Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
24822630
label
District of Columbia Child Care [1]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
24822630
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
District of Columbia Child Care [1]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the First Lady's Office (Clinton Administration)
Nicole Rabner's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
24822630
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7763278-20121035S-028-008-2015
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
f5ead8b20d96ca4c
ocrText
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
AND TYPE
001. list
DC Children and Youth Investment Partnership Strategy Work Group
03/18/1998
P6/b(6)
(partial) (1 page)
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
First Lady's Office
Domestic Policy Council (Nicole Rabner)
OA/Box Number: 15414
FOLDER TITLE:
District of Columbia Child Care [1]
2012-1035-S
kc1029
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - |44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - 15 U.S.C. 552(b)]
PI National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA
b(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office |(a)(2) of the PRA
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA|
an agency |(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRAJ
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information |(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors |a)(5) of the PRA|
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA|
personal privacy |(a)(6) of the PRA]
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes |(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
of gift.
financial institutions |(b)(8) of the FOIA]
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
2201(3).
concerning wells |(b)(9) of the FOIA]
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
Washington
Child
October 21, 1997
WCDC
Development
Council
Mr. President and Mrs. Clinton
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC
(Hand Delivered)
Dear Mr. President and Mrs. Clinton,
On behalf of the parents, children, child care staff and advocates in the District of Columbia I
want to thank you for convening the nation's first White House Conference on Child Care. I had the
pleasure of attending the White House Conference on Early Childhood Development and Learning:
What New Research on the Brain Tells Us About Our Youngest Children and the National Governors'
Association Conference: Investing in America's Future - Acheiving Results for Young Children. The
leadership the both of you have provided has been instrumental in moving this country forward in
promoting a positive approach to early childhood development. Yet the day the NGA conference
convened THE WASHINGTON POST ran a frontpage article "Most D.C. Day Care Centers Have
Expired Licenses - Safety Concerns Threaten a Linchpin of Welfare Law's Success" (10/6/97). Just
this past weekend CNN - IMPACT ran a piece comparing Washington, D.C. and Paris "A Tale of Two
Cities" which included a segment on early childhood education.
These news reports have focused on the fact that a number of D.C. child care centers have lapsed
licenses and are in desperate need of financial assistance. It is estimated that there are 180 child
care centers awaiting issuance of a current license. There is a definite need for improved licensing
procedures and sufficient funds to support subsidized child care services. The implementation of
welfare reform is also threatened with insufficient resources for child care. The deterioration of the
early childhood development infrastructure is sobering.
Given the present financial crisis in our city and the implementation of welfare reform our children
are in jeopardy and the District's early childhood system is about to collapse. The quality of early
childhood programs in both subsidized child care programs and the public schools is eroding.
Consider the facts:
0
While the District's total population is decreasing the number of children in poverty is
increasing. Of the approximately 106,000 children living in the city, 52% are in
families receiving public assistance.
o
In the past two years the District's subsidized child care has been cut by $4 million
(The Department of Human Services (DHS) has been cut by $19 million and child
care absorbed 20% of the reduction a disproportionate amount; child care is only 1%
of the entire DHS budget); recent budget actions simply maintain child care dollars at
the FY'96 level. Since 1996 1,500 subsidized child care spaces have been abolished.
2121 Decatur Place, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20008 (202) 387-0002 FAX (202) 332-2834
-2-
With the implementation of welfare reform there is a need for an estimated 4,500
additional child care spaces yet there is no additional appropriated District funds and
the new federal dollars are insufficient to meet the demand.
There are more than 2,000 low-income working parents on child care waiting lists
across the city because there are no new spaces and many parents presently receiving
subsidized care could be cut because of the increased demand from welfare parents.
Child care subsidies have been frozen since FY'88. COLAs were abolished and child
care reimbursements were actually cut by 5% in FY'96.
The staff/child ratio in the public school pre-K (1/22) and kindergarten (1/35)
classrooms is more than twice the local licensing requirements and far exceeds
national recommended standards.
The city's reimbursement for child care is more than 60% below market rate and a
number of centers refuse to take subsidized children.
What's happening in the District is simply a foreshadowing of what will be happening in states and
city's across the country (NY TIMES Editorial 3/31/97 "The Day Care Squeeze"). Economic
segregation in early childhood programs has resulted in undermining the accessibility of quality
programs to low-income working families and welfare parents (True Cost of Care in DC attached).
As you are aware, the National Governors' Association is playing a key role in highlighting the
importance of quality early childhood and taking decisive action. We in the District have no
governor. Your intervention could prove invaluable. The District could be a model for the
implementation of welfare reform and a leader in providing quality early childhood education.
Bringing together local elected officials, the Control Board, appropriate Congressional
representatives, government administrators and key community leaders would prove extremely
beneficial. Getting everyone to at least sit in the same room and share ideas in an effort to ensure
the health, safety and nurturing of young children in our nation's capital would be a miracle. If it is
possible to successfully implement welfare reform without sacrificing the quality of care for our
children here in "our village" it would be possible anywhere. It simply takes leadership and faith.
For Our Children,
Bobbi Blok
Executive Director
CHILD CARE IS EVERYBODY's BUSINESS
The True Cost of Care in the District of Columbia
WCDC
Presented by the Washington Child Development Council (WCDC)
Present: A CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS
The overall purpose of this publication is to promote and encourage the provision of
accessible and high quality child care in the District of Columbia. This information is
designed to assist the community and government officials to focus on key quality concerns.
Increasing Demand
The number of preschool children is increasing: In 1985 there were 34,897 children under the age
of five living in D.C.; in 1990 there were 37,351.
While the city's total population is decreasing the number of children in poverty is increasing. Of
the approximately 196,000 children living in the city 52% are in families receiving public assistance
(WHAT'S IN IT FOR KIDS? report prepared by D.C. Action for Children).
The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG) estimates that the available regulated
child care services falls short of meeting the needs of approximately 62% of the potential demand.
The number of births in D.C. has been increasing but mostly to single women: nearly 69% of all
children born in the District in 1994 were to unwed mothers. It is estimated that only 37% of
District children are now growing up with both parents in the home.
Nearly 60% of the children under the age of six has a parent in the labor force.
Given the enactment of the new Welfare Reform legislation the demand for additional subsidized child
-care spaces for welfare clients will increase by approximately 280%. The availability of child care subsidy
for low income working parents is paramount, presently there are 5,500 working families provided
subsidized care yet there are still long waiting lists. The total number of welfare and low income working
families needing subsidy could exceed 12,000 children in 1997 - a 56% increase.
Decreasing Financial Support & Supply
Since 1995 the number of subsidized child care spaces in the District has been cut by over 12%.
In FY'96 there were over 500 spaces abolished. The additional federal dollars of $1.3 million does
not cover the actual $4 million D.C. budget cut that impacted child care services over the last two
years.
The District's reimbursement rate for child care services has been frozen since FY'88. IN FACT
it's been cut. In FY'96 to save D.C. dollars, the Council cut the District's share of reimbursement
by an additional dollar per day per child resulting in a 5% reduction.
The Market Rate for infant care is $35.00; yet the District pays $21.10, approximately 40% less.
The Market Rate for preschool is $24.00; yet the District pays $18.55, 27% less. It is estimated
that the full day cost for Head Start would be $41.22 per child. It is estimated that at minimum
there is a $33.32 cost to provide child care services to preschoolers that meets national recognized
standards (National Association for the Education of Young Children - Accreditation Criteria &
Procedures). SEE BUDGET INFORMATION ATTACHED.
2121 Decatur Place, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20008
(202) 387-0002
FAX (202) 332-2834
Programs providing subsidized child care are operating at serious deficits. It is estimated that at
minimum these nonprofit programs are running a combined loss of $4.0 million. Many are on the
brink of bankruptcy.
The supply of licensed family child care homes has decreased in the last year by 40% (from 293 to
175) Many homes have closed or gone underground because, as of last year, the city established a
licensing fee and required a certificate of occupancy.
The availability of subsidized child care for working parents may be threatened because of the
increasing demand for welfare spaces.
There is a serious shortage of care for schoolage, infant and special need children. There needs to
be a schoolage program in ALL elementary schools. As difficult as it is for parents to find care, it
is even more difficult for parents with infants and children having disabilities to find appropriate
care.
Past/Present: A TALE OF TWO CITIES
It is the best of times and the worst of times when reviewing the child care
infrastructure in our nation's capital. There are definitely area's where we excel and in
turn it highlights the areas where we shortchange our children. There is a drastic
disparity between employee sponsored child development centers and those centers
receiving subsidized reimbursement rates - the most apparent disparity is reflected both
in the salaries and benefits to staff, which has an impact on the programs ability to
attract and maintain a stable qualified workforce. The teacher salaries in District
subsidized programs ranges from @ $12,000 to $19,000 while the teacher salaries in
private centers ranges from @ $18,000 to $25,000. The lack of adequate government
financial support is creating an unrealistic cap on the cost of providing appropriate child
care. The reality is that a number of private nonprofit programs cannot afford to accept
government subsidized children because the District's rate is too low to cover the actual
cost. This is undermining the quality of services to low income children. Given the
increased demand due to welfare reform there will be an even greater strain on an
already unstable financial base and the quality of the programs will be further eroded.
There is a great deal of discussion concerning "the glass ceiling" yet the fact is that
teachers in child care centers haven't even gotten out of the basement. For early
childhood development programs to truly meet the needs of the children these programs
need to be labor intensive. Those in the early childhood labor force need to be valued.
At minimum we must require teachers in early childhood to be professionally qualified
and trained. Simply breathing and liking children does not qualify you to be working in
an early childhood setting. Equitable compensation is critical. If society continues to
devalue the efforts of early childhood teachers the children will pay in the end. The
irony is that the federal government as an employer knows the importance and cost of
quality programs since it requires the early childhood programs providing care to their
employees' children to be accredited. Yet when debating the subsidy for low income
children, Congress has taken budgetary actions that jeopardize those most in need.
Quality early childhood development programs can truly be a means by which families
and children who are at risk can rise above and overcome environmental, social, physical
and cultural obstacles. ALL CHILDREN MUST HAVE ACCESS TO QUALITY EARLY
CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS.
Employee/Employer Realities in the District
It is estimated that 60% of the District workforce works for either the local or
federal government. It is therefore extremely advantageous that both levels of
government have taken their role as being responsive employers seriously and have
initiated programs to encourage the development of on-site child care. The District has
enacted legislation requiring the establishment of such programs and at present there are
three such centers located in government facilities. The federal government has truly
taken the lead with the passage of legislation and mandating the support of the
Government Services Administration (GSA). At present there are over fourteen such
centers (and still counting - including the surrounding jurisdiction the total exceeds
thirty) in the city including programs that serve employees at the Departments of Labor,
Housing & Urban Development, Commerce, Agriculture, Health and Human Services,
Energy, Transportation, Justice, Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, GSA and the
Smithsonian. It should be noted that the United States Senate, the House of
Representatives and the Library of Congress also have child care centers located near
site for their employees. The manner in which these programs operate vary, some are
nonprofit parent boards others are simply operated by private contractors. The overall
similarity is that space costs (e.g. rent and utilities) are donated, programs must meet
national accreditation standards, and priority placement is given to sponsoring agency
government employees. Some of the centers have sliding fee scales and scholarship
programs yet the majority do not provide any financial aid and the cost for operating
these centers far exceeds the subsidized reimbursement rate offered by the District.
The private sector employers have also been creative in providing emergency care
for their employees. Law firms, communication corporations, medical facilities and
financial institutions have recognized the importance of providing a support system for
working parents. Businesses across the country have found that initiating employer
sponsored programs increase productivity, provide a stable workforce, increase employee
loyalty, and promote positive publicity.
Head Start
The early childhood community is very fortunate in the District given the cooperative
relationship between Head Start and the child care services including centers and family
child care homes. There are shared trainings and the members of the Head Start Parent
Policy Committees have been leaders in parent involvement and advocacy. The Head Start
programs in the city played a key role in the establishment of a community based child care
resource and referral service in the District. The local licensing standards have been
partially based on critical Head Start components (e.g. health, nutrition, education,
appropriate child/staff ratio, parent involvement). Given the demographics of D.C. the
underlying premiss is that children being served in subsidized child care centers have many
of the same needs as children in Head Start programs.
There are presently 2,000 children served in Head Start programs across the city.
There are a number of organizations in the District that work together to ensure the
success of the Head Start services in the District; including the United Planning
Organization (UPO), National Child Day Care Association (NCDCA), the D.C. Public
Schools, the Edward C. Mazique Parent Child Center, the D.C. Department of
Recreation, the Rosemount Center and Bright Beginnings.
Head Start has been instrumental in focusing our nation's attention on the
importance of early childhood development, especially in the first five years of life. Head
Start in the District has set a bench mark for providing quality services to families and
children in need. It has been in the forefront of encouraging child care staff to obtain
their Child Development Associate (CDA) Credential, a nationally recognized
professional early childhood certificate. For over twenty-five years national and local
policymakers have recognized the need for Head Start to provide quality services and the
lasting benefits of maintaining a comprehensive scope of services. The mandate to
require matching funds has strengthened Head Start ties to the local community, yet
given child care cutbacks in D.C. funding, the stability of a number of District Head Start
programs is threatened because of the precarious and dwindling funding support locally.
D.C. Public School Pre-Kindergarten
The Daisy Project, sponsored by the D.C. Public Schools, is an intensive early
childhood intervention program for at risk children (e.g. preschoolers prenatally exposed
to drugs) and considered a national model. The curriculum and standards established by
this model program should be duplicated throughout the city, yet that is not possible
given limited local funds and conflicting budget priorities. The Board of Education has
made an across the board commitment to providing pre-kindergarten programs in all
local elementary schools. Yet the early childhood community is concerned that the
staff/child ratio in the vast majority of pre-K and Kindergarten programs in the public
schools far exceeds acceptable standards. To be a licensed child development center in
the District you must meet staff/child ratio requirements (three year olds = 1/8 ratio
maximum group size sixteen; four year olds = 1/10 ratio maximum group size twenty).
The public schools are not required to adhere to the licensing standards and
unfortunately in a number of school classrooms this minimum ratio and group size is not
met. In fact, the staff/child ratio is 1/20, twice the licensing standards. There is a lack of
overall consistency in terms of limiting the class size and ensuring the necessary
personnel. In affluent areas the parents or PTAs pay for additional teacher aides to be
in the classrooms. That option is not financially feasible in all parts of the city.
