The Connecticut General Assembly
Joint Committee on Legislative Management
Donald E. Williams, Jr. James A. Amann Senate President Pro Tempore Speaker of the House
Martin M. Looney, Senate Majority Leader Christopher G. Donovan, House Majority Leader Louis C. DeLuca, Senate Republican Leader Robert M. Ward, House Minority Leader
D’Ann Mazzocca, Ph.D. Executive Director
June 20, 2006
TO: All Proposers of Record
FROM: Tina Mohr
RE: Phase II of Appropriations Committee Results Based Accountability Initiative Response to Proposer Questions and RFP Clarifications
The following responses to proposer inquiries are provided to those who have received the Connecticut General Assembly’s Request for Proposal for Phase II of Appropriations Committee Results Based Accountability Initiative.
Please note that the deadline for receipt of all proposals is 4:00 p.m. July 7, 2006 in the Office of Legislative Management, Room 5100 Legislative Office Building, Hartford, Connecticut.
Thank you for your interest.
JOINT COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE MANAGEMENT Phase II of Appropriations Committee Results Based Accountability Initiative
QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES
June 20, 2006
1. Should the name of the proposal be listed as Results Based Accountability rather than Risk Based Accountability as stated in Part 4, Section (d)?
Yes.
2. Is a corporate resolution required for a proposer that is an LLC partnership registered in Connecticut?
Yes.
3. Is the contract expected to be time and materials or firm fixed price?
Firm Fixed Price.
4. What is the approximate dollar amount of the contract?
The maximum budget allotted for the project is $125,000.
5. What format must be used for the proposal, e.g., font type and size, line spacing, number of pages, margins?
There is no format requirement. Use standard business format.
6. Part 4, Section (o) requires the submission of an insurance certificate (Attachment D) as part of the proposal. Attachment D states that a certificate of insurance is only required of the successful bidder prior to the award of the contract. Must the certificate described in Attachment D be submitted with the proposal?
An insurance certificate is not required to be provided with the proposal. It is required to be submitted once a contract award is made.
7. Is there any minimum or maximum number of corporate or individual references?
No.
8. May the same individual serve as both a corporate and an individual reference?
Yes.
The Connecticut General Assembly
Joint Committee on Legislative Management
Donald E. Williams, Jr. Senate President Pro Tempore James A. Amann Speaker of the House Martin M. Looney, Senate Majority Leader Louis C. DeLuca, Senate Republican Leader Christopher G. Donovan, House Majority Leader Robert M. Ward, House Minority Leader D’Ann Mazzocca, Ph.D. Executive Director
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
PHASE II OF APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE RESULTS BASED ACCOUNTABILITY INITIATIVE
FOR THE JOINT COMMITTEE OF LEGISLATIVE MANAGEMENT
CONNECTICUT GENERAL ASSEMBLY
Sealed proposals will be received by the Office of Legislative Management in Room 5100 at the Legislative Office Building, Hartford, Connecticut for providing the Connecticut General Assembly with the goods and/or services listed herein by the date and time cited below.
DATE: July 7, 2006
TIME: 4:00 pm
Issued: June 8, 2006
Suite 5100 * Legislative Office Building * Hartford, CT 06106-1591 * (860) 240-0100 * fax (860) 240-0122 * [email protected]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART 1 GENERAL INFORMATION ...... 1
1.1 Executive Summary...... 1 1.2 Terminology...... 1 1.3 Contact Information...... 2
PART 2 PROJECT SCOPE ...... 2
2.1 Overview...... 2 2.2 Administrative Requirements...... 2 2.3 Technical Requirements...... 3
PART 3 EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS ...... 6
3.1 Mandatory Requirements...... 6 3.2 Qualitative Elements...... 6 3.3 Scoring ...... 6 3.4 Debriefing Procedure...... 6
PART 4 PROPOSAL CONTENTS...... 6
PART 5 CONTRACTUAL PROVISIONS ...... 8
5.1 Formation of a Contract...... 8 5.2 Contract Breach ...... 9 5.3 Accounting Records...... 10 5.4 Work Product ...... 10 5.5 Renewal of Contract ...... 10 5.6 Contractor Guarantees ...... 10 5.7 Freedom of Information...... 11 5.8 Discounts...... 12 5.9 Human Rights and Opportunities...... 12 5.10 Executive Orders...... 17
PART 6 PROCUREMENT SCHEDULE ...... 18
6.1 Issue the Request for Proposal...... 18 6.2 Deadline for Questions ...... 18 6.3 Amendments to Request for Proposal...... 18 6.4 Proposal Delivery...... 18 6.5 Contract Award Process ...... 18
i
PART 7 RESERVED RIGHTS...... 18
7.1 Rights ...... 18 7.2 Disqualification from submitting Proposal...... 19
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A Vendor Evaluation Form
Attachment B Sample Corporation Resolution and Proof of Authorization Form
Attachment C Certification Form
Attachment D Insurance Certificate
Attachment E Proposal Pricing Page
Attachment F Vendor Profile
Attachment G W-9
Attachment H Phase I Report
ii
PART 1 GENERAL INFORMATION
1.1 Executive Summary
The Connecticut General Assembly (CGA) is seeking a consultant to provide assistance with Phase II of the Results Based Accountability (RBA) initiative. Phase II includes (1) application of the full RBA initiative framework to one or more areas of the budget; (2) creation of a framework and standardized tools for the broad application of RBA initiative that any agency may use without being part of a formal pilot project directed by the RBA work group; (3) application of the RBA to the budget process; and (4) creation of the institutional capacity within the Connecticut General Assembly (CGA) to continue the use of the RBA in the appropriations process.
1.2 Terminology
As used herein, the following terms shall have the following meanings:
(a) “CGA” - Connecticut General Assembly;
(b) “Commission” - Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities;
(c) “Contract” - Agreement signed by parties to formalize the acceptance by the state of an offer of a proposer to furnish the services described herein at the stated prices in response to the request for proposals;
(d) “Proposer” - Any individual, firm or corporation to whom a contract is awarded based on a proposal submitted;
(e) “Proposal” - Offer submitted in response to this request for proposals, to furnish the services described herein to the state, under the prescribed conditions at the stated prices;
(f) “Proposer” - Person, firm or corporation submitting a proposal in response to a request for proposals;
(g) “RBA" - Results Based Accountability initiative
(h) “RFP” - Request for proposal;
(i) “State” - The Connecticut General Assembly acting by and through the Executive Director of the Joint Committee of- Legislative Management;
1
1.3 Contact Information
Mail: Attention: Tina Mohr Office of Legislative Management 300 Capitol Avenue Legislative Office Building; Room 5100 Hartford, CT 06106-1591
Telephone: (860) 240 – 0100
Fax: (860) 240 – 0122
Email: [email protected]
PART 2 PROJECT SCOPE
2.1 Overview
The Connecticut General Assembly (CGA) is the legislative branch of government of the State of Connecticut. Through statutory enactments, the Office of Legislative Management (OLM) is responsible for the coordination and management of legislative affairs and the supervision and approval of any and all legislative expenditures. The Joint Committee on Legislative Management includes the top legislative leaders from each political party and works through a subcommittee system. The Personnel Policies Subcommittee is comprised of the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the Majority and Minority Leaders of each chamber. The Subcommittee is responsible for establishing legislative personnel policies, guidelines, regulations, and salary schedules, and also approves legislative expenditures exceeding $50,000. The Office of Fiscal Analysis and the Appropriations Committee are seeking a consultant to provide assistance with Phase II of the Results Based Accountability (RBA) initiative. The Office of Fiscal Analysis provides the General Assembly with independent, accurate, and timely fiscal information to assist members in making budgetary decisions and to inform members of the fiscal impact of legislative under consideration. The OFA acts as the fiscal support staff to the committees on Finance, Revenue and Bonding and Appropriations. The Appropriations Committee has cognizance of all matters relating to appropriations and the budgets of state agencies. Other issues under the committee's jurisdiction include matters relating to state employees' salaries, benefits and retirement, teachers' retirement and veterans' pensions and collective bargaining agreements and arbitration awards for all state employees.
2.2 Administrative Requirements
The following administrative elements shall be included in all proposals submitted to the OLM. The OLM has the sole discretion to decide if deviations from the requirements listed below are material and whether to accept a proposal if it fails to comply with said requirements.
2
2.2.1 Corporate Experience
(a) The proposer shall elaborate on corporate experience regarding projects similar to that described in this RFP.
(b) The proposer shall provide corporate references for projects similar to that described in this RFP along with the following information:
i. Name, title, address and telephone number of reference; ii. Overview of the project; iii. Length of the project; iv. Total fees associated with the project.
2.2.2 Individual Experience and Knowledge
(a) The proposer shall elaborate on experience of individuals, assigned under the proposal, regarding projects similar to that described in this RFP.
(b) The proposer shall provide references for individuals, assigned under the proposal, regarding projects similar to that described in this RFP along with the following information:
i. Name, title, address and telephone number of reference; ii. Overview of the project; iii. Length of the project; iv. Total fees associated with the project.
2.2.3 Cost
Proposers shall provide a detailed cost estimate for the project described in this RFP. This estimate shall outline each stage of work along with corresponding costs and any costs for which reimbursement will be sought. The total project cost shall be indicated on Attachment E.
2.3 Technical Requirements
The following technical elements shall be included in all proposals submitted to the OLM. The OLM has the sole discretion to decide if deviations from the requirements listed below are material and whether to accept a proposal if it fails to comply with said requirements.
2.3.1 General
The Office of Fiscal Analysis and the Appropriations Committee are seeking a consultant to provide assistance with Phase II of the Results Based Accountability initiative. Phase II includes the following elements: (1) application of the full RBA initiative framework to one or more areas of the budget; (2) creation of a framework and standardized tools for the broad application of RBA initiative that any agency may use without being part of a formal pilot project directed by
3
the RBA work group; (3) application of RBA to the budget process; and (4) creation of institutional capacity within the CGA to continue the use of RBA in the appropriations process. Attached is the final report of Phase I as well as a list of the RBA work group. (Attachment H)
2.3.2 Specific Work
(a) Application of the full RBA initiative framework to one or more areas of the budget.
i. Develop a set of criteria for selecting the quality of life results and agencies for Phase II.
ii. Involve multiple agencies in one budget area and not more than a few agencies in at least one other budget area.
iii. Identify all programs that contribute to the quality of life results and develop all appropriate measures for those programs (some programs may be excluded if their contribution is very small or indirect.)
iv. Include no budget area in Phase II if administrative or political considerations preclude a full presentation of all indicators and goals.
(b) Creation of a framework and standardized tools for the broad application of RBA initiative that any agency may use without being part of a formal pilot project directed by the RBA work group.
i. Encourage the broadest application of RBA without compromising other Phase II objectives.
ii. Offer standardized tools and a framework to any agency to use for its own purposes or for its presentations to its Appropriations sub-committee
iii. Offer a series of RBA trainings to all agencies interested in using the RBA framework.
iv. Offer agencies a technical review and comments on their completed templates.
v. Offer agencies that choose to adopt the RBA framework an opportunity to formally present their RBA materials to their Appropriations sub-committees
(c) Application of RBA to the budget process.
i. Conduct a financial scan for each quality of life result that includes all relevant expenditures.
4
ii. Conduct a joint presentation to the full Appopriations Committee ( or joint meetings of the relevant sub-committees) prior to the start of any formal budget hearings.
iii. Identify by agency and program any funding increases necessary over the next five years to turn the curve for the key quality of life indicators.
iv. Provide a brief summary of each agency’s program and budget contribution to the relevant quality of life result when each agency presents its individual budget to its Appropriations sub-committee.
(d) Creation of institutional capability within the General Assembly to continue the use of RBA in the appropriations process.
i. Consultants and OFA should partner in all aspects of implementation for Phase II.
ii. OFA should prepare to assume primary responsibility for RBA in subsequent phases.
iii. All Appropriations sub-committees will receive RBA training and will have technical support for any hearings or meetings that involve the presentation of RBA materials.
iv. Develop a list of possible legislative changes that would facilitate the use of RBA by state agencies and the General Assembly.
2.3.3 Work Schedule
Proposals shall include the following milestones in their tentative work schedule submitted with the proposal. These milestones include:
(a) July : Consultants and OFA begin work with the affected agencies,
(b) Monthly: Work Group, consultants and OFA meet to review progress,
(c) January – February (before regular Appropriations sub-committee hearings): Affected agencies make RBA presentations to the full Appropriations Committee (or to joint meetings of the relevant Appropriations sub-committees)
(d) February-March: Agencies use abbreviated RBA introduction in their regularly scheduled presentations to their sub-committees,
(e) One month prior to the Appropriations Committee JF deadline: Work Group, consultants and OFA evaluate Phase II and Work Group decides whether to propose legislation relating to RBA
5
PART 3 EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS
3.1 Mandatory Requirements
OLM will review proposals submitted to determine if the administrative and technical submission requirements listed on section 2.2 and 2.3 have been addressed.
3.2 Qualitative Elements
Once it is determined that the proposals meet the mandatory requirements, the following qualitative elements of the proposal will be evaluated based on the scoring methodology identified in section 3.1.3. (Attachment A)
(a) Overall Approach; (b) Proposer’s understanding of the requirements; (c) Clarity of proposal; (d) Quality of the proposal; (e) Professional experience and references of the corporation; (f) Professional experience and references of the personnel; (g) Appropriateness of the proposed fee structure
3.3 Scoring
Once it is determined that a proposal contains the mandatory requirements, the qualitative elements of the proposal will be scored on the Vendor Evaluation Form using a scale of outstanding, very good, fair and poor. (Attachment A)
3.4 Debriefing Procedure
OLM contracting personnel will send letters to all proposers indicating the results of the review process.
PART 4 PROPOSAL CONTENTS
Proposals shall include the following elements in their proposal.
(a) Proposals must be sent to the Office of Legislative Management, Room 5100; Legislative Office Building; 300 Capitol Avenue; Hartford, CT 06106 to the attention of Tina Mohr;
(b) Proposals shall be submitted in writing;
(c) An original and three (3) loose leaf copies of each proposal shall be submitted;
(d) The proposer shall indicate on the front of the envelope:
6
SEALED PROPOSAL: PHASE II OF APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE RISK BASED ACCOUNTABILITY INITIATIVE
DEADLINE FOR RECEIPT: July 7, 2006 at 4:00 pm
(e) Corporate experience regarding projects similar to that described in this RFP;
(f) Corporate references regarding projects similar to that described in this RFP;
i. Name, title, address and telephone number of reference; ii. Overview of the project; iii. Length of the project; iv. Total fees associated with the project.
(g) Experience of individuals, assigned under the proposal, regarding projects similar to that described in this RFP;
(h) References for individuals, assigned under the proposal, regarding projects similar to that described in this RFP along with the following information:
i. Name, title, address and telephone number of reference; ii. Overview of the project; iii. Length of the project; iv. Total fees associated with the project.
(i) Detailed cost estimate for the project described in this RFP. This estimate shall outline each stage of work along with corresponding costs.
(j) Proposers shall list any additional costs for which reimbursement will be sought in their proposal.
(k) Detailed proposal discussing how the technical requirements, listed in section 2.3, of the OLM will be addressed.
(l) Tentative work schedule which includes milestones listed in section 2.3.3.
(m) A corporate resolution or notarized proof of authorization indicating authority to submit this proposal on behalf of the firm. The proposer should submit documentation which resembles either the attached sample resolution or sample authorization. (Attachment B)
(n) Completed certification form. (Attachment C)
(o) Insurance certificate: Please see minimum required levels. The proposer must name the JCLM as an additional insured. (Attachment D)
7
(p) Indicate total project cost as a sum of the detailed cost estimate listed in item i above. (Attachment E)
(q) Vendor profile. (Attachment F)
(r) W-9 form. (Attachment G)
PART 5 CONTRACTUAL PROVISIONS
5.1 Formation of a Contract
Upon acceptance of the proposal, OLM will initiate the contract process.
5.1.1 Contract Creation
This section serves as a notification to contractor that:
(i) the state’s acceptance of the proposer’s offer to furnish the services required in this RFP shall result in a contract between the contractor and the state which shall bind the contractor on his part to furnish and deliver said services at the prices specified in said proposal, except as modified through negotiations between the state and the contractor, and the state on its part to order from the contractor, except for causes beyond reasonable control, and subject to the availability of appropriated funds, and to pay for at the contract prices, the services provided for in this RFP; and
(ii) all the provisions of this RFP shall be included in the terms and conditions of said contract, except to the extent provided otherwise in an agreement executed by the state and the contractor subsequent to the receipt of said proposal by the state.
5.1.2 Contract Execution
The contractor shall execute a formal contract with the State of Connecticut for the complete performance specified therein. This contract is considered executed once the contract is signed by the contractor and the State.
5.1.3 Term of Contract
The term of the contract shall extend from contract execution to project completion and expiration of all warranties. The state reserves the right to extend the contract, if needed.
5.1.4 Modification
No alterations or variations of the terms of contract shall be valid or binding upon the state unless made in writing and signed by the state.
8
5.1.5 Transfer
It is mutually understood and agreed that the contractor shall not assign, transfer, convey, sublet, or otherwise dispose of his contract or his right, title or interest therein, or his power to execute such contract, to any other person, firm or corporation, without the previous written consent of the state. Any subcontracting work done in regards to this contract must be agreed to in writing by the state before the contractor begins any work.
5.1.6 Governing Law:
This RFP and any contract awarded pursuant thereto shall be governed by the laws of the State of Connecticut with or without reference to principles of conflicts of laws. The parties agree to adjudication by, and hereby waive any objection to the jurisdiction of, such state and federal courts as are situated in Hartford, Connecticut.
Notwithstanding any provision or language in this contract to the contrary, the state may terminate this contract whenever it determines that such determination is in the best interests of the state. Any such termination shall be effected by delivery to the contractor of a written notice of termination. The notice of termination shall be sent by registered mail to the contractor’s address furnished to the state for purposes of correspondence or by hand delivery. Upon receipt of such notice, the contractor shall both immediately discontinue all services affected (unless the notice directs otherwise) and deliver to the state all data, drawings, specifications, reports, estimates, summaries, and such other information and materials as may have been accumulated by the contractor in performing his duties under this contract, whether completed or in progress. All such documents, information, and materials shall become the property of the state. In the event of such termination, the contractor shall be entitled to reasonable compensation as determined by the state, however, no compensation for lost profits shall be allowed.
5.2 Contract Breach
5.2.1 Failure to Perform
Failure of the contractor to deliver commodities or services as provided for herein or failure to make replacements of rejected commodities when so requested, immediately or as directed by the state, will constitute authority for the state to purchase in the open market to replace the commodities or services rejected or not delivered. The state reserves the right to authorize immediate purchases in the open market against rejections on any contract when necessary. The contractor agrees to reimburse the state promptly for excess costs occasioned by such purchases. However, should public necessity demand it, the state reserves the right to use or consume commodities delivered which are substandard in quality, subject to an adjustment in price to be determined by the state.
5.2.2 Rejection
Any services rendered by the contractor hereunder which fail in any way to meet the terms of the contract are subject to rejection or payment on an adjusted price basis. The decision of the state shall be final.
9
5.2.3 Cancellation
The state reserves the right to cancel this contract within five days notice due to unsatisfactory performance. In the event that this is done, the contractor will be paid for all the work performed or commodities provided up to the time of cancellation.
5.3 Accounting Records
The contractor, when under contract, shall maintain adequate accounting records in accordance with all applicable state regulations in connection with this project and such records shall be made available for inspection by the state or other persons designated by the state. The contractor shall make such accounts and records accessible to authorized state officials for the purpose of audit and examination. All records must be maintained for a minimum of three years after completion of the contract.
5.4 Work Product
All materials developed in conjunction with the contract shall become the property of the state at no additional cost.
No report or document produced in whole or in part in connection with the contract shall be the subject of an application for copyright by or on behalf of the contractor.
The contractor, when under contract, shall not use the name of the state for advertising or promotional purposes without prior permission in writing. The contractor is allowed to use name of the state as a reference.
5.5 Renewal of Contract
The state reserves the right to renew this contract under the conditions set forth in Section 2-71u of the Connecticut General Statutes.
5.6 Contractor Guarantees
(a) The contractor hereby agrees and guarantees to perform any contract awarded in accordance with the specifications, terms and conditions contained in this RFP.
(b) The contractor shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the state and its officers, representatives, agents, servants, employees, successors and assigns from and against any and all (1) claims arising, directly or indirectly, in connection with the contract, including the acts of commission or omission (collectively, the “Acts”) of the contractor or contractor parties; and (2) liabilities, damages, losses, costs and expenses, including but not limited to, attorneys’ and other professionals’ fees, arising, directly or indirectly, in connection with claims, acts or the contract. The contractor shall use counsel reasonably acceptable to the state in carrying out its obligations under this section. The contractor’s obligations under this section to indemnify, defend and hold harmless against claims
10
includes claims concerning confidentiality of any part of or all of the bid or any records, any intellectual property rights, other proprietary rights of any person or entity, copyrighted or uncopyrighted compositions, secret processes, patented or unpatented inventions, articles or appliances furnished or used in the performance of the contract.
(c) The contractor shall reimburse the state for any and all damages to the real or personal property of the state caused by the acts of the contractor or any contractor parties. The state shall give the contractor reasonable notice of any such claims.
(d) The contractor’s duties under this section shall remain fully in effect and binding in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract, without being lessened or compromised in any way, even where the contractor is alleged or is found to have merely contributed in part to the acts giving rise to the claims and/or where the state is alleged or is found to have contributed to the acts giving rise to the claims.
(e) The contractor shall carry and maintain at all times during the term of the contract, and during the time that any provisions survive the term of the contract, sufficient general liability insurance to satisfy its obligations under this section. The contractor shall name the state as an additional insured on the policy and shall provide a copy of the policy to the state no later than ten (10) business days from the effective date of the contract.
(f) The rights provided in this section for the benefit of the state shall encompass the recovery of attorneys’ and other professionals’ fees expended in pursuing a claim against a third party.
(g) This section shall survive the termination, cancellation or expiration of the contract, and shall not be limited by reason of any insurance coverage.
5.7 Freedom of Information
5.7.1 Freedom of Information Act
Due regard will be given to the protection of proprietary information contained in all proposals received; however, contractors should be aware that all materials associated with this procurement are subject to the terms of the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act and all rules, regulations and interpretations resulting therefrom.
5.7.2 Proprietary Information
It will not be sufficient for a contractor to merely state generally that the proposal is proprietary in nature and not therefore subject to release to third parties. Those particular pages or sections which a contractor believes to be proprietary must be specifically identified as such. Convincing explanation and rationale sufficient to justify each exception from release consistent with Section 1- 210 of the Connecticut General Statutes must accompany the proposal. The rationale and explanation must be stated in terms of the prospective harm to the competitive position of the contractor that would result if the identified material were to be released and the reasons why the materials are legally exempt from release pursuant to the above-cited statute.
11
5.7.3 Administrative Authority
Between the contractor and the state, the final administrative authority to release or exempt any or all material so identified rests with the state.
5.8 Discounts
Discounts must be reflected in the base price in the RFP. Any prompt payment discounts should be itemized in the RFP. Other discounts will not be considered when determining which contractor has the lowest proposed price.
5.9 Human Rights and Opportunities
5.9.1 Required Compliance with Human Rights and Opportunities Regulations
Any contractor must agree to comply with the statutes referred to in this section as they exist on the date of the contract that results from this proposal and as they may be adopted or amended from time to time during the term of the contract and any amendments thereto.
Incorporated by reference into this contract are applicable provisions of the Connecticut General Statutes including but not limited to Sections 4a-60, 4a-60a, 46a-71(d), 46a-81i(d).
5.9.2 Nondiscrimination and Affirmative Action Provisions in contracts of the state and political subdivisions other than municipalities. (Conn. Gen. Stat. 4a-60)
(a) Every contract to which the state or any political subdivision of the state other than a municipality is a party shall contain the following provisions:
(1) The contractor agrees and warrants that in the performance of the contract such contractor will not discriminate or permit discrimination against any person or group of persons on the grounds of race, color, religious creed, age, marital status, national origin, ancestry, sex, mental retardation or physical disability, including, but not limited to, blindness, unless it is shown by such contractor that such disability prevents performance of the work involved, in any manner prohibited by the laws of the United States or of the state of Connecticut. The contractor further agrees to take affirmative action to insure that applicants with job-related qualifications are employed and that employees are treated when employed without regard to their race, color, religious creed, age, marital status, national origin, ancestry, sex, mental retardation, or physical disability, including, but not limited to, blindness, unless it is shown by such contractor that such disability prevents performance of the work involved;
(2) The contractor agrees, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or on behalf of the contractor, to state that it is an “affirmative action-equal opportunity employer” in accordance with regulations adopted by the commission;
12
(3) The contractor agrees to provide each labor union or representative of workers with which such contractor has a collective bargaining agreement or other contract or understanding and each vendor with which such contractor has a contract or understanding, a notice to be provided by the commission advising the labor union or workers’ representative of the contractor’s commitments under this section, and to post copies of the notice in conspicuous places available to employees and applicants for employment;
(4) The contractor agrees to comply with each provision of this section and sections 46a-68e and 46a-68f and with each regulation or relevant order issued by said commission pursuant to sections 46a-56, 46a-68e and 46a-68f;
(5) The contractor agrees to provide the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities with such information requested by the commission, and permit access to pertinent books, records and accounts, concerning the employment practices and procedures of the contractor as relate to the provisions of this section and section 46a-56. If the contract is a public works contract, the contractor agrees and warrants that he will make good faith efforts to employ minority business enterprises as contractor and suppliers of materials on such public works project.
(b) For the purposes of this section, “minority business enterprise” means any small contractor or supplier of materials fifty-one per cent or more of the capital stock, if any, or assets of which is owned by a person or persons:
(1) Who are active in the daily affairs of the enterprise,
(2) Who have the power to direct the management and policies of the enterprise and
(3) Who are members of a minority, as such term is defined in subsection (a) of section 32-9n; and “good faith” means that degree of diligence which a reasonable person would exercise in the performance of legal duties and obligations. “Good faith efforts” shall include, but not be limited to, those reasonable initial efforts necessary to comply with statutory or regulatory requirements and additional or substituted efforts when it is determined that such initial efforts will not be sufficient to comply with such requirements.
