2017-18 Planning Session

2017-18 Council Planning Session A.A. Milne Room

May 25, 2017 4:00 – 6:00 pm

AGENDA

I. Welcome, Introduction and Overview of Planning Session

II. Children’s Services Council Overview

III. Program Planning Process

IV. Who We Serve and Child Outcomes

V. Child Outcomes: Trends and Disparities

VI. Parenting Campaign

VII. Budget

VIII. Wrap-Up

IX. Adjourn to Council Meeting

2017‐18 Planning Session

Guiding Principles

Children’s Services Council is:

• Prevention‐focused• Data‐driven and accountable

• Innovative• Participant‐driven

1

Current Mission/Vision

Mission: 

The mission of the Children’s Services Council of Palm Beach County is to enhance the lives of children and their families and to enable them to attain their full potential by providing a unified context within which children’s needs can be identified and resolved by all members of the community. To achieve its mission, the Council will plan, develop, fund and evaluate programs and promote public policies that benefit Palm Beach County’s children and families.

Vision:

Children’s Service Council aspires to be an innovative leader creating a community where children and families reach their full potential.

Recommended Mission/Vision

Mission: 

To plan, fund and evaluate prevention and early intervention programs and services that benefit all Palm Beach County children and families. 

Vision:

All children grow up healthy, safe and strong.

2

Have access to quality afterschool & summer programsReady for kindergarten

Born healthy

Safe from abuse & neglect

Goals

Early Childhood System of Care

3

Client Count by Age Group

65%0‐5

35%6‐18

38,932

4

Funding by Age Group

72%0‐5

28%6‐18

By the Numbers

• CSC directly contracts with 36 agencies to deliver 55 programs.  

• Some of this funding is then directed toward other organizations within the community:

◦ Child care and afterschool providers

◦ Agencies delivering programs under subcontracts

• Over 540 organizations are needed to carry out the mission of CSC 

• The reach of these dollars supports the health and vibrancy of our community of organizations

5

Investment & Accountability Model

DOProgram Selection 

Contracting Implementation

CHECKComprehensive Program Performance Assessment

Program & System Evaluation

ACTProgram & System 

Refinements

PLANStrategy Review 

Allocation AnalysisExploration Goals

Born HealthySafe from Abuse and Neglect

Ready for KindergartenAccess to Quality Afterschool 

and Summer Programs

6

Accomplishments in Last Year

PLANNING• Community Needs Assessment• Birth to 22: Youth Master Plan• Disaggregated Child Outcomes

EXPLORATION• Family Engagement/Early Literacy  • STEM/STEAM • HB Workforce – Initial phase

• Launched Great Ideas Initiative• Head Start/Strong Minds/Healthy Beginnings Integration • Implementation of Project DULCE •Mental Health Refinement• Implementation of Child First  

EVALUATION:• Strong Minds‐ Year 2•METIS Home Visiting‐ Year 4

PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT:• CPPA• System Metrics & Scorecard

•Modification of WHIN• Increase reach of PCHP• Screening & Assessment

• Increased reach• Updated assessment tools• Clinical oversight• Training on tools

Status of Initiatives Identified at Last Planning Session • Initiative to Support Workforce in HB: 

◦ Initial exploration has identified targeted workforce (mental health) 

• Areas of Community Need:     ◦ Special Needs: 

$50,000 to support Special Needs Helpline

$134K re‐allocated to Early Steps

◦ Birth to 22: United for Brighter Futures

Co‐lead (backbone organization) with PBC Youth Services Dept

Youth Master Plan developed January 2017; action teams formed 

Co‐sponsored MBK Race to Equity Summit

Participating funder in Achieve Palm Beach County

◦ Training on EBP for Therapeutic Interventions: 

Awaiting action team recommendations

Ongoing support on education/awareness of impact of trauma

7

Status of FY 2016‐17 Council Member Interest

• STE(A)M Initiative◦ Great Ideas Initiative: 