Family Child Care Homes
The Family Child Care Home providers are the unsung heros of the child care
community. The majority of infant care is provided in child care homes. There are
approximately 175 licensed child care homes and it is guesstimated that there are
probably three to four times as many unlicensed programs. Licensing laws and
procedures have presented cumbersome and costly bureaucratic requirements. Quality
standards ensuring safety, health, nutrition and early childhood development are
paramount - yet the requirement of a certificate of occupancy and a licensing fee does
not ensure quality. Due to budget cutbacks the Department of Consumer and
Regulatory Affairs has limited the number of Family Child Care Home Orientations
from twelve to four. Compared to other surrounding jurisdictions the District lags far
behind the actual number of licensed child care homes (e.g. Prince Georges County has
1,700 licensed homes, Montgomery County has 1,470 homes and Fairfax County has
3,500 homes). An effort to maximize the Child Care Food Program (CCFP) could prove
effective in encouraging underground homes to become licensed. Licensing regulations
governing homes have not been up-dated since 1978 and a review of new state of the art
family child care home standards could be extremely beneficial both in terms of quality
and quantity.
Future: DEVELOP A STRONG CHILD CARE INFRASTRUCTURE
Need to Restructure Budget Priorities
The District's budget crisis has had a devastating impact on a number of human services
especially child care. In FY'94 the local appropriation for child care was $24.7 million and in
FY'97 it is estimated to be $18.3 million, a $6.4 million reduction, a 26% decrease. At the
same time local appropriations for the Department of Corrections was over $240 million; in
FY'96 alone the city spent over $13.0 million on just overtime at Lorton Prison. The
government's reimbursement rate for child care centers is $18.55 per day per child; the cost for
keeping an inmate in Lorton is @ $96.00 per day. The child care community believes the city's
priorities need to be reassessed. With the enactment of the Welfare Reform legislation the
District has the opportunity to redirect 30% of the federal funds (Temporary Assistance to
Needy Families - TANF) to child care services, which would result in approximately $27 million
additional child care dollars. These funds locally and nationally can address the child care
budget shortfall. At minimum child care programs should be reimbursed at the market rate.
The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study concluded every dollar invested in comprehensive
early childhood services returned seven dollars that otherwise would have gone for remediation,
welfare payments, unemployment costs and other social service expenses. They found that a
high quality preschool program is an invaluable foundation that can promote adult success and
makes a permanent contribution to participant's lives.
The Benefits of Comprehensive Services for Children & Families
This year, the Carnegie Corporation released a report YEARS OF PROMISE: A
Comprehensive Learning Strategy for America's Children. They stressed the importance of quality
early childhood development programs. The report states "The challenge for the nation is
support all programs that potentially or actively foster the education and healthy development
of children of ages three to five, so that early care and education can play their part in a
comprehensive learning and development strategy." The knowledge to create programs that
have nurturing environments where young children can fulfill their potential and families can
receive the necessary support services already exists, what is needed is the commitment and the
resources. Studies have shown that preschool programs are more likely to prevent later
delinquency and other antisocial behavior when there is a comprehensive approach to
supporting the family as a whole.
New ways to expand and meet the needs of working parents need to be developed. Yet
these models should in no way jeopardize the well being and safety of the children. There is a
dire need for more infant care, both locally and nationally. Schools and child care centers need
to be working more closely together to address the needs of schoolage children and their
families. Head Start works and we need to capitalize on its success. The need for twenty-four
hour care is a concern and licensed family child care homes can prove to be a real resource. It
is also essential that active parent participation and involvement is encouraged. Parent
empowerment is the key to establishing a strong child care infrastructure.
Need for Corporate Champions
The amount of corporate support the District's child care community as a whole receives
is minimal. MUCH MORE Public/Private Partnerships are necessary. There are effective
models around the country (e.g. San Francisco, Hawaii and Atlanta) that could be initiated in
our nation's capital. Business involvement in community mobilization to maximize child care
funds would be a real asset. (A more detailed report will follow in early 1997).
Department of Human Service Subsidized Child Care
The Children's Defense Fund in its 1991 report on Child Care and Early Childhood
Education in the District of Columbia eloquently stated the importance of maintaining a diverse
child care reimbursement system. There were two major reasons they felt the District should
retain a mixture of contracts and vouchers: 1) "The mix of contracted care and vendor/voucher
care simultaneously supports a stable supply of child care in low-income neighborhoods and
ensures that parents have flexibility in choosing the type of care they want." and 2) "A system
that includes contract-based child care allows policy makers greater ability to improve the
quality of care provided to low-income children whose care is subsidized."
The system as it presently stands is faltering because of serious budget cuts. The
Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) the child care providers were to receive was abolished,
as a result the rate has been frozen since 1988. The actual availability of local child care
funds has been decreased by 19%. Yet the demand for subsidized care is increasing
dramatically. For example, the need for child care spaces for foster care and protective
services children has more than doubled over the past two years. Presently there are over
600 foster care and protective service children in subsidized spaces, yet there has been no
coordination of local or federal funds (Title IV-E) to maximize resources for this at risk
population. With the implementation of the Welfare Reform legislation the actual caseload
for welfare mothers needing care will almost triple. Without an infusion of additional
dollars the system will collapse.
Yet even with limited funds DHS has not lost sight of the need to provide quality
services to low income children. The District should be applauded for requiring subsidized
contract centers to obtain NAEYC Accreditation. Yet it would be unrealistic to assume that
these programs could meet these standards without the necessary financial support.
Military Model
The Department of Defense has been one of the outstanding leaders in promoting
quality care for its employees. For example, the U.S. Army Child Development Services,
established on all its installations a Caregiver Personnel Pay Plan designed to upgrade
salaries of child care staff that was based directly on early childhood training. The salaries
being offered provide decent compensation. As a result of this program staff turnover for
teachers and home providers has been substantially reduced, there are greater incentives for
more and intensive trainings, and there is a definite consistency in the provision of quality
programs. The commitment to providing quality child care can be viewed not only as a
strong defense for the military but the country as a whole.
National Study
In 1995 there was a study conducted by researchers from four universities evaluating
more than 400 child care centers across the country. None of these centers were in the District
of Columbia but the findings are reflective of the status of child care in our nation's capital:
Care at most centers was "poor to mediocre," with almost half of the infant toddler facilities providing poor
quality care. Only 14% provided a level of care that promoted healthy development, while 70% provided
care that could hurt a child's ability to learn when entering school. It was estimated that 12% threatened a
child's health and safety.
The problems were greatest in centers with poorly trained teachers and high employee turnover. The local
turnover rate for child care employees is approximately 40%.
CENTER BASED CHILD CARE (Daily Rates)
DC Child Care Rates VS. Prison Inmate Costs
$120
$100
96.00
Daily Unit Rate
$80
$60
$40
34.66
21.10
24.00
18.55
20.40
$20
10.00
12.00
14.85
5.80 6.80
9.25
5.90
$0
Infant
Preschool
Bef. Sch.
Aft. Sch.
B&A Sch.
B&A/Full
Lorton
Type of Service
DHS Subsidy
1881
1993 Market Rate
Lorton Prison
FAMILY CHILD CARE (Daily Rates)
Costs
DHS Subsidy
1993 Market Rate
Infant (6 wks to 2 yrs)
$14.50
$20.00
Preschool (2 to 5 yrs)
$12.35
$17.33
Before School Only (4 to 13 yrs)
$6.00
$6.66
After School Only (4 to 13 yrs)
$6.00
$9.33
Before & After School (4 to 13 yrs)
$6.00
$12.00
Before & After School - Full Day
$12.00
$20.00
SPECIAL THANKS:
The information and data that is outlined in CHILD CARE IS EVERYBODY'S BUSINESS: The
True Cost of Care in the District of Columbia demonstrates the vital importance of working together in a
grassroots collaborative effort. Child care staff and parents from both family child care homes and centers
helped in the development of this publication. The Washington Child Development Council (WCDC) is
especially thankful for the thoughtful and productive comments from the following people: McKinley
Crudup and Wanda Scott from Allen AME Church Child Development Center, Brenda Strong Nixon and
Sheldon Jones from Associates for Renewal in Education (ARE), Debbie Hall from Big Mama's Child
Development Center, Judi Farber from Bright Beginnings sponsored by the Junior League, Rudy
Hutchison from Catholic Charities Model Cities Center, Beatrice Otero and Adalia Torres from Calvary
Bilingual Multicultural Learning Center, Leslie Johnson and Ruth Rucker from the Edward C. Mazique
Parent Child Center, Pam Simon from Just Us Kids, Minnie Wood from Matthews Memorial Child
Development Center and President of the Washington Association of Child Care Centers (WACCC),
Delorese M. Hodges from Mt. Joy Baptist Church Child Development Center, Travis Hardmon and
Christine Bufford from the National Child Day Care Association (NCDCA), Mattie Edwards from
Northwest Child Development Center and President of Washington, D.C. Association for the Education of
Young Children (WDCAEYC), Anne Kipp from St. Alban's Child Development Center, Jim Clay from
School for Friends, Francis Rollins and Flossie Giler from Southeast Child Development Center, Bill
Hughey from the United Planning Organization, Christine Kaucher from the Metropolitan Washington
Council of Governments (COG), Beverly Roberson Jackson from Zero to Three and Chairperson of the
Mayor's Advisory Commission on Early Childhood Development, and Richard Ferlauto and Tracey Arvin
from the Center for Policy Alternatives. The graphics would not be possible without the assistance of
Christine Kaucher from COG and Sheldon Jones from ARE.
VCDC
2121 Decatur Place, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20008
(202) 387-0002
FAX (202) 332-2834
Weekly Reimbursement Rates in Metropolitan Area
Unit Weekly Rate
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
CENTER BASED CHILD CARE
105.50
144.11
Infant
/////////////////////////
173.79
157.00
177.00
92.75
DC
92.36
Preschool
117.78
Type of Service
120.00
Prince George
135.00
III Montgomery
74.25
\
Fairfax
87.67
School Age (Full Day)
106.58
80.00
Average Federal
n/a
Lorton
Lorton Prison
480.00
DHS Rate VS. Inflation-Adjusted Rates
$28
$26.26
$26
$24
Daily Unit Rate
$22
$20
$18.55
$18
$16
$18.00 for
center-based
$14
$13.12
preschool
$12
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
Fiscal Year
With COLA Applied
-
DHS Rate
Actual Buying Power
Note: Inflation Rate = 4% Per Year.
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
With COLA Applied
$18.00
$18.72
$19.47
$20.25
$21.06
$22.45
$23.35
$24.28
$25.25
$26.26
DHS Rate
$18.00
$18.00
$18.00
$18.00
$18.00
$18.55
$18.55
$18.55
$18.55
$18.55
Actual Buying Power
$18.00
$17.31
$16.64
$16.00
$15.39
$15.34
$14.75
$14.19
$13.64
$13.12
Budget Narrative
ASSUMPTIONS
Center Size: The center is designed to serve 58 children. The child/staff ratio is based on standards mandated
by local licensing regulations, DCMR29. It is a preschool population with an age range of two year olds to four
year olds including: 16 two to two and a half year olds; 32 two and a half to three year olds; and 10 four year
olds. The child/staff ratio for children under the age of two and half years old must met infant ratios which is
1/4 maximum group size is eight. Given the need to be staff intensive for infants this form of care can run as
high as $200 a week.
Staff Salaries: Staff salaries vary depending on the financial resources of the center. Salaries for directors vary
dramatically depending on the size and design of the program. In general, salaries for directors range from
$18,000 to $55,000 annually. Salaries for teachers in the city range from $13,000 to $30,000 annually. Salaries
for assistant teachers range from minimum wage ($11,960) to $20,000 annually. The National Association for
the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) has established an Accreditation Process that clearly details the
importance of hiring and maintaining qualified early childhood staff. The ability to hire and keep qualified
teachers is dependent on the salaries and benefits offered. Given low salaries and lack of benefits there is a
very high turnover rate which undermines the quality and consistency of the program.
Hours of Operation: The program is open eleven hours a day, five days a week, twelve months a year, except
for holidays and staff development days.
o
Fully Funded: It is assumed that there are are no delays in payment and these programs are fully funded,
unfortunately that is not the case in the city at this point. Even a two week delay is causing financial hardship
because money is so tight. A number of programs are experiencing servious shortfalls and it is estimated that
there is at minimum a $4.0 million deficit in the child care community.
NOTES
(a)
These components are required for programs contracting with the Department of Human Resources (DHS).
(b)
The cost associated with supplies and equipment assumes that the program has been in existence and therefore
the initial start-up costs are not included. It should be noted that given the minimal funds for supplies, a
number of child care staff, even with their low salaries, personally pay for supplies.
(c)
Food costs can vary depending on the nutritional design of the program. Some programs have the food
prepared on site, others use a catering service, and others require parents to bring a bag lunch. A number of
centers participate in the Department of Agricultures' Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) which
subsidizes a large portion of the food costs. The CACFP funds are critical, as noted in the $18.55 per day
budget, money is limited and without the federal supplement the nutritional needs of children would not be
meet. The total cost for food, for a program serving 58 children is approximately $57,000.
Benefits: There are a variety of fringe benefit packages, the one in the budget is simply a sample of possible
benefit options and assumes that it is only partial payment and that there is a co-payment on the part of
employees. Unfortunately, there are a number of child care programs that do not provide benefits. To ensure
a stable workforce WCDC believes that benefits should be offered.
Occupancy Costs: These costs vary considerably depending on the program. A number of centers (e.g.
employer/employee programs) receive these costs as an inkind contribution. There are also some centers that
pay below market rates for their space. The square footage costs varies depending on location. The minimal
required square footage is set by DCMR29 (35 sq. ft. per child not including administrative space). The
assumed cost per square foot was $8.00 the variance in the two budgets reflects the ability to provide additional
space for a staff library and an indoor gross motor playroom. Costs were based on existing space and
therefore costs to buildout the facility (e.g. bathrooms) were not included.
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
1)
Infant Care: There is a serious shortage of infant spaces in child care centers. One reason for this shortage is
the cost of operating an infant program. Infant costs range from $150.00 a week ($7,800 annually) to $200.00 a
week ($10,400 annually). It should be noted that the DHS subsidy for infant care is approximately $106 a
week ($5,512 annually).
2)
Schoolage Programs: There is a demand for schoolage programs for children ages four years old to ten years
old and creative after school programs for children eleven years old and older. The costs for operating a
schoolage program is less than a preschool but there are other challenges besides money. Access to school
space in District public school buildings has been very difficult. The city has yet to have a policy that mandates
and supports the establishment of such programs in all elementary schools.
3)
Family Child Care Homes: Family Child Care homes are a viable licensed form of care for infants,
preschoolers and schoolage children. The average net income for a family child care provider, living in the
District of Columbia, is approximately $12,000 annually. There is a serious shortage of licensed family child
care home providers, in the last year over 30% of the homes closed. This shortage is not only due to the
minimal financial gains but also outdated licensing regulations and unnecessary beauraucratic fees.
