direct service staff at both of our Healthy Beginnings Entry Agencies. The Coalition generated nearly $4 million to support our programs for pregnant woman and infants in FY 14/15.


3

On March 1 and March 2, 2016, our Coalition had an on‐site monitoring visit from the Healthy Start MomCare Network (“Network”) which is responsible for management of the Medicaid funding. The Network reviewed submitted materials and conducted a series of interviews of our providers and CSC staff. We recently received notification from the Network that as of April 15, 2016 our Coalition is in full compliance with our contractual obligations.

CSC presents at National Smart Start Conference Karen Brandi, Director of System Performance ‐ Quality Child Care, was one of three panelists invited to speak at a plenary session hosted during the 2016 National Start Smart conference. “Care and Education for the Early Care and Education Workforce” discussion drew an estimated 300 persons. Joining Karen, a representative from the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) spoke to the national perspective and the public will supporting early education teachers, while a representative from the state of New Mexico provided an overview of their state’s professional development/training system and the challenges of “changing the tire while driving the car”. Karen was able to share an overview of Palm Beach County’s local professional development system and discussed lessons learned. Facilitated questions led to a robust discussion amongst the audience and the panelists on increasing professional development opportunities and wages for the early care workforce, how to strengthen the workforce at the same time that we are making the case for increased wages, and the importance of involving the child care workforce in this conversation.

Communications Update

Superintendent Robert Avossa, Board Chair Chuck Shaw and Lisa Williams‐Taylor, Ph.D. with 2nd graders May 10 Spring 2016 ‘Happily Ever After Begins with Reading’ Campaign Second‐graders at C.O. Taylor/Kirklane Elementary in Palm Springs had a rare treat on May 10 ‐‐ a reading session with Palm Beach County leaders, including Schools Superintendent Dr. Robert Avossa, School Board Chair Chuck Shaw, and Children's Services Council CEO Lisa Williams‐Taylor. The event launched Children's Services Council's 2016 Happily Ever After Begins with Reading campaign to encourage summer reading.


4

As part of the campaign, Children’s Services Council, in partnership with the School District, hosts free book fairs at all public elementary schools in May. This is the fifth round of free book fairs sponsored by the Council, which has donated more than 500,000 books to Palm Beach County children since the Happily Ever After campaign began. Adult attendees were invited to read with a second‐grade buddy from C.O. Taylor/Kirklane, after the student picked his or her book. For many of these second graders, this is their fifth free book from the Council, since they were kindergartners when the Happily Ever After campaign launched in 2013. The goal of the book giveaway is to build children’s home libraries and encourage summer reading, which helps keep children’s skills sharp while school’s out. We were also delighted to hear Dr. Avossa’s recorded YouTube message on summer reading and the Happily Ever After campaign. That can be reviewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNbbLJ2G‐VM

2016 Safe Kids Day Safe Kids Palm Beach County had its annual Safe Kids Day on May 14 at the Palm Beach Outlets. Using money from the Healthy, Safe and Strong Fund of Children’s Services Council, Safe Kids Palm Beach County was able to purchase 500 helmets to distribute for free at the event. Helping hand out helmets was 11‐year‐old Jaden Rivera, a fifth‐grader who is recovering from a serious head injury after he crashed his bicycle and wasn’t wearing a helmet. Children had their helmets fitted and then they were able to participate in a bicycle rodeo put on by the YMCA of South Palm Beach County. Children’s Services Council as well as a dozen other organizations serving children distributed materials and talked about their programs. Android version of SafeMap App Children’s Services Council has completed an RFP process to develop the Android version of the new SafeMap app. The cost of development is $5,000, below the level of Council approval. When we presented the SafeMap app for Apple devices at the March 2016 Council meeting, board members had expressed interest in providing an Android version as well. So we are following up to inform you that we anticipate completion of that process and placement in the Google Play Store by mid‐summer. While we have promoted the app for Apple devices, we will begin promoting the app on both smartphone platforms as soon as it become available. ‘Growing Up Strong’ TV Show CSC wrapped up its third season of Growing Up Strong, the monthly show that airs on WXEL, the PBS station. This month’s episode focuses on child safety for the summer. Kelly Powell, Program Director at Safe Kids, discussed safety in and around home, water, cars and the neighborhood. Anna Stewart, Program Director at Drowning Prevention Coalition of Palm Beach County, added additional information on swim lessons and swim lesson