Expanded reach of STEM through PAL and Women’s Foundation of PBC

◦ Funding Support to Green Mouse Academy for FIRST Lego League

◦ Areas of Expansion, FY 2017‐18:

STEAM Coordinator: Support Pre‐K STEAM programming in child care centers

STEAM Coordinator at PrimeTime

Expand STEAM programming

for afterschool programs in QIS

Status of FY 2016‐17 Council Member Interest

• Pre‐K Collaborative in Targeted Communities◦ Working with Community Partners, Early Learning Coalition, Stonybrook

All 4‐year olds in Stonybrook participating in VPK

◦ Pilot the expansion of Foster Grandparents in select child care centers in Riviera Beach

• Summer Camp/Afterschool Programming for Special Populations: ◦ Summer 2016: Funded DJJ Program at Palm Beach Lakes High School

◦ Summer 2017: Summer Camp Scholarship Program: Increase of 75 slots for DJJ and 61 slots for children in foster care

• Summer Learning Programs◦ 6 additional participating camps offering academic enrichment activities in 

partnership with School District 

8

Investment & Accountability Model

DOProgram Selection 

Contracting Implementation

CHECKComprehensive Program Performance Assessment

Program & System Evaluation

ACTProgram & System 

Refinements

PLANStrategy Review 

Allocation AnalysisExploration Goals

Born HealthySafe from Abuse and Neglect

Ready for KindergartenAccess to Quality Afterschool 

and Summer Programs

Who We Serve&

Child Outcomes

9

FY 2016 Demographics of the CSC Population 

52%

35%

13%

32%

68%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Black White Other Hispanic Non‐Hispanic

CSCN=28,435 N=22,710

Source: CSC’s Healthy Beginnings Data System (HBDS) and Early Learning Coalition’s EFS Data SystemNote:  All CSC client counts are determined by counting the number of individual clients in a database; Percentages do not include records with unknown values.  Ethnicity is only available by Hispanic and Non‐Hispanic status across all data collection systems.

Race Ethnicity

Demographics Compared to County

52%

35%

13%

32%

68%

26%

64%

10%

28%

72%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Black White Other Hispanic Non‐Hispanic

CSC PBC

N = 22,710  N = 273,021

Source (CSC Clients): CSC’s Healthy Beginnings Data System (HBDS) and Early Learning Coalition’s EFS Data SystemSource (Population Under 18): US Census Bureau; 2015 American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates, Tables B01001A‐I

Race Ethnicity

N = 28,435 N = 273,021

10

Child Outcomes

% of premature births, and % of low birthweight births

% of children (birth to five) with verified abuse or neglect

% of children scoring ready on the state Kindergarten readiness assessment

# of children enrolled in quality afterschool or summer programs

FY 2015‐16 Child Outcome MeasuresAccess to Quality Afterschool & Summer Programs

Description of Component FY 2013‐14 FY 2014‐15 FY 2015‐16

Children receiving CSC funds to attend an Afterschool and/or Summer Program 13,019 11,742 11,904

Children served in Afterschool Quality Improvement System (QIS)  sites Not Available 17,860 17,634

11

Are We Making a Difference         With Our Clients?

• Guiding Questions◦ How is CSC doing compared to  

itself (over time)?

others?

FY 2015‐16 Child Outcome MeasuresCSC Compared to Itself Scorecard

Measure Baseline FY 2015‐16 FY 2015‐16  Baseline

% of Babies Born                     Low Birthweight(<2500g or 5 lbs. 8 oz.)

9.4%(N = 933)

9.9%(N = 787)

0.5%

% of Preterm Births(<37 weeks)

9.3%(N = 933)

11.7%(N = 787)

2.4%

% of Verified Abuse and Neglect for Children Ages 0‐5 

1.2%(N = 1,290)

0.9%(N = 2,632)

‐0.3% 

% of ChildrenReady for Kindergarten

93.9%(N = 3,921)

92.1%(N = 4,606)

‐1.8%

Indicator improves when decreases Indicator improves when increases

CSC improved CSC declined

12

Guiding Questions

• How is CSC doing compared to others like CSC?