4)
Welfare Reform: The implementation of Welfare Reform will have a tremendous impact on the demand for
child care services, it is estimated that at minimum there will be a need for 4,500 additional child care spaces.
Presently there are approximately 8,000 subsidized child care spaces for public assistance and low income
working families. Given the fact that the DHS reimbursement rate is below the market rate (e.g. market
rate = $34.00 for preschoolers, DHS's rate = $18.55) a number of licensed programs will find it financially
impossible to accept DHS vouchers. The need for subsidy could possibly double.
SAMPLE ANNUAL CHILD CARE BUDGET
BASED ON DHS REIMBURSEMENT OF $18.55 PER
BASED ON NATIONAL ACCREDITATION & DHS
DESCRIPTION
CHILD PER DAY
CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS
1. Personnel Costs
Annual
Hourly
Annual
Hourly
Description
Qty
Rate
Rate
% Effort
Total
Qty.
Rate
Rate
% Effort
Total
Director
1
$20,000
$9.62
100%
$20,000
1
$35,000
$16.83
100%
$35,000
Teachers (BA or Associates Degree)
2
$15,000
$7.21
100%
$30,000
3
$20,000
$9.62
100%
$60,000
Teachers (CDA)
3
$13,000
$6.25
100%
$39,000
2
$18,500
$8.89
100%
$37,000
Assistant Teachers
6
$12,000
$5.77
100%
$72,000
6
$15,000
$7.21
100%
$90,000
(a) Social Services Coordinator
$0
1
$24,000
$11.54
50%
$12,000
(a) Parent Coordinator
$0
1
$24,000
$11.54
50%
$12,000
Infant Specialist or LPN (Optional)
$0
1
$19,000
$9.13
100%
$19,000
Cook
1
$13,000
$6.25
50%
$6,500
1
$13,000
$6.25
100%
$13,000
Bookkeeper
1
$20,000
$9.62
25%
$5,000
1
$20,000
$9.62
25%
$5,000
Total Personnel Costs
$172,500
$283,000
2. Benefits
Rate
Total
Rate
Total
Social Security & Medicare (Employer)
7.65%
$13,196
7.65%
$21,650
Workers Compensation
1.55%
$2,674
1.55%
$4,387
Unemployment Insurance
3.30%
$5,693
3.30%
$9,339
Health, Dental Insurance & Other Benefits
8.50%
$14,663
8.50%
$24,055
Total Benefits
21.00%
$36,225
21.00%
$59,430
3. Supplies & Minor Equipment
Qty./Days
Unit Cost
# Children
Total
Qty./Days
Unit Cost
# Children
Total
(b) Educational Supplies
260
$0.50
58
$7,540
260
$1.00
58
$15,080
(b) Indoor & Outdoor Equipment
$0
$5,000
(b) Furnishings (Tables, Shelves, Cots)
$1,000
$7,000
Office Supplies & Postage
$500
$1,000
Office Equipment
$850
$1,000
Service Maintenance for Equipment
$0
1
$500
$500
Copying
$150
$250
Total Supplies & Minor Equipment
$10,040
$29,830
4. Food
Days
Unit Cost
# Children
Total
Days
Unit Cost
# Children
Total
Kitchen Utensils
$500
$1,000
Paper Goods
260
$0.20
58
$3,000
260
$0.25
58
$3,770
(c) Food (CCAFP or Bag Lunch)
260
$0.50
58
$7,540
260
$3.50
58
$52,780
Total Food
$11,040
$57,550
5. Occupancy Costs **
Qty.
Unit Cost
Total
Qty.
Unit Cost
Total
Rent
12
$1,500
$18,000
12
$2,000
$24,000
Utilities
12
$417
$5,000
12
$500
$6,000
Telephone
12
$100
$1,200
12
$100
$1,200
Maintenance (Contract)
12
$1,083
$13,000
12
$1,500
$18,000
Total Occupancy Costs
$37,200
$49,200
6. Travel
Qty.
Unit Cost
Total
Qty.,
Unit Cost
Total
Field Trips (Only Two)
2
$250
$500
6
$250
$1,500
Professional Conferences
1
$250
$250
3
$250
$750
Total Travel
$750
$2,250
7. Other Costs
Qty.
Unit Cost
Total
Qty.
Unit Cost
Total
Licensing
1
$150
$150
1
$150
$150
(a) NAEYC Accreditation
$0
1
$500
$500
Professional Dues & Subscription
$350
$500
$500
$1,150
8. Educational Consultants
$0
$8,000
9. Administrative/Indirect Costs
Qty.
Unit Cost
Total
Qty.
Unit Cost
Total
Liability & Accident Insurance
1
$9,000
$9,000
1
$9,000
$9,000
Independent Audit Fee
1
$2,500
$2,500
1
$3,000
$3,000
Total Administrative/Indirect Costs
$11,500
$12,000
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS (58 CHILDREN)
$279,755
$502,410
ANNUAL COST PER CHILD
$4,823
$8,662
MONTHLY COST PER CHILD
$402
$722
DAILY COST PER CHILD
$18.55
$33.32
Note:
Please refer to budget narrative on reverse side.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
Serious financial deficits are being experienced in child care programs in the District of
Columbia because the District is paying way below market rates. The District's entire child care
budget is sorely underfunded cuts in the past several years and increased demand because of
welfare reform is going to prove extremely challenging. It is estimated that in FY'97 the
District will need an additional $18.0 million for child care. It is not a question of quality or
quantity; comprehensive quality services and an expanded child care base is needed to meet the
demand of an additional 4,500 welfare families needing child care. Establishing a stable child
care infrastructure to ensure the successful implementation of welfare reform and supporting a
system that encourages school readiness in the year 2000 is critical.
The "Sample Annual Child Care Budget" clearly illustrates the financial hardships and
inequities that exist in the child care community. The fact that reimbursement rates for
programs subsidized by the Department of Human Services (DHS) have been frozen for nine
years has created economic instability and undermined quality.
Washington
Child
Development
Council
2121 Decatur Place. NW Washington, D.C. 20008 (202) 387-0002 FAX (202) 332-2834
'01/20/1998 18:06
2023322834
PAGE 02
Washington
Child
WCDC
Development
Council
TO:
Ms. Carol Thompson Cole
Special Adviser on the District of Columbia
Executive Director, Federal D.C. Interagency Task Force
Executive Office of the President
FAX: (202) 395-7294
FROM: Bobbi Blok, Executive Director
Washington Child Development Council
DATE: January 19, 1998
SUBJECT: Improving Child Care Services in the District of Columbia
Your interest and concern regarding the state of early
childhood and child care programs is indeed welcome. Per your
request I am highlighting critical areas relating to child care
that could help us to move forward in mobilizing both the public
and private sectors as well as maximizing federal and local
resources.
PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS:
Public/Private Partnerships have been instrumental in
improving the quality of early childhood development across
America. Coordinated community mobilization (including business,
foundation, religious, and civic leaders, the media as well as
parents, child care providers and government officials) is an
effective means of clearly defining the needs and designing a
strong child care infrastructure. The District of Columbia is in
a unique situation, it consists of both national and local
communities, the key is to unite the talents and resources of
these two perspectives for the benefit of young children.
Throughout the country, states and cities, are mobilizing
many diverse sectors to help improve the quality of early
childhood services. The Early Education Quality Improvement
Project (EQUIP) coordinated by the Families and Work Institute is
a shining example of how communities can come together. I have
spoken to both Ellen Gallinsky and Nina Sazer O'Donnell from
Families and Work Institute concerning the challenges in the
District of Columbia and they were extremely encouraging. EQUIP
focused on two cities (Boston and Kansas City) and two states
(Oregon and West Virginia). Successful mobilization has resulted
in increasing the availability, access and quality of the early
childhood programs in their communities. We can learn from these
models as well as benefit from our city's own history and vision
to improve the quality of child care services.
2121 Decatur Place, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20008 (202) 387-0002 FAX (202) 332-2834
01/20/1998 18:06
2023322834
PAGE 03
-2-
In the late 70's and early 80's D.C. was a leader in
establishing quality standards and promoting child care as a
budget priority; in fact D.C. was considered one of the top ten
states in the Children's Defense Child Care Fact Book. There has
always been a positive working relationship between Head Start,
early childhood centers and family child care providers. D.C.
was one of the first demonstration sites for Head Start over
twenty-five years ago. Local child care advocates and parents
played a key role in the passage of the Act for Better Child Care
and they look forward to working with the White House in ensuring
the passage of the President's historic child care initiative.
Yet while the federal agenda is looking brighter the local
initiatives are limited. The District's reimbursement rate for
child care has been frozen for over a decade. The Metropolitan
Washington Council of Governments estimates that the city is
paying approximately 60% below market rate. A number of centers
have closed or are on the brink of bankruptcy. This downward
spiral is simply a result of the overall administrative and
financial problems confronting the District. Yet in terms of the
child care community we still have hope that the nation's capital
can again be a showcase for quality child care delivery services.
Highlighting programs in the city that have had success on
building productive public/private partnerships is key. An
example of such a program is the Calvary Bilingual Multicultural
Learning Center. Bebe Otero, the Director of the program, was
one of the speakers at the White House Conference on Child Care
held last year. Bell Atlantic has been a staunch supporter of
Calvary and Maria Johns, Vice President of External Affairs has
been an outstanding corporate leader. The Freddie Mac Foundation
has also been actively involved in the child care community.
When the city was proposing to cut 2,000 child care spaces,
Desiree Griffin Moore, a Program Officer at Freddie Mac, worked
closely with the child advocates. The result being that 1,600
spaces were saved and the foundation provided child care
scholarship funds to 400 low income working families.
President Clinton and Mrs. Clinton have set a positive tone
by encouraging active corporate involvement in the child care
arena. The child care working group announced by Treasury
Secretary Robert E. Rubin and the proposed business child care
tax incentives is exciting. There is no question that "it takes
a village" and local government officials need to view early
childhood programs as a vital part of economic development,
welfare reform and school readiness. At the same time, national
corporate leaders need to embrace the capital city as their city.
This is not necessarily an easy sell, yet there are corporations
that have already made commitments to child care nationally (e.g.
IBM and AT&T) who can share their successes in other parts of the
country and explore the possibility of duplicating such programs
as a means to educate federal officials in Washington to the
importance of public/private partnerships. National foundations
such as the Carnegie Foundation and the Pew Charitable Trusts
have also helped to build essential links between the public and
private sectors both in terms of program and financing. The
bottomline is that promoting quality child care services makes
"cents" economically and socially.
01/20/1998 18:06
2023322834
PAGE 04
-3-
RECOMMENDATIONS
BRING TOGETHER BOTH NATIONAL AND LOCAL REPRESENTATIVES FROM
THE PUBLIC & PRIVATE SECTORS TO FOCUS ON THE CHILD CARE
DELIVERY SYSTEM IN OUR NATION'S CAPITAL.
Develop a list of possible national corporations and
foundations that are child care "friendly" that would
be open to sharing with the District of Columbia early
childhood community (both public and private leaders).
Visit a local child care site and then the First Lady
can invite them to the White House for a roundtable
discussion focusing on realistic means by which child
care services could be improved in our nation's
capital.
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AS MAJOR EMPLOYER IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA:
The federal government has set a positive tone for
family/work issues by being a responsive employer and promoting
the establishment of child care programs for their employees.
The Government Services Administration (GSA) has been
instrumental in encouraging the development of on-site child care
centers. In the last ten years the number of federally supported
child care centers in the metropolitan area has increased by over
300%. Presently, there are approximately thirty federal centers
in the D.C. area including sixteen located in city (this count
doesn't include the Library of Congress, House or Senate child
care centers). GSA has embraced the importance of quality child
care services in government facilities and requires these early
childhood programs to obtain the National Association for the
Education for Young Children (NAEYC) Accreditation.
Approximately 9% of the centers in D.C. have received the NAEYC
Accreditation the majority of which are under the GSA mandate.
GSA has clearly risen the level of quality child care
services in the city. Yet GSA's effort to strive for quality has
not resulted in improving the quality of child care services in
the grassroot community early childhood programs. Unfortunately,
it's become a "tale of two cities" both programmatically and
financially. Given the fact that District's child care subsidies
have been frozen for a decade the subsidy rate is lower than the
market rate and as a result many GSA programs will not except DHS
subsidized vouchers since it would result in a deficit (e.g.
rates are approximately: DHS infant reimbursement = $105 per
child per wk. and gov't centers = $177; DHS preschool = $92 per
child per wk. and gov't. centers = $135).
President Clinton, as the number one CEO in the District, can
set the example for corporate America to reachout to the community.
New business tax credits for companies that provide child care
services for their employees is definitely a step in the right
direction. The stimulation of business involvement needs to be
expanded to support the early childhood community as a whole.
Exploring additional tax credits or earmarking a portion of the
proposed tax credit is a possibility with the inclusion of the
nation's capital as being a designated site to benefit.
01/20/1998 18:06
2023322834
PAGE 05
-4-
RECOMMENDATIONS
ENCOURAGE FEDERAL OFFICIALS TO WORK WITH DISTRICT OFFICIALS IN
EXPLORING MEANS OF INCREASING THE RATE OF REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE
LOCAL SUBSIDY AND IMPROVING QUALITY FOR ALL DISTRICT CHILDREN
(Infants, Preschoolers, Schoolage & Special Needs).
Ensure maximization of federal dollars and assist with
an expeditious completion of the market rate study for
child care rates.
Explore earmarking business tax credits for child care to
reachout to the community including our nation's capital.
ESTABLISH A GSA CENTER DIRECTOR'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO
EXPLORE A MEANS OF HELPING COMMUNITY CENTERS AND DHS SUBSIDY
PROGRAMS TO MEET NAEYC ACCREDITATION.
Help assess obstacles to obtaining accreditation.
Promote mentoring programs with the child care centers;
WCDC is working with the D.C. Office of Early Childhood
Development (OECD) in establishing a mentor program to
help centers become accredited (Note: There are
already some GSA Center Directors serving as mentors
for NAEYC Accreditation)
ASSESS EXISTING FEDERAL PROGRAMS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
THAT CAN ENHANCE SERVICES IN CHILD CARE PROGRAMS.
Review present national programs that can be positive
links for the child care community. Example: At the
President's Press Conference on Child Care I met Diane
Frankel, Director of the Institute of Museum and
Library Services; we will be meeting next month to
discuss a means by which schoolage programs can better
access museum services. The Kennedy Center could also
prove to be an invaluable resource. There could be a
number of other federal initiatives that could benefit
and enrich children's child care experiences.
THE MILITARY CHILD CARE SERVICES AS A ROLE MODEL FOR D.C. PROGRAMS:
Several years ago the child care services in the military
were in disarray. Both Executive and Congressional actions were
taken to improve the quality of child care services in the
Department of Defense. As a result of our federal commitment to
provide model child care services to persons in the armforces
resources were earmarked and the curriculum, training and
personnel policies for military child care providers are
considered one of the best in the country.