5

vouchers. And Mike Roedel, CSC Digital Communications Administrator, promoted the new SafeMap app. An extra feature on the show this month included School Superintendent Dr. Robert Avossa, who discussed the importance of summer reading, a key factor for CSC and one of the major goals outlined in the new District strategic plan. The show aired on Mondays, May 9 and May 16. CSC will contract to re‐broadcast all six shows of this season in the rest of this year. Spotlight on Providers The WPEC Spotlight on Business 2‐minute segment highlights each of our providers. Since the March Council meeting, when we shared the first four segments completed, these providers have been recorded and are available as links: United Way ‐ https://youtu.be/z5cm8zyjbls The ARC ‐ https://youtu.be/TE3rjxLcV6w Prime Time https://youtu.be/g2r2qdE4itM Healthy Mothers Healthy Babies ‐ https://youtu.be/IQ‐sFGyM8ZQ CL Brumback Clinic ‐ https://youtu.be/vKxcKTUIAPU Boys Town ‐ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqQ‐tJ7Rp5g&feature=youtu.be Families First ‐ http://cbs12.com/features/spotlight‐on‐business/spotlight‐on‐families‐first‐of‐palm‐

beach‐county 211 ‐ https://youtu.be/QhWu3yOk_aY Food Bank: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGolha‐9erU Literacy Coalition: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D__9Zkpj1WA

160526 Prevention Partnerships Agenda

PREVENTION PARTNERSHIPS FOR CHILDREN, INC. May 26, 2016 Board Meeting

AGENDA

Agenda Item: Reference #:

1. Call to Order

2. Approval of Minutes

A. February 25, 2016 Board Meeting of Prevention Partnerships for Children, Inc. 1

Recommendation: I recommend the Board approve the Minutes of the February 25, 2016, Board Meeting of Prevention Partnerships for Children, Inc.

3. Business/Consent Agenda

A. Consent Agenda 1. Additions, Deletions, Substitutions 2. Items to be pulled from Consent Agenda 3. Adoption of Consent Agenda

B. PPC Funded Programs – Current

1. Resolution #16‐001P Authorizing an Amendment (Increase) to FY 15/16 MOA with 2 the School Board of Palm Beach County

Recommendation: I recommend the Board approve Resolution #16‐001P authorizing the Chief Executive Officer to amend the FY 15/16 MOA with the School Board of Palm Beach County for the full time Specialist in Evaluation and Test Development position with an increase in the amount of $3,205, effective October 1, 2015 through September 30, 2016.

C. PPC Funded Programs – Future

1. Resolution #16‐002P Authorizing Renewal of MOA for FY 16/17 with the School Board 3 of Palm Beach County to Fund the Specialist in Evaluation and Test Development Position

Recommendation: I recommend the Board approve Resolution #16‐002P authorizing the Chief Executive Officer to renew the MOA for FY 16/17 with the School Board of Palm Beach County for the full time Specialist in Evaluation and Test Development Position in the amount of $95,893, effective October 1, 2016 through September 30, 2017, subject to the Council’s annual budget and TRIM approval process.

D. Financial

1. Prevention Partnerships for Children, Inc. Payables for Ratification 4

Recommendation: I recommend the Board approve the Payables for Ratification as presented.

E. Administration – N/A

PREVENTION PARTNERSHIPS FOR CHILDREN, INC. May 26, 2016 Prevention Partnerships for Children, Inc. Board Meeting Agenda Page: 2

160526 Prevention Partnerships Agenda

4. Walk‐In Items

5. Individual Appearances – Non Agenda Items

6. Miscellaneous

NOTICE: Remaining Board meetings of Prevention Partnerships for Children, Inc. for 2016 will be as follows: September 22, 2016 and December 8, 2016.

7. Adjournment

#1

Prevention Partnerships for Children, Inc. AGENDA

May 26, 2016

160526 Prevention Partnerships Agenda items

AGENDA ITEM: 2(A) TITLE: Minutes February 25, 2016 Board Meeting of Prevention Partnerships for

Children, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: I recommend the Board approve the Minutes of the February 25, 2016 Board Meeting of the Prevention Partnerships for Children, Inc. as presented.