◦ Propensity Score Matching

▪ CSC vs Comparison Group: 

▫ FY 2015‐16

FY 2015‐16 Child Outcome MeasuresCSC vs Comparison Group Scorecard

MeasureFY 2015‐16

CSC Comparison CSC vs Comp.

% of Babies Born Low Birthweight (<2500g or 5 lbs. 8 oz.)

9.7%(N = 715)

8.8%(N = 715)

0.9%

% of Preterm Births(<37 weeks)

11.7%(N = 715)

9.1%(N = 715)

2.6%

% of Verified Abuse and Neglect for Children Ages 0‐5 

1.1%(N = 452)

1.8%(N = 452)

‐0.7%

% of KindergartenersReady for School

95.1%(N = 3,732)

90.8%(N = 3,732)

4.3%

CSC better than Comparison group or improved more than Comparison group.

Indicator improves when decreases Indicator improves when increases

CSC worse than Comparison group or improved less than Comparison group.

13

Low Birthweight: Moving Averages

8.07.2

7.7

8.4 8.59.3

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

9.0%

10.0%

FY11‐12 thru FY13‐14 FY 12‐13 thru FY14‐15 FY13‐14 thru FY 15‐16

Percentage of Babies Born Low Birthweight3 Year Moving Averages FY 2011‐12 Through FY 2015‐16

CSC Clients and Comparison Group

CSC  Clients Comparison

FY 2011‐12 through FY 2013‐14         FY 2012‐13 through FY 2014‐15         FY 2013‐14 through FY 2015‐16

10    

9    

8    

7    

6    

5    

4

3    

2    

1    

0

Understanding the Data

What questions are prompted from the scorecard?

◦ Who are we including in the analysis?

◦ How are we measuring & reporting success? Preterm vs. increase in length of gestation

System level evaluation vs. program level evaluation

◦ SRAA – program level questions? What populations are impacted?

How does dosage impact outcomes?

14

Investment & Accountability Model

DOProgram Selection 

Contracting Implementation

CHECKComprehensive Program Performance Assessment

Program & System Evaluation

ACTProgram & System 

Refinements

PLANStrategy Review 

Allocation AnalysisExploration Goals

Born HealthySafe from Abuse and Neglect

Ready for KindergartenAccess to Quality Afterschool 

and Summer Programs

Strategic Planning

Strategy Review and Allocation Analysis (SRAA)Purpose: Ensure dollars are spent on the most effective programs, strategies and systems to reach child outcomes.

Review of:• Community needs assessment• CSC data, research, and best practices in all related fields• Identification of the most influential strategies• Identification of gaps/duplications in the Early Childhood System of Care

Results lead to:• Exploration of new strategies and programs• Reallocation of funding for more effective programs

Results of the SRAA inform CSC’s strategic planning 

for the upcoming five years.

15

SRAA 2016‐2018

• Disaggregate and examine program level data over time.

• Examine new research and advances in the field. 

• Focus on equity, client voice, and engagement of the whole family. 

• Explore allocations with an intentional focus on reducing racial and ethnic disparities.  

Child Outcomes:Trends and Disparities

16

Context for Presentation

WHAT?Identify racial/ethnic/gender disparities in birth, child abuse and neglect and kindergarten readiness outcomes for Palm Beach County and for children that participated in CSC programs

WHY?Inform CSC’s strategic planning efforts to ensure                investment in the most effective strategies to meet                           the four goals, including reducing disparities

What Questions are Addressed?

1. What are the disparities in child outcomes for Palm Beach County?

2. Is CSC engaging families most at risk of poor outcomes?

3. What are the disparities in child outcomes for CSC clients?

4. What is CSC doing to address disparities?

17

Birth Outcomes: Low Birthweight

Low Birthweight defined as babies born weighing less than 2500g or      5lbs. 8oz.