Both military personnel and consultants have expressed an
interest in helping child care programs in the District. At
national conferences I have had the opportunity to meet a number
of persons in the military located in the metropolitan area. Joe
Perreault, Child & Youth Services for the U.S. Army and MaryAlice
Howe, Child Development & Youth Specialist for the U.S. Air Force
were open to assisting WCDC in developing possible linkages in
01/20/1998 18:06
2023322834
PAGE 06
-5-
improving the quality of child care services in our city.
We are also fortunate that Diane Trister Dodge, President of
Teaching Strategies and a leader in the local child care
community, was instrumental in the design of the military's
curriculum material, The Creative Curriculum for Early Childhood.
This material is used as well by a number of Head Start programs.
Access to curriculum guidelines, instructors, trainings and
program assessments would be a real resource to the child care
community.
RECOMMENDATIONS
TARGET THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AS A MODEL SITE TO UTILIZE
MILITARY EXPERTISE ON DESIGNING & MAINTAINING QUALITY EARLY
CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS.
Coordinate a means to strategize with Military Child
Care Specialists and leaders in the D.C. child care
community in order to establish effective linkages and
maximize benefits.
I hope the information in this memo will prove useful. For
your convenience I have attached a summary of the recommendations
to improve child care in the city. If additional material is
necessary please let me know. The improvement of the District's
child care delivery system is within our grasp. With the federal
and local interests working in concert quality early childhood
development in our nation's capital can truly become a reality.
CC:
Melanne Verveer
01/20/1998 18:06
2023322834
PAGE 07
RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE QUALITY CHILD CARE SERVICES IN D.C.
BRING TOGETHER BOTH NATIONAL AND LOCAL REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE PUBLIC
AND PRIVATE SECTORS TO FOCUS ON THE CHILD CARE DELIVERY SYSTEM IN OUR
NATION'S CAPITAL.
Develop a list of possible national corporations and
foundations that are child care "friendly" that would be
open to sharing with the District of Columbia early
childhood community (both public and private leaders).
Visit a local child care site and then the First Lady can
invite them to the White House for a roundtable discussion
focusing on realistic means by which child care services
could be improved in our nation's capital.
ENCOURAGE FEDERAL OFFICIALS TO WORK WITH DISTRICT OFFICIALS IN
EXPLORING MEANS OF INCREASING THE RATE OF REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE LOCAL
SUBSIDY AND IMPROVING QUALITY FOR ALL DISTRICT CHILDREN (Infants,
Preschoolers, Schoolage & Special Needs).
Ensure maximization of federal dollars and assist with an
expeditious completion of the market rate study for child
care rates.
Explore earmarking business tax credits for child care to
reachout to the community including our nation's capital.
ESTABLISH A GSA CENTER DIRECTOR'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO EXPLORE A
MEANS OF HELPING COMMUNITY CENTERS AND DHS SUBSIDY PROGRAMS TO MEET
NAEYC ACCREDITATION.
Help assess obstacles to obtaining accreditation.
Promote mentoring programs with the child care centers; WCDC
is working with the D.C. Office of Early Childhood
Development (OECD) in establishing a mentor program to help
centers become accredited (Note: There are already some GSA
Center Directors serving as mentors for NAEYC
Accreditation).
ASSESS EXISTING FEDERAL PROGRAMS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA THAT CAN
ENHANCE SERVICES IN CHILD CARE PROGRAMS.
Review present national programs that can be positive links
for the child care community. Example: At the President's
Press Conference on Child Care I met Diane Frankel, Director
of the Institute of Museum and Library Services; we will be
meeting next month to discuss a means by which schoolage
programs can access museum services. The Kennedy Center
could also prove to be an invaluable resource. There could
be a number of other federal initiatives that could benefit
and enrich children's child care experiences.
TARGET THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AS A MODEL SITE TO UTILIZE MILITARY
EXPERTISE ON DESIGNING & MAINTAINING QUALITY EARLY CHILDHOOD
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS.
Coordinate a means to strategize with Military Child Care
Specialists and leaders in the D.C. child care community in
order to establish effective linkages and maximize benefits.
03/04/1998 13:20
2023322834
PAGE 01
Washington
Child
WCDC
Development
Council
FAX
Number of pages including coversheet =10
TO: Melanne Verveer
(202) 456-6244
FROM: Bobbi Blok
DATE: March 3, 1998
SUBJECT: Child Care Issues in the District of Columbia
I am forwarding a copy of the follow-up memo relating to
D.C. child care issues. Thank you again for your interest and
concern. If you have any questions please don't hesitate to give
me a call.
send copy to Nicole
2121 Decatur Place, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20008 . (202) 387-0002 FAX (202) 332-2834
03/04/1998 13:20
2023322834
PAGE 02
Washington
Child
WCDC
Development
Council
TO: Ms. Carol Thompson Cole
Special Adviser on the District of Columbia
Executive Director, Federal D.C. Interagency Task Force
Executive Office of the President
FROM: Bobbi Blok Executive Director
FAX: (202) 395-7294 HEXECUT
Washington Child Development Council
DATE: March 3, 1998
SUBJECT: Update on Activities
Improving Child Care Services in the District of Columbia
Since sending you my January 19th memo I wanted to inform you
of follow-up meetings and discussions that have occurred in the
last month. I am pleased to report that everyone I met with was
interested in assisting the city in improving the quality of child
care services. For your convenience the following is an outline of
persons I've met with and issues discussed:
1)
Government Services Administration - Susan Clampitt,
Associate Administrator of Family and Workplace
Management along with Cheryl DeAtley, Regional Child Care
Coordinator for the National Capital Area. We discussed
GSA's commitment to quality. It was agreed that it could
prove useful for me to speak to the GSA Center Directors
and discuss some of the critical issues facing the
subsidized centers. We felt it could be productive to
explore the possibility of Center Director's from GSA
NAEYC accredited centers becoming more actively involved
and supporting the District's effort of increasing the
number of accredited programs.
2)
Institute of Museum & Library Services - Diane Frankel,
Director. We discussed the means by which museums can
partner with local child care programs especially those
serving schoolage children. We reviewed a list of local
museums (e.g. The Corcoran and the Textile Museum).. I am
pleased to report that Diane has already started the ball
rolling and The Corcoran will be hosting a meeting with
other museums and we will explore the most effective way
to develop linkages.
3)
Department of Defense -
Linda Smith, Director of Family
Policy.
Barbara
Kamara
and Ellen Yung Fatah were also at
2121 Decatur Place, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20008 (202) 387-0002 FAX (202) 332-2834
03/04/1998
13:20
2023322834
PAGE 03
-2-
the meeting. The group was enthusiastic. There were at
least four areas that we all felt would be useful.
First, sharing information about training and allowing DC
programs to participate in DOD workshops if space is
available. Second, allowing DC programs to access
surplus equipment. Third, helping to improve
administrative practices particularly in the area of
licensing. Fourth, providing technical assistance in
reference to accreditation, family child care home
networks and calculating the true cost of care. The
prospects are very exciting yet a mechanism of follow
through is essential.
4)
Chief Management Office - Camille Barnett, CMO and
Jearaline Williams, Director of DHS. The child care
community received a much warmer welcome from the office
of the CMO than at the Control Board. The meeting was
structured to allow the child care programs to outline
their concerns focusing primarily on child care
reimbursement rates and licensing procedures. Allen AME
Child Development Center shared the fact that the
placement of TANF clients was slow and sporadic; as a
result they may have to close one of their sites. WCDC
shared its DC Child Care Financial Discussion Paper which
included increased rates comparable to federal centers
and surrounding jurisdictions; e.g. infant $35 and
preschool $30 per day SEE Working Draft attached). In
discussing licensing we requested Ms. Williams' help in
facilitating a small group meeting with Dr. Nooran,
Director of the Department of Health. The purpose of the
meeting would be to address concerns relating to
licensing procedures. We also shared the legislation
WCDC requested Covington & Burling to draft that waived
licensing fees and other user fees and taxes for family
child care home providers (SEE Draft Legislation
attached).
I understand that you will be meeting with District officials
next week. I hope this information will be of some assistance. I
will be attending an International Children's Summit in London
starting March 10th and I'll be back in DC March 20th. I'll be in
town all this week, if you have any questions please don't hesitate
to call me. Thank you again for your interest in improving the
child care services in our nation's capital.
CC: Melanne Verveer
Helen Taylor
Joan Lombardi
03/04/1998 13:20 2023322834
PAGE 04
WORKING DRAFT: Prepared by the Washington Child Development Council (WCDC) 202-387-0002
D.C. CHILD CARE FINANCIAL DISCUSSION PAPER
Assumptions:
Financial Assumptions: The rate of reimbursement needs to be established to meet
the actual cost of care. These rates are based on readjusting the 1993 Market Rate
Survey taking into account inflation as well as ensuring equitable reimbursements
compared to rates at federal centers and surrounding jurisdictions.
Population Assumptions: The numbers are based on present utilization and
projections in relationship to the increased demand because of welfare reform.
NOTE: Both the number of subsidized spaces available and the established rates of
reimbursement are open for discussion.
ESTIMATE #1
ESTIMATE #2
a) TANF Job Search
500
250
b) TANF Workfare
3,000
2,000
c) TANF Diversion & Transition
3,000
2,750
d) Teen Parents
500
500
e) Working Poor
4,000
3,000
f) Foster Care/Protective Services
1,000
500
12,000
9,000
ESTIMATE #1
Infants (Center)
750
X
$35
X
260 days = $ 6,825,000
Infants (Family Homes)
750
X
$25
X
260 days =
4,875,000
Preschool (Center)
4,000
X
$30
X
260 days = 31,200,000
Preschool (FH)
1,000
X
$20
X
260 days =
5,200,000
" (Head Start)
1,000
X
$25
X
260 days =
6,500,000
Schoolage (B/A)
4,500
X
$15
X
180 days =
12,150,000
Schoolage (Full)
(4,500)
X
$18
X
80 days = 6,480,000
12,000
$73,230,000
ESTIMATE #2
Infants (Center)
500
X
$35
X
260 days = $ 4,550,000
Infants (Family Homes)
400
X
$25 X
260 days =
2,600,000
Preschool (Center)
3,500
X
$30
X
260 days =
27,300,000
Preschool (FH)
500
X
$20
X
260 days =
2,600,000
" (Head Start)
1,000
X
$25
X
260 days =
6,500,000
Schoolage (B/A)
3,100
X
$15
X
180 days =
8,370,000
Schoolage (Full)
(3,100)
X
$18
X
80 days = 4,464,000
9,000
$56,384,000
03/04/1998
13:20
2023322834
PAGE 05
Possible Revenue:
District Appropriated
$30,000,000 (Represents a $9 million increase)
TANF $
18,000,000 *
Federal
6,000,000
Title IV E + Receivership
**
*** Parent Fees
11,000,000
DC Economic Recovery Act ****
10,000,000
$75,000,000
* TANF $: If there were no D.C. appropriated dollars the cost to provide child care
for TANF participants would be approximately ESTIMATE #1: $54,600,000 and
ESTIMATE #2: $42,900,000. Federal laws allows the states to redirect 30% of its
TANF dollars for child care which would equal approximately $28 million for DC.
At present utilization and current rates the cost for TANF child care services
(4,000 children X $18 X 260 days) equals approximately $19 million.
** Title IV E + Receivership: Foster parents and protective services clients that
receive child care in Maryland and Virginia have reimbursements paid from the child
welfare budget, those children receiving care in DC must depend solely on the limited
funds available in the Day Care Budget. The District government has not filed for
federal Title IV E dollars and therefore the city is losing available resources.
*** Parent Fee (guesstimate): In EXAMPLE #1 there are at minimum 7,000 fee
paying families (approx. 60% of the population); it is assumed that parents will pay
approximately 25% of the cost ($73,230,000 X 60% X 25%). Designing a new
sliding fee scale is imperative.
**** DC Economic Recovery Act: The White House and local officials can explore
the possibility of increasing and/or reallocating funds already designated for Economic
Development and Education to child care services. Child care is a vital component
in promoting the health and well being of the District's future. The provision of child
care is instrumental to the successful implementation of welfare reform and ensures
families are gainfully employed and quality early childhood development programs
play a key role in ensuring school readiness.
Definitions:
a) TANF (Job Search): This is TANF clients that are looking for a job, this would allow for drop-in child care for
approximately a month; this would mean that there could be a minimum of 3,000 and maximum of 12,000 TANF
clients that could utilize this service.
b) TANF Workfare: This is TANF clients that are required by federal law to volunteer for a minimum of twenty
hours a week at approved worksites if they are not gainfully employed.
c) TANF Diversion & Transition: This involves two specific groups yet both are designed to ensure that persons
don't require even applying for monthly payments or don't need to return to welfare respectively. Child care is
provided to enable these TANF clients to be gainfully employed.
d) Teen Parents: This includes both TANF and nonTANF teenagers completing their education.
e) Working Poor: This is familles that are employed and meet financial eligibility.
f) Foster Care/Protective Services: These are children referred by FSA and the receivership.
3/3/98
03/04/1998 13:20 2023322834
PAGE 06
A PROPOSED RESOLUTION
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
To declare the existence of an emergency with respect to the need to increase the
availability of licensed child development homes in the District of Columbia.
RESOLVED, BY THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. That
this resolution may be cited as the "Chud Development Home Promotion Emergency
Declaration Resolution of 1998".
Sec. 2. (a) There exists an immediate crisis with respect to the availability of
licensed child development homes in the District of Columbia.
(b) According to the Report and Recommendations for Welfare Reform in the
District of Columbia submitted by the Mayor's Interagency Policy Council and Citizens
Welfare Transformation Committee ("the Report/"). welfare reform in the District of
Colubmia will increase the mumber of families who need licensed day care because more
welfare recipients will be working and unable to take care of their own children.
(c) The Report indicates that the fees involved with operating 2 licensed child
development home in the District of Columbia cause substantial numbers of individuals
to operate day care homes without 8 license.
(d) The increased need for licensed day care can be addressed by waiving the fees
otherwise applicable to licensed child development homes and by encouraging families
now receiving welfare to operate licensed child development homes, as recommeneded
by the Mayor's Council and others.
(c) Enactment of the Child Development Home Promotion Emergency
Amendment Act of 1998 will waive various fees otherwise applicable to families
operating licensed child development homes, in order to encourage individuals providing
day care in their homes without a license to become licensed and individuals leaving
welfare to operate licensed child development homes, thereby satisfying the increased
need for licensed day care in the District of Columbia.
Sec. 3. The Council of the District of Columbia determines that the
circumstances enumerated in section 2 constitute emergency circumstances making it
necessary that the Child Development Home Promotion Emergency Amendment Act of
1998 be adopted after a single reading.