(c) Determination of the contractor’s good faith efforts shall include but shall not be limited to the following factors: The contractor’s employment and subcontracting policies, patterns and practices; affirmative advertising, recruitment and training; technical assistance activities and such other reasonable activities or efforts as the commission may prescribe that are designed to ensure the participation of minority business enterprises in public works projects.
(d) The contractor shall develop and maintain adequate documentation, in a manner prescribed by the commission, of its good faith efforts.
(e) The contractor shall include the provisions of subsection (a) of this section in every subcontract or purchase order entered into in order to fulfill any obligation of a contract with the state and such provisions shall be binding on a subcontractor, vendor or manufacturer unless exempted by regulations or orders of the commission. The contractor shall take such action with respect to any
13
such subcontract or purchase order as the commission may direct as a means of enforcing such provisions including sanctions for noncompliance in accordance with section 46a-56; provided, if such contractor becomes involved in, or is threatened with, litigation with a subcontractor or vendor as a result of such direction by the commission, the contractor may request the State of Connecticut to enter into any such litigation or negotiation prior thereto to protect the interests of the state and the state may so enter.
5.9.3 Contracts of the state and political subdivisions, other than municipalities, to contain provisions re nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. (Conn. Gen. Stat. 4a-60a)
(a) Every contract to which the state or any political subdivision of the state other than a municipality is a party shall contain the following provisions:
(1) The contractor agrees and warrants that in the performance of the contract such contractor will not discriminate or permit discrimination against any person or group of persons on the grounds of sexual orientation, in any manner prohibited by the laws of the United States or of the state of Connecticut, and that employees are treated when employed without regard to their sexual orientation;
(2) The contractor agrees to provide each labor union or representative of workers with which such contractor has a collective bargaining agreement or other contract or understanding and each vendor with which such contractor has a contract or understanding, a notice to be provided by the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities advising the labor union or workers’ representative of the contractor’s commitments under this section, and to post copies of the notice in conspicuous places available to employees and applicants for employment;
(3) The contractor agrees to comply with each provision of this section and with each regulation or relevant order issued by said commission pursuant to section 46a-56;
(4) The contractor agrees to provide the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities with such information requested by the commission, and permit access to pertinent books, records and accounts, concerning the employment practices and procedures of the Contractor which relate to the provisions of this section and section 46a-56.
(b) The contractor shall include the provisions of subsection (a) of this section in every subcontract or purchase order entered into in order to fulfill any obligation of a contract with the state and such provisions shall be binding on a subcontractor, vendor or manufacturer unless exempted by regulations or orders of the commission. The contractor shall take such action with respect to any such subcontract or purchase order as the commission may direct as a means of enforcing such provisions including sanctions for noncompliance in accordance with section 46a-56; provided, if such contractor becomes involved in, or is threatened with, litigation with a subcontractor or vendor as a result of such direction by the commission, the contractor may request the state of Connecticut to enter into any such litigation or negotiation prior thereto to protect the interests of the state and the state may so enter.
14
5.9.4 Discriminatory Practices by State Agencies (Conn. Gen. Stat. 46a-71(d)
Every state contract or subcontract for construction on public buildings or for other public works or for goods and services shall conform to the intent of section 4a-60 and 4a-60a.
5.9.5 Sexual orientation discrimination: Services of state agencies.(Conn. Gen. Stat. 46a- 81i(d))
Every state contract or subcontract for construction on public buildings or for other public work or for goods and services shall conform to the intent of section 4a-60a.
5.9.6 Enforcement (Conn. Gen. Stat. 46a- 56(a))
(a) The commission shall:
(1) Investigate the possibilities of affording equal opportunity of profitable employment to all persons, with particular reference to job training and placement;
(2) Compile facts concerning discrimination in employment, violations of civil liberties and other related matters;
(3) Investigate and proceed in all cases of discriminatory practices as provided in this chapter and noncompliance with the provisions of Sections 4a-60, 4a-60a and 46a-68c to 46a-68f, inclusive, of the Connecticut General Statutes;
(4) From time to time, but not less than once a year, report to the Governor as provided in Section 4a-60 of the Connecticut General Statutes, making recommendations for the removal of such injustices as it may find to exist and such other recommendations as it deems advisable and describing the investigations, proceedings and hearings it has conducted and their outcome, the decisions it has rendered and the other work it has performed;
(5) Monitor state contracts to determine whether they are in compliance with Sections 4a-60 and 4a-60a of the Connecticut General Statutes and all other provisions of the general statutes which prohibit discrimination; and
(6) Compile data concerning state contracts with female and minority business enterprises and submit a report annually to the General Assembly concerning the employment of such business enterprises as contractor and subcontractor.
(b) The commission may, when it is deemed in the best interests of the state, exempt a contractor from the requirements of complying with any or all of the provisions of Section 4a-60, 4a-60a, 46a-68c, 46a-68d or 46a-68e of the Connecticut General Statutes in any specific contract. Exemptions under the provisions of this section may include, but not be limited to, the following instances: (1) If the work is to be or has been performed outside the state and no recruitment of workers within the limits of the state is involved; (2) those involving less than
15
specified amounts of money or specified numbers of workers; (3) to the extent that they involve subcontracts below a specified tier. The commission may also exempt facilities of a contractor which are in all respects separate and distinct from activities of the contractor related to the performance of the contract, provided such an exemption shall not interfere with or impede the effectuation of the purposes of this section and Sections 4a-60, 4a-60a, 4a-60g, 4a-62 and 46a-68b to 46a-68k, inclusive, of the Connecticut General Statutes.
(c) If the commission determines through its complaint procedure that a contractor or subcontractor is not complying with anti-discrimination statutes or contract provisions required under Sections 4a-60, 4a-60a, 46a-68c, 46a-68d, 46a-68e or 46a-68f of the Connecticut General Statutes, (A) the state shall retain two per cent of the total contract price per month on any existing contract with such contractor and (B) the contractor shall be prohibited from participation in any further contracts with state agencies until: (i) the expiration of a period of two years from the date of the finding of noncompliance or (ii) the commission determines that the contractor has adopted policies consistent with such statutes. The commission shall make such a determination as to whether the contractor has adopted such policies within forty-five days of its determination of noncompliance. In addition, the commission may do one or more of the following: (1) publish or cause to be published, the names of contractor or unions which it has found to be in noncompliance with such provisions; (2) notify the Attorney General that, in cases in which there is substantial or material violation or the threat of substantial or material violation of the contractual provisions set forth in Sections 4a-60 or 4a-60a of the Connecticut General Statutes, appropriate proceedings should be brought to enforce those provisions, including the enjoining, within the limitations of applicable law, of organizations, individuals or groups who prevent directly or indirectly, or seek to prevent directly or indirectly, compliance with the provisions of said Sections 4a-60 of 4a-60a of the Connecticut General Statutes; (3) recommend to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or the Department of Justice that appropriate proceedings be instituted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when necessary; (4) recommend to the appropriate prosecuting authority that criminal proceedings be brought for the furnishing of false information to any contracting agency or to the commission as the case may be; (5) order the contracting agency to refrain from entering into further contracts, or extension or other modifications of existing contracts, with any noncomplying contractor, until such contractor has satisfied the commission that such contractor has established and will carry out personnel and employment policies in compliance with antidiscrimination statutes and provisions of Sections 4a-60, 4a-60a and 46a-68c to 46a- 68f, inclusive, of the Connecticut General Statutes. The commission shall adopt regulations in accordance with Chapter 54 of the Connecticut General Statutes to implement the provisions of this section.
(d) If the commission determines through its complaint procedure and after a hearing held in accordance with Chapter 54 of the Connecticut General Statutes that, with respect to a state contract, a contractor, subcontractor or supplier of materials has (1) fraudulently qualified as a minority business enterprise or (2) performed services or supplied materials on behalf of another contractor, subcontractor or supplier of materials knowing (A) that such other contractor, subcontractor or supplier has fraudulently qualified as a minority business enterprise in order to comply with antidiscrimination statutes or contract provisions required under Section 4a-60 or 4a-60a of the Connecticut General Statutes, and (B) that such services
16
or materials are to be used in connection with a contract entered into pursuant to Section 4a- 60g(b) of the Connecticut General Statutes it shall assess a civil penalty of not more than ten thousand dollars upon such contractor, subcontractor or supplier of materials. The Attorney General, upon complaint of the commission, shall institute a civil action in the superior court for the judicial district of Hartford to recover such penalty. Any penalties recovered shall be deposited in a special fund and shall be held by the Treasurer separate and apart from all other moneys, funds and accounts. The resources in such fund shall, pursuant to regulations adopted by the commission in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 54 of the Connecticut General Statutes, be used to assist minority business enterprises. As used in this section, “minority business enterprise” means any contractor, subcontractor or supplier of materials fifty-one per cent or more of the capital stock, if any, or assets of which is owned by a person or persons: (1) Who are active in the daily affairs of the enterprise; (2) who have the power to direct the management and policies of the enterprise; and (3) who are members of a minority, as such term is defined in Section 32-9n(a) of the Connecticut General Statutes.
5.9.7 Contractor required to file compliance reports (Conn. Gen. Stat. 46a-68e)
Each contractor shall file, and shall cause each of his contractor to file, with the commission such compliance reports at such times as the commission may direct. Compliance reports shall contain such information as to the practices, policies, programs and employment policies, employment programs, and employment statistics of the contractor and each subcontractor and be in such form as the commission may prescribe.
5.9.8 Compliance reports to include labor union practices: (Conn. Gen. Stat. 46a-68f)
Whenever the contractor has a collective bargaining agreement or other contract or understanding with a labor union or an agency referring workers or providing or supervising apprenticeship or training for such workers, the compliance report shall include information pertaining to such labor union’s or agency’s practices and policies affecting compliance, as the commission may prescribe; provided, to the extent such information is within the exclusive possession of a labor union or an agency referring workers or providing or supervising apprenticeship or training and such labor union or agency refuses to furnish information to the contractor, the contractor shall so certify to the commission as part of its compliance report and shall set forth what efforts have been made to obtain such information.
5.9.9 Labor Reporting:
The contractor also agrees to make available to the State Department of Labor a listing of all available employment openings for the purpose of carrying out the terms of the contract.
5.10 Executive Orders
This contract is subject to the provisions of Executive Order No. Three of Governor Thomas J. Meskill, promulgated June 16, 1971, concerning labor employment practices, Executive Order No. Seventeen of Governor Thomas J. Meskill, promulgated February 15, 1973, concerning the listing of employment openings and Executive Order No. Sixteen of Governor John G. Rowland
17
promulgated August 4, 1999, concerning violence in the workplace, all of which are incorporated into and are made a part of this agreement as if they had been fully set forth in it. Proposers may receive copies of these documents upon request.
PART 6 PROCUREMENT SCHEDULE
6.1 Issue the Request for Proposal
The RFP will be issued by June 8, 2006.
6.2 Deadline for Questions
All questions must be submitted in writing by June 16, 2006. These submissions must be addressed to the attention of Tina Mohr at the Office of Legislative Management; Legislative Office Building; Room 5100, Hartford, CT 06106-1591; Questions can be submitted by email to the following address: [email protected].
6.3 Amendments to Request for Proposal
All amendments to the RFP and response to written questions will be published no later than 5:00 pm on June 23, 2006.
6.4 Proposal Delivery
All sealed proposals must be delivered by 4:00 pm on July 7, 2006 to the attention of Tina Mohr at the Office of Legislative Management in Room 5100 at the Legislative Office Building, Hartford, Connecticut
6.5 Contract Award Process
The contract award process will begin once all proposals are reviewed.
PART 7 RESERVED RIGHTS
7.1 Rights
7.1.1 Amendment or withdrawal of proposal
The state reserves the right to amend and/or cancel this RFP at any time prior to the proposal opening, and to correct any award erroneously made as a result of clerical error on the part of the state.
7.1.2 Refusal of Proposal
The state reserves the right to refuse any and all proposals hereunder. The state may refuse any proposal that does not meet the entire RFP.
18
7.2 Disqualification from submitting Proposal
7.2.1 Disqualification from submitting proposals for contracts. Suspension (Conn. Gen. Stat. 2-71r)
(a) The Joint Committee on Legislative Management may disqualify any person, firm or corporation, for up to two years, from submitting a proposal for, applying for, or participating as a subcontractor under contracts with the legislative department, pursuant to Section 2-71p of the Connecticut General Statutes, for contractual services required by the legislative department, for one or more causes set forth under subsection (c) of this section. The committee shall provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to the person, firm or corporation which is the subject of the proceeding. The committee shall issue a written decision within ninety days of the last date of such hearing and state in the decision the reasons for the action taken and, if the person, firm or corporation is being disqualified, the period of such disqualification. The committee shall send the decision to such person, firm or corporation by certified mail, return receipt requested. The written decision shall be a final decision for the purposes of sections 4-180 and 4-183 of the Connecticut General Statutes.
(b) Before initiating such a proceeding or during the proceeding, the committee may suspend the person, firm or corporation from being considered for the awarding of such a contract for such contractual services, if the committee determines that there is probable cause for disqualification under section 7.2.1. No such suspension shall exceed three months. The committee may suspend such a person, firm or corporation only by issuing a written decision setting forth the reasons for, and the period of, the suspension. The committee shall send the decision to such person, firm or corporation by certified mail, return receipt requested.
(c) Cause for disqualification or suspension from submitting proposals shall include the following:
(1) Conviction or entry of a plea of guilty for commission of a criminal offense as an incident to obtaining or attempting to obtain a public or private contract or subcontract, or in the performance of such contract or subcontract;
(2) Conviction or entry of a plea of guilty under state or federal law for embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, receiving stolen property or any other offense indicating a lack of business integrity or business honesty which affects responsibility as a state contractor;
(3) Conviction or entry of a plea of guilty under state or federal antitrust, collusion or conspiracy statutes arising out of the submission of bids or proposals;
(4) Noncompliance with contract provisions, of a character regarded by the committee to be of such gravity as to indicate a lack of responsibility to perform as a state contractor, including deliberate failure, without good cause, to perform in accordance with specifications or time limits provided in a contract;
19
(5) Recent record of failure to perform or of unsatisfactory performance in accordance with the terms of one or more contracts, unless such failure to perform or unsatisfactory performance was caused by acts beyond the control of the contractor or supplier; or
(6) Any other cause the committee determines to be so serious or compelling as to affect responsibility as a state contractor, including disqualification by another governmental entity, having caused financial loss to the state or having caused a serious delay or inability of state officials to carry out their duties on a past contract or contracts.
7.2.2 Reduction of Disqualification Period
The committee may reduce the period or extent of disqualification, upon the contractor’s request, supported by documentation, for the following reasons:
(a) Newly discovered material evidence (b) Reversal of the conviction upon which the disqualification was based; (c) Bona fide change in ownership or management; (d) Elimination of other causes for which the disqualification was imposed; or (e) Other reasons the committee deems appropriate.
7.2.3 Disqualification Exception
The committee may grant an exception permitting a disqualified contractor to participate in a particular contract or subcontract upon a written determination by the committee that there is good cause, in the interest of the public, for such action.
20
VENDOR EVALUATION FORM The Connecticut General Assembly ATTACHMENT A Joint Committee on Legislative Management Legislative Office Building – Room 5100 Hartford, CT 06106 (860) 240 – 0100 FAX: (860) 240 – 0122
Title: [Insert RFP Title] Name of Vendor: [Insert Name of Vendor] Evaluation Contact: [Insert Evaluation Contact Name] Date: [Insert Date of Evaluation]
Outstanding Very Fair Poor Good 1. Overall Approach 2. Proposers understanding of the requirements 3. Clarity of proposal 4. Quality of the proposal 5. Professional experience and references of the corporation 6. Professional experience and references of the personnel 7. Appropriateness of the proposed fee structure
SAMPLE CORPORATE The Connecticut General Assembly RESOLUTION AND PROOF OF Joint Committee on Legislative AUTHORIZATION Management FORM Legislative Office Building : Rm 5100 Hartford, CT 06106 ATTACHMENT B (860) 240 – 0100 FAX: (860) 240 – 0122
The proposer has the option of submitting either a corporate resolution or proof of authorization similar to those below. The proposer is not required to use the wording below, but must ensure that all the information below is included with the document meant to satisfy this requirement.
SAMPLE CORPORATE RESOLUTION CERTIFICATION OF AUTHORITY (DATE) At a meeting of the Directors of ______(insert company name) duly called and held at ______(insert location of meeting) on ______(day of meeting) day of ______(month of meeting), at which a quorum was present and acting, it was VOTED that ______(name of authorized signer), the ______(title of authorized signer) of the Corporation is hereby authorized and empowered to make, enter into, sign, seal and deliver in behalf of this Corporation a contract for ______(description of project or services) with the Connecticut General Assembly, Joint Committee on Legislative Management in connection with said contract.
I do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of the record, that said vote has not been amended or repealed and is in full force and effect as of this date and that ______(name of authorized signer), is duly elected ______(title of authorized signer) of this Corporation.
Attest: (Signature of Clerk)______(Affix Corporate Seal Here) (Printed Name of Clerk) Date: (Date of meeting) Clerk
Attachment B 2 SAMPLE PROOF OF AUTHORIZATION
PROOF OF AUTHORIZATION (LOCATION) (DATE)
On this ______(day of authorization) day of ______(date of authorization), before me personally came ______(name of authorized signer), to me known, who being by me duly sworn, did state he resides in
______(state of residence); that he is the ______
(title of authorized signer) of ______(company name); and that he has authorization to submit this proposal and enter into a contract for
______(description of services or project) .
Attest: (Affix Corporate Seal Here)
Date: (Date of notary signature) (Signature of Notary )______(Printed Name of Notary) Notary Public, (State of Commission) Commission Expires: (Date commission expires)
CERTIFICATION The Connecticut General Assembly FORM Joint Committee on Legislative Management ATTACHMENT C Legislative Office Building : Rm 5100 Hartford, CT 06106 (860) 240 – 0100 FAX: (860) 240 – 0122
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, accepting the conditions set forth herein, hereby agrees in strict accordance therewith, to furnish these services and/or commodities to the General Assembly as listed in the Request for Proposal in accordance with the following guidelines:
Independent Price Determinations and Offer of Gratuities:
1. The costs proposed have been arrived at independently, without consultation, communication, or agreement for the purpose of restricting competition, as to any matter relating to such process with any other organization or with any competitor;
2. Unless otherwise required by law, the costs quoted have not been knowingly disclosed by the Proposer on a prior basis directly or indirectly to any other organization or to any competitor;
3. No attempt has been made or will be made by the Proposer to induce any other person or firm to submit or not to submit a Proposal for the purpose of restricting competition;
4. The Proposer has no knowledge of the specific Proposal contents prior to actual receipt of the Proposal;
5. The Proposer certifies that no elected or appointed official or employee of the State of Connecticut has or will benefit financially or materially from this procurement. Any contract arising from this procurement may be terminated by the State if it is determined that gratuities in excess of those allowed under Chapter 10 of the Connecticut General Statutes (Code of Ethics for Public Officials) were either offered to or received by any of the aforementioned officials or employees from the Contractor’s agent or the Contractor’s employee.
The Proposer agrees to furnish these services and/or commodities to the Connecticut General Assembly as listed in the Request for Proposal at the prices indicated on Attachment E.
SIGNED AND DATED this day of
Company: Address: Signature: Date: Name (Printed): Title: Telephone No: Fax No: Federal Employer Identification No:
INSURANCE CERTIFICATE The Connecticut General Assembly Joint Committee on Legislative ATTACHMENT D Management Legislative Office Building : Rm 5100 Hartford, CT 06106 (860) 240 – 0100 FAX: (860) 240 – 0122
1. The successful proposer shall carry in force for the duration of this agreement the following insurance:
(a) All statutory insurance, i.e. worker’s compensation and unemployment insurance.
(b) Bodily injury, occupational sickness or disease, or death of his employees; bodily injury, sickness or disease, or death of any person other then his employees and claims insured by usual personal injury liability coverage.
(c) Damage because of injury to, disappearance, or destruction of tangible property, including the loss of use resulting therefrom.
2. The Comprehensive General Liability Limits Shall Be:
Bodily Injury: $500,000 each person, $1,000,000 each occurrence
Property Damage: $1,000,000 each occurrence
3. Automobile and/or truck use on the premises for deliveries, etc., shall require Comprehensive Automobile Insurance with coverage not less than:
Bodily Injury: $500,000 each person, $1,000,000 each occurrence
Property Damage: $1,000,000 each occurrence
4. The insurance certificate shall indicate that the contractor name the Joint Committee on Legislative management as an additional insured and shall defend and save harmless the Joint Committee on Legislative Management from actions, suits, or other legal proceedings that may be instituted on such claims or demands.
5. The insurance certificate shall also indicate that policies may not be canceled without at least 15 days prior notice to the Joint Committee on Legislative Management.
6. The successful vendor shall deliver to the Joint Committee on Legislative Management all required certificates of insurance prior to the award of the contract.
PROPOSAL PRICING PAGE The Connecticut General Assembly Joint Committee on Legislative ATTACHMENT E Management Legislative Office Building : Rm 5100 Hartford, CT 06106 (860) 240 – 0100 FAX: (860) 240 – 0122
Total Proposed Cost : $______
Standard payment terms are net 45 days. Please indicate any early payment discount terms that would be applicable to this project: ______% Discount, ______Days.
Please provide one (1) original and three (3) loose leaf copies of your proposal.
The undersigned, accepting the conditions set forth herein, hereby agrees in strict accordance therewith to furnish these services and/or commodities to the General Assembly as listed in the Request for Proposal at the prices proposed therein.
Company: ______
Address: ______
Signature: ______
Name (Printed): ______Title: ______
Federal Employer Identification Number: ______
Telephone Number: ______Fax Number: ______
Email Address: ______
Date: ______
ATTACHMENT F STATE OF CONNECTICUT - AGENCY VENDOR FORM SP-26NB Rev. 4/03
IMPORTANT: ALL parts of this form must be completed, signed and returned by the vendor.
READ & COMPLETE CAREFULLY
COMPLETE VENDOR LEGAL BUSINESS NAME Taxpayer ID # (TIN): SSN FEIN
WRITE/TYPE SSN/FEIN NUMBER ABOVE BUSINESS NAME , TRADE NAME, DOING BUSINESS AS (IF DIFFERENT FROM ABOVE)
BUSINESS ENTITY: CORPORATION LLC CORPORATION LLC PARTNERSHIP LLC SINGLE MEMBER ENTITY NON-PROFIT PARTNERSHIP INDIVIDUAL/SOLE PROPRIETOR NOTE: IF INDIVIDUAL/SOLE PROPRIETOR, INDIVIDUAL’S NAME (AS OWNER) MUST APPEAR IN THE LEGAL BUSINESS NAME BLOCK ABOVE. BUSINESS TYPE: A. SALE OF COMMODITIES B. MEDICAL SERVICES C. ATTORNEY FEES D. RENTAL OF PROPERTY (REAL ESTATE & EQUIPMENT) E. OTHER (DESCRIBE IN DETAIL)
UNDER THIS TIN, WHAT IS THE PRIMARY TYPE OF BUSINESS YOU PROVIDE TO THE STATE? (ENTER LETTER FROM ABOVE) ➙
UNDER THIS TIN, WHAT OTHER TYPES OF BUSINESS MIGHT YOU PROVIDE TO THE STATE? (ENTER LETTER FROM ABOVE) ➙
NOTE: IF YOUR BUSINESS IS A PARTNERSHIP, YOU MUST ATTACH THE NAMES AND TITLES OF ALL PARTNERS TO YOUR BID SUBMISSION. NOTE: IF YOUR BUSINESS IS A CORPORATION, IN WHICH STATE ARE YOU INCORPORATED? VENDOR ADDRESS STREET CITY STATE ZIP CODE
Add Additional Business Address & Contact information on back of this form. VENDOR E-MAIL ADDRESS VENDOR WEB SITE
REMITTANCE INFORMATION: INDICATE BELOW THE REMITTANCE ADDRESS OF YOUR BUSINESS. SAME AS VENDOR ADDRESS ABOVE. REMIT ADDRESS STREET CITY STATE ZIP CODE
CONTACT INFORMATION: NAME (TYPE OR PRINT)
ST 1 BUSINESS PHONE: Ext. # HOME PHONE: ND ST 2 BUSINESS PHONE: Ext. # 1 PAGER: ND CELLULAR: 2 PAGER: 1ST FAX NUMBER: TOLL FREE PHONE: 2ND FAX NUMBER: TELEX: WRITTEN SIGNATURE OF PERSON AUTHORIZED TO SIGN PROPOSALS ON BEHALF OF THE ABOVE NAMED VENDOR DATE EXECUTED !SIGN HERE TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF AUTHORIZED PERSON TITLE OF AUTHORIZED PERSON
IS YOUR BUSINESS CURRENTLY A DAS CERTIFIED SMALL BUSINESS ENTERPRISE? YES (ATTACH COPY OF CERTIFICATE) NO IF YOU ARE A STATE EMPLOYEE, INDICATE YOUR POSITION, AGENCY & AGENCY ADDRESS
FOR PURCHASE ORDER DISTRIBUTION: 1) CHECK ONLY ONE BOX BELOW 2) INPUT E-MAIL ADDRESS OR FAX # (IF CHECKED) E-MAIL FAX USPS MAIL EDI If EDI was selected, give us a person to contact in your company to set up EDI: NAME: E-MAIL ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NUMBER:
FOR REQUEST FOR QUOTATION (RFQ) DISTRIBUTION: 1) CHECK ONLY ONE BOX BELOW 2) INPUT E-MAIL ADDRESS OR FAX # (IF CHECKED) E-MAIL FAX USPS MAIL
ADD FURTHER BUSINESS ADDRESS, E-MAIL & CONTACT INFORMATION ON SEPARATE SHEET IF REQUIRED ATTACHMENT G
Form W-9 Request for Taxpayer Give form to the (Rev. January 2003) Identification Number and Certification requester. Do not Department of the Treasury send to the IRS. Internal Revenue Service Name
Business name, if different from above on page 2.