Where are the Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Babies Born Low Birthweight? 

Three Year Trend – Percentage of Babies Born Low BirthweightBy Race/Ethnicity

7.2 6.4 6.1

12.313.4 14.3

7.3 6.9 7.2

10.7 10.3 11.7

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

2013‐14 2014‐15 2015‐16

Palm Beach County

White Non‐Hispanic Black Non‐Hispanic Hispanic Haitian

25    

20

15    

10    

5    

0FY 2013‐14                                          FY 2014‐15                                           FY 2015‐16

18

*  Percentages do not equal 100% as those whose race/ethnicity is “Other” or “Unknown” are excluded. 

12.8 12.1 9.5

42.3 44.4 45.2

19.8 21.1 22.1

23.1 21.1 20.4

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

FY 2013‐14 FY 2014‐15 FY 2015‐16

Percentage of CSC Clients Enrolled in Each Fiscal YearBy Race/Ethnicity* FY 2013‐14 Through FY 2015‐16  

White Non‐Hispanic Hispanic Black Non‐Hispanic Haitian

Demographics of Participants in Programs Targeting Low Birthweight

100    

90    

80    

70    

60    

50    

40

30    

20    

10    

0

Where are the Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Babies Born Low Birthweight? 

Three Year Trend – Percent of Babies Born Low BirthweightBy Race/Ethnicity

7.0

11.2

17.6

14.2

9.4 11.0

6.15.8

6.2

10.2

7.0

11.9

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

2013‐14 2014‐15 2015‐16

Children’s Services Council

White Non‐Hispanic Black Non‐Hispanic Hispanic Haitian

FY 2013‐14                                               FY 2014‐15                                                  FY 2015‐16

19

Where are the Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Babies Born Low Birthweight? 

Three Year Trend – Percent of Babies Born Low BirthweightBy Race/Ethnicity

7.0

11.2

17.6

14.2

9.411.0

6.15.8

6.2

10.2

7.0

11.9

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

2013‐14 2014‐15 2015‐16

CSC

White Non‐Hispanic Black Non‐HispanicHispanic Haitian

7.2 6.4 6.1

12.313.4 14.3

7.3 6.9 7.2

10.7 10.3 11.7

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

2013‐14 2014‐15 2015‐16

Palm Beach County

White Non‐Hispanic Black Non‐HispanicHispanic Haitian

FY 2013‐14           FY 2014‐15           FY 2015‐16 FY 2013‐14           FY 2014‐15           FY 2015‐16

Efforts Underway

• Prenatal Risk Screening Scoring

• Community Voice

• WHIN Nurses

20

Data Highlights for Other Outcomes

• Preterm Births◦ PBC: Racial and ethnic disparities mirror those for low birthweight. 

◦ CSC: Racial and ethnic disparity has decreased over time.

• Child Abuse & Neglect◦ PBC and CSC: Racial and gender disparities exist

The percentage for Black children is greater than White children.

Difference between Black and White children is much smaller for CSC clients compared to PBC. 

• Kindergarten Readiness ◦ PBC and CSC: Racial and gender disparities exist  

Similar patterns with White females scoring highest, and Black and Hispanic males lowest. 

Most groups at CSC showing increases over time, except for White males and females. 

21

Parenting 

Campaign

Parenting Campaign Update

1. Background

2. Website/Apps demonstration (video)

3. Next steps:• Content• Technology• Promotion

4. Questions/Comments?

22

Budget

FY 2017‐18

23

Quality Child Care & 

Afterschool$53.4 Million

BRIDGES$5.8 Million

Community Initiatives$7.8 Million

Healthy Beginnings$30.2 Million

Children’s Program Budget

Infrastructure$6.8 Million

Budget$104 Million

Children’s Programs Budget Projected

• Early Childhood System of Care:

◦ $1.3 million ‐ natural growth

◦ $3.1 million ‐ expansion/growth/new initiatives

▪ New staff to address gaps and increased demand in services

▪ Funding to increase supports for quality afterschool 

▪ Funding to support areas from last Planning Session

$104 million ‐ Existing Early Childhood programs $ 4.4 million ‐ Total of natural growth/expansion/new initiatives

$ 108.4 million

24

FY 2017‐18 Expenditure Assumptions

• Allocations to Children’s Programs and Initiatives will be at the level necessary to sustain the programs and support needed growth.