Sec. 4. This resolution shall cake effect immediately.
20'3
85121 8661 8661'00'10 fe
HOUS
03/04/1998
13:20
2023322834
PAGE 07
A BILL
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Councilmember
introduced the following bill. which
was referred to inc Committee on
To amend, on an emergency basis, An Act Making appropriations to provide for the
expenses of the government of the District of Columbia for the fiscal year ending June
thirtieth. nineteen hundred and ten, and for other purposes, to exempt child development
homes from certain fees related to certificates of occupancy: and to amend, on an
emergency basis, title 47 of the District of Columbia Code, to exempt child development
homes from licensing fees and the special public safety fee.
BE IT ENACTED. BY THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
That this act may bc cited as the "Child Development Home Promotion Emergency
Amendment Act of 1998".
Scc. 2. An Act Making appropriations to provide for the expenses of the
government of the District of Columbia for the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, nineteen
hundred and ten, and for other purposes (35 Stat. 689. ch. 250; D.C. Code § 5-433) is
amended by: inserting before the period in the text codified at D.C. Code § 5-433 the
following:
". except that a child development home as defined in section 2 of the Day Care
Policy Act of 1979 shall be exempt from all fees relating to certificates of occupancy,
other than reasonable fees charged for providing copies of a certificate of occupancy
beyond one certified copy of the certificate of occupancy. 10 which the child
development home is entitled free of charge".
Sec. 3. Title 47 of the District of Columbia Code is amended as follows:
(a) By amending section 47-2752(b)(1) by inserting after "$25.00" the following:
". except that a feepayer meeting the definition of child development home set
forth in section 2 of the Day Care Policy Act of 1979 shall be excmpt from payment of
this fee".
(b) By amending section 47-2482 by adding a new subsection (c) 10 read as
follows:
60'3
SS151 0651'20'10
FROM
03/04/1998 13:20 2023322834
PAGE 08
-(c) Notwithstanding subsection (a), по licensing fees shall be charged to any
child development home as defined in section 2 of the Day Care Policy Act of 1979."
Sec. 4. This act shall take effect upon its enactment (approval by the Mayor. cr
in the event of veto by the Mayor, override of the veto by the Council. and approval by
the Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority as provided in section
203(a) of the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance
Act of 1995, approved April 17, 1995 (109 Stat. 116; D.C. Code § 47-392.3(a)), and
shall remain in effect for no longer than 90 days, as provided for emergency acts of the
Council of the District of Columbia in section 412(a) of the District of Columbia Self-
Government and Governmental Reorganization Act. approved December 24, 1973 (87
Stat. 788; D.C. Code § 1-229(a)).
1.00
96:51
HORE
03/04/1998 13:20 2023322834
PAGE 09
A BILL
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Councilmember
introduced the following bill, which
was referred to the Committee on
,
To amend An Act Making appropriations to provide for the expenses of the government
of the District of Columbia for the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, nineteen hundred
and ten, and for other purposes, to exempt child development homes from certain fees
related to certificates of occupancy; and to amend title 47 of the District of Columbia
Code, to exempt child development homes from licensing fees and the special public
safety fee.
BE IT ENACTED, BY THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
That this act may be cited as the "Child Development Home Promotion Amendment Act
of 1998".
Sec. 2. An Act Making appropriations to provide for the expenses of the
government of the District of Columbia for the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, nineteen
hundred 2nd ten, and for other purposes (35 Stat, 689, ch. 250; D.C. Code § 5-433) is
amended by inserting before the period in the text codified at D.C. Code § 5-433 the
following:
", except that 3 child development home as defined in section 2 of the Day Care
Policy Act of 1979 shall be exemp! from all fees relating to certificates of occupancy.
other than reasonable fees charged for providing copies of a certificate of occupancy
beyond one certified copy of the certificate of occupancy, to which the child
development home is entitled free of charge".
Sec. 3. Title 47 of the District of Columbia Code is amended as follows:
(a) By amending section 47-2752(b)(1) by inserting after "$25.00" the following:
", except that a feepayer meeting the definition of child development home set
forth in section 2 of the Day Care Policy Act of 1979 shall be exempt from payment of
this fee".
(b) By amending section 47-2482 by adding a new subsection (c) to read as
follows:
5095
95:51 0661
FROM
03/04/1998 13:20
2023322834
PAGE 10
"(c) Notwithstanding subsection (3), no licensing fees shall be charged to any
child development home as defined in section 2 of the Day Care Policy Act of 1979."
Sec. 4. This act shall take effect following approval by the Mayor (or in the
event of veto by the Mayor. override of the veto by the Council), approval by the
Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority as provided in section
203(a) of the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance
Act of 1995, approved April 17, 1995 (109 Stat 116; D.C. Code § 47-392.3(a)). and a
30-day period of Congressional review as provided in section 602(c)(1) of the District of
Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act, approved December
24. 1973 (87 Stat. 813; D.C. Code $ 1-233(c)(1)). and publication in the District of
Columbia Register.
25:51 8661'70'50
wess
APR. 6. 1998 4:50PM
OFFICE OF SECRETARY
NO. 8369 P. 2/3
OF
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
POTES . 2
NEWS
FOR RELEASE
Contacts: Melinda Malico (202) 401-1008
April 7, 1998
David Thomas (202) 401-1579
FIRST LADY ANNOUNCES $5 MILLION IN SUPPORT
FOR NEW D.C. SUMMER SCHOOL INITIATIVE
Eighty D.C. public schools will keep their doors open this summer to provide nearly
20,000 area youth with extra academic instruction in reading and mathematics, with assistance
from a $5 million grant from the U.S. Department of Education, First Lady Hillary Rodham
Clinton announced today.
The new grant will support Summer STARS (Students and Teachers Achieving Results
and Success), an intensive and accelerated summer school program designed to increase the
academic achievement of D.C. public school students in grades 1-12.
"With this important initiative, thousands of children in our nation's capital will have the
chance to continue their school-year education throughout the summer and to fulfill their promise
in school and beyond," said First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton.
"This critical and unprecedented undertaking aims to increase significantly the number of
D.C. students who are able to read and do math at grade level," U.S. Secretary of Education
Richard W. Riley said. "We know that these young people in particular are performing below the
basic level in math and science. By strengthening students' skills and offering a variety of learning
activities, these students will be given a chance to move ahead, not fall further behind."
The District recently adopted new promotion requirements and is putting activities in
place to assist students needing extra help. The summer school program will help improve the
skills of children at risk of school failure. Specifically, the program aims to boost the skills of
students previously identified for retention in grades 2, 3, 5, 8 and 11 sufficiently to allow for
APR. 6. 1998 4:50PM
OFFICE OF SECRETARY
NO. 8369 P. 3/3
promotion to the next grade level. Students who score below basic on the Stanford-9 reading and
mathematics achievement tests and those who fail to show progress in meeting the standards
through other measures will be selected for the summer school enrichment program.
President Clinton has urged school districts to abandon policies of social promotion --
policies that allow students to be promoted from grade to grade even if they have not mastered
the basics for each grade.
The six-week program is designed to provide students with a challenging, standards-based
curriculum that focuses on the critical basic skills of mathematics and reading in a classroom
setting with a low (15:1) teacher to child ratio. Sixty elementary, 10 middle and 10 high schools
are scheduled to be part of the summer school program which will operate between June and
August. In addition, D.C. plans to involve parents as classroom volunteers and after-school
assistants; train teachers in the new curricula; and partner with the D.C. Department of Recreation
and other organizations to provide organized afternoon activities.
The $4,997,019 grant came from the Fund for the Improvement of Education (FIE), under
the Office of Educational Research and Improvement. FIE funds activities that stimulate reform
and improve teaching and learning.
The effort fits in with the Department's Improve Student Performance Initiative, intended
to help the District's public school system implement system wide and school-based academic and
management reforms to improve the quality of education. In his FY 1999 budget, President
Clinton requested an additional $20 million for the District of Columbia public schools to support
comprehensive school reform activities, intensify rigorous professional development
opportunities, and put reading specialists in every school.
###
A Call to Action:
DC Children and Youth Investment Initiative:
A Partnership for All City Youth
A Review of Where We Are and Where We're Going
prepared by DC Agenda
with assistance from
Reingold Associates, Inc.
Revised March 17, 1998
A COMMITMENT TO ACTION
O
ur young people are the future of our city. Our efforts to improve academic and social
achievement, revitalize our neighborhoods, prevent crime and violence, and improve public
safety are intertwined with the healthy development of our city's young people. Yet, youth in
the District of Columbia face tremendous threats and challenges to their well-being and healthy
development everyday. Growing up has always been difficult, but now more than ever, our
young people shoulder enormous burdens and confront dangerous, risky situations long before
they reach adulthood. A Leadership Group and a Strategy Work Group called together by DC
Agenda believes the time for collaborative, comprehensive, and expeditious action is now.
The risks have grown. Today, our young people must overcome enormous challenges. They
must adjust to the difficulties posed by changes in family life and structure. Our young people
are increasingly vulnerable to great health risks. And, as we approach the 21st century, our
youth are ill-prepared academically and developmentally for an increasingly demanding future.
Our response has not kept pace. How can we ensure that District youth receive the support,
care, and education they need and deserve to become healthy, productive adults? How can we
sow the seeds of success and equip our young people to be the workers, parents, citizens, and
leaders of tomorrow? What can we do to help our youth survive and thrive?
OUR MISSION
Children and Youth Investment Partnership. We are committed to providing our city's youth
with the support and tools they need to be safe, learn, and grow. Our mission is to craft a multi-
year plan to create, build support for, and oversee the implementation of a multi-million dollar,
new, and innovative community capacity: a Children and Youth Investment Authority to
coordinate youth development services across the spectrum of age groups, from birth to 24 years
of age, and across public and private agencies in the District of Columbia.
A VISION OF THE FUTURE
Our vision is to create a seamless web of high quality services and challenging opportunities to
promote the healthy development of the city's young people through a network of:
Nurturing families
Safe, enriching community centers
Caring neighborhoods
The Children and Youth Investment Authority would be responsible for enrichment and extra
care programs and services for all school age youth in the District.
Perhaps operating as a nonprofit entity supported by a partnership of the public and private
sectors, the Children and Youth Investment Authority would embrace a youth-focused, family-
centered, neighborhood-based, and neighborhood-specific approach that seeks to build capacity
in the District and its neighborhoods for youth development programs and services.
The Authority would make youth development a priority in this city by:
DC Agenda / Reingold Associates
A Children and Youth Investment Partnership
3/17/98, Page 1
Building on the diverse and robust programs and initiatives already in place by coordinating,
linking, and bolstering existing services.
Identifying the gaps in the existing service delivery system-and meeting those unmet needs.
Providing an operating framework for benchmarking, evaluation, and continuous
improvement. It would aim to constantly upgrade the level of care and activities that youth
receive during the non-school hours.
Compiling a body of knowledge and data that enables all stakeholders to make informed
decisions and identify what works best for whom.
Bringing together all stakeholders, including both the public and private sectors, to support
youth development.
Ensuring that both new and existing programs have adequate funding to provide services,
innovate, and grow.
Creating links with the Office of Early Childhood Development, the DC Public Schools,
Child and Family Service Agency, the DC Recreation Department, social service agencies,
community policing groups, and others to provide information on and to facilitate
involvement in youth development activities.
Providing leadership and organizational development for youth workers and agencies.
A Vision for All Youth: A Bill of Rights for the District's Young People
Our Children and Youth Investment Partnership aims to transform DC into a place
where all young people possess the right and the access to:
Safe and enriching places to learn and grow.
High quality health care and services.
High quality instruction and training.
Opportunities to build healthy relationships with peers.
Opportunities to build healthy relationships with caring adults.
A variety of positive role models, resources, networks, and challenging experiences.
Assistance in building marketable skills and developing economic self-sufficiency.
High expectations, high standards, and high supports everywhere they go.
Opportunities to serve and contribute to the larger community.
THE RATIONALE: WHY WE ADVOCATE A CHILDREN AND YOUTH INVESTMENT
PARTNERSHIP
For most of us, it is clear that directing our efforts and resources toward our youth represent
worthy-if not the worthiest of-investments. Yet, the best way to serve our young people's
needs, particularly with our limited resources, is a trickier issue.
DC Agenda / Reingold Associates
A Children and Youth Investment Partnership
3/17/98, Page 2
The Leadership Group and the Strategy Work Group assembled by DC Agenda have come to a
consensus that a children and youth investment partnership on behalf of all District youth is the
most promising and effective strategy to realizing the healthy development of young people in
this city.
In-School, In the Home, and In the Community. Why should we focus our efforts on the
hours that our young people spend outside of the classroom? Research and experience
demonstrate that in order to achieve results and improve intervention and enrichment efforts, we
must address how and where young people spend their time when they are not in school. A
diversified strategy is needed to address the multitude of factors that influence young people's
lives: A children and youth investment initiative is a vital, integral piece of any youth
development agenda.
Young people only spend 9 percent of their time in the classroom-and 91 percent of their
time somewhere else. There's a reason why research shows that you cannot improve
educational achievement by focusing exclusively on schools.
It is what young people do during the after-school hours, where they do it, and with whom
that leads to positive-or negative-consequences.
Youth who are left unsupervised on a regular basis are more likely to suffer from negative
self-esteem and receive lower grades and test scores than their supervised counterparts.
Research shows that for adolescents, the after-school hours are high-risk times that present
opportunities for crime, substance abuse, negative behaviors, and violence to enter their lives.
According to the Carnegie Council on Adolescent Youth and numerous other studies, most
juvenile crime and teen pregnancies occur between 3 and 6 p.m. on weekday afternoons.
Unsupervised teenagers are more likely than their supervised peers to be subject to negative
peer pressure.
Surveys have suggested a positive correlation between the number of hours youth care for
themselves after school and the use of drugs and alcohol.
TOP NINE REASONS WHY THE DISTRICT NEEDS A CHILDREN AND YOUTH
INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP
The number of youth who are regularly left unsupervised, coupled with the mismatch between
the level of need and the availability and accessibility of programs and services, has prompted us
to agree that non-school hour care and services is an issue that must be addressed.
#1
Over 50 percent of District youth live in single parent households.
#2
Approximately 70 percent of students attending public elementary or secondary
schools in the District live in households in which both parents work or their sole
custodial parent works. Research suggests that almost 60 percent of the District's
young people are regularly without adult supervision for an hour between the time of
school's release and an adult's return from work.
DC Agenda / Reingold Associates
A Children and Youth Investment Partnership
3/17/98, Page 3
#3
There are over 45,000 school age youth in the District who need non-school hour
care and services.