Individual/ Exempt from backup Check appropriate box: Sole proprietor Corporation Partnership Other ᮣ withholding Address (number, street, and apt. or suite no.) Requester’s name and address (optional) Print or type City, state, and ZIP code
Specific Instructions List account number(s) here (optional) See Part I Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN)
Enter your TIN in the appropriate box. For individuals, this is your social security number (SSN). Social security number However, for a resident alien, sole proprietor, or disregarded entity, see the Part I instructions on – – page 3. For other entities, it is your employer identification number (EIN). If you do not have a number, see How to get a TIN on page 3. or Note: If the account is in more than one name, see the chart on page 4 for guidelines on whose number Employer identification number to enter. – Part II Certification Under penalties of perjury, I certify that: 1. The number shown on this form is my correct taxpayer identification number (or I am waiting for a number to be issued to me), and 2. I am not subject to backup withholding because: (a) I am exempt from backup withholding, or (b) I have not been notified by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that I am subject to backup withholding as a result of a failure to report all interest or dividends, or (c) the IRS has notified me that I am no longer subject to backup withholding, and 3. I am a U.S. person (including a U.S. resident alien). Certification instructions. You must cross out item 2 above if you have been notified by the IRS that you are currently subject to backup withholding because you have failed to report all interest and dividends on your tax return. For real estate transactions, item 2 does not apply. For mortgage interest paid, acquisition or abandonment of secured property, cancellation of debt, contributions to an individual retirement arrangement (IRA), and generally, payments other than interest and dividends, you are not required to sign the Certification, but you must provide your correct TIN. (See the instructions on page 4.)
Sign Signature of Here U.S. person ᮣ Date ᮣ Purpose of Form Nonresident alien who becomes a resident alien. Generally, only a nonresident alien individual may use the A person who is required to file an information return with terms of a tax treaty to reduce or eliminate U.S. tax on the IRS, must obtain your correct taxpayer identification certain types of income. However, most tax treaties contain a number (TIN) to report, for example, income paid to you, real provision known as a “saving clause.” Exceptions specified estate transactions, mortgage interest you paid, acquisition in the saving clause may permit an exemption from tax to or abandonment of secured property, cancellation of debt, or continue for certain types of income even after the recipient contributions you made to an IRA. has otherwise become a U.S. resident alien for tax purposes. U.S. person. Use Form W-9 only if you are a U.S. person If you are a U.S. resident alien who is relying on an (including a resident alien), to provide your correct TIN to the exception contained in the saving clause of a tax treaty to person requesting it (the requester) and, when applicable, to: claim an exemption from U.S. tax on certain types of income, 1. Certify that the TIN you are giving is correct (or you are you must attach a statement that specifies the following five waiting for a number to be issued), items: 2. Certify that you are not subject to backup withholding, 1. The treaty country. Generally, this must be the same or treaty under which you claimed exemption from tax as a 3. Claim exemption from backup withholding if you are a nonresident alien. U.S. exempt payee. 2. The treaty article addressing the income. Note: If a requester gives you a form other than Form W-9 3. The article number (or location) in the tax treaty that to request your TIN, you must use the requester’s form if it is contains the saving clause and its exceptions. substantially similar to this Form W-9. 4. The type and amount of income that qualifies for the Foreign person. If you are a foreign person, use the exemption from tax. appropriate Form W-8 (see Pub. 515, Withholding of Tax on 5. Sufficient facts to justify the exemption from tax under Nonresident Aliens and Foreign Entities). the terms of the treaty article.
Cat. No. 10231X Form W-9 (Rev. 1-2003) ATTACHMENT G Form W-9 (Rev. 1-2003) Page 2 Example. Article 20 of the U.S.-China income tax treaty Specific Instructions allows an exemption from tax for scholarship income received by a Chinese student temporarily present in the United States. Under U.S. law, this student will become a Name resident alien for tax purposes if his or her stay in the United If you are an individual, you must generally enter the name States exceeds 5 calendar years. However, paragraph 2 of shown on your social security card. However, if you have the first Protocol to the U.S.-China treaty (dated April 30, changed your last name, for instance, due to marriage 1984) allows the provisions of Article 20 to continue to apply without informing the Social Security Administration of the even after the Chinese student becomes a resident alien of name change, enter your first name, the last name shown on the United States. A Chinese student who qualifies for this your social security card, and your new last name. exception (under paragraph 2 of the first protocol) and is If the account is in joint names, list first, and then circle, relying on this exception to claim an exemption from tax on the name of the person or entity whose number you entered his or her scholarship or fellowship income would attach to in Part I of the form. Form W-9 a statement that includes the information Sole proprietor. individual described above to support that exemption. Enter your name as shown on your social security card on the “Name” line. You may enter If you are a nonresident alien or a foreign entity not your business, trade, or “doing business as (DBA)” name on subject to backup withholding, give the requester the the “Business name” line. appropriate completed Form W-8. Limited liability company (LLC). If you are a single-member What is backup withholding? Persons making certain LLC (including a foreign LLC with a domestic owner) that is payments to you must under certain conditions withhold and disregarded as an entity separate from its owner under pay to the IRS 30% of such payments (29% after December Treasury regulations section 301.7701-3, enter the owner’s 31, 2003; 28% after December 31, 2005). This is called name on the “Name” line. Enter the LLC’s name on the “backup withholding.” Payments that may be subject to “Business name” line. backup withholding include interest, dividends, broker and Other entities. Enter your business name as shown on barter exchange transactions, rents, royalties, nonemployee required Federal tax documents on the “Name” line. This pay, and certain payments from fishing boat operators. Real name should match the name shown on the charter or other estate transactions are not subject to backup withholding. legal document creating the entity. You may enter any You will not be subject to backup withholding on payments business, trade, or DBA name on the “Business name” line. you receive if you give the requester your correct TIN, make Note: You are requested to check the appropriate box for the proper certifications, and report all your taxable interest your status (individual/sole proprietor, corporation, etc.). and dividends on your tax return. Payments you receive will be subject to backup Exempt From Backup Withholding withholding if: If you are exempt, enter your name as described above and 1. You do not furnish your TIN to the requester, or check the appropriate box for your status, then check the 2. You do not certify your TIN when required (see the Part “Exempt from backup withholding” box in the line following II instructions on page 4 for details), or the business name, sign and date the form. 3. The IRS tells the requester that you furnished an Generally, individuals (including sole proprietors) are not incorrect TIN, or exempt from backup withholding. Corporations are exempt from backup withholding for certain payments, such as 4. The IRS tells you that you are subject to backup interest and dividends. withholding because you did not report all your interest and Note: If you are exempt from backup withholding, you should dividends on your tax return (for reportable interest and still complete this form to avoid possible erroneous backup dividends only), or withholding. 5. You do not certify to the requester that you are not Exempt payees. Backup withholding is not required on any subject to backup withholding under 4 above (for reportable payments made to the following payees: interest and dividend accounts opened after 1983 only). 1. An organization exempt from tax under section 501(a), Certain payees and payments are exempt from backup any IRA, or a custodial account under section 403(b)(7) if the withholding. See the instructions below and the separate account satisfies the requirements of section 401(f)(2); Instructions for the Requester of Form W-9. 2. The United States or any of its agencies or instrumentalities; Penalties 3. A state, the District of Columbia, a possession of the Failure to furnish TIN. If you fail to furnish your correct TIN United States, or any of their political subdivisions or to a requester, you are subject to a penalty of $50 for each instrumentalities; such failure unless your failure is due to reasonable cause 4. A foreign government or any of its political subdivisions, and not to willful neglect. agencies, or instrumentalities; or Civil penalty for false information with respect to 5. An international organization or any of its agencies or withholding. If you make a false statement with no instrumentalities. reasonable basis that results in no backup withholding, you Other payees that may be exempt from backup are subject to a $500 penalty. withholding include: Criminal penalty for falsifying information. Willfully 6. A corporation; falsifying certifications or affirmations may subject you to 7. A foreign central bank of issue; criminal penalties including fines and/or imprisonment. 8. A dealer in securities or commodities required to register Misuse of TINs. If the requester discloses or uses TINs in in the United States, the District of Columbia, or a violation of Federal law, the requester may be subject to civil possession of the United States; and criminal penalties. ATTACHMENT G Form W-9 (Rev. 1-2003) Page 3
9. A futures commission merchant registered with the Part I. Taxpayer Identification Commodity Futures Trading Commission; Number (TIN) 10. A real estate investment trust; Enter your TIN in the appropriate box. If you are a resident 11. An entity registered at all times during the tax year alien and you do not have and are not eligible to get an under the Investment Company Act of 1940; SSN, your TIN is your IRS individual taxpayer identification 12. A common trust fund operated by a bank under number (ITIN). Enter it in the social security number box. If section 584(a); you do not have an ITIN, see How to get a TIN below. 13. A financial institution; If you are a sole proprietor and you have an EIN, you may enter either your SSN or EIN. However, the IRS prefers that 14. A middleman known in the investment community as a you use your SSN. nominee or custodian; or If you are a single-owner LLC that is disregarded as an 15. A trust exempt from tax under section 664 or entity separate from its owner (see Limited liability described in section 4947. company (LLC) on page 2), enter your SSN (or EIN, if you The chart below shows types of payments that may be have one). If the LLC is a corporation, partnership, etc., enter exempt from backup withholding. The chart applies to the the entity’s EIN. exempt recipients listed above, 1 through 15. Note: See the chart on page 4 for further clarification of If the payment is for . . . THEN the payment is exempt name and TIN combinations. for . . . How to get a TIN. If you do not have a TIN, apply for one immediately. To apply for an SSN, get Form SS-5, Interest and dividend payments All exempt recipients except Application for a Social Security Card, from your local Social for 9 Security Administration office or get this form on-line at www.ssa.gov/online/ss5.html. You may also get this form Broker transactions Exempt recipients 1 through 13. by calling 1-800-772-1213. Use Form W-7, Application for Also, a person registered under IRS Individual Taxpayer Identification Number, to apply for an the Investment Advisers Act of ITIN, or Form SS-4, Application for Employer Identification 1940 who regularly acts as a Number, to apply for an EIN. You can get Forms W-7 and broker SS-4 from the IRS by calling 1-800-TAX-FORM Barter exchange transactions Exempt recipients 1 through 5 (1-800-829-3676) or from the IRS Web Site at www.irs.gov. and patronage dividends If you are asked to complete Form W-9 but do not have a TIN, write “Applied For” in the space for the TIN, sign and Payments over $600 required Generally, exempt recipients date the form, and give it to the requester. For interest and to be reported and direct 1 through 7 2 dividend payments, and certain payments made with respect sales over $5,000 1 to readily tradable instruments, generally you will have 60
1 days to get a TIN and give it to the requester before you are See Form 1099-MISC, Miscellaneous Income, and its instructions. subject to backup withholding on payments. The 60-day rule 2 However, the following payments made to a corporation (including gross does not apply to other types of payments. You will be proceeds paid to an attorney under section 6045(f), even if the attorney is a subject to backup withholding on all such payments until you corporation) and reportable on Form 1099-MISC are not exempt from backup withholding: medical and health care payments, attorneys’ fees; and payments provide your TIN to the requester. for services paid by a Federal executive agency. Note: Writing “Applied For” means that you have already applied for a TIN or that you intend to apply for one soon. Caution: A disregarded domestic entity that has a foreign owner must use the appropriate Form W-8. ATTACHMENT G Form W-9 (Rev. 1-2003) Page 4 Part II. Certification What Name and Number To Give the To establish to the withholding agent that you are a U.S. Requester person, or resident alien, sign Form W-9. You may be requested to sign by the withholding agent even if items 1, 3, For this type of account: Give name and SSN of: and 5 below indicate otherwise. 1. Individual The individual For a joint account, only the person whose TIN is shown in 2. Two or more individuals (joint The actual owner of the account Part I should sign (when required). Exempt recipients, see account) or, if combined funds, the first Exempt from backup withholding on page 2. individual on the account 1 Signature requirements. Complete the certification as 3. Custodian account of a minor The minor 2 indicated in 1 through 5 below. (Uniform Gift to Minors Act) 4. a. The usual revocable The grantor-trustee 1 1. Interest, dividend, and barter exchange accounts savings trust (grantor is opened before 1984 and broker accounts considered also trustee) active during 1983. You must give your correct TIN, but you b. So-called trust account The actual owner 1 do not have to sign the certification. that is not a legal or valid 2. Interest, dividend, broker, and barter exchange trust under state law accounts opened after 1983 and broker accounts 5. Sole proprietorship or The owner 3 considered inactive during 1983. You must sign the single-owner LLC certification or backup withholding will apply. If you are For this type of account: Give name and EIN of: subject to backup withholding and you are merely providing your correct TIN to the requester, you must cross out item 2 6. Sole proprietorship or The owner 3 in the certification before signing the form. single-owner LLC 3. Real estate transactions. You must sign the 7. A valid trust, estate, or Legal entity 4 certification. You may cross out item 2 of the certification. pension trust 4. Other payments. You must give your correct TIN, but 8. Corporate or LLC electing The corporation you do not have to sign the certification unless you have corporate status on Form been notified that you have previously given an incorrect TIN. 8832 “Other payments” include payments made in the course of the requester’s trade or business for rents, royalties, goods 9. Association, club, religious, The organization (other than bills for merchandise), medical and health care charitable, educational, or services (including payments to corporations), payments to a other tax-exempt organization nonemployee for services, payments to certain fishing boat crew members and fishermen, and gross proceeds paid to 10. Partnership or multi-member The partnership LLC attorneys (including payments to corporations). 5. Mortgage interest paid by you, acquisition or 11. A broker or registered The broker or nominee abandonment of secured property, cancellation of debt, nominee qualified tuition program payments (under section 529), 12. Account with the Department The public entity IRA or Archer MSA contributions or distributions, and of Agriculture in the name of pension distributions. You must give your correct TIN, but a public entity (such as a you do not have to sign the certification. state or local government, school district, or prison) that receives agricultural program payments
1 List first and circle the name of the person whose number you furnish. If only one person on a joint account has an SSN, that person’s number must be furnished. 2 Circle the minor’s name and furnish the minor’s SSN. 3 You must show your individual name, but you may also enter your business or “DBA” name. You may use either your SSN or EIN (if you have one). 4 List first and circle the name of the legal trust, estate, or pension trust. (Do not furnish the TIN of the personal representative or trustee unless the legal entity itself is not designated in the account title.) Note: If no name is circled when more than one name is listed, the number will be considered to be that of the first name listed.
Privacy Act Notice Section 6109 of the Internal Revenue Code requires you to provide your correct TIN to persons who must file information returns with the IRS to report interest, dividends, and certain other income paid to you, mortgage interest you paid, the acquisition or abandonment of secured property, cancellation of debt, or contributions you made to an IRA or Archer MSA. The IRS uses the numbers for identification purposes and to help verify the accuracy of your tax return. The IRS may also provide this information to the Department of Justice for civil and criminal litigation, and to cities, states, and the District of Columbia to carry out their tax laws. We may also disclose this information to other countries under a tax treaty, or to Federal and state agencies to enforce Federal nontax criminal laws and to combat terrorism. You must provide your TIN whether or not you are required to file a tax return. Payers must generally withhold 30% of taxable interest, dividend, and certain other payments to a payee who does not give a TIN to a payer. Certain penalties may also apply.
ATTACHMENT H
Connecticut Appropriations Committee RBA Budget Initiative Phase I Final Report April 13, 2005
Presented by The Charter Oak Group, LLC
1 ATTACHMENT H
Connecticut Appropriations Committee RBA Budget Initiative Phase I Final Report April 13, 2005 Revised May 11, 2006
I. Background.
In August 2005, the co-chairs of the Appropriations Committee of the Connecticut General Assembly, Representative Denise Merrill and Senator Toni Harp, created an RBA Work Group of the Appropriations Committee. The Work Group’s charge was to determine the applicability to the Connecticut budget process of the results-based accountability framework developed by Mark Friedman of the Fiscal Policy Studies Institute, who provided training to Work Group members at the beginning of the project. The Work Group, which is co-chaired by Representative Diana Urban and Senator Bob Duff, has 16 members. The full membership list is attached as Appendix I. The Work Group, through the auspices of the Office of Policy and Management, retained The Charter Oak Group, LLC, to adapt the Friedman framework for the Connecticut appropriations process and to guide the initial implementation of the project.
II. Work Group Objective and Goals
Following a series of meetings in the fall of 2005, the Work Group determined at its December meeting to conduct a limited pilot project. During the short 2005 legislative session, the pilot would involve several sub-committees of the Appropriations Committee in a demonstration of how RBA could be used to establish population goals, relate program performance to those population goals, and use both to inform the budget process. The first phase pilot of the RBA concept and methodology would pave the way for a broader implementation of RBA in the budget process in the second phase.
The Work Group adopted four objectives for Phase I: Objective 1. Pilot the RBA budget process in two important policy areas: early childhood education and environment. Objective 2. Provide training and support to sub-committee chairs and members in the RBA process used in pilot project. Objective 3. Provide all other state agencies an overview of RBA, the process being employed in the pilot project, and the Connecticut Appropriations Committee RBA Template. Objective 4. At the conclusion of the sub-committee hearings, review the process with the Work Group and key stakeholders (including agencies that were part of the pilot) to determine next steps in the broader implementation of RBA in the budget process.
The First Phase Goals and Objectives, Tasks, and Schedule as approved by the Work Group are attached as Appendix II.
2 ATTACHMENT H
III. Work with State Agencies and Development of Connecticut Appropriations Committee RBA Template.
The two quality of life (population) results selected for the pilot were: • All Connecticut children begin kindergarten healthy and ready for school success within their developmental potential. • A healthy and productive Long Island Sound for Connecticut residents. The early childhood quality of life result was an objective adopted by the Governor’s Early Childhood Cabinet, which had begun exploration of the RBA framework at the time of the creation of the RBA Work Group. The early childhood result was selected because it involved an inter-agency system and because the Cabinet had already begun to apply the RBA framework. The Connecticut Appropriations Committee RBA Templates for this area were developed by the co-chair of the Cabinet and the three key agencies: State Department of Education, Department of Social Services, and the Department of Public Health. OPM also provided input. The three agencies were included because they were most directly responsible for the first goal identified for the Cabinet’s objective: to provide high quality, center-based child care to all 3 and 4 year olds in communities with the greatest need.
The environmental quality of life result was selected because the Department of Environmental Protection had expressed interest in supporting the RBA process and because it had already developed an advanced system of measurement for the quality of Long Island Sound. The goal that DEP selected to support the quality of life result was to eliminate the detrimental effects of hypoxia in Long Island Sound by improving municipal sewage treatment infrastructure as a key component of a comprehensive management strategy.
Because the short legislative session provided so little time to develop and populate the RBA templates, the pilot project limited each quality of life result to a single goal. Friedman provided a second training for the agencies involved in the pilot project and the members of the Appropriations sub-committees before which the agencies would present their RBA materials: Conservation and Development, Elementary and Secondary Education, Human Services, and Health and Hospitals. The Charter Oak Group worked closely with each of the agencies to prepare and revise its templates in preparation for the hearings. The completed templates for the early childhood initiative are attached as Appendix III, and the templates for the Long Island Sound result are attached as Appendix IV. While based upon the templates developed by Friedman, the structure of these templates was modified by the Charter Oak Group to provide data and key budgetary information that would ensure a more direct link to the budget process.
IV. Sub-committee Hearings
The sub-committees and the agencies were provided copies of the completed templates prior to the sub-committee hearings. In addition, the Charter Oak Group developed a draft agendas and structure for each of the sub-committee hearings. These materials,
3 ATTACHMENT H
which included a list of questions that sub-committee members might ask the agencies in response to their RBA presentations, were provided to the agencies as well as the sub- committee members so that all participants in the hearings would have the same materials and would be on an equal footing. These materials were also used to provide training to the sub-committee members prior to the hearings. The draft agendas and structures for each of the four sub-committees are attached as Appendix V.
The RBA presentations took place on two of the three days reserved for Appropriations sub-committee hearings. The first hour of each hearing was reserved for the RBA presentation by the agency. The rest of the agency’s budget was discussed during the remainder of the hearing or at sub-committee work meetings. Each agency’s commissioner initiated the agency’s presentation and was assisted by appropriate staff. (The co-chair of the Cabinet also assisted with the presentations of the three agencies involved in the early childhood initiative.) The hearings were chaired by the co-chairs of the Appropriations Committee, and questions from sub-committee members were limited to issues raised by each of the templates as it was presented.
Following the hearings, the Work Group sent each agency a list of issues that had arisen during its presentation and that had not been fully addressed. The agencies were not asked to respond to these questions. Rather, the questions were meant to give the agencies a sense of a likely follow-up process had the presentations not been part of a limited pilot project. The list of follow-up questions for each agency is attached as Appendix VI.
V. Work Group Evaluation of the Pilot Process
After the completion of the hearings, the Work Group held a meeting to receive feedback from the participants in the process and to review the pilot project. The meeting was attended by Work Group and sub-committee members, representatives of the four agencies, and OPM. The attendees were unanimous in their belief that the pilot had been worthwhile and that the RBA process should be continued. Their comments and suggestions for improving the process are attached as Appendix VII.
VI. Recommendations for Phase II
The following recommendations for Phase II of the Connecticut Appropriations Committee RBA Budget Initiative are based on the feedback of the participants provided at the Work Group evaluation meeting, discussions with the co-chairs of the Appropriations Committee and the Work Group, and the experiences of the Charter Oak Group in guiding Phase I of the project.
A. Objectives for Phase II: 1. To apply the full RBA framework to one or more areas of the budget. • Develop a set of criteria for selecting the quality of life results and agencies for Phase II
4 ATTACHMENT H
• Involve multiple agencies in one budget area and not more than a few agencies in at least one other budget area • Identify all programs that contribute to the quality of life results and develop all appropriate measures for those programs (some programs may be excluded if their contribution is very small or indirect) • Include no budget area in Phase II if administrative or political considerations preclude a full presentation of all indicators and goals 2. To develop a framework and standardized tools for the broad application of RBA that any agency may use without being part of a formal pilot project directed by the RBA Work Group. • Encourage the broadest application of RBA without compromising other Phase II objectives • Offer standardized tools and a framework to any agency to use for its own purposes or for its presentations to its Appropriations sub-committee • Offer a series of RBA trainings to all agencies interested in using the RBA framework • Offer agencies a technical review and comments on their completed templates • Offer agencies that choose to adopt the RBA framework an opportunity to formally present their RBA materials to their Appropriations sub- committees 3. To apply RBA to the budget process. • Conduct a financial scan for each quality of life result that includes all relevant expenditures • Conduct a joint presentation to the full Appropriations Committee (or joint meetings of the relevant sub-committees) prior to the start of any formal budget hearings • Identify by agency and program any funding increases necessary over the next five years to turn the curve for the key quality of life indicators • Provide a brief summary of the agency’s program and budget contribution to the relevant quality of life result when each agency presents its individual budget to its Appropriations sub-committee 4. To develop the institutional capacity within the General Assembly to continue the use of RBA in the appropriations process. • Consultants and OFA should partner in all aspects of implementation for Phase II • OFA should prepare to assume primary responsibility for RBA in subsequent phases • All Appropriations sub-committees will receive RBA training and will have technical support for any hearings or meetings that involved the presentation of RBA materials
B. The RBA Work Group The Work Group should continue to guide and oversee the RBA process. The role of the RBA Work Group should be:
5 ATTACHMENT H
• To oversee the development and implementation of Phase II. • To designate sub-committees from among its members for each of the Phase II areas. The sub-committees would provide guidance to the consultants and OFA and would serve as liaisons between the agencies and the Work Group.
6 ATTACHMENT H
C. Schedule • Early May: Work Group meets to approve the goals and schedule for Phase II, the criteria for selecting new population areas and programs for application of RBA, and a list of budget areas for exploration • End of May: Work Group approves the preliminary quality of life results and the preliminary list of affected agencies. It should also designate sub- committees for each quality of life result • June 1: Consultants and OFA begin work with the affected agencies. • Monthly: Work Group, consultants and OFA meet to review progress • January-February (before regular Appropriations sub-committee hearings): Affected agencies make RBA presentations to the full Appropriations Committee (or to joint meetings of the relevant Appropriations sub- committees) • February-March: Agencies use abbreviated RBA introduction in their regularly scheduled presentations to their sub-committees • One month prior to the Appropriations Committee JF deadline: Work Group, consultants and OFA evaluate Phase II and Work Group decides whether to propose legislation relating to RBA
7 ATTACHMENT H APPENDIX I The Connecticut General Assembly
Joint Committee on Appropriations
Sen. Toni Nathaniel Harp Rep. Denise W. Merrill Co-Chairperson Co-Chairperson
RESULTS-BASED ACCOUNTABILITY WORK GROUP Membership List
Co-Chairs Sen. Bob Duff Rep. Diana Urban
Members Sen. Toni Harp, Appropriations Committee Co-Chair Rep. Denise Merrill, Appropriations Committee Co-Chair Robert Genuario, Secretary, Office of Policy and Management Rep. Arthur O’Neill, Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Sen. Len Fasano Rep. Andrew Fleischmann Rep. Deborah Heinrich Rep. Brian O’Connor Rep. Chris Perone Rep. Betsy Ritter Rep. Peter Tercyak Rep. Toni Walker Rep. Julia Wasserman Rep. Lenny Winkler
Commission on Children Representatives Elaine Zimmerman, Executive Director Elizabeth Brown, Legislative Director
ATTACHMENT H APPENDIX II
Connecticut Appropriations Committee RBA Budget Initiative First Phase Goals and Objectives, Tasks, and Schedule November 25, 2005-March 15, 2006 Revised December 15, 2005
First Year Goal of the RBA Budget Initiative: To demonstrate how RBA can be used by subcommittees of the Appropriations Committee to establish population goals, relate program performance to those population goals, and use both to inform the budget process. The first phase pilot of the RBA concept and methodology will pave the way for a broader implementation of RBA in the budget process in the second phase.
Objective 1. Pilot the RBA budget process in two important policy areas: early childhood education and environment.
A. Early Childhood Education. Work with the ECE Cabinet to define the population goal and indicators, determine the partner agencies contributing to the goal, and complete the Connecticut Appropriations Committee RBA Template (see Task 1 below) with regard to the population goal. Incorporate to the extent feasible the five early childhood goals of the Child Poverty Council’s Initial Plan. Obtain approval of Work Group chairs. Work with OPM to present the process to all partner agencies involved in the population goal and have each agency complete the Connecticut Appropriations Committee RBA Template for all of its programs that contribute to the population goal. A subset of partner agencies will be selected to testify before their subcommittees using the Connecticut Appropriations Committee RBA Template. B. Environment. Work with DEP to identify a population goal involving Long Island Sound for approval by Work Group chairs. Work with DEP to complete the Connecticut Appropriations Committee RBA Template for the population goal and identify partner agencies (if any) and programs appropriate for the pilot project. Work with the partner agencies and programs to identify appropriate measures and to complete the Connecticut Appropriations Committee RBA Template with regard to the relevant programs. A subset of partner agencies will be selected to testify before their subcommittees using the Connecticut Appropriations Committee RBA Template.