• FTE count will remain the same at 104.  

• Merit increases in salaries are budgeted at 3%.

• Promotional increases in salaries are budgeted at .5%.

• Health insurance costs are budgeted to increase at the rate of 10%.

• Costs associated with facility operations are budgeted to increase at 3%.

FY 2017‐18 Revenue Assumptions

• Income from Palm Beach County will reduce $1,000,000 per year until FY 2018‐19 when CSC is providing the entire local match for the Head Start program.

• The fund balance will continue to be drawn down until the balance reaches 27.5% of the annual budget as provided for in the Council’s fund balance policy.

• CSC will continue to experience an under‐expenditure rate of 5% of the total budget.  The 5% under‐expenditure will revert to the fund balance.

25

FY 2017‐18 Budget Recommendation * Tax base increases:

∙ 6.5% in FY 2017‐2018∙ 5.5% in FY 2018‐19 and FY 2019‐2020  ∙ 3.5% every year after

* Under expenditure rate is projected at 5%* Targeted fund balance is 27.5% of the total budget

Fiscal Year Total PBC Tax Base Millage Rate

CSC Ad Valorem Revenue

Other Funders/Income

Revenue from Fund Balance

Total CSC Budget

Fund Balance  Fund Balance Target

2016‐17 165,509,256,071 0.6833 113,092,475 6,014,966 9,076,761 128,184,202 47,764,565 35,250,656

2017‐18 176,267,357,716 0.6628 116,830,181 5,155,246 10,265,425 132,250,852 44,111,683 36,368,984

2018‐19 185,962,062,390 0.6628 123,255,655 4,055,246 9,640,521 136,951,422 41,318,733 37,661,641

2019‐20 196,189,975,821 0.6628 130,034,716 4,055,246 8,422,809  142,512,771  40,021,562  39,191,012 

2020‐21 203,056,624,975 0.6628 134,585,931 4,055,246 6,844,462  145,485,639  40,451,382  40,008,551 

2021‐22 210,163,606,849 0.6628 139,296,439 4,055,246 5,113,845  148,465,530  42,760,814  40,828,021 

All Resources and Efforts Focus On Achieving Our Goals

Have access to quality afterschool & summer programsReady for kindergarten

Born healthy

Safe from abuse & neglect

26

Appendix

27

28

29

FY 2015‐16 Child Outcome Measures

CSC

 Compared

 to Itself Scorecard

Mea

sure

Baselin

e1FY

 201

5‐16

FY 201

5‐16

 –Ba

selin

e

% of B

abies B

orn                     

Low Birthw

eigh

t(<25

00g o

r 5 lb

s.8 oz.)

9.4%

(N = 933)

9.9%

(N = 787)

0.5%

% of P

reterm

 Births

(<37

 wee

ks)

9.3%

(N = 933)

11.7%

(N =787)

2.4%

% of V

erified

 Abu

se and

 Neg

lect 

for C

hildren Ag

es 0‐5 

1.2%

(N = 1,290)

0.9%

(N = 2,632)

‐0.3%

% of C

hildren

Read

y for

Kind

ergarte

n293.9%

(N= 3,921)

92.1%

(N= 4,606)

‐1.8%

Note: FY is CSC

’s fiscal yea

r, October to Sep

tember. R

eady for school is based

 on a school yea

r (SY ‐en

d of Augu

st to 

beginning of June). 

1   Baseline data for low birthweigh

t an

d preterm

 births is FY 2011‐12; ab

use and neglect is FY 2013‐14; read

y for 

kindergarten

 is SY 2015‐16 (October 2015). 