#4
No city entity or infrastructure exists to address the full range of youth development
issues and priorities. While city agencies such as the DC Early Childhood Office, DC
Department of Recreation, and the DC Public Schools are responsible for focusing on
distinct facets of young people's lives, none of these agencies was designed or intended
to encompass the entirety of youth development needs.
#5
The availability of existing school programs or non-school hour care and services
varies greatly by location. For example, while the largest number of the District's
elementary schools are located in Ward 7, this ward has the smallest number of school-
based care programs. In contrast, Ward 3, which is a much wealthier ward, houses the
least number of elementary schools, but has the largest number of school-based care
programs.
#6
Eighty-three percent of parents cannot afford after-school programs.
#7
The overwhelming majority of school age programs and services in the District are
concentrated within a limited portion of the youth population. Ninety percent of
youth enrolled in school age programs are between five and ten years old. In other
words, only ten percent of youth presently being served fall outside the elementary school
age group. Thus, adolescents are a particularly under-served population, and the
greatest need for an infusion of extra care services at this juncture lies within the middle
school and secondary school populations.
#8
Middle school youth are almost twice as likely as elementary school youth to be
unsupervised for three or more hours. Middle school is a critical time for youth
development. Numerous studies, including one conducted by the Committee for
Economic Development, report that middle school is the critical juncture where we lose a
substantial proportion of the disadvantaged population. Middle school youth represent
almost one quarter of youth in the city who are regularly left without adult supervision.
Moreover, middle school youth are twice as likely as their younger counterparts to be
unsupervised for three or more hours.
#9
More stringent welfare reform laws will require parents to spend more time away
from the home, further increasing the need for extra care programs and activities.
OUR PRINCIPLES FOR ACTION
Based on prevailing research and lessons learned from the youth-serving community, the
District's own unique needs and circumstances, and all of our cumulative work to date, our
Children and Youth Investment Partnership will embrace and embody the following principles.
Principles for Governance & Leadership: Building Capacity in the District
Engage the consumers, including youth and parents, as full collaborators. In order for
programs and services to meet the needs of their intended users, they must be tailored to their
specific needs and desires. Youth and parents must be full participants in all stages of the
process, from planning to implementation to evaluation and assessment.
DC Agenda / Reingold Associates
A Children and Youth Investment Partnership
3/17/98, Page 4
Take risks and try new, innovative approaches. The problems and challenges we are
addressing are manifold and complex, but not insurmountable. However, we cannot simply
do things the way they have always been done-that will take us no further towards progress
than where we are now. We will only reach our goals by being creative, testing new ideas,
and learning from our successes and failures.
Build partnerships and coalitions, bringing together all of the various stakeholders
from the public, private, and federal sectors. Bring together everyone from across sectors
to ensure that our activities and endeavors are connected and that we are able to build upon
each other's efforts. Without the full cooperation and participation of all stakeholders, we
will not be able to address the full host of issues that affect and constitute youth development
in the District.
Obtain a broad base of support, and treat all participants equally. Each and every
participant lends a valuable and unique perspective that will enrich our body of knowledge
and better equip us to address the challenges and obstacles we seek to overcome. In order to
be responsive to the community's needs and lend integrity to our decision-making process,
all points of view must be considered and treated with equal attention and seriousness.
Provide opportunites to grow and develop youth leadership.
Principles for Program Design & Delivery: Matching Needs with Services
Offer youth-focused, family-centered, neighborhood-specific activities and services.
Opportunities and services to young people will be designed and provided in the context of
their families and tailored to the specific needs of neighborhoods.
Neighborhood collaborative areas will be the geographic service targets of programs
and services. This initiative will tap into and make use of the existing neighborhood
systems. Programs will be tailored to the specific needs and circumstances of each
neighborhood, its youth, and their parents. Program offerings will be comprehensive and
driven by neighborhood-based needs assessments that capture the greatest needs in those
communities. Services and activities will be physically accessible to young people and
conveniently located (e.g., located close to schools, in school, near public transportation, and
in residential neighborhoods).
Be flexible to meet a variety of needs. Research demonstrates that a cookie-cutter, one-
size-fits-all approach simply does not work. The most successful efforts are responsive to
individual needs and accommodate specific situations.
Extra care is an entitlement for all youth. Activities should be readily available regardless
of income, race, or neighborhood and should be located throughout the city. Services should
be available and accessible to every student who wants or needs them.
Target first resources to those with the greatest needs. Eight neighborhood collaborative
areas which have been determined to be in the greatest need will be targeted for first
resources. Within these neighborhoods, under-served age populations will be the focus of
first efforts and resources. Presently, the data demonstrate that there is a dearth of programs
and services targeting middle and secondary school youth during the non-school hours.
Build on the good work that is already underway. Considerable activity on which to build
and complement already exists in the community. We seek to enhance and strengthen the
existing programs through improved coordination, and initiate new activities where none
exist to meet identified needs.
DC Agenda / Reingold Associates
A Children and Youth Investment Partnership
3/17/98, Page 5
Provide opportunities for professional development to program staff and service
providers. Programs and activities will be staffed by caring adults who communicate high
expectations and compassion, as well as demonstrate integrity, community involvement, and
commitment. Study after study reinforces the fact that the single most important factor in
determining the success and efficacy of programs is the quality of the program staff.
Performance standards for youth-serving professionals and quality training opportunities
must be implemented to ensure that our youth receive the highest quality of care available.
Make community involvement the core of all programs and services. No program or
intervention efforts can be successful without community buy-in and involvement. The
community must be active participants in devising solutions to the challenges they face, and
no amount of external support or resources can achieve results unless community members
are at the helm of those efforts. To that end, volunteer recruitment will be a major tenet of all
programs and activities. By the same token, participating youth will be given opportunities
to contribute and participate in community life.
Hold participating youth to high standards and expectations. Studies document the
negative repercussions of setting low standards for disadvantaged youth. By giving a false
sense of accomplishment to these youngsters, low expectations for youth poorly prepare
students for the requirements of the real world and set them up for disappointment and failure
as adults.
Principles for Results & Accountability: Setting the Standards
Infuse all programs and activities with research rigor and make them result-oriented.
We will establish explicit, short and long term goals in quantifiable terms and measure our
progress against the goals in designated time frames. We will document our successes and
failures, build on what works, change activities and strategies that do not work, and
constantly strive to improve upon current approaches.
Build program standards on national standards related to extra care programs and
other local models. We will build upon what we already know works and consult existing
programs and models to learn from their experiences.
Change paradigms as needed. As we assess our efforts and document our results, we will
be responsive to the information the data yield and make changes accordingly.
Share information to establish program standards and benchmarks. We will coordinate
the collection and dissemination of information so all members of the youth-serving
community in the District can have the benefit of our collective experiences, successes, and
failures.
Establish a system of accountability. All stakeholders will have specific tasks and
responsibilities for which they will be held accountable.
Principles for Marketing & Communications: Target Carefully
Keep the message simple. We must keep our message simple and communicate it broadly
to all stakeholders.
Use private sector expertise and methods to educate, activate, and engage all stakeholders.
DC Agenda / Reingold Associates
A Children and Youth Investment Partnership
3/17/98, Page 6
Link to other initiatives with similar goals. Connect to other significant initiatives, such as
America's Promise and the President's 21st Century Learning Center, to gain greater lift and
leverage.
Principles for Funding: Obtaining Adequate Resources for Programs & Activities
Explore all possible funding opportunities-government, foundation, corporate, and
individual.
Start with a planning grant. Obtain sufficient private sector funds to underwrite planning
and development.
Seek multi-year funding. Obtain a dedicated stream of public resources for multi-year
implementation.
Work collaboratively for optimal impact. Avoid conflict of interest funding issues.
DC Agenda / Reingold Associates
A Children and Youth Investment Partnership
3/17/98, Page 7
OUR FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION
The Leadership
We are a broad, diverse coalition of community leaders who care very deeply about the healthy
development of our young people in the District. Led by our prospective co-coveners, Ann
Jordan, DC Group, and Father Leo O'Donovan, President of Georgetown University, our
Leadership Team assembles stakeholders and leaders from every sector of the city and lends
public, private, and federal support to our initiative. Our Leadership Team includes:
Federal Support
The White House, Carol Thompson Cole, Special Advisor to President Clinton on the
District
The U.S. Attorney's Office
Community Based Organizations
DC Forum on Collaboration and Support
Greater DC Cares
Healthy Families, Striving Communities Neighborhood Collaboratives: Caring
Neighborhoods
Project PACT and Calvary Multicultural Bilingual Learning Center
Washington Interfaith Network
Government Agencies
Acting Chief of Police
Chief Superior Court Judge
Corporation Council for the District
DC Public Schools
Office of the Housing Receiver
Office of Early Childhood Development, Department of Human Services
Office of the Child and Family Services Receiver
Youth Services Administration, Department of Human Services
Foundations
Fannie Mae Foundation
Freddie Mac Foundation
Meyer Foundation
United Way
Local Corporations
Bell Atlantic
Marriott International
NationsBank
PEPCO
Washington Gas
DC Agenda / Reingold Associates
A Children and Youth Investment Partnership
3/17/98, Page 8
National Youth Initiatives and Agencies
Academy for Youth Development
America's Promise
Children's Defense Fund
Other Washington-Based Institutions
Georgetown University
Washington National Cathedral
The World Bank
The Strategy Work Group
The Strategy Work Group brings together a broad cross-section of the city and actively invites
multi-sector participation to help shape initiatives to improve the quality of life and opportunities
of young people in the District. Our diverse coalition works together, bringing our multiple
perspectives and experiences to the table, as we address the challenges facing young people in
the city. The Strategy Work Group embraces an open and inclusive philosophy and encourages
new participants to join our vitally important conversations. To date, over 40 community
members and activists have been participants in the Strategy Work Group to help craft the multi-
year strategy for sustained action by the District community to provide safe places and structured
opportunities for young people to grow. Participants in the Strategy Work Group include
representatives of:
Civic and Service Organizations
Community-Based Organizations
Faith-Based Organizations
Federal Agencies
Foundations
Local Corporations and Business Associations
Local Government Agencies
National Youth Initiatives and Agencies
Public Schools
Universities
Youth Serving Organizations
DC Agenda / Reingold Associates
A Children and Youth Investment Partnership
3/17/98, Page 9
Our Progress to Date
We have taken the initial steps to institutionalize our principles and turn our vision into reality.
To date, we have accomplished the following:
Conducted a series of conversations with a wide variety of stakeholders.
Commissioned, collected, and reviewed various resource materials, including the After-
School Partnership Initiative Issue Paper and a summary briefing from a World Bank expert
in youth development.
Designated and connected with the coalition of eight neighborhoods collaboratives as the
individual service delivery areas for this initiative.
Prepared a starting point strategy for launching a citywide initiative by:
Assembling a broad-based and enthusiastic Leadership Group.
Assembling a Strategy Work Group and identifying Task Groups.
Embracing a rationale, principle, vision, and goal statement.
Identified co-conveners for the Leadership Team and Strategy Task Groups.
Adopted a broad agenda for action.
Framed the preliminary attributes of an operating entity for the Children and Youth
Investment Partnership.
Identified several prospective funding sources.
Acquired an initial pledge of $400,000 from the Office of Early Childhood Development.
DC Agenda / Reingold Associates
A Children and Youth Investment Partnership
3/17/98, Page 10
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Partner
Description
Specific Tasks
DC Agenda
Sponsor
Mobilizes leaders.
Helps stakeholders realize improved scale and quality in extra
care services for youth by fostering greater coherence among
existing programs and addressing unmet needs.
Brokers information, technical assistance, and financial resources
to assist stakeholders achieve the goals they set.
World Bank
Sponsor
Co-hosts meetings.
Shares information and lessons about what works from around
the globe.
Provides some financial assistance.
Leadership Team
Stakeholders including: CEOs of local
Champions the work of the Strategy Work Group and advocates
corporations and community based
on behalf of the Children and Youth Investment Initiative.
organizations, Executive Directors of
Obtains sufficient private sector funds and public resources to
government agencies, and funders.
support the initiative.
Co-Convened by Ann Jordan and Father
Leo O'Donovan.
Amasses broad-based support for the effective implementation of
the initiative.
Strategy Work
Stakeholders, including: representatives of
Crafts the multi-year strategy for action with guidance from the
Group
local corporations, community based
Leadership Team.
organizations, youth-serving
organizations, government agencies, and
Catalyzes broad-based support for effective planning and
funders.
implementation of the strategy for action.
Task Groups are responsible for:
Funding
Program and Evaluation
Community Involvement and Linkages
Operating Entity
Eight Family
Serve as the individual neighborhood-
Participate in conducting neighborhood-based needs
Strengthening and
based service delivery areas. Include:
assessments.
Supporting
Columbia Heights/Shaw, East of the
Neighborhood
River, Far Southeast,
Participate in developing neighborhood-specific programs and
activities.
Collaboratives
Edgewood/Brookland, North Capitol,
Mid-Northeast, South Washington,
Foster community involvement and participation.
George Avenue/Rock Creek East
DC Agenda / Reingold Associates
Time Frame for Action
Major Action Steps
Target
January
February
March
April
May
June
Date
5
12
19
26
2
9
16
23
2
9
16
23
30
6
13
20
27
4
11
18
25
1
8
15
22
29
Gauge interest and readiness, develop
Jan. 27
preliminary criteria for operating
entity, identify possible funding
prospects, and define a potential role
for the First Lady.
Convene Strategy Group to propose
Feb. 15 to
preliminary commitment to city's
March 11
A Children and Youth Investment Partnership
young people and identify initial
funding needs.
Recruit and confirm prospective
Feb. 17 to
Co-Conveners for Leadership Team.
March 5
Strategy Group gathers information
Feb. 25 to
and different perspectives.
March 11
Meet with Hillary Clinton's staff and
April
federal officials.
(date TBD)
Strategy Group sets preliminary targets
March 12
and measurable outcomes.
to April 15
Leadership Team works with
Begins
Mid-March
3/17/98, Page 12
DC Agenda staff to seek commitments
of private and public resources for
planning and implementation.
DC Agenda / Reingold Associates
Time Frame for Action (continued)
Major Action Steps
Target
January
February
March
April
May
June
Date
5
12
19
26
2
9
16
23
2
9
16
23
30
6
13
20
27
4
11
18
25
1
8
15
22
29
Strategy Group shapes the component
Mid-March
parts of the strategy for action.
to June 17
Leadership Team receives reports from
April 14
Strategy group on components of
May 14,
strategy
June 11
Strategy Group draws on expertise of
March 25
A Children and Youth Investment Partnership
existing program users, funders, and
to April 15
providers.
Conduct or participate in high-profile
Begins
fundraising event(s).
April 7
Hillary Clinton introduces
April 7
Children and Youth Investment
Initiative at Greater DC Cares Summit.