Objective 2. Provide training and support to subcommittee chairs and members in RBA process used in pilot project.
A. Organize a half-day training in January to ground all subcommittee chairs and members (especially those from Health and Hospitals, Education, Human Services, and Conservation and Development) in the RBA principles and in the process developed for the Connecticut pilot. Immediately following the training, have a dry run (mock hearing?) of a presentation by one or two agencies from each population area being piloted.
1 ATTACHMENT H APPENDIX II
B. Review all the Connecticut Appropriations Committee RBA Templates submitted by partner agencies prior to the subcommittee hearings and present results to subcommittee chairs. Assist chairs and committee members in preparing for hearings with selected agencies. C. Provide staff support/technical assistance to subcommittees on the day of the hearings and assist with drafting any necessary follow-up requests.
Objective 3. Provide all other state agencies an overview of RBA, the process being employed in the pilot project, and the Connecticut Appropriations Committee RBA Template.
A. Organize a half-day training in January in the RBA principles and in the process developed for the Connecticut pilot. Invite state agencies to observe the subcommittee hearings and to experiment with filling out the Connecticut Appropriations Committee RBA Templates on their own. B. Meet with state agencies at the conclusion of the subcommittee hearings to obtain their feedback on the process and the Connecticut Appropriations Committee RBA Templates.
Objective 4. At the conclusion of the subcommittee hearings, review the process with the Work Group and key stakeholders (including agencies that were part of the pilot) to determine next steps in the broader implementation of RBA in the budget process.
TASK DATE 1. Work with OPM to adapt Friedman’s 7 questions into the November 29- Connecticut Appropriations Committee RBA Template December 31 2. Work with ECE Cabinet and OPM to populate Template for November 29- early childhood education population goal, incorporating the December 31 five early childhood goals of the Child Poverty Council’s Initial Plan to the extent feasible; obtain approval of Work Group chairs 3. Work with OPM to present Template to partner agencies and December 6- assist them with populating it for relevant programs January 25 4. Work with DEP to identify population goal for LI Sound and November 28- partner agencies and programs; obtain approval of Work December 31 Group chairs 5. Obtain Work Group approval of pilot project plan and December 6 schedule 6. Work with DEP to identify available measures in support of December 6- population goal December 31 7. Develop plan for publicizing the Connecticut RBA December 6- Budgeting Initiative locally and nationally March 15 8. Assist DEP (and partner agencies if appropriate) in December 13- populating Template for environment goal December 31
2 ATTACHMENT H APPENDIX II
9. Work with OPM to present Template to partner agencies for December 20- environment goal and assist them with populating Template January 25 for relevant programs 10. Provide training by Friedman and draft pilot presentations to January 11 subcommittee chairs and members 11. Provide training to all state agencies on RBA project and use January 25 of Template and encourage them to experiment with Template on their own 12. Select partner agencies to attend subcommittee hearings January 25 13. Obtain Templates from all partner agencies and review with January 25- subcommittee chairs February 6 14. Prepare subcommittee chairs and members for hearings February 6- February 13 15. Staff hearings and draft follow-up requests February 14 16. Work with relevant agencies and Appropriations Committee TBD chairs to present RBA presentations for both pilot projects at full Appropriations Committee hearing 17. Obtain feedback from state agencies, both those that were February 15- part of the pilot and those that were not February 28 18. Obtain feedback from other key stakeholders February 15- February 28 19. Report to Work Group on pilot project and make March 1 recommendations for further implementation 20. Work Group decision on next steps and legislation/funding March 15 for second year if appropriate
3 ATTACHMENT H
APPENDIX III
Connecticut Appropriations Committee RBA Templates
Part I, Quality of Life (Population) Result for Early Childhood Care and Education
Part II, System Accountability for Early Childhood Care and Education
Part II, Program Accountability for State Department of Education School Readiness Initiative
Part II, Program Accountability for Department of Social Services Child Day Care Center Program
Part II, Program Accountability Department of Public Health Community Based Regulation
1 ATTACHMENT H Final 6/6/2006
Connecticut Appropriations Committee RBA1 Template Part I, Quality of Life (Population) Result for Early Childhood and Education Summary Sheet
Quality of Life Result: Measure 1. Preschool Enrollment Across All Connecticut children begin kindergarten healthy and ready Connecticut for school success within their developmental potential. Percent of Children Reported to Have Attended Preschool at Age 4 (2001-2004) Key Funding Information: (Dollars reported in 100 millions) 74.7 75.1 75.9 74.6 Total Current Funding: $533.0 80 60 Funding Distribution 40 Federal: $262.9 20 State: $266.1 0 Capital Projects Subtotal 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 Other Funds (Not Federal or State) $4.1 Measure 2. Reading Proficiency on the 4th Projected Changes Funding: There have been changes grade CMT in funding for the identified programs since SFY 2002-
2003. This information is being compiled. 4th Grade Students At or Above Proficiency in Reading CMTs
Need to Turn the Curve 90 80 79 79 77 80 70 Measure 1: Preschool Enrollment Across Connecticut. 60 Statewide, about three in four children attend preschool in their 50 40 43 42 43 40 fourth year of age. These data are derived from parental reports Percent 30 20 when they enroll their children in public kindergarten. There 10 has been little change in this measure. 0 2001 2002 2003 2004
FRPM Eligible Not Eligible
Measure 3: Children in Poverty
Measure 2. Reading Proficiency on the 4th grade CMT. Percent of CT Children Receiving Free or Reduced Lunch Comparison of 4th grade reading scores over the past four years th for the state show an important decline in 4 grade achievement. 100.0% 80.0% 60.0% 40.0% 23.6% 22.2% 25.4% 26.6% 26.6% Measure 3: Children in poverty. 20.0% 0.0% First, one in four children in the State of Connecticut lives in 200-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 families with incomes below “economic self-sufficiency.” Second, over the past five years, the proportion of children Measure 4: Low Birth Weight Among living in poverty according to this measure has increased by Connecticut’s Infants slightly more than 10%. Percent of CT Infants Born with Low Birthweight
100.0% Measure 4: Low Birth Weight Among Connecticut’s Infants. 80.0% In 2002, 3258 low birth weight babies were born in Connecticut. 60.0% Importantly, this curve has “turned” in the wrong direction. 40.0% After decreasing from 1998 to 2000, the percentage of low birth 20.0% 7.8% 7.6% 7.4% 7.4% 7.8% 7.8% 0.0% weight babies has returned to its 1998 levels. 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2002USA
1 Results Based Accountability 2 ATTACHMENT H Final 6/6/2006
Connecticut Appropriations Committee RBA2 Template Part I, Quality of Life (Population) Result for Early Childhood Care and Education
Quality of Life Result: All Connecticut children begin kindergarten healthy and ready for school success within their developmental potential.
Why is This Result Important? Children’s ability to succeed in the first years of schooling rests on their healthy development during the first five years of life: their health status, language, cognitive and emotional development, and their social skills and behaviors.
Children who enter kindergarten behind in these key areas are more likely to be behind in critical learning skills, like reading, in 4th grade. These early achievement gaps predict later academic failure and correlate with incarceration and welfare dependency as young adults.
Ensuring that all children are at age-appropriate levels of development reduces the likelihood that they will enter kindergarten behind. Interrupting the trajectory of academic challenge during kindergarten through third grade will contribute immensely to later academic success.
In addition, national economic studies show a robust long term “return on investment” of 16% per year, or 800% over a 20-year period when investments are made in early childhood development (home visiting and quality early care and education). Demonstrable short-term savings in special education costs are also now being shown in Connecticut.
Key Funding Information: (Dollars reported in millions) Total Current Funding: $533.0 Funding Distribution Federal: $262.9 State: $266.1 Capital Projects Subtotal Other Funds (Not Federal or State) $4.1 Projected Changes in Funding: There have been changes in funding for the identified programs since SFY 2002-2003. This information is being compiled.
Indicators and the Story Behind Them
Measure 1. Preschool enrollment across Connecticut (Source: State Department of Education Strategic School Profiles)
Across all communities, there has been little change in preschool enrollment over the period 2001 through 2004. Statewide, about three in four children attend preschool during their fourth
2 Results Based Accountability
3 ATTACHMENT H Final 6/6/2006 year of age. These data are derived from parental reports when they enroll their children in public kindergarten.
The real story is Percent of Children Reported to Have Attended revealed when these Preschool at Age 4 (2001-2004) data are analyzed by the economic capacity of the communities. Great 100 75.1 75.9 disparities emerge, with 80 74.7 74.6 those in the poorest 60 communities attending preschool much less 40 often than children in 20 wealthy communities. 0 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04
Measure 2. Reading proficiency on the 4th CT Mastery Tests (Source: State Department of Education CMT data)
Comparison of 4th grade CMT reading scores over the past 4th Grade Students At or Above Proficiency in four years for the state shows Reading CMTs an important decline in 4th grade achievement. 90 80 79 79 77 80 This decline has occurred 70 during the same period that 60 Connecticut has focused 50 40 additional and specific Percent 43 42 43 40 30 resources on early reading 20 ability. 10 0 As important as the decline in 2001 2002 2003 2004 reading proficiency is, there is FRPM Eligible Not Eligible also dramatic difference in reading performance between children of poverty (as measured by eligibility for the federal Free and Reduced Meals Program) and those of moderate and higher incomes. Poor students perform only about half as well as other Connecticut 4th graders.
4 ATTACHMENT H Final 6/6/2006
Measure 3: Children in Poverty (Source: State Department of Education Strategic School Profiles)
There are many risk factors Percent of CT Children Receiving Free or leading to low academic Reduced Lunch performance for children growing up in poverty. 100.0% Measuring the number of children eligible for the 80.0% federal Free and Reduced 60.0% Price Meal program 40.0% 26.6% 26.6% quantifies that risk and helps 23.6% 22.2% 25.4% to tell two important stories. 20.0% 0.0% First, one in four children in 200-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 the State of Connecticut lives in a family with income below “economic self-sufficiency.” These families earn less income than is necessary to pay for basic necessities (like housing, child care, transportation, health care, and food) without governmental assistance. In Connecticut, economic self-sufficiency occurs at about 200% of the federal poverty level. Data for this indicator is based on students’ eligibility for the federal Free and Reduced Meal Program (FRPM), which is set at 185% of the federal poverty level.
Second, over the past five years, the proportion of children living in poverty according to this measure has increased by slightly more than 10%. A robust research literature has proven that living in poverty is correlated with poor health outcomes, reduced language and cognitive development, as well as school un-readiness and academic underachievement.
Measure 4: Low birth weight among Connecticut’s infants (Source: Annie E. Casey KidsCount online data)
Children born at low birth weight Percent of CT Infants Born with Low Birthweight face substantial developmental challenges. Conditions associated 100.0% with low birth weight babies include delayed language, cognitive and 80.0% physical development. 60.0%
On this indicator, Connecticut does 40.0% as well as the nation, with just under 20.0% 8% of babies born at low birth 7.8% 7.6% 7.4% 7.4% 7.8% 7.8% weight. In 2002, 3258 low birth 0.0% weight babies were born in 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 US2002 Connecticut. Importantly, this curve
5 ATTACHMENT H Final 6/6/2006
has “turned” in the wrong direction. After decreasing from 1998 to 2000, the percentage of low birth weight babies has returned to its 1998 levels. The national goal from the “Healthy People 2010” initiative is 5%.
What Will It Take To Do Better? The state and its partners will need to significantly expand access for all children in Connecticut to quality pre-kindergarten experiences. In addition, ensuring children’s age-appropriate development requires a partnership across many sectors. Essential partners include families, the governmental and provider sectors at the state and local level, philanthropy and employers.
A commitment is required among partners to track the annual health and readiness status of young children from birth to school entry and to provide family-friendly well-child assessment coupled with service or treatment when identified as a need.
For most Connecticut families, parents and pediatricians will already be tracking their children’s development. However, for children at risk of delayed language or cognitive development, or who demonstrate delayed social or emotional development, early and high quality service and supports – involving the children and their adult family members – must be provided to turn the curve of un-readiness at entry to kindergarten.
Tracking the development of all children who receive state or federally supported services – and providing for effective early intervention as necessary -- should become a top priority for state agencies and their local partners. This action will assure both (a) the promotion of school readiness and (b) the early and cost-effective remediation of early developmental problems.
What is the Role of State Government?
State government does not (on most occasions) raise children. Families and communities raise children. The role of state government is therefore four-fold:
Develop and utilize data to identify the needs of at-risk children and, with communities, establish community-specific plans for engagement Establish standards of program quality and best practice Allocate and award funds based on expected specific outcomes Evaluate progress on child/family outcomes and continue funding what works
Recognizing the dramatic challenges to Connecticut’s future citizenry, workforce and economic security revealed by these (and other) indicators, the Governor requested and the Connecticut General Assembly established in statute the Connecticut Early Childhood Education Cabinet. The Early Childhood Education Cabinet has been charged to produce a multi-year strategic plan to ensure that all children born in 2006 stand at the kindergarten door ready for school success.
Part I of the Early Childhood Investment Plan, to be released in June 2006 will present the framework for system and program improvements, as well as for governance and accountability improvements (including cross-agency management issues and data development). Part II, to be
6 ATTACHMENT H Final 6/6/2006
released by early November, will provide a multi-year cost analysis, funding recommendations, and recommendations for building a multi-year accountability and research agenda.
Budget options for the next Biennial Budget will be submitted with Part II of the plan. The focus of the plan will be on children born in 2006 and thereafter, to assure that they reach normal developmental milestones at each of their annual well-child visits, beginning in 2007. We will also focus on communities with larger number of at-risk children whose programs are supported with state and federal funds.
Appendix A, Data development Agenda: Priorities for new or better indicator data
Percent of children enrolled in HUSKY who receive timely, regular pediatric and oral health services Percent of children on target at their annual well-child visit Percent of children with developmental issues identified and receiving appropriate services
Percent of children in poverty and percent of low birth weight babies are proxies for readiness and health, but more useful indicators are needed (see Part II: Early Childhood Care and Education System Template)
Percent ready at entry to kindergarten according to standardized assessment
Appendix B, Funding Detail
The budget figures presented at the population level are the latest available that identify all state and federal expenditures directed at affecting the stated quality of life result. These were compiled as part of the Early Childhood Partners (ECP) initiative in fall 2004 based on expenditures in the Fiscal Year 2002-2003. These figures were presented to the Early Childhood Education Cabinet at its November 2005 meeting and were then revised to reflect comments from Cabinet departments. The ECP initiative is in the process of updating these figures with projected spending in FY 2005-2006 and approved budgets for 2006-2007. The goal of the ECP Initiative is to create a comprehensive, integrated early childhood service system to increase effectiveness and efficiency of state investments. (See the initiative web site for details at www.ecpartners.org.) This planning effort is supported through a grant from the U.S. Health Resources and Services Administration under the State Early Childhood Comprehensive Systems initiative. As part of the ECP planning process, agency staff worked with each state department to identify state programs that should be considered part of Connecticut’s early childhood service system and collected information from the departments on the total expenditures by program for FY 2002-2003. Table A-1 and Figure A-1 summarize the results by department. The programs identified were those involving departmental investment in services falling under one of the five domains specified in the ECP planning guidance. The figures do not include resources used by DCF for child protection.
7 ATTACHMENT H Final 6/6/2006
Table A-2 and Figure A-2 present the same data by these five domains and for program infrastructure investments (e.g. data collection). There are substantial investments in children’s social-emotional health under the HUSKY program that are included under Health because a breakout of these costs for children ages 0-5 is not readily available. Table A-3 lists all the programs included in this analysis with total funding, by department. The data have been refined after the submission of the draft Strategic Plan in July 2005 based on comments. The figures have been revised upward by $47 million since the presentation of the scan to the Cabinet in November 2005 due to the receipt from DSS of new financial data for the HUSKY A and HUSKY B programs broken down by age group and a revision in the data for the DPH Child Care Licensing program.
Table A-1. Early Childhood Investments, FY 2002-2003 (in millions of dollars), by Department and Source
Table A-1. Early Childhood Investments, FY 2002-2003
Department State Federal Other Total % DSS 155 155 - 311 58% DPH 20 45 - 65 12% SDE 51 7 - 58 11% Head Start - 51 - 51 9% DMR 30 5 4 40 7% CTF 5 0.1 - 5 1% DCF 4 - 0 4 1% DMHAS 0.2 - - 0.2 0% Total 266 263 4 533 100% % of Total 50% 49% 1% 100%
Table A-2. Early Childhood Investments, FY 2002-2003 (in millions of dollars), By Department and Domain
Table A-2. Early Childhood Investments, FY 2002-2003
Department Health Early Family Parent Admin and Social- Total % of Care and Support Education Infra- Emo- Total Education structure tional DSS 181 126 0 1 3 - 311 58% DPH 19 3 42 - 0.4 - 65 12% SDE - 48 10 - - - 58 11% Head Start - 51 - - - - 51 9% DMR 40 - - - - - 40 7% CTF - - 0.1 5 0.1 - 5 1% DCF - - 0.5 1 - 3 4 1% DMHAS - 0.1 - 0.1 - - 0.2 0% Total 240 228 53 7 3 3 533 100% % of Total 45% 43% 10% 1% 1% 0% 100%
8 ATTACHMENT H Final 6/6/2006
Figure A-1. Total Funds Invested in Early Childhood Programs, By Department, FY 2002-2003 (in millions of dollars)
350 300
250 200 150
100
50 - DSS DPH SDE Head DMR CTF DCF DMHAS Start
State Federal Other
Figure A-2. Total Funds Invested in Early Childhood Programs, By Domain, FY 2002-2003 (in millions of dollars)
300
250
200
150
100
50
- Health Early Care Family Parent Infra- Social- and Support Education structure Emotional 9 Education ATTACHMENT H Final 2/14/2006
Table A-3. Early Childhood Investments, FY 2002-2003, by Department, Program, and Source
Department / Program State Federal Other Total DPH Asthma Prevention 798,555 0 0 798,555 Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention 634,824 882,000 0 1,516,824 Childhood Lead Poisoning Prev, Lab 50,147 0 0 50,147 Infant Immunizations 6,947,472 2,194,554 0 9,142,026 Lead Environmental Management 0 199,127 0 199,127 Newborn Hearing 15,000 132,000 0 147,000 Newborn Screening Laboratory 446,467 31,000 0 477,467 Oral Health 501,475 0 0 501,475 WIC Nutrition Program 2,974,300 38,997,807 0 41,972,107 Child Day Care Licensing 2,096,800 697,893 0 2,794,693 MCH Infoline 0 193,000 0 193,000 Fetal and Infant Mortality Review 0 0 0 0 Food Stamp Nutrition 0 657,930 0 657,930 Right From the Start 0 320,576 0 320,576 Community Health Centers 0 0 0 0 School-based Health Clinics 5,892,729 491,096 0 6,383,825 Total 20,357,769 44,796,983 0 65,154,752 DSS Healthy Start 0 1,260,917 0 1,260,917 Fatherhood Initiative 600,000 0 0 600,000 Information and Referral Services (211) 2,500,000 219,173 0 2,719,173 Care 4 Kids 57,744,231 41,171,641 0 98,915,872 State Funded Centers 5,121,554 18,839,254 0 23,960,808 Head Start State Collaboration Project 0 135,631 0 135,631 Healthy Childcare CT* 0 50,000 0 50,000 Husky A 88,593,034 88,593,034 0 177,186,067 SCHIP 922,036 1,712,352 0 2,634,388 Quality Child Care Initiatives (School 0 3,198,048 0 3,198,048 Readiness) Total 155,480,854 155,180,050 0 310,660,904
10 ATTACHMENT H Final 2/14/2006
Table A-3. Early Childhood Investments, FY 2002-2003, by Department, Program, and Source (continued)
Department / Program State Federal Other Total SDE Early Childhood Program (sea Need School 2,499,030 0 0 2,499,030 Priority School District - School Readiness 35,504,220 0 0 35,504,220 Even Start Family Literacy Grants 0 1,815,059 0 1,815,059 Family Resource Centers 5,256,461 0 0 5,256,461 Head Start Services and Enhancement 4,521,150 0 0 4,521,150 Preschool Special Education Program 0 4,980,763 0 4,980,763 Young Parents Program 221,505 0 0 221,505 Youth Services Bureaus 2,781,231 0 0 2,781,231 Total 50,783,597 6,795,822 0 57,579,419 DCF Parent Education and Family Support 1,200,000 0 0 1,200,000 Therapeutic Childcare Programs 1,500,000 0 0 1,500,000 Early Childhood Consultation Partnership 925,000 0 125,000 1,050,000 Early Childhood Programs 470,000 0 0 470,000 Total 4,095,000 0 125,000 4,220,000 CTF CT Healthy Families Initiative 4,271,004 0 0 4,271,004 Lengthening the Rope 220,081 40,402 0 260,483 Research and Evaluation 99,631 0 0 99,631 Kinship Fund 125,000 0 0 125,000 Family Development Cred. 0 0 0 0 Help Me Grow 239,742 21,090 0 260,832 Total 4,955,458 61,492 0 5,016,950 DMR Birth to Three 30,395,807 5,431,894 3,964,501 39,792,202 Total 30,395,807 5,431,894 3,964,501 39,792,202 DHMAS Parenting People/Parenting and Fam. Life 140,000 0 0 140,000 Project EC Prosocial Behavior Program. 86,372 0 0 86,372 Total 226,372 0 0 226,372 Federal Head Start 0 50,600,000 0 50,600,000 Grand Total 266,068,485 262,866,241 4,089,501 533,024,227
Appendix C, Information and Research Agenda
Development of a comprehensive data gathering, management and analysis plan as part of the work of the Cabinet to assure availability and use of essential information to inform policy and budgetary decisions over the next five years
11 ATTACHMENT H Final 2/14/2006
Design of a multi-year research agenda that will track a cohort of at-risk children from birth through the 4th grade, to identify family challenges, systems issues, and the effectiveness of services and support
Development of a series of “return on investment’ studies that allow the State to assess the short- and long-range impact of its current and future investment in the early childhood years.
12 ATTACHMENT H Final 2/14/2006
Connecticut Appropriations Committee RBA Template Part II, System Accountability for Early Childhood and Education Summary Sheet System Goal: Measure 1: Preschool Enrollment in Publicly Funded To provide to high quality, center-based early care and Early Care and Education Centers education (ECE) to all 3 and 4 year olds in communities where risk factors to young children are the greatest. Publicly Funded ECE Enrollments, Ages 3 and 4 (1999-2004) Key Budget Information: 14000
Total Current Program Funding: $173.3 12000 10000 Program Funding as Percent of Population Budgets 8000 (of the $533.0 million): 32.5% 6000 Program Budget Distribution 4000 Total Federal Funds: $93.2 2000
Total State Funds: $80.0 0 98-99 99-00 00-01 00-02 00-03 00-04 00-05 General Fund DSS Centers Head Start (federal) Capital Project Funds Head Start (CT, full day) School Readiness Program Other State Funding Public School PreK Family Resource Centers (full day)
Other Funds (Not Federal or State: Measure 2: Children Entering Kindergarten Who Need to Turn the Curve Attended Formal Preschool at the Age of 4 by ERG.
Measure 1: Preschool Enrollment in Publicly Percent CT Kindergartners with a Preschool Experience by Educational Reference Group, 2001-2004 Funded Early Care and Education Centers. Preschool enrollment in publicly funded early care and 100 90 education centers increased 9 percent from 1999 through 80 70 2004. Enrollment increased from 26,645 in 1999 to 60 29,141 in 2004. Most of the increase was in public 50 40 school PreK programs. 30 20 10 Measure 2: Children Entering Kindergarten who 0 ABCDEFGH I Attended Formal Preschool at the age of 4 by ERG. 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 As the data show clearly, nearly all 4-year-olds in Connecticut’s wealthiest communities attend preschool, Measure 3: Children Living in Poverty Across while just over one in two attend from Connecticut’s Priority School Districts poorest and most at-risk communities (Bridgeport,
Hartford, New Britain, New Haven, New London, Percentage of Children Receiving Free or Reduced-Price Waterbury and Windham). Lunches in Connecticut Priority School Districts
Town 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 Measure 3: Children Living in Poverty Across Ansonia 36 38 43 44 Priority School Districts. Of the 17,800 children who Bloomfield 25 26 40 41 are born annually in these 19 communities, about 10,500 Bridgeport 88 67 95 98 will live below Connecticut “economic self-sufficiency” Bristol 24 24 25 28 level, that is, in poverty as defined by the Connecticut Danbury 28 30 38 32 East Hartford 41 33 43 47 State Department of Education. Fourth, without Hartford 69 60 95 71 expanded investment, this at-risk cohort will continue to Meriden 47 49 50 53 constitute a sizable proportion of Connecticut children Middletown 33 31 32 33 who are least ready for early school success and most New Britain 55 65 64 64 likely to face academic challenges in their elementary New Haven 67 58 67 67 New London 63 67 69 68 school years. Norwalk 26 21 24 25 Norwich 44 42 48 52 Measure 4: 4th Graders in Priority School Districts Putnam 26 32 32 35 Who Are Reading at Proficiency or Better (data not Stamford 29 33 32 40 shown). Reading scores in these Priority School Waterbury 91 63 68 68 Districts are well below mastery and have generally held West Haven 42 43 43 45 steady or declined. Windham 56 60 59 60
13 ATTACHMENT H
Connecticut Appropriations Committee RBA3 Template Part II, System Accountability for Early Childhood Care and Education
System Goal: To provide to high quality, center-based early care and education (ECE) to all 3 and 4 year olds in communities where risk factors to young children are the greatest.
System: Early Childhood Education Cabinet: “Ready by Five & Fine by Nine” Investment Planning Initiative
Contribution to Quality of Life (Population) Result: Connecticut faces two challenges in meeting its Quality of Life result of ensuring that all children enter kindergarten with the knowledge, skills and behaviors essential to early school success. First, it must address the lack of quality in early care and education programs now serving three- and four-year old children with state funding. Second, it must ensure that quality programs are available for the remaining at-risk children who do yet have access to them.