Baseline for preterm

 births was recalculated based

 on the state’s recommen

dation to m

ethod of measuremen

t. This is  

different than

 previous scorecard’s baseline data.

2Th

e curren

t data for kindergarten

 rea

diness is SR2016‐17 (October 2016)

Indicator improv

es w

hen de

crea

ses

Indicator improv

es w

hen increa

ses

CSC im

prov

edCS

C de

cline

d

30

FY 2015‐16 Child Outcome Measures

CSC

 vs Comparison Group Scorecard

Mea

sure

FY 201

5‐16

CSC

Compa

rison

CSC vs Com

p.

% of B

abies B

orn 

Low Birthw

eigh

t (<25

00g or 5 lb

s.8 oz.)

9.7%

(N = 715)

8.8%

(N = 715)

0.9%

% of P

reterm

 Births 

(<37

 wee

ks)

11.7%

(N=7

15)

9.1%

(N=7

15)

2.6%

% of V

erified

 Abu

se and

 Ne

glect for Children Ag

es 0‐5 

1.1%

(N = 452)

1.8%

(N = 452)

‐0.7%

% of K

inde

rgartene

rsRe

ady for S

choo

l95.1%

(N = 3,732)

90.8%

(N = 3,732)

4.3%

Note: C

omp. = Com

paris

on group

Note: FY is CS

C’s fisc

al yea

r, Oc

tobe

r to Se

ptem

ber. Re

ady for s

choo

l is b

ased

 on a scho

ol yea

r (SY

 ‐en

d of Aug

ust to be

ginn

ingof Ju

ne). 

1 Baseline da

ta fo

r low

 birthw

eigh

t and

 preterm

 births is FY

 201

1‐12

; abu

se and

 neg

lect is FY

 201

3‐14

; rea

dy fo

r schoo

l is S

Y 20

15‐16 (O

ctob

er 201

5). 

CSC be

tter th

an Com

paris

on 

grou

p or im

prov

ed m

ore than

 Co

mpa

rison

 grou

p.

Indicator improv

es whe

n de

crea

ses

Indicator improv

es whe

n increa

ses

CSC worse th

an Com

paris

on 

grou

p or im

prov

ed less th

an 

Compa

rison

 grou

p.

31

Where are the racial/ethnic 

disparities in bab

ies born pre‐term?

8.0

8.0

8.0

12.9

13.3

12.9

8.6

8.9

9.3

11.0

10.2

11.4

0510152025

2013

‐14

2014

‐15

2015

‐16

Palm

 Bea

ch Cou

nty 

White Non

‐Hisp

anic

Black No

n‐Hispan

icHispan

icHa

itian

Three Year Tr

end –Pe

rcen

tage of B

abies B

orn Pre‐Term

By Race/Ethn

icity

9.6

8.2

13.5

12.5

9.9

11.0

6.1

7.8

9.9

10.2

5.3

13.8

0510152025

2013

‐14

2014

‐15

2015

‐16

White Non

‐Hisp

anic

Black No

n‐Hispan

ic

Hispan

icHa

itian

CSC

FY 201

3‐14

           FY

 201

4‐15

           FY

 201

5‐16

FY 201

3‐14

           FY

 201

4‐15

           FY

 201

5‐16

32

Where are the racial disparities in children 

with verified abuse and neglect?

Percen

t of D

CF Verified

 Investigations in

 Children Birth to Five 

Three Year Rollin

g Av

erage 

1.2

1.0

1.1

1.5

1.0

0.8

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

FY12

‐13, FY

13‐14

FY13

‐14, FY

14‐15

FY14

‐15, FY

15‐16

CSC

Black

White

2.4%

1.9%

1.3%

1.0%

0.8%

0.6%

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

FY12

‐13, FY

13‐14

FY13

‐14, FY

14‐15

FY14

‐15, FY

15‐16

Palm

 Bea

ch Cou

nty

Black

White

3.0

2.5    

2.0

1.5    

1.0    

.5    

0

3.0

2.5    

2.0

1.5    

1.0    

.5    

0

33

Where are the racial and gen

der disparities 

inchildren ready for kindergarten

?