Strategy Group brings it all together
June 24
into a preliminary citywide strategy for
action.
Leadership Group determines the
June 30
adequacy, remaining work, or release
(approx.)
to public and launches the
3/17/98, Page 13
implementation phase.
Reingold
Associates, Inc.
DC Agenda Strategy Work Group Meeting
Kimball Conference Center
March 12, 1998 2:00 p.m.
Meeting Purpose. The purpose of this meeting was to:
)
Review and discuss the working paper "A Call to Action" which sets out our mission,
vision, rationale, principles for action, leadership and organization, progress to date, and
time frame for action.
Solicit feedback on approach, build consensus on the major crosscutting issues, and
identify remaining issues to be addressed by the Strategy Work Groups.
Establish ground rules for collaborative action-identify a process for how issues
related to the Partnership will be raised and resolved internally and represented to the
public externally.
Self-select for participation in one or more of the four Strategy Work Group Task
Groups-Funding, Program & Evaluation, Community Involvement & Linkages, and
Operating Entity-and begin to set the work agenda for the Task Groups.
Meeting Participants
Academy for Educational Development: Robert Newman
America's Promise: Linda Park Gallagher
ARE: Brenda Nixon
Calvary: Bebe Otero
Center for Empowerment, Education and Development: Darryle "Chuck" Samples
Children's Trust Neighborhood Initiative: Allie Bird, Mary Brown
Consultant/Facilitator: Janet R. Reingold
DC Agenda: John "Skip" McKoy, Carrie Thornhill, Chris Flack
DCHA: Nikol Nabors-Glass, Christa Phillips
DCPS: Janie S. McCollough
Department of Human Services: Kellene Bruce
Eugene and Agnes E. Meyer Foundation: Cynthia Robbins
FEI: Joy Majied
Georgetown University Public Policy Institute: John Crapo
Metropolitan Police Department (Boys and Girls Club): Lt. Linda Gilmore
Office of Grants Management: Charlotte King
TATC: Terri Feeley
Urban Family Institute: Caitlin Wood Sklar, Kent Amos
DC Community Prevention Partnership: Pat Gaskins Henry
DC Department of Recreation and Parks: DeBorah Johnson
DC Early Childhood Collaborative: Maurice Sykes
DC Office of Policy: Rodney Palmer
WIN: Connie Sharp
World Bank: Michael Gould
YMCA of Metropolitan Washington: Janice Williams
POINTS DISCUSSED. The five cross-cutting issues that required discussion and resolution
included:
1) Defining the age group of the target youth population to be included under our umbrella;
2) Deciding what the Partnership is and what it should be named;
3) Confirming the terminology that best describes what we are trying to achieve;
4) Defining roles, responsibilities and relationships among sponsors (DC Agenda and World
Bank), stakeholders (Leadership Team and Strategy Work Group), and service delivery
areas (eight neighborhood collaboratives); and
5) Asking the question: who else should be involved to help us succeed.
OVERVIEW OF DISCUSSION
The working paper received positive comments by several participants. A good deal of time was
dedicated to identifying the Partnership's target population. Attendees voiced concerns about
whether pre-adolescent children or 18-24 year olds fall under the purview of the Partnership. In
an effort to wed the initiative's vision and name, participants agreed to rename the Initiative
"The Children and Youth Investment Partnership," and the new operating entity to be created
"The Children and Youth Investment Authority."
Carrie Thornhill began by relating stakeholder concerns about the urgency of the task at hand,
noting that little or no District funds have been allocated this year to the DC summer youth jobs
program and that DC Public Schools are expecting record enrollments for summer remedial
classes.
REVIEW OF PROGRESS TO DATE AND HOUSEKEEPING
INITIAL FUNDING PLEDGE. A $400,000 from the DC Office of Early Childhood
Development. Additional and significant amounts of funding will be required for this
initiative.
UNIFORM, COHERENT MESSAGE. Carrie Thornhill impressed upon participants the need to
have a unified voice and uniform message when presenting the Partnership to the public.
Every sponsor, stakeholder, and service provider needs to be an ambassador for the effort.
BROAD-BASED, COMMUNITY-WIDE SUPPORT. Concerted effort being made to be inclusive-
bring other stakeholders and service providers to the table.
REAFFIRMED COMMITMENT. Must not lose sight of our commitment to the core principles
and values of DC Forum for Collaboration and Support. (Several founding members of this
organization were in attendance.)
REPACKAGE. Have repackaged the Partnership in response to Leadership and Strategy group
issues and to attract significant and diversified support.
DC Agenda / Reingold Associates
Strategy Work Group Meeting Summary
3/17/98, Page 2
Operational Issues
What will be the legal status of the operating entity? Will we seek legislative authority, or
simply create a private nonprofit entity?
As a non-profit inter-agency organizer, the operating entity will not have oversight authority.
The operating entity will be a partnership with existing organizations, aiding in funding,
coordination, and creation of standards based on successful programs targeted at children and
youth.
We can emulate successful models of public/private/non-profit youth initiatives already in
place in Baltimore, Los Angeles (LA's Best), Washington DC Children's Advocacy Center.
The Children and Youth Investment Authority will have a coordinating role relative to a web
of support for all children and youth, and a service delivery role for enrichment programs
where there are gaps in existing coverage provided by public/private/non-profit services.
The Children and Youth Authority will not provide direct services; rather, the Authority will
fund community-based organizations.
The Partnership needs to be able to transcend partisan politics/regimes.
The Partnership needs to secure money at the time departmental budgets are approved.
Regulatory issues and agencies must be included in the discussion.
CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES
Following is a brief summary of the major points discussed and general agreements reached on
each of the key crosscutting issues.
Focus/Target Population of the Partnership:
A show of hands confirmed that the Partnership's target population should include children
and youth ages 0-24.
We need to offer a continuum of developmental services that are age- and stage-appropriate.
What type of services/investment do we offer to youth over 18? Vocational skills? Life
skills? With finite resources, we must avoid segmenting age groups in ways that might pit
one age group against another.
One participant suggested that the lack of services for the 18-25 year old age group is a
particular concern. In fact, while the working paper mentions them initially as a target group,
it appears to address issues primarily affecting school-age youth.
The District has a sizable population of 18-24 year olds with limited training or education,
few skills, and dim futures. One attendee pointed to the example of Lincoln Heights where
the problems with this age group are acute.
DC Agenda / Reingold Associates
Strategy Work Group Meeting Summary
3/17/98, Page 3
Because there is an Office of Early Childhood Development which focuses on the younger
children, we will link with them and with other appropriate entities, and cover all children-
pre-school age children, those of school age, those of school age who are not in school, and
the age group immediately following school age (18-24).
Mindful that youth spend 91% of their time outside of the classroom, our focus cannot be
limited solely to schools even where school-age youth are concerned.
The focus of the Partnership should be on all children. The vision/purpose of the Partnership
should be to move all' children to "self-sufficiency." The ideal would be that by age 18, kids
have the values and skills to set-and maintain-themselves on a "productive trajectory."
The goal of self-sufficiency would be consistent with our aim of establishing high standards
for all District youth.
The Authority must be an umbrella organization, a "continuum of care that fills the gaps in
the existing system," that focuses on all youth regardless of socio-economic background.
Discussion of Terminology:
Numerous participants voiced reservations about the Partnership's name and about specific
terminology used in the working paper.
One participant suggested that the word Authority, while a strong concept, may imply some
oversight capabilities although the organization will likely have no official, legislative
authority.
Another suggested that the word Youth tends to make people think of a specific age group-
pre-adolescents. It is important to include adolescents and young adults. This means we
must do a good job of educating our colleagues and the public about our definition of youth.
Extra care was deemed necessary but not sufficient as a descriptor of what we were trying to
achieve. It was suggested that extra care implies a privilege, service, or something over
andabove what is adequate. The term we want should imply that we are providing the best
services to which all DC children have a right.
We agreed to rename the operating entity the DC Children and Youth Investment
Authority, and rename the Initiative the Children and Youth Investment Partnership.
This better encompasses all the age groups to which services will be offered and emphasizes
that we are investing in young people. In a show of hands, all but four (4) agreed on this
nomenclature.
Investment would encompass all the ideas we wish to convey (love, care, money, support,
and opportunity), and would be less ethereal and easier to convey than "care."
Role Definitions and Distinctions
DISTINCTIONS. Carrie Thornhill explained the distinctions between the Leadership Group
and the Strategy Work Group. The primary distinction rose out of a concern not to
overburden community-based organizations with dual responsibilities toward management,
fundraising, etc. for their own organizations and for those of the Children and Youth
Investment Partnership.
DC Agenda / Reingold Associates
Strategy Work Group Meeting Summary
3/17/98, Page 4
GROUP RESPONSIBILITIES. The Leadership Group is charged with "giving, getting, or
opening doors" to financial resources-providing leadership and funding and/or access to
them. The Strategy Group is responsible for crafting a plan that the Partnerhsip will follow
and the Leadership Group can endorse and sell.
Task Groups and Next Steps
Attendees who had not yet signed up to participate in a task group did so. Task groups met
and chose times to meet where they will establish their agendas, set deadlines for action, and
identify success milestones for three months, six months, and nine months.
The meeting with the First Lady and federal officials has been postponed from March to
some time in early April because of the President's and First Lady's trip to Africa.
We must redouble our efforts to get other leaders, champions, and participants on board, such
as the Mayor, the Control Board, the City Council (Sandy Allen), Congressional Delegate,
Federal officials, and executives from regulatory agencies. Healthy Families, Thriving
Communities Collaboratives have designated Joyce Smith and Beverly Booth to represent
them and Carrie has spoken with Eleanor Holmes Norton who wants to be kept informed and
enlisted for support.
The Working Paper, "A Call to Action" has been revised to reflect the suggestions made by
the Strategy Work Group. A copy of the revised paper is attached.
###
DC Agenda / Reingold Associates
Strategy Work Group Meeting Summary
3/17/98, Page 5
DC CHILDREN AND YOUTH INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP
LEADERSHIP TEAM
MARCH 18, 1998
Arlene Ackerman, Chief Academic Officer
Robert Brown, Executive Director
c/o Phyllis Anderson
Children's Trust Neighborhood Initiative
DC Public Schools
603 50th Street, N.E.
415 - 12th Street, NW, Room 1209
Washington, D.C. 20019
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 396-4102 Phone
(202) 724-4222 Phone
(202) 396-4079 Fax
(202) 727-1516 Fax
Anne Allen, Executive Director
Wayne Casey, Acting Director
Cafritz Foundation
Youth Services Administration
1825 K. Street, NW, 14th Floor
DC Department of Human Services
Washington, DC 20006-1201
2700 Martin Luther King Avenue, SE
(202) 223-3100 Phone
Washington, DC 20032
(202) 296-7567 Fax
(202) 279-6002 Phone
(202) 279-6014 Fax
Kent Amos, President
Captain Christopher Cooch
Urban Family Institute
Metropolitan Police Department
1400 - 16th Street, NW
Youth and Family Services Division
Washington, DC 20036
1700 Rhode Island Avenue, NE
(202) 234-5437 Phone
Washington, DC 20018
(202) 232-3299 Fax
(202) 576-6737 Phone
(202) 576-6561 Fax
Carter Echols
Maudine Cooper, President & CEO
for Reverend Nathan Baxter
Greater Washington Urban League
The Washington National Cathedral
3501 14th Street, NW
Massachusetts & Wisconsin Avenue. NW
Washington, DC 20010-1305
Washington, DC 200016/5098
(202) 265-8200 Phone
(202) 537-2186 Phone
(202) 265-6122 Fax
(202) 364-6600 Fax
General Julius Becton
Reverend Joseph Daniels
CEO/Superintendent
Emory United Methodist Church
DC Public Schools
6100 Georgia Avenue NW
415 - 12th Street, NW, Room 1209
Washington, DC 20011
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 723-3130 Phone
(202)724-4222 Phone
(202) 882-3062 Fax
(202) 727-1516 Fax
Renee D. Drumgold
Reverend Frank Gibson
Student Representative
Minister for Youth
DC Board of Education
Metropolitan Baptist Church
Student Efficacy Branch
1225 - R Street, NW
100 Peabody Street, NW
Washington, DC 20009
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 483-1540 Phone
(202) 724-4289 Phone
(202) 233-4845 Fax
(202) 576-6178 Fax
The Honorable John Ferren
David Gilmore Receiver
Corporation Counsel
DC Housing Authority
441 4th Street, NW
1133 N. Capitol Street, NE, #200
Washington, DC 20001
Washington, DC 20002
(202) 727-6248 Phone
(202)535-1500 Phone
(202) 727-9656 Fax
(202) 535-1740 Fax
Linda Fisher
Fran Goldstein, Special Assistant
DC Community Prevention Partnership
Grants Management & Development
1612 K Street, NW
717 14th Street, NW 12th Floor
Suite 100
Washington, DC 20005
Washington, DC 20006-2802
(202) 727-6537 Phone
(202) 898-4700
(202) 727-1617 Fax
(202) 898-4707
Terri Freeman, President
Arnie Graff
Community Foundation for
National Staff
the National Capital Region
Industrial Areas Foundation
1112 16th Street, NW, Suite 340
10117 Lakeside Court
Washington, DC 20036
Ellicott City, MD 21042
(202) 955-5890 Phone
(410) 750-1595 Phone
(202) 955-8084 Fax
(410) 750- 7818 Fax
Betty Jo Gaines, Director
The Honorable Eugene Hamilton
DC Department of Recreation and Parks
Chief Judge
3149 16th Street, NW
D.C. Superior Court
Washington, DC 20009
500 Indiana Avenue, NW, Room 500
(202) 673-7665 Phone
Washington, DC 20001-2131
(202) 673-2089 Fax
(202) 879-1600 Phone
(202) 879-7830 Fax
Linda P. Gallagher, President
Meredith Johnson, Executive Director
Gallagher & Associates, Marketing Communications,
for Community Development
Public Relations, 715 East Capitol Street, NE
United Way of The Natl' Capitol Area, 95 M St., SW
Washington, DC 20003
Washington, DC 20024
(202) 544-9489 Phone
(202) 488-2125 Phone
(202) 544-9490
(202) 488-2013 Fax
Page 2 of 5
Ernestine Jones
Sue Marshall, Executive Director
Receiver
The Community Partnership
Child & Family Services Agency
801 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE, 3rd Floor
900 Second Street, NE
Washington, DC 20003
Washington, DC 2000
(202) 543-5298 Phone
(202) 842-0888 Phone
(202) 543-5653 Fax
(202) 842-4689 Fax
Marie C. Johns
Janie McCollough
Vice President-External Relations
Director, Corporate & Community Relations
Bell Atlantic - Washington DC, Inc.