A recent survey by the Connecticut Center for School Change of 11 most at-risk school districts suggests the magnitude of the challenge we face regarding programs that may not now be of high quality. Of children who entered kindergarten in these districts without any preschool experience, 75% were not “ready” in terms of their language development and skills.
Moreover, half of those with one year of preschool were not ready, and 35% of those who attended two years of preschool were also unready on a series of language measures. We believe this is the result of inadequate program quality in some ECE programs. Although there are many factors that influence young children’s readiness for school, if we improve program quality and expand access to high quality programs for preschoolers who do not now have access, we will increase the proportion of young children who enter ready.
Analysis of Connecticut population data indicates that 60% of the state’s preschoolers live in 41 towns where one or more factors predict school un-readiness. Most of these children at risk of un-readiness (about 40%) live in just 19 Connecticut communities, designated by the Connecticut General Assembly and the State Department of Education as Priority School Districts.
A 2005 report to the Connecticut legislature shows that 9,138 three- and four-year olds in 18 of the current 19 Priority School District municipalities require but do not yet have access to a preschool early education program. Since these districts contribute the most children to the state’s persistent “achievement gap,” assuring their readiness for early school success should result in a near-term reduction in reading problems and special education costs in the 1st through 4th grades.
3 Results Based Accountability 14 ATTACHMENT H
In order to achieve the population result of all children healthy and ready for kindergarten within their developmental potential, it is imperative that we develop systemic and program improvements and expansions that meet the needs of this sub-population of at-risk young children. A very recent RAND study confirms that targeting attention and services at populations of greatest risk yields the greatest degree of fiscal “return on governmental investment.”
Key Budget Information: Total Current Program Funding(FY2002-2003): $173.3 Program Funding as Percent of Agency Budgets(Of the $533.0 million): 32.5% Program Budget Distribution Total Federal Funds: $93.2 Total State Funds: $80.0 General Fund Capital Project Funds Other State Funding Other Funds (Not Federal or State: Projected Changes in Federal and Non-Governmental Funds: There have been some changes in funding for the identified programs since SFY 2002-2003. This information is being compiled.
Basic Facts: Creation of the Connecticut Early Childhood Education Cabinet was requested by the Governor and enacted by the General Assembly in the 2005 session. Cabinet members include Commissioners from the Departments of Education, Social Services, Public Health, Children and Families, Mental Retardation, and Higher Education. Designees from the Governor and the Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management also sit on the Cabinet, along with community representatives and the co-chairs of the General Assembly’s Education and Human Services Committees.
The Cabinet will produce the framework for the state’s first-ever Early Childhood Investment Plan by mid-June, 2006. By mid-November, the Cabinet in partnership with the Early Childhood Research and Policy Council -- established by Executive Order of the Governor on February 7, 2006 -- will release cost components and financing recommendations for the Early Childhood Investment Plan.
The Early Childhood Research and Policy Council is co-chaired by John Rathgeber (CBIA), David Nee (Graustein Memorial Fund), and Valerie Lewis (CT Department of Higher Education). Its members include representatives from the following sectors with a stake in the readiness and academic accomplishment of the state’s young children: business and employers, philanthropy, K-16 education, state and local government, economic development and workforce competitiveness. Members of the Early Childhood Education Cabinet sit on the Council, as does leadership from the Appropriations and Finance Committee of the General Assembly.
A set of goals and a statement of core values have been articulated by the Cabinet. The structure of the Early Childhood Investment Framework is shown below: Part I: Vision, goals and core values (draft version in circulation) Part II: Population outcomes and targeting strategies (draft version in circulation) Part III: Systems, services and supports Part IV: Management, governance and accountability Part V: Resource utilization and development
15 ATTACHMENT H
Part VI: Knowledge development and transfer
The Connecticut Biennial Budget appropriated $450,000 in each of FY06 and FY07 to support the work of the Cabinet. The following allocations have been made to date:
$50,000 to be combined with funding from DSS, SDE, and DPH (plus philanthropic funding) to support continuation of the ongoing Data CONNections initiative through December 2006
$100,000 to support technical assistance for local communities seeking to access bonding funds for preschool facility renovation and expansion
$50,000 as matching funds for implementation of the Anne E. Casey Foundation’s Leadership in Action program in which the Cabinet will partner with one case study community to move intensively over the next year towards systemic and program improvement leading to children’s school readiness.
Also over the fall of 2005, the Connecticut Health and Education Facilities Authority (CHEFA) reallocated $200,000 of its own funding to support the work of the Early Childhood Research and Policy Council in the areas of research, economic analyses, and cost model development. CHEFA will host the work of the Council as well.
System Performance and Story Behind the Last 3 Years of Performance:
Measure 1: Preschool Enrollment in Publicly Funded Early Care and Education Centers (Source: Data provided by the State Department of Education and Department of Social Services)
Preschool enrollment in publicly Publicly Funded ECE Enrollments, Ages 3 and 4 funded early care and education (1999-2004) centers increased 9 percent from 14000 1999 through 2004. Enrollment 12000 increased from 26,645 in 1999 to 10000 29,141 in 2004. Most of the 8000 increase was in public school 6000 PreK programs. 4000 Based on an estimated cohort of 2000 about 84,000 3- and 4-year-olds in 0 Connecticut, publicly-funded 98-99 99-00 00-01 00-02 00-03 00-04 00-05 programs served about 35 percent DSS Centers Head Start (federal) of all Connecticut preschoolers Head Start (CT, full day) School Readiness Program Public School PreK Family Resource Centers (full day) statewide. These data do not distinguish between 3- and 4-year-olds. However, the national literature suggests that many more 4-year-olds attend preschool than do 3-year-olds.
Measure 2: Children Entering Kindergartners Who Attended Formal Preschool at the Age of 4 by ERG (Source: Parental Reports, SDE Strategic School Profiles)
16 ATTACHMENT H
When enrolling their children for kindergarten, parents are asked whether their child participated in a formal preschool program at age Percent CT Kindergartners with a Preschool Experience by 4. Over the past four years, about Educational Reference Group, 2001-2004 three in four parents statewide indicated that their children have 100 90 attended a formal preschool program 80 within the six months prior to 70 60 kindergarten entry. 50 40 Estimating the cohort of 4-year- olds 30 20 to be about 42,000 children, these data 10 suggest that about 31,500 4-year-olds 0 are enrolled in a public or private, ABCDEFGH I center-based early childhood education 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 program.
While the data look encouraging on a statewide basis, enrollment is not similar across Connecticut’s communities. These data are presented according to the State Department of Education’s “Educational Reference Groups” (ERGs), nine clusters of communities with similar socioeconomic circumstances. As the data show clearly, nearly all 4-year-olds in Connecticut’s wealthiest communities attend preschool, while just over one in two attend from Connecticut’s poorest and most at-risk communities (Bridgeport, Hartford, New Britain, New Haven, New London, Waterbury and Windham). While changes in reported enrollment have been small over the past four years, they also vary by community.
Measure 3: Children Living in Poverty Across Priority School Districts (Source: State Department of Education Strategic School Profiles)
The Connecticut General Assembly has designated a group of at-risk communities for additional support in ensuring the school readiness and academic achievement of their young children. Currently, 19 communities have been designated as Priority School Districts.
One proxy for the “at-risk circumstances” in which children in these communities live is eligibility for participation in the federal Free and Reduced Price Meal (FRPM) program. Eligibility is set at 185 percent of the federal poverty level and approximates the economic self- sufficiency level that the State of Connecticut has identified as necessary to pay for basic family necessities (housing, child care, transportation, health insurance, and food) without governmental assistance.
Analysis of these data reveals several important facts:
17 ATTACHMENT H
First, poverty is not confined to our urban centers. Second-ring Percentage of Children Receiving Free or Reduced-Price municipalities as well as rural Lunches in Connecticut Priority School Districts communities all have resident Town 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 families living in difficult Ansonia 36 38 43 44 economic circumstances. Bloomfield 25 26 40 41 Bridgeport 88 67 95 98 Second, the proportion of Bristol 24 24 25 28 children living in poverty varies Danbury 28 30 38 32 quite widely by community, East Hartford 41 33 43 47 with nearly all children in Hartford 69 60 95 71 Bridgeport living in poverty, as Meriden 47 49 50 53 well as about 7 in 10 children in Middletown 33 31 32 33 Hartford, New Haven, New New Britain 55 65 64 64 London and Waterbury. New Haven 67 58 67 67 New London 63 67 69 68 Third, of the 17,800 children Norwalk 26 21 24 25 who are born annually in these Norwich 44 42 48 52 19 communities, about 10,500 Putnam 26 32 32 35 will live below the Connecticut Stamford 29 33 32 40 “economic self-sufficiency” Waterbury 91 63 68 68 level, that is, in poverty as West Haven 42 43 43 45 defined by the Connecticut Windham 56 60 59 60 State Department of Education.
Fourth, without expanded investment, this at-risk cohort will continue to constitute a sizable proportion of Connecticut children who are least ready for early school success and most likely to face academic challenges in their elementary school years.
Measure 4: 4th Graders in Priority School Districts Who Are Reading at Proficiency or Better (Source: State Department of Education CMT Results)
As a matter of public policy, the State of Connecticut expects its young learners to perform at a “mastery level” in reading, mathematics and writing on the Grade 4 (and subsequent) Connecticut Mastery Tests (CMTs). The “mastery level” is a higher level of performance than the “proficiency level.” Below proficiency, students are rated as having basic or less than basic skills. Any score below proficiency may be viewed as reflecting deficient reading skill.
Data on students’ Grade 4 CMT reading performance over the past five years should prompt intensive public policy attention in at least 19 of the state’s challenged school districts. Reading scores in these Priority School Districts are well below mastery and have generally held steady or declined. Far too many students do not perform at even a proficient level.
18 ATTACHMENT H
The proportion of students at or above proficiency in reading in the 2004 CMT ranged from about 65 percent (approximately the state average) in Bristol, Middletown and Stamford to a low of 27 percent in Hartford Percent of Grade 4 Student Reading Scores at Proficiency or and 35 percent in New Better Haven. Another way of stating this finding is that School District (ERG) 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 between 6 and 7 out of Ansonia (H) 57 59 52 57 45 10 Grade 4 students in Bloomfield (F) 54 58 66 62 56 Hartford and New Haven Bridgeport (I) 38 35 33 38 38 scored below a level of Bristol (H) 66 66 60 63 65 proficiency in reading. Danbury (H) 58 63 57 54 55 East Hartford (H) 51 45 50 52 46 National studies have Hartford (I) 33 32 32 34 27 shown that young people Meriden (H) 60 59 59 57 48 who are reading- Middletown (H) 65 64 67 56 65 challenged in the 3rd and New Britain (I) 44 45 37 44 36 4th grades are often New Haven (I) 35 33 35 39 35 headed on a trajectory New London (I) 39 45 38 42 39 that ends with the lack of Norwalk (H) 62 58 57 65 62 high school completion, Norwich (H) 76 65 62 58 59 welfare dependency and Putnam (H) 65 61 60 58 61 involvement with the Stamford (H) 66 64 64 65 67 justice system beginning Waterbury (I) 50 48 47 47 43 in adolescence and West Haven (H) 63 68 67 65 62 young adulthood. Windham (I) 36 42 38 44 46
What Do We Propose To Do to Improve System Performance in the Next Five Years?
The Connecticut Early Childhood Education Cabinet was established to ensure the school readiness and early academic success of all of the state’s young children. Although it is early in this strategic planning process, the Cabinet has framed three draft population indicators around which to improve the management, accountability and delivery of services and supports to at-risk children and their families:
All children in Connecticut will arrive at the kindergarten door beginning in 2011 optimally healthy, eager to learn and ready for school success. These are children born in 2006.
Ninety five percent of Connecticut’s children will demonstrate proficiency or better on the 4th grade reading CMT by 2010. These are children who will enter kindergarten in 2006.
Ninety-five percent of Connecticut’s children will demonstrate mastery or better on the 4th grade reading CMT by 2015. These are children born in 2006 who will have entered kindergarten in 2011 (under part 1 of this goal). As the Cabinet proceeds to develop a “framework for early childhood investment” and a multi- year plan to accomplish it, priority attention will be accorded the delivery of quality early care and education services. Attention to the following actions is required across state agencies: (a) improving and ensuring the quality of existing early care and education programs funded by state 19 ATTACHMENT H
and federal monies, and (b) expanding access to quality programs at the community level starting with those school districts in greatest need.
To move to action on both of these critical agenda items, the Cabinet will need to attend simultaneously to the following systems-change strategies:
Determine quality. The state must ensure that all existing early care and education programs serving children with state or federal funding provide a high-quality learning experience for children enrolled. This will require the review of all early care and education center programs receiving state or federal funds on a biannual basis using a standardized rating methodology (such as ECERS, the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale). Where quality gaps are found, a plan of correction with estimated costs should be submitted to the state agency of cognizance. Learning from the process of regularly utilizing data on quality will inform public policy and decision-making at both the executive and legislative branches of government.
Link quality data to child outcomes. For 2006 through 2008, collect, analyze and report on school district estimates of the readiness of each entering kindergarten class. Beginning no later than fall 2009, use a standardized, statewide entry to kindergarten assessment as required by the Connecticut General Assembly. On a community-by-community basis, examine the intersection of program quality data and child outcomes data and report to the Cabinet, communities, legislators and the public annually.
Develop a plan to achieve quality in existing centers. With individual community School Readiness Councils, develop community-specific plans to achieve sustainable quality ratings for each center receiving state funds.
Promote public-private investment at the community level, based on development of community-specific strategic plans. Engage with target communities to assist the development of community-specific plans assuring that all children in these communities arrive at the kindergarten door healthy and ready for school success.
Fund expansion of center-based programs for at-risk preschoolers who do not now have access. Over the period 2007-2011, allocate increased funding to secure quality preschool education programs for children identified as at high risk of school un-readiness based on a targeting strategy agreed to the executive and legislative branches of government.
Improve the systems linkages between early childhood education and kindergarten programs. Whether the issue is consistency and integration of PreK and K curriculum, sharing and transfer of critical student information, or enhancing family involvement, review and improve the state’s guidance on PreK-K transitions, and support community efforts to affect these critical changes.
20 ATTACHMENT H
Appendix A, Data Development Agenda: Priorities for new or better data on system performance
Critical issues of data compatibility and data sharing across state agencies, and with families, must be resolved as part of an Early Childhood Data Development Plan and included in the Cabinet’s Early Childhood Investment Framework.
Quality performance data must be developed and utilized in a collaborative manner across state agencies whose programs, services and resources support the delivery of early care and education to Connecticut’s young children.
Identification of proxy measures of children’s “entry to K” readiness must be accomplished within the next six months. Proxy data from all school districts should be collected systematically beginning in the fall of 2006, with full implementation of the new, required statewide “entry to K” assessment no later than the fall of 2009.
Appendix B, Link to Budget The budget figures presented at the system level are drawn from the same source as the population level figures. These were compiled as part of the Early Childhood Partners (ECP) initiative in fall 2004 based on expenditures in the Fiscal Year 2002-2003. The ECP initiative is in the process of updating these figures to FY 2005-2006 and approved budgets for 2006-2007. The goal of the ECP Initiative is to create a comprehensive, integrated early childhood service system to increase effectiveness and efficiency of state investments. As part of ECP Planning process, agency staff worked with each participating state department to identify state programs that should be considered part of Connecticut’s early childhood service system and collected information from the departments on the total expenditures by program for FY 2002-2003. These figures represent state and federal investments in the provision of quality preschool experiences to Connecticut children ages 3 and 4 (a small number of children aged 2 and 5 also participate in these programs). Although the outcome for this initiative is focused on children living in Priority School Districts, the data presented is statewide because there is not a readily available breakout of how much of these funds are expended in Priority School Districts. This information will be developed as part of the update of the ECP fiscal scan to FY 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 (budgeted). Based on what is known at this time about the populations served by these programs, a very significant proportion of these funds, most likely greater than 75%, is probably focused in the Priority School Districts. The figures include both direct support for the delivery of the services and efforts to increase the quality of the preschool experience, including investments in the Quality Enhancement program of the School Readiness program and in professional development for early childhood teachers. A total of $173.3 million was invested in preschool and related services to benefit families with children ages 3 and 4 in the study year (2002-2003). Table S-1 summarizes the results by department by source of funds. It should be noted that this includes an investment of $50.6 million in Head Start programs that flows directly from the federal government to local agencies. These are included in the analysis to provide a complete picture of public funding. Not included in these totals are the substantial user fees paid to preschool programs by parents or private funds raised by the operating entities through fundraising efforts. 21 ATTACHMENT H
Table S-2 provides the detailed expenditures by program. For programs that serve populations broader than children ages 3 and 4, the total program expenditure has been pro-rated by a factor that reflects an estimate of the proportion of the funds benefiting preschool aged children. This is based on enrollment data, estimated program participation or direct expenditure data when known.
Table S-1. Investments in Provision of Preschool Services, FY 2002-2003 (in millions of dollars), By Department and Source of Funds, Sorted by Total Amount
Table S-1. Investments in Provision of Preschool Services, FY 2002-2003
Department State Federal Other Total DSS $32,077,307 $36,383,200 $0 $68,460,507 SDE $45,152,631 $5,888,293 $0 $51,040,923 Head Start (Federal) $0 $50,600,000 $0 $50,600,000 DPH $ 1,048,400 $ 348,947 $0 $ 1,397,347 DCF $1,678,750 $0 $93,750 $1,772,500 Total $79,957,088 $93,220,439 $93,750 $173,271,277
Table S-2. Investments in Provision of Preschool Services, FY 2002-2003 (in millions of dollars), By Department and Program, Sorted by Total Amount (see following page)
22 ATTACHMENT H
Table S-2. Investments in Provision of Preschool Services, FY 2002-2003
Dpt Program PRO- Basis State Federal Total % of RATION Total FACTOR Federal Head Start 100% 100% $ - $ 50,600,000 $ 50,600,000 29.2% DSS Care 4 Kids 47% # $ 27,139,789 $ 19,350,671 $ 46,490,460 26.8% School SDE 100% . $ 35,504,220 $ - $ 35,504,220 20.5% Readiness/Priority State Funded % 3-4 yr DSS 72% $ 3,687,519 $ 13,564,263 $ 17,251,782 10.0% Centers olds Preschool Special SDE 100% . $ - $ 4,980,763 $ 4,980,763 2.9% Ed. Head Start SDE Services and 100% . $ 4,521,150 $ - $ 4,521,150 2.6% Enhancement Quality ChildCare DSS Initiatives (School 100% . $ - $ 3,198,048 $ 3,198,048 1.8% Readiness) Family Resource SDE 50% ** $ 2,628,231 $ - $ 2,628,231 1.5% Centers Early Childhood SDE Program (severe 100% . $ 2,499,030 $ - $ 2,499,030 1.4% Need Schools) Child Day Care DPH 50% ** $ 1,048,400 $ 348,947 $ 1,397,347 0.8% Licensing Therapeutic DCF 50% ** $ 750,000 $ - $ 750,000 0.4% Childcare Info & Referral DSS 50% ** $ 1,250,000 $ 109,587 $ 1,359,587 0.8% Serv (211) Early Childhood DCF Consultation 75% $ 693,750 $ - $ 787,500* 0.5% Partnershp Even Start Family SDE 50% ** $ - $ 907,530 $ 907,530 0.5% Literacy Grants Early Childhood DCF 50% ** $ 235,000 $ - $ 235,000 0.1% Programs Head Start State DSS Collaboration 100% . $ - $ 135,631 $ 135,631 0.1% Project Healthy Childcare DSS 50% ** $ - $ 25,000 $ 25,000 0.0% CT* Total . . $ 79,957,088 $ 93,220,439 $ 173,271,277* 100.0%
# % of Care4Kids funds paid to cover the costs of caring for preschool children in licensed child care centers * Includes $93,750 of “other funding” ** Total program budget has been pro-rated to estimate the amount devoted to this system outcome based on an estimate of the percentage of the program’s services that are utilized by families on behalf of 3-4 yr old children
23 ATTACHMENT H
Appendix C, Information and Research Agenda.
Development of a consumer-friendly quality rating system for early care and education centers receiving any state funding
Design and implementation of a longitudinal study of child outcomes and effective program models related to children’s health and school readiness
Design and implementation of a series of Return on Investment (ROI) studies focused on the short-term ROI for school districts and communities that fully implement high quality school readiness programs. These studies would look at community-based cost savings in the early elementary school years through a reduction in both grade retention and reading-related special education costs.
Exploration of alternative management structures by which to strengthen the operational capacity of early care and education center-based programs
24 ATTACHMENT H
Connecticut Appropriations Committee RBA Template Part II, Program Accountability: SDE School Readiness Initiative in Priority School Districts Goal: To provide access to high-quality early Key Budget Information (dollars reported in childhood programs for all 3- and 4-year-olds in millions) the 19 Priority School Districts. Total Current Funding: $48 Contribution to Population and System Result: Program Funding as Percent of 9.0% All children in Priority School Districts will enter Population Funding: kindergarten ready to learn on an equal footing Program Budget Distribution with their counterparts in the wealthier Total Federal Funds: $0 communities. Total State Funds: $48
Total Nongovernmental Funds: $0 Need to Turn the Curve: Projected Changes in Federal and N/A Nongovernmental Funds: Measure 1. Over the past four years, FY 2003–06, allocations supported a capacity increase of 2,156 Measure 1: The capacity and utilization of spaces spaces. However, there are an additional 8,731 (slots) under the authorized funding level children who are still in need of a preschool Capacity and Utilzation of School Readiness Slots program in Priority School Districts. in Priority School Districts
8,000 6,846 6,898 6,452 6,387 6,015 5,838 5,552 5,775 6,000 4,000
2,000
0 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Slots Available Slots Utilized Measure 2. During the past three years, the percentage of school readiness teachers in the Measure 2: Credentials of school readiness teachers
Priority School Districts with an associate’s degree Credentials of School Readiness Teachers or higher has been 70 to 74 percent, while the in Priority School Districts percentage of teachers with a credential that is less 60% than an associate’s degree is 21 to 26 percent. 50% Research finds that teachers who are highly trained 40% and educated are critical components in providing 30% high-quality programs for children, especially 20% children at risk. 10% Teachers of Percent 0% FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 Bachelor's Degr ee or Higher Associat e's Degr ee Less t han Associat e's Degr ee
Measure 3. The percentage of priority school Measure 3: School readiness programs that meet readiness programs that are accredited or approved accreditation or approval standards is currently 88 percent. While this represents a School Readiness Programs in Priority School Districts slight increase over 2003, we might not see this Meeting Accreditation/Approval Standards trend continue. School readiness programs are now 250 facing new challenges to maintain or acquire 199 194 203 201 200 176 148 144 153 accreditation or approval. Effective January 2006, 150 programs participating in the accreditation process 100 for NAEYC are required to meet new accreditation 50 criteria that are more stringent, especially in the 0 areas of teacher qualifications, leadership FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 credentialing and child assessment. Total # of Sites # Accredited/Approved
25 ATTACHMENT H
Connecticut Appropriations Committee RBA Template Part II, Program Accountability for State Department of Education School Readiness Initiative
Goal: To provide access to high-quality early childhood programs for all 3- and 4-year-olds in the 19 Priority School Districts.
Program: State Department of Education/School Readiness Initiative in Priority School Districts
Contribution to Population and System Result: All children in Priority School Districts will enter kindergarten ready to learn on an equal footing with their counterparts in the wealthier communities.
Key Budget Information (dollars reported in millions)
Total Current Funding: $48 Program Funding as Percent of Population Funding: 9.0% Program Budget Distribution Total Federal Funds: $0 Total State Funds: $48 Total Nongovernmental Funds: $0 Projected Changes in Federal and Nongovernmental Funds: Not applicable
Basic Facts The neediest children in our Priority School Districts have multiple at-risk factors such as poverty, unemployment and lack of health care which put them at risk for learning difficulties and contribute to the achievement gaps in Connecticut. This is evidenced by the low Connecticut Mastery Test reading and math scores for the children in these communities. Research unequivocally shows that these achievement gaps can be narrowed by ensuring that all 3- and 4-year-olds have access to a high-quality early childhood program. In order to be most effective, early childhood programs must include high-quality teachers, high standards, accountability, parent partnerships and a consistent continuum between the early childhood program and the next level of education, kindergarten. Our challenge in Connecticut is to build on the high-quality early childhood program design we have established and expand and enhance it to ensure that all children in our neediest communities have the opportunity and experiences that will help them enter school “ready to learn.”
Since fall 1997, the Connecticut State Department of Education has administered the state school readiness and child day-care grant program that currently creates nearly 7,500 preschool spaces for 3- and 4-year-old children. Under the terms of C.G.S. Section 10-16p, the majority of the preschool spaces, approximately 6,900, have been developed in Connecticut’s Priority School Districts. A small competitive grant program contributes to additional preschool spaces in school districts with at least one priority school or in districts that fall in the lowest 50 of wealth rank. The subject of this
26 ATTACHMENT H
planning template is the state school readiness and child day-care program in the Priority School Districts.
Program Performance:
Measurement 1. The capacity and utilization of spaces (slots) under the authorized funding level
Story behind the last 3 Capacity and Utilzation of School Readiness Slots years of performance: in Priority School Districts Over the past four years, FY 2003–06, allocations supported
a capacity increase of 2,156 8,000 6,846 6,898 6,452 6,387 spaces. However, the 2006 5,838 6,015 5,775 6,000 5,552 edition of SDE’s annual report, School Readiness Need and 4,000 Costs to Serve All 3- and 4- 2,000 Year-Old Children in the 19 Priority School Districts, 0 estimates that there are an FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 additional 8,731 children who Slots Available Slots Utilized are still in need of a preschool program in Priority School Districts. The 6,915 spaces that have been created in FY 2006 are only 44 percent of the total number of spaces needed to serve all children in the 19 Priority School Districts. The overall utilization rate ranges from 93 to 96 percent, with the most variation in the summer months. During the rest of the year, the average rate is approximately 98 percent. It is critical for programs to maintain the highest possible utilization of the spaces in order to serve the children in their communities. Programs can best provide the environment and learning opportunities that support children’s development of skills when children attend the programs consistently and continuously. In addition, there are many children on waiting lists in communities, and these communities can take action to fill spaces that are underutilized in one program by moving them to another program or by filling them with children on the waiting list.