62

6768

53

5860

6061

66

5656

59

8987

8784

8480

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

SR11

/12

SR12

/13

SR13

/14

Palm

 Bea

ch Cou

nty

Black Female

Black Male

Hispan

ic Female

Hispan

ic Male

White Fe

male

White M

ale

6768

68

56

6264

7072

75

6264

67

8887

87

7984

80

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

SR11

/12

SR12

/13

SR13

/14

CSC

Black Female

Black Male

Hispan

ic Female

Hispan

ic Male

White Fe

male

White M

ale

Three Year Tr

end –Pe

rcen

t of C

hildren Re

ady f

or Kinde

rgarten

By Race/Ethn

icity/G

ende

r

FY 201

1‐12

              F

Y 20

12‐13 

            FY

 201

3‐14

FY 201

1‐12

              F

Y 20

12‐13 

            FY

 201

3‐14

34

FY 2017‐18 Budget Recommen

dation 

* Tax b

ase increa

ses:

∙ 6.5% in

 FY 201

7‐20

18∙ 5

.5% in

 FY 201

8‐19

 and

 FY 201

9‐20

20  

∙ 3.5% every ye

ar afte

r* Un

der e

xpen

diture ra

te is projected

 at 5

%* Targeted

 fund

 balan

ce is 27.5%

 of the

 total b

udget

Fiscal Yea

rTo

tal P

BC Tax BaseMillage 

Rate

CSC Ad

 Valorem

 Re

venu

eOt

her 

Fund

ers/Income

Reve

nue fro

m 

Fund

 Balan

ceTo

tal C

SC 

Budg

etFu

nd Balan

ce Fu

nd Balan

ce 

Target

2016

‐17

165,509,256,071

0.6833

113,092,475

6,014,966

9,076,761

128,184,202

47,764,565

35,250,656

2017

‐18

176,267,357,716

0.6628

116,830,181

5,155,246

10,265,425

132,250,852

44,111,683

36,368,984

2018

‐19

185,962,062,390

0.6628

123,255,655

4,055,246

9,640,521

136,951,422

41,318,733

37,661,641

2019

‐20

196,189,975,821

0.6628

130,034,716

4,055,246

8,422,809 

142,512,771 

40,021,562 

39,191,012 

2020

‐21

203,056,624,975

0.6628

134,585,931

4,055,246

6,844,462 

145,485,639 

40,451,382 

40,008,551 

2021

‐22

210,163,606,849

0.6628

139,296,439

4,055,246

5,113,845 

148,465,530 

42,760,814 

40,828,021 

35

Ch

ildre

n’s

Ser

vice

s C

ou

nci

l Pat

hw

ay t

o E

arly

Ch

ildh

oo

d D

evel

op

men

t G

oal

s: W

hat

We

Wan

t

CH

ILD

RE

N A

RE

BO

RN

HE

AL

TH

YC

HIL

DR

EN

AR

E S

AF

E F

RO

M

AB

US

E A

ND

NE

GL

EC

T

E

xpec

tant

mot

hers

rec

eivi

ng e

arly

and

adeq

uate

pre

nata

l car

e

E

xpec

tant

mot

hers

who

hav

e he

alth

care

cove

rage

M

othe

rs r

ecei

ving

inte

rcon

cept

ion

heal

thca

re e

duca

tion

A

dult

mot

hers

with

sub

sequ

ent b

irths

at

leas

t 24

mon

ths

apar

t

B

irths

am

ong

teen

s

S

ubse

quen

t tee

n bi

rths

E

xpec

tant

mot

hers

and

par

ents

of y

oung

child

ren

with

dep

ress

ion,

trau

ma,

str

ess

and

men

tal h