160225 PPC Minutes

PREVENTION PARTNERSHIPS FOR CHILDREN, INC. BOARD MEETING February 25, 2016

MINUTES

1. Call to Order

Chair Langowski called the meeting to order at 5:46 p.m. Present: Robert M. Avossa, Ed.D Thomas Bean Kathleen Kroll Greg Langowski Dennis Miles Debra Robinson, M.D. Shelley Vana Thomas P. Weber Excused: Thomas E. Lynch, Vince Goodman A. Election of Officers

Current Officers: Chair – Greg Langowski Vice Chair – Tom Weber Secretary – Vince Goodman Treasurer – Tom Lynch

Tom Sheehan, Legal Counsel, stated that the annual election of Officers was held at the February Prevention Partnerships for Children, Inc. Board meeting. He stated that they typically had the Council Officers hold the same position for PPC as they did for the Council, and there was the necessity to have an additional Officer for PPC, a Treasurer. He asked for a nomination, either for the slate or beginning with the Chair. Commissioner Shelley Vana moved the current slate of Officers to be renewed. Mr. Sheehan asked for any other nominations: there were none. Mr. Sheehan stated that nominations were closed. A motion by Shelley Vana to elect the current slate of Officers (as listed) for Prevention Partnerships for Children, Inc. was approved by unanimous vote.

2. Approval of Minutes

A. Minutes of December 3, 2015 Prevention Partnerships for Children, Inc. Board Meeting

A motion by Bean/Weber to approve the Minutes of the December 3, 2015 Prevention Partnerships for Children, Inc. Board Meeting was approved by unanimous vote.

3. Business/Consent Agenda

Prevention Partnerships for Children, Inc. Board Meeting February 25, 2016

Page: 2

160225 PPC Minutes

A. Consent Agenda

1. Additions, Deletions, Substitutions – None 2. Items to be pulled for Discussion Purposes – There were no Agenda items pulled for discussion purposes. 3. Adoption of the Consent Agenda

A motion by Bean/Weber to adopt the Consent Agenda was approved by unanimous vote.

B. PPC Funded Programs – Current – N/A

C. PPC Funded Programs – Future – N/A

D. Financial

1. Prevention Partnerships for Children, Inc. Payables for Ratification – Approved by Consent

E. Administration – N/A

4. Walk‐In Items – N/A 5. Individual Appearances – Non Agenda Items – N/A 6. Miscellaneous

Tom Sheehan stated that the remaining Board meetings of Prevention Partnerships for Children, Inc. for 2016 would be May 26, 2016; he stated that the September date was not yet determined, but it was held in conjunction with the Council meeting. He stated that they had to wait for the School Board and the County to determine their TRIM dates before CSC could determine its September meeting dates. He stated that the final Prevention Partnerships for Children, Inc. Board meeting for 2016 would be December 8. He stated that if anything came up that required a vote there may be an ad hoc Prevention Partnerships Board meeting set up as necessary.

7. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 5:48 p.m.

________________________________ ________________________________________ Vincent Goodman, Secretary Lisa Williams‐Taylor, Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer

#2


May 26, 2016


AGENDA ITEM: 3B(1) TITLE: PPC Funded Programs ‐ Current Resolution #16‐001P Authorizing an Amendment (Increase) to

FY 15/16 MOA with the School Board of Palm Beach County CSC STAFF: Alissa Scuderi, Director of Program Operations SUMMARY: Prevention Partnerships for Children, Inc. (PPC) currently has in effect a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the School Board of Palm Beach County to fully fund a full‐time position for a Level 2 Specialist in Evaluation and Test Development to provide data and conduct statistical analyses and evaluations of educational programs funded by the Children’s Services Council of Palm Beach County. This position, effective March 16, 2016, has been increased by the School Board in the amount of $3,205. It is necessary for the current MOA be amended to increase the amount by $3,205. FISCAL IMPACT:

The total cost of funding this increase for FY 2015‐16 is $3,205 and the funds to support this agenda item are budgeted in the PPC strategy budget in the SDPBC‐Research Specialist Data line item. RECOMMENDATION: I recommend the Board approve Resolution #16‐001P authorizing the Chief Executive Officer to amend the FY 15/16 MOA with the School Board of Palm Beach County for the full time Specialist in Evaluation and Test Development position with an increase in the amount of $3,205, effective March 16, 2016 through September 30, 2016.