27 ATTACHMENT H
Measurement 2. Credentials of school readiness teachers
Story behind the last 3
years of performance: Credentials of School Readiness Teachers The current legislation requires in Priority School Districts
that a teacher in a school 60% readiness program have a Child Development Associate (CDA) 50% credential with 12 credits in 40% early childhood education or Teachers 30%
child development; an t of associate’s degree or a four- 20% 10% year degree with 12 credits in Percen early childhood education or 0% child development; or be a FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 certified teacher with an B achelor's Degr ee or Higher Associat e's Degr ee Less t han Associat e's Degr ee endorsement in early childhood or special education. During the past three years, the percentage of school readiness teachers in the Priority School Districts with an associate’s degree or higher has been 70 to 74 percent, while the percentage of teachers with a credential that is less than an associate’s degree is 21 to 26 percent. Research finds that teachers who are highly trained and educated are critical components in providing high-quality programs for children, especially children at risk. In line with these research findings, the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), one of the nation’s leading advocacy and accrediting organizations for preschools, requires all preschool teachers to have a Child Development Associate (CDA) credential and be working toward an associate’s or bachelor’s degree as of 2006. By 2010, all teachers must have an associate’s degree and by 2020, a baccalaureate degree. Further, SDE has set a goal that all school readiness teachers will have a bachelor’s degree by 2015. Currently, just over 50 percent of preschool teachers employed in state school readiness programs hold a bachelor’s degree.
The graph above shows little, if any progress, in attracting teachers with associate’s or bachelor’s degrees to teach in Connecticut’s school readiness programs. The ability to attract teachers with a bachelor’s degree is negatively affected by the significantly higher salaries teachers command in the public K-12 system. Once teachers achieve this higher educational level, they generally opt for the higher salaries in kindergarten and above. This plus the “graying” of the current teaching force and increasing rates of retirements will exacerbate the problem by attracting more of the newly certified teachers to the higher, higher-paying public school grades.
28 ATTACHMENT H
Measurement 3: School readiness programs that meet accreditation or approval standards
Story behind the last 3 years of performance: State law requires that school School Readiness Programs in Priority School Districts readiness programs must be Meeting Accreditation/Approval Standards accredited or approved by the National Association for the 250 Education of Young Children 199 194 203 201 200 176 (NAEYC), New England 148 144 153 Association of Schools and 150 Colleges (NEASC), Head Start 100 or the American Montessori 50 Society. The percentage of priority school readiness 0 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 programs that are accredited or approved is currently 88 Total # of Sites # Accredited/Approved percent. While this represents a slight increase over 2003, we might not see this trend continue. School readiness programs are now facing new challenges to maintain or acquire accreditation or approval. Effective January 2006, programs participating in the accreditation process for NAEYC are required to meet new accreditation criteria that are more stringent, especially in the areas of teacher qualifications, leadership credentialing and child assessment.
What will it take to do it better?
1. Increase access to Projected Increase in Capacity Required to Meet the Need for preschool. School Readiness Slots in Priority School Districts In order to achieve the 15,646 targeted number of 15,646 14,342 13,037 spaces in Priority School 11,732 Districts and allow access 10,427 9,122 for all 3- and 4-year-olds, the legislature must increase the allocation in order to increase the number of spaces provided. In order to serve more FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 children, additional space is needed.
2. Increase number of classroom teachers with an associate’s or four-year degree. Studies consistently show a strong correlation between teacher quality and student achievement, especially in educationally disadvantaged populations. The State Department of Education has established the expectation that by 2015 each preschool classroom in the public school system will be taught by an appropriately certified teacher and that teachers in all state-funded preschool
29 ATTACHMENT H
programs will have a bachelor’s degree in early childhood education or child development. In order to accomplish this, approximately 2,385 teachers will be needed by 2015 in the Priority School Districts for both school- and community-based preschool settings. One of the best ways to meet this need is to reach out to the large pool of Connecticut teachers – nearly 9,200 – who already hold K-6 (elementary) certification but are not employed as elementary teachers in our public schools. A specialized Alternate Route to Certification (ARC) program leading to cross- endorsement at the preschool level has been proposed by the State Board of Education.
In addition, the state must provide support for professional development and training which ensures that current teachers with a credential that is less than an associate’s degree begin to pursue an associate’s or four-year degree and that teachers with an associate’s degree move toward obtaining a four-year degree. SDE and Connecticut’s higher education institutions must establish a partnership to promote expansion of early childhood teacher preparation programs and support the development of innovative programs. Strategies must include distance learning, off-campus and satellite learning centers, employment-based credit-granting courses, mentorship, coaching and strong articulation agreements between community colleges and four- year institutions.
3. Support early childhood programs in achieving and maintaining their accreditation or approval. Accreditation and approval systems ensure high-quality early childhood programming and promote positive outcomes for children. Despite the fact that 88 percent of Connecticut’s preschool programs are accredited or approved as required, some new standards are so demanding that we can anticipate a decrease in that percentage without focused assistance supported by the state. The new, more stringent standards of NAEYC present a strong challenge to programs in either obtaining or maintaining their accreditation. Programs will need long-term coaching and mentorship to navigate the intricate and reflective processes of accreditation. SDE must continue to support programs and implement innovative strategies that help programs meet the criteria, including collaboration with the Accreditation Facilitation Project (AFP), which provides some programs with individual support as they complete the accreditation processes. The state must support an expansion of AFP’s role in order to develop a cadre of coaches and mentors who can assist all school readiness programs to understand and adhere to the new standards. A strong commitment to accreditation support for programs will not only help currently accredited programs to meet the criteria, but will also provide a framework of assistance for the additional 870 school readiness classrooms needed to provide access for all preschool children.
4. Promote quality curriculum implementation and assessment of children’s early learning. The Connecticut Preschool Curriculum Framework and the Connecticut Preschool Assessment Framework developed by the State Department of Education provide a strong base for programs to use in building a high-quality curriculum and assessment process for young children. The use of these frameworks must be established by the legislature as a requirement for all state-funded preschools. Many school readiness staff members have not received adequate training or support in how to successfully implement these documents in a consistent, cohesive manner. Thus, regular, systematic training in the use of these frameworks also must be a requirement, and the necessary resources must be provided.
30 ATTACHMENT H
5. Support families as partners in their children’s education. Research demonstrates that families are the primary teachers of their children and are critical to a child’s success in school. The seeds of achievement are sown before children ever reach the kindergarten door, and families are essential in preparing children to be ready to learn. The state needs to build parents’ capacity to partner with schools in two key ways:
• Expand parent education for parents of infants, toddlers and young children by focusing on language, cognitive, social and motor development of children.
• Expand parent education through adult education offerings to educate parents about the grade-level expectations of kindergarten through Grade 4 and to train or mentor families in facilitating at-home learning that supports student grade-level expectations.
6. Development of a memorandum of agreement (MOA) between public schools and school readiness programs. For children to be successful in their academic careers, the adults and programs, both preschool and the public school, must be responsible for providing consistency and continuity between the children’s experiences and the expectations of the program the children are entering. Aligning standards, curriculum and expectations is a critical component that supports children in building on their previous experiences and applying their skills and knowledge base to a continuum that is appropriate and consistent. This means that early childhood programs and public schools must collaborate in order to ensure that the schools are ready for the children and that the preschool work is connected to the public school’s efforts. Joint meetings, trainings, active alignment of the standards, curriculum and assessment practices, involvement of families in the transition process and communication are part of this process. In order to support this collaboration, SDE will develop a template for a memorandum of agreement (MOA) between the public schools and the school readiness programs that articulates the collaboration and support responsibilities of each party in the areas of professional teaching, student learning and transition.
31 ATTACHMENT H
Appendix A - Priorities for new and better data on performance
• Include children who are recipients of the state-funded school readiness grant in the Department of Education’s Public School Information System by extending this interactive, web-based reporting system to all school readiness providers.
• Identify and implement a developmentally appropriate measure to determine children’s preparedness for kindergarten.
• Identify and implement a system to track the progress of teachers in their degree attainment and record of participation in professional development activities related to the Preschool Curriculum and Assessment Frameworks.
Appendix B - Link to Budget The current and fiscal year 2007 allocation levels for the State School Readiness initiative are:
School Readiness- Priority School Districts FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07* School Readiness - Priority School Districts 48,129,642 53,838,972 Early Childhood - Competitive Grant/SDE Administration 4,480,193 4,895,548 Early Childhood Advisory Cabinet 450,000 450,000 Minor Capital Improvements (Bond Funds) 2,000,000 0 Kindergarten Assessment 0 400,000
Dept. of Social Services (DSS) - School Readiness Quality Enhancement, Accreditation Facilitation, Training and Development 4,143,990 4,088,270
Connecticut Health and Educational Facilities Authority (CHEFA) - Debt Service Subsidy 4,500,000 4,500,000
Eastern Connecticut State University - Early Childhood Center- Professional Development for Teachers 450,000 450,000
Total 64,153,825 68,622,790 *Includes Governor’s proposal
Appendix C - Information and Research Agenda
The Department will need to design a system to track children who have participated in the state school readiness initiative to identify school history indicators related to achievement, retention and special education referral. The system should possess compatibility features with other state agency data systems so that resource and support services can be better focused toward families and children in need.
32 ATTACHMENT H
Connecticut Appropriations Committee RBA Template Part II, Program Accountability: DSS Child Day Care Center Program Goal: 1. To support the development and operation of accredited child day care centers for working families (gross income less than 75% of the Key Budget Information: SFY2005 state’s median income) with children under age 13 (up to 18 with special needs) who may Total Current Program Funding: $23,063,503 be disadvantaged by reason of economic, Program Funding as Percent of Agency Budget: 4.6% social, or environmental conditions. Program Budget Distribution 2. Support the system of family supports to Total Federal Funds address health, mental health, emotional and (actual expenditure): $15,693,439 social well-being, cognitive development, Total State Funds: $7,370,064 economic support and language development. Total Non-Governmental Funds: Projected Changes in Federal, State and Contribution to Population and System Result: Non-Governmental Funds: None (All Connecticut children begin kindergarten healthy and ready for school success within their developmental potential): Allow parents to work and/or participate in training and education programs Measure 1: Child Day Care Slots by Service and Year Allows for parent-child development and a system of family supports to address Child Day Care Slots by Service and Year health, mental health, emotional and social well-being, cognitive development, 4000 economic support and language 3500 development 3000 2500 2000 Need to Turn the Curve: 1500 1000 Measure 1. With the increased investment in 500 preschool through the School Readiness program, 0 the greatest unmet need was determined to be 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2004 infant-toddler care. DSS and its contract partners Infant/toddler Preschool School age addressed this need by reallocation of funds previously provided to preschool to infant-toddlers.
Measure 2. Since the inception of the School Measure 2: Percentage of Accredited Child Care Sites Readiness legislation in 1997, DSS adopted its own policy to require contract partners to achieve Percent of Accredited Childcare Sites NAEYC accreditation and/or Head Start performance standards. 100.0% 92.0% 80.0% Measure 3. 80% of families served by contract partners are required to be working. This is a 60.0% 47.0% contract condition that is monitored via sample 40.0% caseload on an annual basis. We do not collect 20.0% aggregate data. However, contract partners have 12.4% not failed to meet this standard and sample 0.0% caseloads indicate 90% compliance. 2002 2004 2006
Measure 3: Percent of Parents Who Are Working. Over 80 percent of the parents who bring their children to the centers are working.
33 ATTACHMENT H Final 2/14/2006
Connecticut Appropriations Committee RBA Template Part II, Program Accountability for Department of Social Services Child Day Care Center Program
Program Goal: 1. To support the development and operation of accredited child day care centers for working families (gross income less than 75% of the state’s median income) with children under age 13 (up to 18 with special needs) who may be disadvantaged by reason of economic, social, or environmental conditions. 2. Support the system of family supports to address health, mental health, emotional and social well-being, cognitive development, economic support and language development. Program: Department of Social Services/Child Day Care Center Program
Contribution to Quality of Life (Population) Result (All Connecticut children begin kindergarten healthy and ready for school success within their developmental potential):
The DSS Child Day Care Center Program: Allow parents to work and/or participate in training and education programs Allow for parent-child development and a system of family supports to address health, mental health, emotional and social well-being, cognitive development, economic support and language development
Key Budget Information: SFY2005 Total Current Program Funding: $23,063,503 Program Funding as Percent of Agency Budget: 4.6% Program Budget Distribution Total Federal Funds (actual expenditure): $15,693,439 Total State Funds: $7,370,064 Total Non-Governmental Funds: Projected Changes in Federal, State and Non-Governmental Funds: None
Basic Facts: This program serves a monthly average of approximately 2,500 parents and 4,300 children, ages 13 and under at 111 accredited and non-accredited sites through 53 contractors administered by municipalities and not-for-profit community based organizations. In addition to the purchase of preschool spaces, this program is the only state funded program that directly purchases spaces for infants and toddlers (ages0-3) in licensed child daycare centers and school-age children (ages 5-12) in community based settings. This is in contrast to the School Readiness program, which only serves pre-school (ages 3-5) children. The decision about the age groups to be served is determined by community need.
34 ATTACHMENT H Final 2/14/2006
Program Performance:
Measure 1: Number of Infants and Toddlers, Preschool, and School Age Slots
Child Day Care Slots by Service and Year
4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500
1000
500 0 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2004
Infant/toddler Preschool School age
Measure 2: Percentage of Accredited Child Care Sites
Percent of Accredited Childcare Sites
100.0% 92.0% 80.0%
60.0% 47.0% 40.0%
20.0% 12.4% 0.0% 2002 2004 2006
Measure 3: Percent of Parents Who Are Working. Over 80 percent of the parents who bring their children to the centers are working.
35 ATTACHMENT H Final 2/14/2006
Story behind the last 3 years of performance:
Measure 1: With the increased investment in preschool through the School Readiness program, the greatest unmet need was determined to be infant-toddler care. DSS and its contract partners addressed this need by reallocation of funds previously provided to preschool to infant-toddlers.
Measure 2: Percentage of Accredited childcare Sites. Since the inception of the School Readiness legislation in 1997, DSS adopted its own policy to require contract partners to achieve NAEYC accreditation and/or Head Start performance standards. This policy decision was consistent with the School Readiness legislation that required School Readiness funded programs to achieve either NAEYC or Head Start.
Measure 3: Percent of Parents Who Are Working. 80% of families served by contract partners are required to be working. This is a contract condition that is monitored via sample caseload on an annual basis. We do not collect aggregate data. However, contract partners have not failed to meet this standard and sample caseloads indicate 90% compliance. The remaining 10% of families participate in such programs as substance abuse, job training and/or adult basic skills or the child is referred to the DSS center based program by local social service agencies or DCF for the needs of the child.
What do you propose to do to improve performance in the next few years? Future performance improvements are dependent on increased financial resources targeted to specific performance indicators. For example, if child outcomes are to be rigorously measured, additional resources are needed to support enhanced data management tools. Program performance can also be enhanced if staff turnover is reduced. For example, this program continues to receive a reduced reimbursement level ($6,344 per preschool age child per year) compared to the reimbursement for a similar state subsidized school readiness program ($8,025 in state fiscal year 2007 per preschool age child per year).
Program performance for infant-toddlers will also be dependent on increased resources to support the comprehensive array of services needed to meet this unmet demand. We see the need to serve infant-toddlers since they represent the foundation for successful school readiness. We plan to demonstrate this by working to develop DSS child day centers as a “hub” for service enhancement and coordination. We will continue our efforts to coordinate existing federal, state, and community services funded by others to provide the necessary supports and enhancements. Appendix A, Data Development Agenda: Priorities for new or better data on performance. Appendix B, Link to Budget. Appendix C, Information and Research Agenda.
36 ATTACHMENT H Final 2/14/2006
Connecticut Appropriations Committee RBA Template Part II, Program Accountability for DPH Community Based Regulation Summary Sheet
Program Goal: To establish the baseline of quality below which it is illegal for family day Key Budget Information: (Dollars reported in care homes, group day care homes and child millions) day care centers to operate. Total Current Program Year Budget $2.8 Program Funding as Percent of All Funding Program: Department of Public Health / for Quality of Life Result 0.5% Regulatory Services / Community Based Program Budget Distribution: Regulation Federal State $2.35 Needed to Turn the Curve General Fund Capital Project Funds Program Performance Measure 1. Number Other State Funding $0.45 Licensed Every Two Years. The Other Funds (Not Federal or State) Department of Public Health licenses family Projected Changes in Funding day care homes (2,862), group day care homes (50), and child day care centers (1,558) every two years. Program Measure 2: Number of Complaints
Program Performance Measure 2: Number of Year Complaints. The Department of Public 2003 2004 2005 Health investigates complaints and provides Complaint reports technical assistance on regulatory issues. total 1153 1213 1111 Complaints have remained relatively Abuse / neglect constant for the past three years. (licensed) 292 371 292
Other (licensed) 658 645 649 Illegal 203 197 170
Program Measure 3: Number of Enforcement Actions Program Performance Measure 3: Number of Enforcement Actions. The number of Year enforcement actions has been going down for Enforcement the past three years. Actions 2003 2004 2005 Total 167 135 106 Denial 33 18 12 Consent Order 80 60 52
Revocation 14 11 9 Suspension 00 1 Summary Suspension 6 13 8 Surrender 22 18 19 Injunction 10 1 Civil Penalty 07 2 Cease & Desist 97 0 Stipulated Agreement 21 2
37 ATTACHMENT H
Connecticut Appropriations Committee RBA4 Template Part II, Program Accountability Department of Public Health Community Based Regulation
Program Goal: To establish the baseline of quality below which it is illegal for family day care homes, group day care homes and child day care centers to operate. Program: Department of Public Health / Regulatory Services / Community Based Regulation Contribution to Quality of Life (Population) Result: State statutes require the Department to license family day care homes, group day care homes, and child day care centers; to inspect licensed facilities and provide technical assistance as required by statute; to investigate complaints of illegal operation and non-compliance; and take regulatory action against non-compliant facilities.
Key Budget Information: (Dollars reported in millions) Total Current Program Year Budget $2.8 Program Funding as Percent of All Funding for Quality of Life Result 0.5% Program Budget Distribution: Federal State $2.35 General Fund Capital Project Funds Other State Funding $.45 Other Funds (Not Federal or State) Projected Changes in Funding
Basic Facts: The Department of Public Health licenses family day care homes (2,862), group day care homes (50), and child day care centers (1,558) every two years; conducts unannounced inspections to one-third of the family day care homes annually and inspects child day care centers and group day care homes every two years; investigates complaints; and provides technical assistance on regulatory issues.
Licensing establishes the baseline of quality below which it is illegal for programs to operate. There are regulations for the licensing of childcare centers that address the following areas: • Licensing Procedures • Administration • Reporting Requirements • Emergency Planning • Staffing • Background Checks (DCF, FBI, State Police) • Record Keeping • Health and Safety
4 Results Based Accountability
38 ATTACHMENT H
• Physical Plant • Educational Requirements • Administration of Medications • School-age Care • Monitoring Diabetes Child Care Licensing Program Structure • Administration • Licensing – 3 units • Eastern/Southeastern CT • Central/North Central CT • Western CT • Complaint Investigations Unit – Statewide • Quality Enhancement/Enforcement Unit – Statewide • Nursing Support Unit - Statewide
Program Performance:
Measure 1: Number Licensed Every Two Years. 1558 centers licensed every two years
Measure 2: Number of Complaints Year 2003 2004 2005 Complaint reports total 1153 1213 1111 Abuse / neglect (licensed) 292 371 292 Other (licensed) 658 645 649 Illegal 203 197 170
Measure 3: Number of Enforcement Actions Year Enforcement Actions 2003 2004 2005 Total 167 135 106 Denial 33 18 12 Consent Order 80 60 52 Revocation 14 11 9 Suspension 001 Summary Suspension 613 8 Surrender 22 18 19 Injunction 101 Civil Penalty 072 Cease & Desist 970 Stipulated Agreement 212
39 ATTACHMENT H
Story behind the last 3 years of performance: Licensing addresses the following areas of facility performance: administration, procedures, reporting requirements, emergency planning, staffing, background checks, record keeping, health and safety, physical plant, educational requirements, administration of medications, infant and toddler care, school-age care, night care, monitoring diabetes. The department has consistently met the statutory requirements for unannounced inspections and for providing technical assistance. What we propose to do to improve performance in the next 3-5 years: • Enhance data systems. • Update child day care center and group day care regulations.
Appendix A, Data Development Agenda: Priorities for new or better data on performance Under development Appendix B, Link to Budget: Detail on proposed improvement efforts that are included in the current or proposed budget Under development Appendix C, Information and Research Agenda Under development
40 ATTACHMENT H
APPENDIX IV
Connecticut Appropriations Committee RBA Template
Part I, Quality of Life (Population) Result Long Island Sound
Part II, Program Accountability DEP Clean Water Fund
1 ATTACHMENT H
RBA: Part I, Quality of Life (Population) Result, LI Sound Summary Page
Quality of Life Result: Key Funding Information A healthy and productive Long Island Sound Total Current Funding* $78,777,000 for Connecticut residents. Funding Distribution Total Federal Funds 6,518,000 Indicator 1. Overall Water Quality: Percent Total State Funds 72,259,000 of LIS that is Swimmable and Fishable Capital Projects Subtotal 60,343,000 Other Funding *Does not reflect all funding sources; see budget detail for more information.
Turning The Curves: Indicator 1: Overall water quality is affected by many factors, including many not controlled by the State of Connecticut. Water quality particularly in Western LIS Indicator 2. Water Quality: Percent of LIS continues to be problematic. Water quality can be with Acceptable Hypoxia Levels improved by sustaining and enhancing current CT DEP efforts and through an array of partnerships with EPA, Area and Trend of Hypoxia in Long Island Sound environmental protection agencies in other states *Hypoxia is defined as less than 3.0 m g/l Area of Hypoxia Linear (Area of Hypoxia) 450 400 (especially New York), and other environmental groups. 350
e 300 250 Avg. 205 sq.mi. 200
Square Mil Square 150 100 Indicator 2: Hypoxia is low dissolved oxygen content. 50 0 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 Of primary concern is the reduction in nitrogen load, which comes from sewage treatment plants, non-point, storm water runoff, and atmospheric sources. While the Indicator 3. Water Quality: Number of trend shows steady improvement, the speed and extent Beach Closings of reduction in hypoxia could be improved. Turning the curve requires reducing all of these sources through the 700 CT Pathogen Closures NY Pathogen Closures upgrade of treatment plants, point sources, raising public 600
500 awareness, and working to identify and reduce other 400 contributing sources of nitrogen. 300 200
100 Indicator 3: Bathing beaches are closed when either 1) Total Beach Closure Days 0 the results of water quality monitoring exceed an 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 established safe level; or 2) an administrative closure Indicator 4. Living Resources: Finfish shuts down a beach after significant rainfall events Biomass because of combined sewer overflows. The trendline has shown recent spikes in the number of beach closures 100 Finfish biomass in kg 90 80 although this is heavily impacted by weather from year 70 60 to year. Turning the curve necessarily involves reduction 50
Kg/Tow 40 30 in bacterial contamination through the application of Geometric Mean Mean Geometric 20 10 0 technology and the elimination of combined sewer
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 overflow systems.
Indicator 4: Finfish biomass is one good indicator of the Indicator 5. Habitat Restoration: Acres of health of living resources in the sound. The trendline, Eelgrass Beds which can be impacted by migratory fish patterns, has been steadily improving. 1400 1237.8 1200 1000
800 1993/94 Indicator 5: Increases in eelgrass acreage is one good 600 2000 409.2 344.8 400 indicator of habitat restoration. While eelgrass acreage 223.6 Acres of Eelgrass beds 200 has increased in some areas, some areas have shown 0 Sound Embayments little progress. Further reducing nitrogen load will have a positive impact on this indicator.
2 ATTACHMENT H
Connecticut Appropriations Committee RBA1 Template Part I, Quality of Life (Population) Result Long Island Sound
Quality of Life Result: A healthy and productive Long Island Sound for Connecticut residents.
Why Is This Result Important? It would be difficult to overstate the importance of Long Island Sound to Connecticut’s environment, economy and quality of life. Over 20 million people live within 50 miles of the Sound, they benefit from the more than $5.5 billion it contributes to the regional economy from fishing, boating, recreation, seafood, transportation, and, less quantifiable in dollars, geographical and cultural identity. Few other estuaries on this continent rival Long Island Sound’s combination of natural resources, environmental significance, recreational and commercial value, and proximity to a vast and diverse population of users.
Sound Facts & Figures
• Area of LIS: 1320 square miles • Drainage Basin or Watershed:16,820 square miles • Average Water Depth: 63 feet (60-120 feet) • Volume: 18 trillion gallons • Coastline: 600 miles • Salinity Ranges: 23 parts per thousand in the western end to 35 parts per thousand at the eastern end • Source of Fresh Water: 90% of the freshwater comes from three major rivers - the Thames, Housatonic, and Connecticut • Water Temperature: 32oF in winter and 73oF in summer • Tides: two high and two low each day with the greatest tides in the west • Population Living within 50 miles: 20 million people • Estimated Value to the Local Economy: $5.5 billion per year • Fish Populations: more than 120 species of finfish, including 21 tropical species that appear seasonally; at least 50 species spawn in the Sound
1 1 Results Based Accountability
3 ATTACHMENT H
Key Funding Information:
Key Funding Information Total Current Funding* $78,777,000 Funding Distribution Total Federal Funds 6,518,000 Total State Funds 72,259,000 Capital Projects Subtotal 60,343,000 Other Funding *Does not reflect all funding sources; see budget detail in appendix for more information.
Indicator 1. Overall Water Quality
Story Behind the Indicator: Through a legally defined public process, the State establishes water quality classifications for all the State’s waters. Classifications for Long Island Sound may range from SA (excellent) to SD (severely impaired). The water quality classification is based on designated uses that include the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife, recreation in and on the water, and agriculture, industrial and other purposes including navigation. When designated uses are not met, e.g., shellfish harvesting for direct human consumption is not supported,, a lower classification may be assigned with a goal of meeting all designated uses. On the map, current LIS classifications range from SA to SC/SB (currently classified SC with a goal of supporting SB uses). For all waters, the current classification or goal is SA or SB. On a biennial basis, DEP assesses all waters and reports to EPA on whether designated uses are being met based on defined numeric criteria. While a water may be classified as SA, for example, it may still have identified impairments, which are not shown on the map.