ealth

con

cern

s

•P

rom

ote

fam

ily a

nd e

arly

child

hood

lite

racy

•P

rovi

de r

esou

rces

and

supp

orts

that

exp

and

acce

ss to

qual

ity e

arly

car

e an

ded

ucat

ion,

afte

rsch

ool a

ndsu

mm

er p

rogr

ams

•F

acili

tate

acc

ess

to p

rena

tal

and

inte

rcon

cept

ion

care

•P

rom

ote

child

and

mat

erna

lhe

alth

and

wel

lnes

s

•E

ngag

e te

ens

in p

ositi

veac

tiviti

es to

pre

vent

teen

preg

nanc

y

•A

ddre

ss m

ater

nal d

epre

ssio

n,tr

aum

a, to

xic

stre

ss a

nd m

enta

lhe

alth

con

cern

s

•E

nhan

ce p

aren

ting

skill

s an

dkn

owle

dge

of c

hild

deve

lopm

ent

C

hild

ren

who

rec

eive

ong

oing

deve

lopm

enta

l sur

veill

ance

Id

entif

icat

ion

of c

hild

ren

who

nee

d ea

rlyin

terv

entio

n se

rvic

es (

e.g.

soc

ial e

mot

iona

l,be

havi

oral

, dev

elop

men

tal a

nd d

isab

ility

)re

ceiv

ing

thes

e se

rvic

es

P

aren

ts a

nd c

hild

ren

who

hav

e po

sitiv

e an

dnu

rtur

ing

rel

atio

nshi

ps

C

hild

ren

with

em

erge

nt li

tera

cy s

kills

P

aren

ts/A

dults

rea

ding

to th

eir

child

ren

P

aren

ts e

ngag

ed in

thei

r ch

ild’s

lear

ning

C

hild

ren

in h

igh-

qual

ity e

arly

car

e an

ded

ucat

ion

prog

ram

s

C

hild

ren

with

soc

ial e

mot

iona

l com

pete

nce

C

hild

ren

who

hav

e he

alth

care

insu

ranc

e

C

hild

ren

who

hav

e a

prim

ary

heal

thca

repr

ovid

er

C

hild

ren

who

rec

eive

age

-app

ropr

iate

imm

uniz

atio

ns a

nd w

ell-c

hild

vis

its w

ithin

the

reco

mm

ende

d tim

e pe

riod

C

hild

ren

who

exp

erie

nce

sum

mer

lear

ning

loss

•A

ddre

ss c

hild

dev

elop

men

tal

conc

erns

•P

rom

ote

phys

ical

, cog

nitiv

e,so

cial

, and

em

otio

nal

com

pete

nce

and

deve

lopm

ent

amon

g yo

ung

child

ren

ra

te o

f inf

ant m

orta

lity,

%of

prem

atur

e bi

rths

, an

d %

of l

owbi

rthw

eigh

t birt

hs

%

of c

hild

ren

(birt

h to

five

) w

ithve

rifie

d ab

use

or n

egle

ct

% o

f chi

ldre

n sc

orin

g re

ady

on th

e st

ate

Kin

derg

arte

nre

adin

ess

asse

ssm

ent

#

of c

hild

ren

enro

lled

in q

ualit

yaf

ters

choo

l or

sum

mer

prog

ram

s

CH

ILD

RE

N A

RE

RE

AD

Y

FO

R K

IND

ER

GA

RT

EN

CH

ILD

RE

N H

AV

E A

CC

ES

S

TO

QU

AL

ITY

AF

TE

RS

CH

OO

L

AN

D S

UM

ME

R P

RO

GR

AM

S

Ch

ild O

utc

om

es:

Wh

at W

e M

easu

re

Key

Ind

icat

ors

: W

hat

We

Tra

ck

Pri

mar

y S

trat

egie

s: W

hat

We

Do

Revised

 March 2016

36

Notes

May

18,

201

7