16‐001P Amend MOA School Board Evaluation Specialist position 15‐16

RESOLUTION #16-001P

RESOLUTION OF PREVENTION PARTNERSHIPS FOR CHILDREN, INC. (“PPC”) AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT OF FY 15/16 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD OF PALM BEACH COUNTY FOR FUNDING THE SPECIALIST IN EVALUATION AND TEST DEVELOPMENT POSITION

WHEREAS, the Specialist in Evaluation and Test Development staff position

(“Specialist position”) that the Children’s Services Council (“Council”) funds through the

School Board of Palm Beach County (“School Board”) via its nonprofit entity, Prevention

Partnerships for Children, Inc. by means of a Memorandum of Agreement (“MOA”), is

used to provide data and conduct statistical analyses and evaluations of educational

programs funded by the Council; and

WHEREAS, the School Board increased the salary for this position in the amount

of $3,205 effective March 16, 2016; and

WHEREAS, it is necessary to increase the amount of the MOA with the School

Board by $3,205, effective October 1, 2015 through September 30, 2016.



authorized to amend the amount of the MOA with the School Board of Palm Beach

County for the Specialist in Evaluation and Test Development position in an amount not to

exceed $3,205 effective October 1, 2015 through September 30, 2016.

The foregoing Resolution was offered by Board Member ___________________

who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Board Member



Dennis Miles Debra Robinson, M.D. Shelley Vana Thomas P. Weber The Chairman thereupon declared the Resolution duly passed and adopted this 26th day of May, 2016. APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL PREVENTION PARTNERSHIPS FOR SUFFICIENCY CHILDREN, INC. BY: ____________________________ BY: _______________________________ Thomas A. Sheehan, III Gregory A. Langowski, Chair Attorney for Prevention Partnerships

for Children, Inc. BY: ________________________________ Lisa Williams-Taylor, Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer

#3


May 26, 2016


AGENDA ITEM: 3C(1) TITLE: PPC Funded Programs ‐ Future Resolution #16‐002P Authorizing Renewal of MOA for FY 16/17 with the

School Board of Palm Beach County to Fund the Specialist in Evaluation and Test Development Position

CSC STAFF: Alissa Scuderi, Director of Program Operations SUMMARY: For a number of years Prevention Partnerships for Children, Inc. (PPC) has had a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the School Board of Palm Beach County to fully fund a full time position for a Level 2 Specialist in Evaluation and Test Development position. This position provides data and conducts statistical analyses and evaluations of educational programs funded by the Children’s Services Council of Palm Beach County. The MOA for this position expires September 30, 2016. Staff is recommending that the MOA be renewed for the 2016‐2017 fiscal year in an amount not to exceed $95,893. FISCAL IMPACT:

The total cost of funding this item for FY 2016‐17 is $95,893 and the funds to support this agenda item are budgeted in the PPC strategy budget in the SDPBC‐Research Specialist Data line item. RECOMMENDATION: I recommend the Board approve Resolution #16‐002P authorizing the Chief Executive Officer to renew the MOA with the School .ƻŀǊŘ of Palm Beach County ŦƻǊ C¸ мсκмт for ǘhŜ full time Specialist in Evaluation and Test Development Position in the amount of $95,893, effective October 1, 2016 through September 30, 2017, subject to the Council’s annual budget and TRIM approval process.

16‐002P School Board Evaluation Specialist 16‐17

RESOLUTION #16-002P

RESOLUTION OF PREVENTION PARTNERSHIPS FOR CHILDREN, INC. (“PPC”) AUTHORIZING RENEWAL OF MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH

THE SCHOOL BOARD OF PALM BEACH COUNTY TO FUND THE SPECIALIST IN EVALUATION AND TEST DEVELOPMENT POSITION FOR FY 16/17

WHEREAS, the Specialist in Evaluation and Test Development staff position

(“Specialist position”) that the Children’s Services Council (“Council”) funds through the

School Board of Palm Beach County (“School Board”) via its nonprofit entity, Prevention

Partnerships for Children, Inc. by means of a Memorandum of Agreement (“MOA”), is

used to provide data and conduct statistical analyses and evaluations of numerous

programs funded by Council; and

WHEREAS, such an MOA will expire September 30, 2016; and

WHEREAS, the School Board and the Board of Prevention Partnerships for

Children, Inc. wish to renew such an MOA.



authorized to execute renewal of the MOA with the School Board of Palm Beach County

to fund the Specialist in Evaluation and Test Development position in an amount not to

exceed $95,893 effective October 1, 2016 through September 30, 2017, subject to the

Council’s annual budget and TRIM approval process.