4 ATTACHMENT H
Many specific indicators of the Sound’s health, which are not all translated into legal classifications or used for designated use assessment, are measured on a more frequent basis. These indicators provide additional insight, often more comprehensible to the broader public, as shown below.
Indicator 2. Water Quality: Percent of LIS with Acceptable Hypoxia Levels
Area and Trend of Hypo xia in Long Island Sound
*Hypoxia is defined as less than 3.0 mg/l Area of Hypoxia Linear (Area of Hypoxia) 450 400 350 e l 300 250 Avg. 205 sq.mi. re Mi 200 qua
S 150 100 50 0 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005
Story Behind the Indicator: Hypoxia, the condition of low levels of dissolved oxygen, impacts up to half of the Sound’s bottom waters each summer. The primary cause is excess nitrogen, which enters the sound through a variety of sources. Primary sources include sewage treatment plants, nonpoint sources (e.g., from lawns, septic systems and farms), atmospheric deposition (e.g., from Midwestern power plan emissions of nitrogen oxides) and stormwater runoff (e.g., urban area runoff). Both the categorical and geographic boundaries among these sources may be blurred, as they integrate in rivers that deliver the nitrogen to Long Island Sound from throughout the watershed. Nitrogen is also found as a natural component of the Sound’s physical environment, but these human sources have greatly enriched the load of nitrogen to the Sound.
The nitrogen stimulates the growth of phytoplankton, microscopic plants that grow in the Sound. Eventually, the phytoplankton ends up as organic enrichment of the Sound’s bottom waters, where it decays and consumes enough dissolved oxygen to create unhealthy low dissolved oxygen, or hypoxia. Of special concern are the 105 sewage treatment plants (STPs) in CT and NY that discharge the largest amount of nitrogen into the Sound or its tributaries, although other nonpoint, stormwater and atmospheric sources will need to be reduced to completely remedy the problem. Biological nutrient removal (BNR), which uses a biological process to remove nitrogen, is being implemented at many STPs. in both states. Since 1990, 25 percent of the STPs have been upgraded to include BNRand the trend towards decreasing nitrogen discharges from both point and nonpoint sources is evident.
5 ATTACHMENT H
Indicator 3. Water Quality: Number of Beach Closings
700 CT Pathogen Closures NY Pathogen Closures 600
500
400
300
200
100 Total Beach Closure Days 0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Story Behind the Baseline: There are 240 monitored bathing beaches along Long Island Sound, 131 in Connecticut and 109 in New York, that provide valued recreational opportunities. Bathing beaches are closed when either 1) the results of water quality monitoring exceed an established safe level; or 2) an administrative closure shuts down a beach after significant rainfall events because of combined sewer overflows. Yearly variations in closures are a product of rainfall patterns and incidents such as sewer-line ruptures. Closures for 2004 in Suffolk County NY can be attributed to the Suffolk County Health Department's adoption of new enterococcus standards. For 2004 only 31 of CTs beaches reported closures while NY had 47 beaches reporting closures.
6 ATTACHMENT H
100 Finfish biomass in kg
80
60
Kg/Tow 40
Geometric Mean 20
0 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004
Indicator 4: Living Resources: Fish Biomass Index Each year CT DEP conducts spring and fall trawl surveys throughout Long Island Sound. These surveys count the number of species and number of fish collected in by a 46-foot otter trawl. The finfish biomass index is the average overall weight of fish caught in a trawl. CT DEP’s trawl survey has collected data over the last ten years showing an overall biomass increase in recent years largely due to numbers of scup. Several reasons factor into the mix that certainly includes the role of managed species increasing in abundance in response to fisheries management measures. These include black seabass, scup, summer flounder, striped bass, and weakfish. Reasons behind the increase in some of the other species become more speculative, but most are warm temperates that may be expanding their range northward. They include hickory shad, menhaden, moonfish, northern searobin, smallmouth flounder, spotted hake, and striped searobin.
7 ATTACHMENT H
Indicator 5: Habitat Restoration
Recent Trends in Eelgrass
1400 1237.8 1200 1000
800 1993/94 600 2000 409.2 344.8 400 223.6
Acres of Eelgrass beds 200 0 Sound Embayments
Story Behindind the Baseline: Eelgrass is submerged aquatic vegetation that provides nursery habitat for shellfish and finfish and is an indicator of good water quality. The 1993/94 mapping was done via boat and divers and while this survey technique is believed to have underestimated the area of eelgrass, there has nevertheless been a significant increase of bed area particularly in the open waters of the Sounds. While beds were not mapped in the 1980’s, it is readily apparent that significant declines occurred in embayments between the 1980’s and early 1990’s and there has been little or no significant change to the extent of embayment beds by 2002. Examples of embayments with significant long term declines include Clinton Harbor, Niantic River, Poquonnock River, Mystic Harbor, Stonington Harbor and Little Narragansett Bay.
8 ATTACHMENT H
What will it take to do it better (i.e., all partners, federal, state, non-profits, private sector)?
Protecting, restoring, and enhancing the environmental quality of Long Island Sound involves many partners, including the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, US EPA including the Long Island Sound Study and its partners, US Fish and Wildlife, coastal municipalities, other states in the Connecticut River drainage basin, citizens of the watershed and environmental advocates.
Some of the efforts needed to continue improvements to LIS include: • Continue to reduce nitrogen loading to the Sound from both point and non-point source (NPS) discharges • Continue to separate combine sewer overflows (CSOs) • Reduce NPS bacteria inputs through improved management practices for stormwater and septic systems • Manage coastal development in a sustainable manner • Address global warming and prepare for impacts associated with potential sea level rise and adaptation • Continue to increase public awareness of non-point sources of nitrogen
What is the role of state government?
• Provide incentives and funds to upgrade sewage treatment plants to reduce nitrogen loading. • Improve management practices to minimize nitrogen input from runoff of fertilizers and consider improved regulatory controls on their use. • Work with municipalities in urban areas to fully implement the Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permitting program to reduce bacteria. • Implement the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) and other measures to help curb global warming. • Continued participation in the Long Island Sound Study and Long Island Sound Stewardship Initiative
9 ATTACHMENT H
Appendix A, Data Development Agenda: Priorities for new or better indicator data • Refreshed data for Indicator 1 (% swimmable and fishable) • Better mapping of eelgrass beds
10 ATTACHMENT H
Appendix B, Funding Details
Key Funding Information - Population - Healthy Long Island Sound
Total Current Funding* unknown Funding Distribution - Total Federal Funds** 6,518,000 - Total State Funds** 1,090,000 - Capital Projects Subtotal** 60,343,000 - Other Funds (Not Federal or State) for DEP = Special Revenue Funds** 1,016,000
Projected Changes in Federal and Non-Governmental Funds for Next Fiscal Year: - Federal Clean Water Funds to support wastewater construction are being reduced significantly; estimated EPA CWF reduction for FY'07 = 25% reduction; CT reduction est @ $4.0M
*Notes: Total funding from all sources is currently not available to the department. Examples - funding from federal government agencies that benefit Long Island Sound, which may include - - federal funds supplied to other states (example - New York) - federal funds to municipalities - federal funds to private industry - federal funds spent directly by federal agencies (EPA, Commerce, Interior) related to Long Island Sound Other sources of funding that may benefit Long Island Sound include - - direct municipal funding - direct industrial funding to reduce discharges that impact the Sound - various private and academic research projects
**Notes: Funds represent only those funds managed by DEP
11 ATTACHMENT H
Details Key Funding Information - Population - Healthy Long Island Sound
Total Federal Funds - Coastal Management (Commerce/NOAA) $ 2,093,000 - Coastal Monitoring (EPA) 115,000 - LIS Study (EPA), includes LIS Restoration grant 808,000 - Lobster Assessment/Monitor/Study (Commerce/Fisheries) 178,000 - LIS Habitat Restoration (EPA) 8,000 - Water 106 Program (EPA @ 50%) 1,093,000 - Non-Point Source Implementation (EPA) 1,225,000 - Federal Clean Water Fund (EPA), recent annual grant level see bond funds - Marine Fisheries (Interior) 369,000 - Boat Pumpout Stations/Waste Facilities (Interior) 629,000 Total Federal Funds $ 6,518,000
Total State Funds - General Fund Personal Services (GF staff coding to LIS) 1,041,000 - General Fund Other Expenses (coded to LIS) 49,000 Total General Funds $ 1,090,000
Special Revenue Funds - EQ Fee Funds (to LIS) 220,000 - EC Fee Funds (to LIS) 292,000 - LIS Plate Account 504,000 Total Special Revenue Funds $ 1,016,000
Bond Funds* - Clean Water Bonds (grants, loans, prog admin)* 56,813,000 - Clean Water Bonds (LIS grants/nitro credits) 3,530,000 Total Bond Funds** $ 60,343,000
- Total Non-Governmental Funds unkown Grand Total of Identified Funding $ 68,967,000
*Notes: Clean Water Bonds includes federal clean water funds deposited to the State Revolving Fund (SRF) Federal CWF annual grants have recently averaged between $13M - $16M, but the Presidents FY'07 Federal Budget calls for a reduction of approximately 25% or about a $4.0M reduction to $9.0M.
Total annual CWF bond fund expenditures between 1989 and 2005 ranged between $49.9M and $112.2M.
All funding sources represent only those funds managed by DEP.
12 ATTACHMENT H
Appendix C, Information and Research Agenda
• Research on factors affecting distribution of eelgrass beds • Develop baseline and trend analysis for capturing the effects of temperature increase and sea level rise • Research on new methods for nitrogen reduction in the Sound.
13 ATTACHMENT H
RBA: Part II, DEP Clean Water Fund Program Summary Page
Program G o al: To eliminate the detrimental Key Budget Information* effects of h y poxia in LI Sound by improving Total Current Program Funding* $7,253,200 municipal s e wage treatment infrastructure Funding Distribution as a key component of a comprehensive Total Program Funding As Percent 3.03% manageme n t strategy of Total Agency Budget Total Federal Funds 1,303,600 Program: Department of Environmental Total State Funds 5,949,600 Protection Clean Water Fund Capital Projects Subtotal 5,528,400 Other Funding 0 * See budget detail for more information Program Performance Measure 1. Comparison of Sewage Treatment Need and Actual Funding Turning The Curves:
Program Performance Measure 1. This indicator is a comparison of the estimated funding required for 800 nitrogen removal and the actual funding that has been 700 provided for sewage treatment upgrades. As can be 600 500 seen, the gap between needed and actual funding is 400 closing, but substantially more funding is needed to 300 200 actually close the gap. Since 1993, the CWF has 100 0 financed more than $150 million in sewage treatment 1996 1997 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Unfunded Priority Projects 16 58 97.5 plant upgrades specific to nitrogen removal. The 31 Funded Projects 12 25 50 51 55 72 80 81 149 160 173 173 Esitmated Total Cost of Nitrogen 700 700 700 plants upgraded, many through low-cost retrofit Removal Cumulative Cost ofNitrogen Removal (inMillions) activities as temporary fixes, are now achieving significant nitrogen reductions. However, to achieve the 64% nitrogen reduction required by the waste load Program Performance Measure 2. Point allocation in the binding LIS management analysis, the Source Nitrogen Load minimum funding identified above will be required. The management agreement also requires that the projects be completed by 2014, so it is equally essential that the funding be adequate on an annual basis to meet that Point Source Nitrogen Load to schedule (see also below). Please note that the cost to Long Island Sound 1994- 2004 remove nitrogen is a relatively small percentage of overall CWF needs. This does not include funding 250
Baseline needed for combined sewer overflow projects. 201744 200 186703 186591 177224180885 161239 156630 159970 154135 155685 152806 154059 140413 145203 150 127939 130101133739 120067117873 Program Performance Measure 2: This indicator 110756106664 109679111574 106481 100 shows the actual point source nitrogen load reduction 58764 TMDL 2014 Goal 46178 47123 47146 50483 49021 46951 47609 41232 38722 39903 50 CT TMDL Goal 20,000 lbs/day from 1994 to 2004. The trend has been steadily 36186 TN (thousand lbs/day) (thousand TN 0 improving. Through formal agreement with EPA and 1990 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 20032004 NYSDEC, DEP adopted a 64% nitrogen reduction target CT NY Total for sewage treatment plants to be attained by 2014. - Sewage treatment plant upgrades have resulted in a steady decline in nitrogen loads. This level of progress at municipal facilities has been possible because of 1) adequate capitalization of the CWF; 2) a strong state- local partnership to provide technical and financial means to attain the required reduction; and 3) an innovative Nitrogen Credit Exchange Program that has allowed a cost-reducing mechanism for nitrogen trading that uses market forces to put the most cost effective projects first.
14 ATTACHMENT H
Connecticut Appropriations Committee RBA2 Template Part II, Program Accountability DEP Clean Water Fund
Program Goal: To eliminate the detrimental effects of hypoxia in LI Sound by improving municipal sewage treatment infrastructure as a key component of a comprehensive management strategy
Program: Department of Environmental Protection, Clean Water Fund
Key Program Budget Information:
Key Budget Information* Total Current Program Funding* $7,253,200 Funding Distribution Total Program Funding As Percent 3.03% of Total Agency Budget Total Federal Funds 1,303,600 Total State Funds 5,949,600 Capital Projects Subtotal 5,528,400 Other Funding 0 * See budget detail for more information
Contribution to Quality of Life (Population) Result. Municipalities need financial and technical support to improve sewer and sewage treatment infrastructure and reduce nitrogen loads to LI Sound, the primary cause of hypoxia in LI Sound.
Primary Mechanism. The Connecticut Clean Water Fund (CWF) is the state's primary mechansim for providing financial assistance to municipalities for wastewater collection and treatment projects. It combines state and federal sources to provide loans and grants that ensure timely and effective improvements targeted towards both water quality goals and community needs.
Benefit to Municipalities. The combination of CWF grants and loans is defined by federal and state guidance, and managed by DEP using a priority rating system to ensure equitable distribution of funds to municipalities that undertake water pollution control projects. For standard upgrade projects, municipalities receive a 20% grant and 80% low-interest loan. Combined sewer overflow (CSO) projects, because of their high cost and environmental effect, receive grants of 50% and loans for the remainder of the cost. To promote nitrogen removal projects, the CGA in 1999 passed a provision for 30% grants for the components of a municipal upgrade related to nitrogen treatment. The loans are repaid over 20 years at 2% interest.
2 Results Based Accountability
15 ATTACHMENT H
CWF Project Needs. Total funding needs are estimated at $1.7 billion. Of this, $400 million is associated with combined sewer overflow projects and more than $700 million is associated with removing nitrogen to restore Long Island Sound.
Other Potential CWF Needs. A Long Island Sound Account of the CWF once included grants for special purposes including: research to improve science and management of the Sound; ambient monitoring to track improvement and effectiveness of management actions; restoration and preservation of tidal coves and embayments; and nonpoint source pollution (NPS) control projects. These critical activities are largely inactive with respect to CWF resources because of limited funding. The cost of both stormwater and nonpoint source management are enormous, approaching an estimated $1 billion, while federal programs only provide about $2 million/year. Municipalities need a large influx of financial resources to meet the demands of both stormwater permits and NPS management for nitrogen control, which could be managed through the CWF structure.
16 ATTACHMENT H
Program Performance Measure 1. Cumulative Cost of Nitrogen Removal in in
l ( 800 700 600 500 400 300
Millions) 200 100
tive Cost of Nitrogen Remova Nitrogen of Cost tive 0 1996 1997 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Unfunded Priority Projects 16 58 97.5 12 25 50 51 55 72 80 81 149 160 173 173 Cumula Funded Projects Esitmated Total Cost of 700 700 700 Nitrogen Removal
Progress toward Infrastructure Change.
Since 1993, the CWF has financed more than $150 million in sewage treatment plant upgrades specific to nitrogen removal. The 31 plants upgraded, many through low-cost retrofit activities as temporary fixes, are now achieving significant nitrogen reductions. However, to achieve the 64% nitrogen reduction required by the waste load allocation in the binding LIS management analysis, the minimum funding identified above will be required. The management agreement also requires that the projects be completed by 2014, so it is equally essential that the funding be adequate on an annual basis to meet that schedule (see also below). Please note that the cost to remove nitrogen is a relatively small percentage of overall CWF needs.
17 ATTACHMENT H
Program Performance Measure 2. Point Source Nitrogen Load
Point Source Nitrogen Load to Long Island Sound 1994-2004
250
Baseline 201744 200 186703 186591 177224180885 161239 156630 159970 154135 155685 152806 154059 140413 145203 150 127939 130101133739 120067117873 110756106664109679111574106481 100 58764 TMDL 2014 Goal 46178 47123 47146 50483 49021 46951 47609 41232 38722 39903 50 CT TMDL Goal 20,000 lbs/day 36186 TN (thousand lbs/day) 0 1990 1994 1995 1996199719981999 20002001200220032004
CT NY Total
-
Progress toward Point Source Nitrogen Load Goal.
Through formal agreement with EPA and NYSDEC, DEP adopted 64% nitrogen reduction target for sewage treatment plants (and a few industries) to be attained by 2014. Sewage treatment plant upgrades through the CWF and regulation of industry have resulted in a steady decline in nitrogen loads, well ahead of schedule (see chart). This level of progress at municipal facilities has been possible because of 1) adequate capitalization of the CWF; 2) a strong state-local partnership to provide technical and financial means to attain the required reduction; and 3) an innovative Nitrogen Credit Exchange Program that has allowed a cost-reducing mechanism for nitrogen trading that uses market forces to put the most cost effective projects first.
18 ATTACHMENT H
Future Performance Considerations.
Steady and consistent progress in nitrogen removal from municipal sewage treatment plants will require attention in the three areas listed above: 1) Adequate capitalization of the CWF from both federal and state sources to meet the nitrogen reduction challenge within the established timeframe; 2) Continuing the state-local partnership to ensure understanding of goals and direction; and 3) administering the Nitrogen Credit Exchange Program to expedite progress at a lower cost. All three needs must operate hand-in-hand if the final nitrogen reduction targets are to be met by 2014.
Briefly, under this complete program, coordinated through the Nitrogen Credit Advisory Board and DEP’s CWF, municipalities can decide if they want to upgrade to remove nitrogen, or defer upgrading if purchase of credits is less expensive. Plants that remove more nitrogen than required by permit are able to sell earned credits to the credit exchange, thus receiving a financial benefit for superior performance. The credits are purchased by plants that discharge nitrogen in excess of their permit limit to comply. Market forces determine whether it is less expensive to purchase credits, or upgrade. In some cases, permanent purchase of credits may be the economically sensible choice for facilities located far from the Sound’s edge, while those closer to western LIS, where hypoxia is most severe, find it advantageous to upgrade and sell credits from performance below their permit limits.
Appendix A, Data Development Agenda: Priorities for new or better data on performance.
Under development.
19 ATTACHMENT H
Appendix B, Link to Budget: Provide detail on proposed improvement efforts that are included in the current or proposed budget.
Key Funding Information - Program - Healthy Long Island Sound - Nitrogen Program
Total Current Program Funding (represents total agency program funding) 7,253,200 Total Program Funding as Percent of Agency Total Budget 3.0393% Program Budget Distribution - Federal Funds 1,303,600 - State Funds - General Funds 218,000 - Capital Project Funds 5,528,400 - Other State Funding (Special Revenue Funds) 203,200 - Other Funds (Not Federal or State)* unknown Projected Changes in Federal and Non-Governmental Funds for Next Fiscal Year: - Federal Clean Water Funds to support wastewater construction are being reduced significantly; estimated EPA CWF reduction for FY'07 = 25% reduction; CT reduction est @ $4.0M
*Notes: Total funding from all sources is currently not available to the department. Examples - funding from federal agencies that benefit Long Island Sound Nitrogen Program may include - - federal funds supplied to other states (example - New York) - federal funds to municipalities - federal funds to private industry - federal funds spent directly by federal agencies (EPA, Commerce, Interior) related to Long Island Sound Other sources of funding that may benefit Long Island Sound include - - direct municipal funding - DEP has an estimate of $4.5M annually spent on facility Operations & Maint - direct industrial funding to reduce Nitrogen discharges that impact the Sound - various private and academic research projects related to Nitrogen removal
Notes: Funds represent only those funds managed by DEP
20 ATTACHMENT H
Details Key Funding Information - Program - Healthy Long Island Sound -Nitrogen Program
Total Federal Funds @ 20% of total program - Coastal Management (Commerce/NOAA) $ 418,600 - Coastal Monitoring (EPA) 23,000 - LIS Study (EPA), includes LIS Restoration grant 161,600 - Lobster Assessment/Monitor/Study (Commerce/Fisheries) 35,600 - LIS Habitat Restoration (EPA) 1,600 - Water 106 Program (EPA @ 20%) 218,600 - Non-Point Source Implementation (EPA) 245,000 - Federal Clean Water Fund (EPA), recent annual grant level see bond funds - Marine Fisheries (Interior) 73,800 - Boat Pumpout Stations/Waste Facilities (Interior) 125,800 Total Federal Funds $ 1,303,600
Total State Funds @20% of total - General Fund Personal Services (GF staff coding to LIS) 208,200 - General Fund Other Expenses (coded to LIS) 9,800 Total State Funds $ 218,000
Special Revenue Funds @ 20% of total - EQ Fee Funds (to LIS) @20% 44,000 - EC Fee Funds (to LIS) @20% 58,400 - LIS Plate Account @20% 100,800 Total Special Revenue Funds $ 203,200
Bond Funds - Clean Water Bonds (nitrogen cost portion)* 1,500,000 - Clean Water Fund Program Admin/Eng/Inspections @20% 498,400 - Clean Water Bonds (LIS grants/nitro credits) 3,530,000 Total Bond Funds $ 5,528,400
- Total Non-Governmental Funds unkown Grand Total of Identified Funding $ 7,253,200
*Notes: Clean Water Fund Bonds represents actual FY 2005 costs, annual nitrogen program costs as a part of the Clean Water (Bond) Fund program have ranged between $0 to $62.8M.
*Notes: Funds represent funds managed by DEP
Appendix C, Information and Research Agenda
Under development.
21 ATTACHMENT H
APPENDIX V
Connecticut Appropriations Committee RBA Pilot Project
Agendas and Structure for Appropriations Sub-committee Hearings
Conservation and Development
Elementary and Secondary Education
Human Services
Health and Hospitals
1 ATTACHMENT H
Connecticut Appropriations Committee RBA Pilot Project Agenda and Structure for Conservation and Development Sub-committee Hearing
I. Introduction Four sub-committees of the Appropriations Committee – Conservation and Development, Health and Hospitals, Human Services, and Elementary and Secondary Education – have each dedicated one hour of their hearing time on February 15 or 17 to presentations by the four state agencies that are participating in the RBA pilot project – DEP, DPH, DSS, and SDE – and the Governor’s Cabinet on early Child Care and Education (ECE). Because these special hearings are designed to test the RBA methodology as it has been adapted for use in the Connecticut appropriations process, all participating sub- committees and agencies are being provided the same materials. The objective is to have all participants fully prepared to explore the RBA process within the parameters of the pilot project without causing any participant to feel or seem to be unprepared or surprised. The time allotted for the pilot project was too short for full development of all of the data and narrative or for polishing of final products. All parties agreed to limit the scope of the pilot project to what was feasible for this first phase. Consequently, the sub- committee hearings will follow the RBA methodology and will be limited to the issues presented by the agencies and the ECE Cabinet. Specific funding requests will not be discussed in these presentations. If appropriate, they may be discussed during the normal sub-committee hearing that precedes or follows the RBA presentation for each of the pilot agencies or during the sub-committee working sessions.
II. Structure and Content of Hearings
Materials. Final versions of all RBA documents will be provided to the sub-committee members and DEP prior to the hearing. No additional materials will be presented at the hearings. There will be no PowerPoint presentations or other visual aids.
Order of presentation. All agencies will present the information from their RBA Quality of Life (Population) document first. For DEP, this will be followed by its Program Accountability document.
Presenters. The Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner will introduce the DEP presentation. She may then call upon program staff for all or any parts of the remaining presentation. .
Time for each segment. For DEP, 30 minutes will be allotted for the Quality of Life (Population) presentation and 30 minutes for the Program Accountability presentation,.
Questions. The agency will make a full presentation of the information from each document before sub-committee members ask questions on that document. Interruptions during the presentation of a document should only be made for the sake of clarifying what the presenter has said.
2 ATTACHMENT H
Appropriations Committee and sub-committee co-chairs will ensure that questions stay within parameters of the RBA methodology and the pilot project. All issues within these parameters are appropriate for questions that expand upon the information presented by the agencies. Questions that can be used to probe more deeply into the substance of the presentations will be provided to the sub-committee members along with the final RBA materials before the date of the hearings.
Answers. Agencies are encouraged to say when they do not have the information requested and to indicate if the information is part of a development agenda. Agencies should defer discussion of extraneous issues until the regular portion of their sub- committee hearing or for other communication outside this presentation.
Follow-up. Sub-committee staff will keep a list of all open questions. At the conclusion of the hearing, committee and sub-committee co-chairs will decide which open questions should be followed up in writing. Subsequent written responses will be made part of the record of the hearing.
III. Suggested Areas for Questions and Further Discussion during Hearing
Below are questions that sub-committee members may wish to ask about each section of the presentations. All questions must be held until the presentation of a document is complete.
A. Quality of Life (Population) • Presentation o Quality of life result o Why is it important o Funding o Indicators o Story behind the quality of life (population) indicators o What will it take to do better o What is the role of state government • Questions o LI Sound What drove the high hypoxia levels in 2003? Is there anything we can actively do to avoid beach closings? What causes high bacteria levels? Is this related to nitrogen levels or is this completely different? I don’t understand the eelgrass indicator. Isn’t there some other indicator that would better capture habitat restoration? In measuring fish biomass, are you accounting for seasonality and other factors that periodically affect biomass? Other than improving water quality, what are we doing to increase fish biomass? How does this relate to oyster and lobster yields? Are you also looking at the status of specific, sensitive species of fish as a living resources indicator?
3 ATTACHMENT H
Is DEP going to release an updated version of the overall water quality map? What is entailed in doing so?