The foregoing Resolution was offered by Board Member ___________________

who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Board Member



Dennis Miles Debra Robinson, M.D. Shelley Vana Thomas P. Weber The Chairman thereupon declared the Resolution duly passed and adopted this 26th day of May, 2016. APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL PREVENTION PARTNERSHIPS FOR SUFFICIENCY CHILDREN, INC. BY: ____________________________ BY: _______________________________ Thomas A. Sheehan, III Gregory A. Langowski, Chair Attorney for Prevention Partnerships

for Children, Inc. BY: ________________________________ Lisa Williams-Taylor, Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer

#4


May 26, 2016


AGENDA ITEM: 3D(1) TITLE: Financial

Prevention Partnerships for Children, Inc. Payables for Ratification RECOMMENDATION: I recommend the Board approve the Payables for Ratification as presented.


Prevention Partnership

Payable Ratification

02/19/2016 - 05/13/2016

Check DateCheck

Number Vendor Name Transaction DescriptionCheck

Amount

3/3/2016 10757 School District of PBC Specialist Community Education 3,902.89

3/10/2016 10758 School District of PBC Specialist Evaluation and Test Development Position 7,856.00





Report Total 34,942.84

EFT Date Number Vendor Name Transaction Description EFT Amount

2/25/2016 P1372 School District of PBC Reimbursement Gross-Jan-2016Tech Assistance 116,176.35

3/17/2016 P1373 School District of PBC Reimbursement Gross-Feb-2016SD-Strong Minds 64,844.00

4/7/2016 P1374 School District of PBC Reimbursement Gross-Feb-2016Tech Assistance 115,926.43

4/21/2016 10761 School District of PBC Reimbursement Gross-Mar-2016SD-Strong Minds 64,844.00

4/28/2016 10762 School District of PBC Reimbursement Gross-Mar-2016Tech Assistance 117,737.10

Report Total 479,527.88

Children’s Services Council

Finance Committee Meeting

Thursday, May 26, 2016, 4:00 p.m.

AGENDA / MINUTES Welcome and introductions Finance Committee Members: Tom Lynch, CSC Finance Committee Chair

Thomas Bean, CSC Finance Committee Vice‐chair Greg Langowski, Chair Children’s Services Council Tom Weber, Vice Chair Children’s Services Council Paul Dumars, Director Financial Services, Solid Waste Authority John Marino, Volunteer CSC Staff: Lisa Williams‐Taylor, CEO Jen Diehl, CFO Tom Sheehan, General Counsel Elsa Sanchez, Senior Executive Assistant Agenda Items:

1 Revised Minutes March 31, 2016 2 Minutes April 28, 2016 3 April 30, 2016 Financial Statements 4 Other 5 Adjournment

Next Meeting: Tentatively June 15, 2016

1



Thursday, March 31, 2016, 4:00 p.m.

AGENDA / MINUTES (REVISED*) Welcome and introductions Finance Committee Members: Tom Lynch, CSC Finance Committee Chair, Present

Thomas Bean, CSC Finance Committee Vice‐chair, Arrived 4:20 Greg Langowski, Chair Children’s Services Council, Present Tom Weber, Vice Chair Children’s Services Council, Present Paul Dumars, Director Financial Services, Solid Waste Authority, Not Present John Marino, Volunteer, Present CSC Staff: Lisa Williams‐Taylor, CEO, Present

Bill Cosgrove, CFO, Present Jen Diehl, Controller, Present Tom Sheehan, General Counsel, Present Elsa Sanchez, Senior Executive Assistant, Present Tanya Palmer, Chief Program Officer, Present Agenda Items:

1 Minutes February 25, 2016, Unanimously Approved 2 Budget Workshop Summary (March 10, 2016), Summary provided 3 February 29, 2016 Financial Statements, Unanimously Approved 4 Budget Scenario 2016‐2017, Unanimously decided to update scenario with .6865

millage which provides the opportunity for sustained children’s programs, needed growth and newly identified community needs

5 Investment Policy Review, Discussed term of Investment Advisor’s contract and decided to maintain current investment policy

6 Procurement Policy Update, Unanimously Approved recommendation to Council of $5,000 “no quote” spending threshold

7 Fund Balance Policy Amendment, Unanimously Approved floor of 27.5% of the total budget; *Justified by having 2 months of reserves until the receipt of ad valorem revenue in November

8 Other

2

9 Adjournment

3



Thursday, April 28, 2016, 3:30 p.m.