B. Program • Presentation o Program goal o Contribution to quality of life result and system goal o Budget info o Performance measures o Story behind last 3 years’ performance o Proposals to do better • Questions o DEP Is the pace of infrastructure changes sufficient to meet the 2014 nitrogen load reduction goal? It appears as if we are very close to 64% of baseline. Why would we need to fund more improvements? Hypoxia still appears to be a major problem. If we are so close to the reduction goal, why is hypoxia still such a problem? Should the target be considerably lower? Does exchanging credits mean that while the overall nitrogen load goal may be met, certain areas of the sound will suffer? How is the price of nitrogen exchange credits set? How does the price compare with the cost of upgrading? Do you think providing grants is the right approach? It seems as if this may set up inappropriate expectations on the part of municipalities. Why don’t we go with just short-term loans? You indicate that costs to remove nitrogen are a relatively small part of Clean Water Fund needs. What are the other important needs? What is their importance relative to nitrogen removal? Nothing is listed in your research and information agenda. Are there emerging technologies that might allow for less costly approaches?
4 ATTACHMENT H
Connecticut Appropriations Committee RBA Pilot Project Draft Agenda and Structure for Elementary and Secondary Education Sub-committee Hearing, February 17, 2005
I. Introduction Four sub-committees of the Appropriations Committee – Conservation and Development, Health and Hospitals, Human Services, and Elementary and Secondary Education – have each dedicated one hour of their hearing time on February 15 or 17 to presentations by the four state agencies that are participating in the RBA pilot project – DEP, DPH, DSS, and SDE – and the Governor’s Cabinet on early Child Care and Education (ECE). Because these special hearings are designed to test the RBA methodology as it has been adapted for use in the Connecticut appropriations process, all participating sub- committees and agencies are being provided the same materials. The objective is to have all participants fully prepared to explore the RBA process within the parameters of the pilot project without causing any participant to feel or seem to be unprepared or surprised. The time allotted for the pilot project was too short for full development of all of the data and narrative or for polishing of final products. All parties agreed to limit the scope of the pilot project to what was feasible for this first phase. Consequently, the sub- committee hearings will follow the RBA methodology and will be limited to the issues presented by the agencies and the ECE Cabinet. Specific funding requests will not be discussed in these presentations. If appropriate, they may be discussed during the normal sub-committee hearing that precedes or follows the RBA presentation for each of the pilot agencies or the sub-committee work sessions.
II. Structure and Content of Hearings
Materials. Final versions of all RBA documents will be provided to the sub-committee members and SDE prior to the hearing. No additional materials will be presented at the hearings. There will be no PowerPoint presentations or other visual aids.
Order of presentation. The three ECE agencies will each present the same information from the Quality of Life (Population) document, followed by the same information from the System Accountability document. In presenting the information from these two documents, each agency will focus on its own agency’s contribution. Each agency will then present information from its own Program Accountability document.
Presenters. The Commissioner will introduce the SDE presentation. She may then call upon program staff for all or any parts of the remaining presentation. The ECE Cabinet co-chair, Janice Gruendel, will be present at all three agency presentations at the Quality of Life and System Accountability levels and may assist the Commissioners with their presentation or may respond to questions from the sub-committee.
Time for each segment. For each of the three ECE agencies, 20 minutes will be allotted for the Quality of Life (Population) presentation, 20 minutes for the System Accountability presentation, and 20 minutes for the Program Accountability presentation. All times are for the presentation and the questions and answers.
5 ATTACHMENT H
Questions. The agency will make a full presentation of the information from each document before sub-committee members ask questions on that document. Interruptions during the presentation of a document should only be made for the sake of clarifying what the presenter has said.
Appropriations Committee and sub-committee co-chairs will ensure that questions stay within parameters of the RBA methodology and the pilot project. All issues within these parameters are appropriate for questions that expand upon the information presented by the agencies. Questions that can be used to probe more deeply into the substance of the presentations will be provided to the sub-committee members along with the final RBA materials before the date of the hearings.
Answers. Agencies are encouraged to say when they do not have the information requested and to indicate if the information is part of a development agenda. Agencies should defer discussion of extraneous issues until the regular portion of their sub- committee hearing or for other communication outside this presentation.
Follow-up. Sub-committee staff will keep a list of all open questions. At the conclusion of the hearing, committee and sub-committee co-chairs will decide which open questions should be followed up in writing. Subsequent written responses will be made part of the record of the hearing.
III. Suggested Areas for Questions and Further Discussion During Hearing
Below are questions that sub-committee members may wish to ask about each section of the presentations. All questions must be held until the presentation of a document is complete.
A. Quality of Life (Population) o Quality of life result o Why is it important o Funding o Indicators o Story behind the quality of life (population) indicators o What will it take to do better o What is the role of state government • Questions o ECE You say there is a connection between school readiness and children being in a formal pre-school setting. Since I know many successful people who never went to a pre-school, can you explain the connection? Can you explain more about the higher standard for poverty used by SDE? How does the relation between this higher standard
6 ATTACHMENT H
(185%) and school readiness compare to the Federal Poverty Level? You don’t say anything about parents in the data? Aren’t they one of the most important factors in all of this? Are you suggesting that pre-school makes up for the effects of poverty? Any kind of pre-school? Can you expand on why you think scores have been going down over the past four years? I was not aware that the state was getting poorer. Are there other reasons for the decline? How can we know what is going on until we have better indicators? Can you explain why a better indicator of school readiness is going to take so long to develop? Can we start to pilot something prior to 2009? Can you provide comparative data on the 4th grade reading proficiency of those with and without preschool experience?
B. System o System goal o Contribution to quality of life o Budget info o Performance measures o Story behind last 3 years’ performance o Proposals to do better • Questions o ECE • Why was this system goal chosen over other system goals? Is center based early education and care really more important than other possible system goals? What about focusing on the needs of young, poor mothers? What about children from birth to age 3? • Are the data for Children Receiving Free or Reduced Price Lunches based on the number of children actually receiving them or on the number of children known to be eligible for those lunches?
C. Program o Program goal o Contribution to quality of life result and system goal o Budget info o Performance measures o Story behind last 3 years’ performance o Proposals to do better • Questions o ECE/SDE Do you know the total number of children needing early care and education in the state? Do you know the percent of those children
7 ATTACHMENT H
in need who are able to access such care? Do you know that for priority school districts? Are there any no-cost or low-cost ways you could improve quality in the centers? Won’t the increase in standards for accreditation (and SDE’s own standard for 4-year degrees by 2015) add substantially to the cost per slot? Won’t this in turn put pressure on the smaller, family- and community-based centers that are so important in our poorer communities? Will this initiative make early care even less available for poor and working families? What are you doing today to ensure the quality of the centers you fund? If the state is doing all it can to ensure quality, why are the reading scores going down? What is the funding per slot in the school readiness program? How does this compare to the cost per slot in the DSS-funded programs? Why is there such a discrepancy?
8 ATTACHMENT H
Connecticut Appropriations Committee RBA Pilot Project Draft Agenda and Structure for Human Services Sub-committee Hearing, February 17, 2005
I. Introduction Four sub-committees of the Appropriations Committee – Conservation and Development, Health and Hospitals, Human Services, and Elementary and Secondary Education – have each dedicated one hour of their hearing time on February 15 or 17 to presentations by the four state agencies that are participating in the RBA pilot project – DEP, DPH, DSS, and SDE – and the Governor’s Cabinet on early Child Care and Education (ECE). Because these special hearings are designed to test the RBA methodology as it has been adapted for use in the Connecticut appropriations process, all participating sub- committees and agencies are being provided the same materials. The objective is to have all participants fully prepared to explore the RBA process within the parameters of the pilot project without causing any participant to feel or seem to be unprepared or surprised. The time allotted for the pilot project was too short for full development of all of the data and narrative or for polishing of final products. All parties agreed to limit the scope of the pilot project to what was feasible for this first phase. Consequently, the sub- committee hearings will follow the RBA methodology and will be limited to the issues presented by the agencies and the ECE Cabinet. Specific funding requests will not be discussed in these presentations. If appropriate, they may be discussed during the normal sub-committee hearing that precedes or follows the RBA presentation for each of the pilot agencies or the sub-committee work sessions.
II. Structure and Content of Hearings
Materials. Final versions of all RBA documents will be provided to the sub-committee members and DSS prior to the hearing. No additional materials will be presented at the hearings. There will be no PowerPoint presentations or other visual aids.
Order of presentation. The three ECE agencies will each present the same information from the Quality of Life (Population) document, followed by the same information from the System Accountability document. (In presenting the information from these two documents, each agency will focus on its own agency’s contribution.) Each agency will then present information from its own Program Accountability document.
Presenters. The Commissioner will introduce the DSS presentation. She may then call upon program staff for all or any parts of the remaining presentation. The ECE Cabinet co-chair, Janice Gruendel, will be present at all three agency presentations at the Quality of Life and System Accountability levels.
Time for each segment. For each of the three ECE agencies, 20 minutes will be allotted for the Quality of Life (Population) presentation, 20 minutes for the System Accountability presentation, and 20 minutes for the Program Accountability presentation. All times are for the presentation and the questions and answers.
9 ATTACHMENT H
Questions. The agency will make a full presentation of the information from each document before sub-committee members ask questions on that document. Interruptions during the presentation of a document should only be made for the sake of clarifying what the presenter has said.
Appropriations Committee and sub-committee co-chairs will ensure that questions stay within parameters of the RBA methodology and the pilot project. All issues within these parameters are appropriate for questions that expand upon the information presented by the agencies. Questions that can be used to probe more deeply into the substance of the presentations will be provided to the sub-committee members along with the final RBA materials before the date of the hearings.
Answers. Agencies are encouraged to say when they do not have the information requested and to indicate if the information is part of a development agenda. Agencies should defer discussion of extraneous issues until the regular portion of their sub- committee hearing or for other communication outside this presentation.
Follow-up. Sub-committee staff will keep a list of all open questions. At the conclusion of the hearing, committee and sub-committee co-chairs will decide which open questions should be followed up in writing. Subsequent written responses will be made part of the record of the hearing.
III. Suggested Areas for Questions and Further Discussion During Hearing
Below are questions that sub-committee members may wish to ask about each section of the presentations. All questions must be held until the presentation of a document is complete.
A. Quality of Life (Population) o Quality of life result o Why is it important o Funding o Indicators o Story behind the quality of life (population) indicators o What will it take to do better o What is the role of state government • Questions o ECE You say there is a connection between school readiness and children being in a formal pre-school setting. Since I know many successful people who never went to a pre-school, can you explain the connection? You don’t say anything about parents in the data? Aren’t they one of the most important factors in all of this? Are you suggesting that pre-school makes up for the effects of poverty? Any kind of pre-school?
10 ATTACHMENT H
Can you expand on why you think scores have been going down over the past four years? I was not aware that the state was getting poorer. Are there other reasons for the decline? How can we know what is going on until we have better indicators?
B. System o System goal o Contribution to quality of life o Budget info o Performance measures o Story behind last 3 years’ performance o Proposals to do better • Questions o ECE/DSS • Why was this system goal chosen over other system goals? Is center based childcare really more important than other possible system goals? • Are there particularly important partnerships with other agencies that you think strengthen efforts to provide quality care?
C. Program o Program goal o Contribution to quality of life result and system goal o Budget info o Performance measures o Story behind last 3 years’ performance o Proposals to do better • Questions o ECE/DSS Are there any no-cost or low-cost ways you could improve quality in the child care centers you fund? Can you say more about how your emphasis on requiring parents to be working contributes to the goal of preparing children for success in kindergarten? Are there measures that you have thought about that would give you a better sense of the quality of care and education being provided in the centers? Could changes in accreditation standards at NYAEC have an impact on your center-based program? What kind of impacts might there be? Will increased standards lead to higher costs and less access for poor and working families? Your template does not include a data development or research agenda. Do you have any plans or recognize any needs for further work in these areas?
11 ATTACHMENT H
Connecticut Appropriations Committee RBA Pilot Project Draft Agenda and Structure for Health and Hospitals Sub-committee Hearing, February 15, 2005
I. Introduction Four sub-committees of the Appropriations Committee – Conservation and Development, Health and Hospitals, Human Services, and Elementary and Secondary Education – have each dedicated one hour of their hearing time on February 15 or 17 to presentations by the four state agencies that are participating in the RBA pilot project – DEP, DPH, DSS, and SDE – and the Governor’s Cabinet on early Child Care and Education (ECE). Because these special hearings are designed to test the RBA methodology as it has been adapted for use in the Connecticut appropriations process, all participating sub- committees and agencies are being provided the same materials. The objective is to have all participants fully prepared to explore the RBA process within the parameters of the pilot project without causing any participant to feel or seem to be unprepared or surprised. The time allotted for the pilot project was too short for full development of all of the data and narrative or for polishing of final products. All parties agreed to limit the scope of the pilot project to what was feasible for this first phase. Consequently, the sub- committee hearings will follow the RBA methodology and will be limited to the issues presented by the agencies and the ECE Cabinet. Specific funding requests will not be discussed in these presentations. If appropriate, they may be discussed during the normal sub-committee hearing that precedes or follows the RBA presentation for each of the pilot agencies or the sub-committee work sessions.
II. Structure and Content of Hearings
Materials. Final versions of all RBA documents will be provided to the sub-committee members and DPH prior to the hearing. No additional materials will be presented at the hearings. There will be no PowerPoint presentations or other visual aids.
Order of presentation. DPH will present the information from the Quality of Life (Population) document, followed by the information from the System Accountability document. (In presenting the information from these two documents, DPH will focus on its own agency’s contribution.) DPH will then present information from its own Program Accountability document.
Presenters. The Commissioner will introduce the DPH presentation. He may then call upon program staff for all or any parts of the remaining presentation. The ECE Cabinet co-chair, Janice Gruendel, will be present at all three agency presentations at the Quality of Life and System Accountability levels.
Time for each segment. For each of the three ECE agencies, 20 minutes will be allotted for the Quality of Life (Population) presentation, 20 minutes for the System Accountability presentation, and 20 minutes for the Program Accountability presentation. All times are for the presentation and the questions and answers.
12 ATTACHMENT H
Questions. The agency will make a full presentation of the information from each document before sub-committee members ask questions on that document. Interruptions during the presentation of a document should only be made for the sake of clarifying what the presenter has said.
Appropriations Committee and sub-committee co-chairs will ensure that questions stay within parameters of the RBA methodology and the pilot project. All issues within these parameters are appropriate for questions that expand upon the information presented by the agencies. Questions that can be used to probe more deeply into the substance of the presentations will be provided to the sub-committee members along with the final RBA materials before the date of the hearings.
Answers. Agencies are encouraged to say when they do not have the information requested and to indicate if the information is part of a development agenda. Agencies should defer discussion of extraneous issues until the regular portion of their sub- committee hearing or for other communication outside this presentation.
Follow-up. Sub-committee staff will keep a list of all open questions. At the conclusion of the hearing, committee and sub-committee co-chairs will decide which open questions should be followed up in writing. Subsequent written responses will be made part of the record of the hearing.
III. Suggested Areas for Questions and Further Discussion During Hearing
Below are questions that sub-committee members may wish to ask about each section of the presentations. All questions must be held until the presentation of a document is complete.
A. Quality of Life (Population) o Quality of life result o Why is it important o Funding o Indicators o Story behind the quality of life (population) indicators o What will it take to do better o What is the role of state government • Questions o DPH Population You say there is a connection between school readiness, health and children being in a formal pre-school setting. Since I know many healthy, successful people who never went to a pre-school, can you explain the connection? You don’t say anything about parents in the data? Aren’t they one of the most important factors in all of this? Are you suggesting that pre-school makes up for the effects of poverty in children’s health? Any kind of pre-school?
13 ATTACHMENT H
Low birth weight doesn’t seem the best way of assessing the health of 5 year olds. Is it? What should it be? Why isn’t the health data on “blue forms” available to tell us more about children’s health status on entering kindergarten?
B. System o System goal o Contribution to quality of life o Budget info o Performance measures o Story behind last 3 years’ performance o Proposals to do better • Questions o DPH System • Are there other, more health-specific goals that you would think relevant to achieving the population goal? • Can you talk more about the way DPH can be a part of the system attempting to achieve the population goal of Connecticut children healthy and ready to learn? C. Program o Program goal o Contribution to quality of life result and system goal o Budget info o Performance measures o Story behind last 3 years’ performance o Proposals to do better • Questions o DPH Program Are there any additional ways you assess quality in the course of the licensing process? • What would it take to implement that expanded concept of quality? Do the current regulations limit the slots available because there are not enough providers who can meet the requirements? Are there things you could do within your licensing authority to improve the quality of the centers? (If they have mentioned data enhancement) What will enhancing your data system accomplish? And in particular, will those enhancements have any potential impact on the quality of the childcare centers you license? From the data, it seems that there is no action taken on many complaints. Is that true and why? Do you keep records on the length of time between a complaint being lodged and resolved? If so, what is the average time from when a complaint is lodged until it is resolved?
14 ATTACHMENT H
Do you find the unannounced visit an effective tool for ensuring the quality of the centers? Are there times when it is not helpful? Are there regulation changes that could increase center quality? Acting within the scope of your authority, are there any other no cost or low cost ways you could improve quality in the child care centers?
15 ATTACHMENT H APPENDIX VI
Follow-up Questions for Sub-committee Hearings
I. Conservation and Development: DEP
Q1: What is DEP doing about education and outreach related to LI Sound quality and how much are you spending on these activities?
Q2: What no-cost or low-cost activities can DEP or the state undertake to improve water quality?
Q3: You testified that eelgrass beds are a good indicator of water quality. However, you have several other indicators of water quality. We are also interested in habitat restoration. Do you have any indicators for that other than eelgrass? If not, should you be exploring how you might develop other indicators?
Q4: What would it cost in one-time funding to eliminate the current backlog of water treatment plant projects?
Q5: We understand that you are seeking a consistent and sustainable level of funding starting with next year’s budget. Regardless of the level of funding, can you recommend any changes in the way in which funds are allocated to the towns? For example, would it be more effective to use all of the available funds for low-interest loans rather than to continue a mix of grants and loans?
Q6: You testified that you thought that the negotiated target for TMDL was the appropriate target. Is there a current process in place to reexamine and possibly adjust the target if necessary?
Q7: Please explain the relative contribution of combined sewer overflows, agricultural run-off, and point source nitrogen load to the hypoxia problem.
Q8: You testified that the indicator for overall water quality (the map with different classification levels) that you presented was refreshed annually (at least for some areas). When can you provide us a refreshed map?
II. Health and Hospitals: DPH
Q1: You testified about the use of low-birth weight as a proxy indicator for the health of children from birth to five. Have you been involved in discussions about creating a more meaningful way to assess and report overall health that could be used to track the development of young children each year?
Q2: You testified that your automated systems do not have the capacity to track the health of children from birth to five. We learned this week that SDE is designing a system for tracking all children who receive any form of state-funded care. Are you
1 ATTACHMENT H APPENDIX VI
aware of SDE’s effort? Have you discussed the feasibility of adding a module to this proposed system that would capture health information?
Q3. What would be required to make the blue forms useful as a means for determining children’s health status?
Q4: What efforts are you making to ensure that the licensing that you do of child care facilities is part of a comprehensive approach to the quality of all center-based early care and education as proposed by the ECE cabinet system goal?
Q5: Should DPH assume a more direct role in providing health service for young children in state-funded centers?
III. Elementary and Secondary Education: SDE
Q1: Can you give us the outcome data you quoted broken out by those who had pre- school versus those with no preschool?
Q2: You testified that you are designing a system to track all young children who receive state-funded care. What is the status of this initiative? Have you explored with the other agencies in the ECE Cabinet what components this system should have? For example, have you talked to DPH about including data on the health of the children? Have you talked to DSS about coordinating the tracking with its systems? What legislative changes do you need to implement this system?
Q3: You testified that the assessment of readiness at entry to kindergarten cannot be fully implemented until 2009. Have you considered how, in the interim, you might conduct evaluations in sample districts that could provide useful information to guide our decision-making?
Q4: Please explain how the CMT scores are calculated to determine proficiency and mastery.
Q5: What is the story behind the 4th grade reading scores and the gap in achievement? The scores seem to be going down and the gap does not seem to be narrowing.
Q6: Have you looked behind the data to see which schools are succeeding and which are failing? It would seem that that is very important for learning what works and what doesn’t.
Q7: You testified that the planned increase in accreditation standards will raise costs and may cause a reduction in the availability of care in the priority school districts. What plans are you making to deal with this potential effect of the new standards?
Q8: Will you have data on pre-K assessment by program type?
2 ATTACHMENT H APPENDIX VI
Q9: You testified that the low pay for early care and education teachers is already limiting the supply of qualified teachers and that this problem could get worse when the new standards require teachers to have four-year degrees. What are you doing to address this problem?
Q10: Can you explain the fluctuations in the data on free and reduced price lunches? If there are serious problems with the data, should we use another indicator for children in poverty?
Q7: You testified about the need for greater interaction between ECE centers and the public schools. What can be done to ensure that interaction? Should we legislate that all state-funded centers have MOA’s with the public schools?
Q8: What efforts are you making to ensure that the same quality standards apply to all state-funded programs? For example, are you in discussions with DSS to ensure that all children will meet the same standard of readiness for kindergarten regardless of what program they attend? Do we need legislation to ensure uniform quality?
IV. Human Services: DSS
Q1: What efforts are you making to ensure that the same quality standards apply to all state-funded programs? For example, are you in discussions with SDE to ensure that all children will meet the standard of readiness for kindergarten regardless of what program they attend? Do we need legislation to ensure uniform quality?
Q2: You testified that Care4Kids was created to provide child care for working parents rather than quality early care and education for children. Do we need to add a statutory goal to ensure that the children who are funded through this program enter kindergarten healthy and ready for school success?
Q3: You testified repeatedly that two and one-half hours of preschool were not sufficient to make up for the negative effects that the home and community environments can have on some poor children. We understood from SDE that the majority of the children in state-funded centers attend all-day preschool. Please provide data on the hours per day that children attend the programs you fund.
Q4: For your two major programs that serve children from birth to age five, Care4Kinds and the state-funded centers, what can you do collect comprehensive data about the children who participate and their outcomes? What data do you have or can you collect on those who need these services but do not currently receive them?
Q5: We learned this week that SDE is designing a system for tracking all children who receive any form of state-funded care. Are you aware of SDE’s effort? Have you discussed with SDE how you can coordinate the data collection efforts for maximum efficiency and for comparability of data? Is this an area that requires legislation?
3 ATTACHMENT H APPENDIX VI
Q6: You testified that not everyone agreed that pre-school was essential for readiness. Are you saying that money spent on center-based early care and education should be reprogrammed to early intervention?
Q7: Do we know which children are arriving at kindergarten from what settings and how they are doing?
Q8: The idea that “Children who start behind stay behind” disturbs us. There are poor districts with lots of money that do not do well on the 4th grade indicator. Do we have data to back up the idea that those who start behind stay behind? Are there data to show how much time in center-based care or intervention programs is enough to effect remediation?
4 ATTACHMENT H AAPENDIX VII
RBA Work Group Meeting to Review Pilot Project February 14, 2006
Introduction. The RBA Work Group met on February 14, 2006, to review the Pilot Project conducted between September 2005 and February 2006. Representatives of the four participating agencies, OPM, and OFA also attended the meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to obtain feedback on the process from the legislators and agencies that participated in the pilot project and to discuss options for continuing the use of the RBA framework in the next legislative session.
The legislative perspective. Legislators were unanimous that the pilot project had been highly successful. They recognized that the agencies had to do a significant amount of work for the sub-committee presentations in a very compressed timeframe and expressed appreciation to the agencies for their contribution. Additional observations included: • Sub-committee members were able to focus on key questions about results rather than just line items in the budget. • The methodology provided more and better information that they normally receive. • It highlighted the importance of having the right data and indicators/measures • It highlighted the need for data development • Using an issue for testing the application of RBA conferred enormous attention on it. • It is difficult to begin the process in the middle of the budget cycle when everyone has a vested interest. Although the pilot project was explicitly divorced from the budget process, there were spill-over effects, some extremely positive. • The legislature must determine priorities and focus on results when it enacts legislation. It should specify the results expected from all new programs it creates. • The Appropriations Committee’s sub-committees do not currently work across agencies on the broader population issues. They are too focused on programs and line items. • The agencies seemed better able to impart critical information to the sub-committees in the non-threatening environment created by the pilot project. The flow of information was much more meaningful than in the past. • RBA requires discipline from legislators. Some were not well enough versed in the framework and reverted to old ways of questioning the agencies.
The agency perspective. The agencies, too, were extremely positive about the process but stressed how much additional work was required in such a short time. More time would have made the process easier, allowed them to become better trained in the RBA methodology, and given them the opportunity to coordinate their presentations.. Additional observations included: • Starting the RBA process before the budget cycle begins would allow the agencies to use RBA as a planning tool and to help develop their budgets. • Agencies formally participating in the RBA process need more training in the RBA framework and more support in developing the RBA materials. • It is not feasible to apply RBA to an entire agency budget. Agencies should be allowed to identify one or two key areas for in-depth development.
1 ATTACHMENT H AAPENDIX VII
• There should be more opportunity for cross-agency and cross-sub-committee dialogue. • The RBA presentations distorted the normal sub-committee hearing process. Disproportionate time and attention were focused on programs that were a very small part of the overall agency budget and mission. • In some presentations, agencies had to educate sub-committee members about details of programs that, in some instances, had been in existence for decades. • The process provided an excellent opportunity for program staff to engage with legislators in a meaningful way around the selected issues. • The agencies that participated in the pilot are comparatively rich with data and experienced in the use of measures compared to other agencies. It will be much more difficult to apply RBA to some of the other agencies.
Suggestions for continued application of RBA. Both legislators and agencies agreed that the RBA process should continue. There was little discussion of the proposed legislation creating an RBA council. Additional observations included: • The new round of RBA projects should begin no later than the end of the current session, earlier if possible. • As part of their budget submissions through OPM, the agencies have been reporting individual program measures for many years. Agencies participating in RBA should not have to present two sets of measures. OPM’s requirements of the agencies should be in synch with the RBA process. • The sub-committee process needs to reflect the extent to which agencies are working together on population issues. That may require joint sub-committee hearings or working sessions. • The RBA application needs to begin before the budget cycle but must be tied in some way to the budget process. • Agencies cannot be fully committed to the process unless they have the blessing and support of OPM. • Regardless of the scope of the project for the coming year, many agencies will move forward with RBA on their own. There need to be a standard RBA framework and standard tools that all agencies can apply. • Legislation creating new programs should incorporate results and accountability in a manner consistent with the RBA framework.
2