AGENDA / MINUTES Welcome and introductions Finance Committee Members: Tom Lynch, CSC Finance Committee Chair, Present

Thomas Bean, CSC Finance Committee Vice‐chair, Present Greg Langowski, Chair Children’s Services Council, Present Tom Weber, Vice Chair Children’s Services Council, Present Paul Dumars, Director Financial Services, Solid Waste Authority, Present John Marino, Volunteer, Not Present CSC Staff: Lisa Williams‐Taylor, CEO, Present Jen Diehl, CFO, Present Tom Sheehan, General Counsel, Present Elsa Sanchez, Senior Executive Assistant, Present Agenda Items:

1 Minutes March 31, 2016, Unanimously approved with addition of reasoning for fund balance policy amendment [revised March minutes attached for approval]

2 March 31, 2016 Financial Statements, Unanimously approved 3 CSC Budget Forecast 2016‐2017 through 2020‐2021, Recommended revising millage

rate to .6952 based on projected increase of tax base of 6.65% from previous projection of 8% and millage of .6865; contingent upon actual tax base increase and projected program expenditures as a result of planning session decisions and follow‐up from CSC staff; Discussed increase to individual property owners which would be an approximate $7 increase per year for an owner of a single family home with a taxable property value of $250,000.

4 CSC Proposed 2016‐2017 Operating Budget Detail, Recommended revising millage rate to .6952 based on projected increase of tax base of 6.65% from previous projection of 8% and millage of .6865; contingent upon actual tax base increase and projected program expenditures as a result of planning session decisions and follow‐up from CSC staff

4

5 Other 6 Adjournment

Next Meeting: May 26, 2016

5

AGENDA ITEM: 3 TITLE: Financial Statements – April 30, 2016 (Unaudited) STAFF: Jennifer Diehl, CFO, Children’s Services Council of Palm Beach County

SUMMARY:

The financial statements are presented reflecting the estimated operating results of the General Fund and Special Revenue Fund (Prevention Partnerships for Children, Inc.) for the seven months ended April 30, 2016. The audit of the Council for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2015 has been completed and the applicable figures represent audited numbers.

Balance Sheet:

As of April 30, 2016 the Council had $91,703,482 in cash and investments. Of this balance, $30,000,000, net of unamortized discounts and premiums, was held in federal government bonds, $57,147,980 was held in a public funds money market account, and $150,853 was held in the Morgan Stanley Institutional Liquidity Prime Advisory Fund #8341. The remainder of the funds were on deposit in the Council’s operating accounts. The Capital Assets and the Investment in Capital Assets for $19,554,398 represent the costs associated with furniture and fixtures, equipment, and building costs. Statement of Revenue and Expenses: The budgeted expenditure rate at April 30, 2016 is 58%. The estimated expenditure rate for Children’s Programs at April 30, 2016 is 52.12% RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend the Finance Committee propose that the Council accept the April 30, 2016 Financial Statements as submitted.

6

CHILDREN'S SERVICES COUNCIL OF PALM BEACH COUNTY

BALANCE SHEET (Unaudited)

April 30, 2016

General Fund Total All Funds

Assets

Cash & Investments 91,690,653$ 12,829$ 91,703,482$ Accounts Receivable 1,089,677 - 1,089,677 Interest Receivable 55,169 - 55,169 Advances to Agencies 4,679,318 - 4,679,318 Prepaid Expenses 463,411 - 463,411 Due From - General Fund - 109,024 109,024 Capital Assets 19,554,398 - 19,554,398

Total Assets 117,532,626 121,853 117,654,479

Liabilities & Fund Balance

Liabilities

Allocations to Children's Services Programs 7,093,068 121,853 7,214,921 Deferred Revenue 766,667 - 766,667 Accounts Payable 324,649 - 324,649 Due to - Special Revenue Fund 109,024 - 109,024

Total Liabilities 8,293,408 121,853 8,415,261

Fund Balance

Nonspendable: Prepaid Expenses 463,411 - 463,411 Assigned: Reserved in accordance with fund balance policy 33,491,795 - 33,491,795 Unassigned: 55,729,614 - 55,729,614

Total Fund Balance 89,684,820 - 89,684,820

Investment in Capital Assets 19,554,398 - 19,554,398

Total Liabilities and Fund Balance 117,532,626$ 121,853$ 117,654,479$

Special Revenue Fund

Prevention Partnership for Children, Inc.

7

CHILDREN'S SERVICES COUNCIL OF PALM BEACH COUNTYSTATEMENT OF REVENUE AND EXPENSES CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE

FOR THE SEVEN MONTHS ENDED APRIL 30, 2016

Approved Budget Actual Approved Budget Actual Approved Budget Actual

2015/2016 Through Through Variance % 2015/2016 Through Through Variance % 2015/2016 Through Through Variance %

Budget 4/30/2016 4/30/2016 YTD YTD Budget 4/30/2016 4/30/2016 YTD YTD Budget 4/30/2016 4/30/2016 YTD YTD

Revenues

Ad Valorem Property Taxes 102,176,959$ 95,183,879$ 95,183,879$ -$ 93.16% -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.00% 102,176,959$ 95,183,879$ 95,183,879$ -$ 93.16%

Interest Income 300,000 175,000 312,289 137,289 104.10% - - - - 0.00% 300,000 175,000 312,289 137,289 104.10%

Unrealized Gain or Loss - - 38,078 38,078 100.00% - - - - 0.00% - - 38,078 38,078 100.00%

Department of Health/Agency

for Health Care Administration 3,630,806 2,117,970 2,453,415 335,445 67.57% - - - - 0.00% 3,630,806 2,117,970 2,453,415 335,445 67.57%

Palm Beach County Head Start Match 3,100,000 1,808,333 1,808,333 (0) 58.33% - - - - 0.00% 3,100,000 1,808,333 1,808,333 (0) 58.33%

JPB Foundation 250,000 - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% 250,000 - - - 0.00%

Income from Tenants 70,000 40,833 43,926 3,093 62.75% - - - - 0.00% 70,000 40,833 43,926 3,093 62.75%

Other Income 100,000 58,333 186,281 127,948 186.28% - - - - 0.00% 100,000 58,333 186,281 127,948 186.28%

Cash Carryforward 14,843,281 - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% 14,843,281 - - - 0.00%

Total Revenues 124,471,046 99,384,349 100,026,201 641,852 80.36% - - - - 0.00% 124,471,046 99,384,349 100,026,201 641,852 80.36%

Expenditures

Administrative Expenditures 5,342,146 3,116,252 2,985,660 130,591 55.89% - - 857 (857) 100.00% 5,342,146 3,116,252 2,986,517 129,734 55.90%

Capital Expenditures 250,000 145,833 140,067 5,766 56.03% - - - - 0.00% 250,000 145,833 140,067 5,766 56.03%

Contingency 500,000 - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% 500,000 - - - 0.00%

Non-Operating Expenses 2,801,919 2,477,027 2,477,027 - 88.40% - - - - 0.00% 2,801,919 2,477,027 2,477,027 - 88.40%

Reserve for Uncollectible Taxes 5,108,848 - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% 5,108,848 - - - 0.00%

Children's Services Programs:

Direct Services:

Funded Programs & Initiatives 98,014,091 57,174,886 50,858,936 6,315,950 51.89% 2,682,701 1,564,909 1,282,054 282,855 47.79% 100,696,792 58,739,795 52,140,990 6,598,805 51.78%

Support Services:

Programmatic Support 9,771,341 5,699,949 5,440,426 259,523 55.68% - - - - 0.00% 9,771,341 5,699,949 5,440,426 259,523 55.68%

Total Children's Programs 107,785,432 62,874,835 56,299,362 6,575,474 52.23% 2,682,701 1,564,909 1,282,054 282,855 47.79% 110,468,133 64,439,744 57,581,416 6,858,329 52.12%

Total Expenses 121,788,345 68,613,948 61,902,116 6,711,832 50.83% 2,682,701 1,564,909 1,282,911 281,998 47.82% 124,471,046 70,178,856 63,185,027 6,993,829 50.76%

Excess Revenues over Expenses 38,124,085 (1,282,911) 36,841,174

Other Financing Sources (Uses)

Transfers in (out) (2,682,701) (1,564,909) (1,282,911) (281,998) 47.82% 2,682,701 1,564,909 1,282,911 281,998 47.82% - - - - 0.00%

Net Changes in Fund Balances 36,841,174 - 36,841,174

Fund Balances

October 1, 2015 52,843,646 - 52,843,646

April 30, 2016 89,684,820$ -$ 89,684,820$

General Fund Special Revenue Fund Total

Prevention Partnership for Children, Inc.

8