DC Public Schools
1710 H Street, N.W.
415 - 12th Street, NW, Room 1209
11th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 724-4222 Phone
(202) 727-1516 Fax
Ann Jordan
Elizabeth Miller, Executive Director
4610 Kenmore Drive, NW
Greater DC Cares
Washington, DC 20007
1201 New York Ave., N.W.
(202) 342-7321
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 965-2973
(202) 289-7378 Phone
(202) 289-4108 Fax
Barbara Kamara
Desiree Griffith Moore
DHS/CSS/ Office of Early
Freddie Mac Foundation
Childhood Development
MS 259/8200 Jones Branch Drive
717 - 14th Street, NW, Suite 730
McLean, Virginia 22102
Washington, DC 20005
(703) 903-2413 Phone
(202) 727-1839 Phone
(703) 903-3585 Fax
(202) 727-9709 Fax
Donna Klein
John Crapo
Director, Work Life Initiatives
for Father Leo O'Donovan, President
Marriott International
Georgetown Graduate Public Policy Program
One Marriott Drive
3240 Prospect Street, NW, Lower Level
Washington, DC 20058
Washington, DC 22201
(301) 380-9000 ext. 6856 Phone
(202) 616-2203
(301) 380-1729 Fax
(202) 307-3569
Gladys Mack, Deputy Executive Director
Richard Murphy, Director
United Planning Organization
CYD, RAED
941 N. Capital Street, NE 7th Floor
1875 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20002-4234
Washington, DC 20009
(202) 289-9100 ext 290 Phone
(202) 884-8266 Phone
(202) 289-2643 Fax
(202) 884-8404 Fax
Page 3 of 5
Beatriz Otero, Executive Director
Maurice Sykes, Early Childhood Collaborative
Calvary Bilingual Multicultural Learning Center
1814 15th Street, NW
1420 Columbia Road, NW
Washington, DC 20009
Washington, DC 20009-4705
(202) 483-4653 Phone
(202) 332- 4200 Phone
(202) 483-4653 Fax
(202) 745- 2562 Fax
Jeannan Peterson, Manager
Pete Teeley, Chairman
Community Relations
National Children's Foundation
Nations Bank
Amgen, Inc.
730 15th Street, NW, 9th Floor
1300 I Street, NW, 270 S
Washington, DC 20005-1012
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 624-3765 Phone
(202) 289-4310 Phone
(202) 624-5599 Fax
(202) 289-7448 Fax
Sonya Proctor, Chief of Police
Marcus West
Metropolitan Police Department
Student Board Superintendent
P.O. Box 1606
Youth Leadership & Development Institute
Washington, DC 20001-1606
500 C Street, NW, Suite 107-B
(202) 727-4218 Phone
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 727-9524 Fax
(202)724-7350 Phone
(202)724-7347 Fax
Daniel Ritchie, Coordinator
Lisa Williams
DC Outreach
Senior Program Officer
World Bank
Fannie Mae Foundation
1818 - H Street, NW
4000 Wisconsin Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20433
North Tower
(202) 458-5914 Phone
Washington, DC 20016-2800
(202) 522-2644 Fax
(202) 274-8031 Phone
(202) 274-8123 Fax
Cynthia Robbins, Senior Program Officer
Jearline Williams, Director
Meyer Foundation
DHS, 12700 Martin Luther King Avenue, SE
1400 16th Street, NW, Suite 360
Building 801 East
Washington, DC 20036-2217
Washington, DC 20032
(202) 483-8294 ext. 108 Phone
(202) 645-4599 Phone
(202)328-6850 Fax
(202) 727-9709 Fax
Federal Officials
Roberta Sims, and Steven Jumper
Carol Thompson-Cole
Corporate Relations
Special Advisor on the District of Columbia
Washington Gas
Office of Management & Budget
1100 - H Street, NW
Executive Office Building
Washington, DC 20080
17th & Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Room 464
(202) 624-6721 Phone
Washington, DC 20503
(202) 624-6699 Fax
(202) 395-3193 Phone
(202) 395-7294 Fax
Page 4 of 5
Wilma Lewis, US Attorney or Deborah Long Doyle
US District Court
555 - 4th Street, NW, Room 5806
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 514-6600 Phone
(202) 307-3569 Fax
DC Agenda Officers and Staff
James O. Gibson, President
DC Agenda
1155-15th Street, N.W., Suite 900
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 223-2598 Phone
(202) 223-2604 Fax
John McKoy, Vice President
DC Agenda
1155-15th Street, N.W., Suite 900
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 223-2598 Phone
(202) 223-2604 Fax
Carrie L. Thornhill, Vice President
Community Outreach
DC Agenda
1155-15th Street, N.W., Suite 900
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 223-2598 Phone
(202) 223-2604 Fax
Carmen Robles-Gordon, Program Director
DC Agenda
Child and Family Services
1155-15th Street, N.W., Suite 900
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 223-2598 Phone
(202) 223-2604 Fax
Wendy Salaam
Community Outreach Officer
DC Agenda
1155 15th Street, N.W., Suite 900
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 223-2598 Phone
(202) 223-2604
Page 5 of 5
Withdrawal/Redaction Marker
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
AND TYPE
001. list
DC Children and Youth Investment Partnership Strategy Work Group
03/18/1998
P6/b(6)
(partial) (1 page)
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
First Lady's Office
Domestic Policy Council (Nicole Rabner)
OA/Box Number: 15414
FOLDER TITLE:
District of Columbia Child Care [1]
2012-1035-S
kc1029
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - |44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - 15 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P1 National Security Classified Information |(a)(1) of the PRA|
b(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRAJ
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute |(a)(3) of the PRAJ
an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy |(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRAJ
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes |(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
of gift.
financial institutions |(b)(8) of the FOIA]
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
2201(3).
concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
[001]
DC CHILDREN AND YOUTH INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP
STRATEGY WORK GROUP
MARCH 18, 1998
Marianne Becton
Dr. Kellene Bruce
Bell Atlantic-Washington DC, Inc.
Department of Human Services
1710 H Street NW, 11th Floor
Office of Early Childhood Development
Washington, DC 20006
717 14th Street, NW, Suite 730
(202) 392-3700 Phone
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 887-9195 Fax
(202) 727-1839 Phone
(202) 727-9709 Fax
Allie Bird
Alan K. Chambers, Executive Director
Children's Trust Neighborhood Initiative
Communities in Schools of Washington, DC
603 50th Street NE
810 First Street, NW, Suite 535
Washington, DC 20019
Washington, DC 20002
(202) 396-4102 Phone
(202) 289-4314 Phone
(202) 396-4079 Fax
(202) 289-7325 Fax
Thomas Blanton
John Crapo, Associate Director
(Beth Hisle Gorman)
External Affairs
North Capitol CDC
Georgetown Graduate Pubic Policy Program
45 P Street, N.W.
3240 Prospect Street, NW, Lower Level
Washington, DC 20001
Washington, DC 22201
(202) 483-9424 Phone
(202) 687-0501 Phone
(202) 667-5299 Fax
(202) 687-0517 Fax
Bobbi Blok, Project Director
Rochelle Durant, Coordinator Project PACT
555 4th Street, NW
Washington Child Development Council
Washington, DC 20001
2121 Decatur Place, N.W.
(202) 616-2203 Phone
Washington, DC 20008
(202) 307-3569 Fax
(202) 387-0002 Phone
(202) 332-2834 Fax
Cynthia Booker. Director
Terri Feeley
Beacon House
P6/(b)(6)
601 Edgewood St., N.E.
Arlington, VA 22201
Washington, DC 20017
(202) 529-7376
P6/(b)(6)
(202) 832-9401
Mary Brown
Linda Fisher, Executive Director
Children's Trust Neighborhood Initiative
DC Community Prevention Partnership
603 50th Street, NE
1612 K Street, NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20019
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 396-4102 Phone
(202) 898-4700 Phone
(202) 396-4079 Fax
(202) 898-4707 Fax
Linda P. Gallagher, President
Cynthia Robbins, Bernita Kornegay
Martin Trimble, Lead Organizer
Eugene & Agnes E. Meyer Foundation
Washington Interfaith Network
1400 16th Street, NW, Suite 360
1226 Vermont Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 483-8294 Phone
(202) 518-0815 Phone
(202) 328-6850 Fax
(202) 667-0037 Fax
Mark Enoch Robertson
Marion Urquilla, Project Director
Assistant Superintendent
Columbia Heights/Shaw Collaborative
Auxiliary School Support Services
1352 Q Street, N.W.
DC Public Schools
Washington, DC 20009
415 12th Street, NW
(202)518-6740 Phone
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 518-6742
(202) 724-4400/4015 Phone
(202) 724-8810 Fax
Rasheedah Shorter, Project Coordinator
Kim Watson, Director Corporate Relations
LISC/Americorp
PEPCO
Marshall Heights Community Dev. Corp.
1900 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW #506
3732 Minnesota Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20068
Washington, DC 20019
(202) 872-2524 ext. 2563 Phone
(202) 397-7300 Phone
(202) 331-6147 Fax
(202) 397-7882 Fax
Rolin Sidwell, Education Liaison
Janice Williams, Vice President
DC Office of Policy and Evaluation
Community Development
441 4th Street, NW, Room 920S
YMCA of Metropolitan Washington
Washington, DC 20001
1112 16th Street, NW, Suite 720
(202) 727-6979 Phone
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 727-3765 Fax
(202) 792-4460 Phone
(202) 797-4486 Fax
Caitlin Wood-Sklar, Assistant Director
Lisa Williams, Senior Program Officer
Urban Family Institute
Fannie Mae Foundation
1400 - 16th Street, NW
3900 Wisconsin Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Washington, Dc 20016
(202) 234543-
(202) 274-8031 Phone
(202) 274-8125 Fax
Maurice Sykes
Phyllis Wolfe
Early Childhood Collaborative
Spearmint
1814 - 15th Street, NW
1515 Van Buren Street, NW
Washington, DC 20009
Washington, DC 20012
(202) 483-4653 Phone
DC AGENDA STAFF:
(202) 483-4653 Fax
John H. McKoy, Executive Vice President
Peter Tatian
DC Agenda
Urban Institute, 2100 M Street, N.W.
1155 15th St., N.W., Suite 900
Washington, DC 20037
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 857-8588 Phone
(202) 223-2598 Ext. 15 Phone
(202) 223-3043 Fax
(202) 223-2604 Fax
Page -3-
Carrie L. Thornhill, Vice President
Community Outreach
DC Agenda
1155 15th Street, N.W., Suite 900
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 223-2598 X12 Phone
(202) 223-2604 Fax
Wendy Thamani Salaam
Community Outreach Officer
DC Agenda
1155 15th Street, N.W., Suite 900
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 223-2598 X20 Phone
(202) 223-2604 Fax
Carmen Robles-Gordon, Project Director
DC Agenda
Child and Family Services
1155 15th Street, N.W., Suite 900
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 223-2598 X13 Phone
(202) 223-2604 Fax
Chris Flack, Program Assistant
DC Agenda
Child and Family Services
1155 15th Street, N.W., Suite 900
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 223-2598 X13 Phone
(202) 223-2604 Fax
Page -4-
% . EXECUTIVE at DUE, 10.10.27 UNITED 151 OFFICE PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
K aty
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND Wicola BUDGET
Materials far the
3Pm After-School
Partnershys mtg on 4/8
Jame
DCAGEND
PRIDRITIES FOR WESHINGTON $ FUTURE
1155 15TH STREET. VW
WASHINGTON, Di 20005-2706
DC Youth Investment Initiative
Partnership Meeting
With The First Lady Staff
Wednesday, April 8th, 1998
CAGENE
PRIORITIES FOR WASHINGTON'S FUTURE
1
A Community Response to the
Crisis in the Nation's Capital:
Mobilizing Leadership
2
What Sort of City Do We Seek?
People assisting government, not vice versa
Busy, safe and comfortable neighborhoods
Attractive historical sites
Employed, self-sufficient citizens
A vibrant, prosperous marketplace
Mosaic of people, neighborhoods, services and
activities that work
3
Phase One: 1994 Situation Analysis -
Profiling the Crisis
Migration Study -- Greater Washington
Research Center
Fiscal and Economic Analysis -- McKinsey &
Company and The Urban Institute
Resident / Suburban Opinion Survey -- The
Wirthlin Group
4
Phase Two: 1995 Civic Process - Setting
a Community Agenda 1995 Civic
Process
February 17, 1998
1155 15TH STREET. NW. SUTTI 121351
WASHINGTON, DC 20005-2706
202.223.2598
202.223.2604
Convened six focus groups of community
leaders
Concept papers generated
Consensus garnered on Action Priorities for
Washington's Future
5
Civic Process - Action Priorities
Fiscal and Governance
Home Rule Charter Review
Revenue and Expenditure Analyses
Pension Reform
Tax Equity
DC Government Management Assistance
Economic Development
Citywide Economic Development Strategy
Public-Private Economic Development Corporation
Urban Villages
Youth, Families and Neighborhoods
Neighborhood-Based Services
Youth Investment/Anti-Violence Strategy
6
Civic Process - Action Priorities
(continued)
Public Education
Implement 5-Year Education Reform Plan
Parent/Community Involvement
Public Charter Schools
School-to-Work Transition
February 17, 1998
Public Safety
Expanded Community Policing
Juvenile Detention Alternatives
Health Care
Public Health System Reform
Neighborhood Health Care
7
Phase Three: Since 1996
Implementation
DC Agenda - an intermediary organization,
acts in partnership with DC organizations to
plan strategies, foster consensus and develop
resources
Serves as multi-purpose resource center:
provides information and communication
on-going analysis
convening
support and encouragement
evaluation
8
Challenges to a City at the Crossroads:
Lack of confidence in public school leadership
Emerging strategy for neighborhood
development
Lack of preparation to meet welfare reform
February 17, 1998
Commissioned McKinsey & Company
analysis of economic development and
fiscal proposals
Participated in several innovative
workforce development efforts:
Washington Technology Initiative
Regional Jobs Initiative
Wider Opportunities for Women
13
Early Results: Youth, Families &
Neighborhoods
Child Welfare
established relationship with Child
Welfare Agency and Neighborhood
Collaboratives
Provided fiscal management of $4.6
million community initiatives
Neighborhood Indicators Project (NIP)
Established NIP
Conducted Welfare recipients focus
groups
Conducted Arts & Culture Indicators
focus groups
Assembled YouthMapping and other data
Completed child care research and Ward 8
study proposals
Designing Web site
14
Early Results: Youth, Families &
February 17, 1998
Neighborhoods (continued)
DC Forum
Co-sponsored, housed and aided
development of network of 80+
community-serving programs and
initiated:
YouthMapping project
Management Development sessions
Professional Exchanges
rapid communication to
membership via Monday Fax
15
Early Results: Education
Participated in development of Goals 2000 plan
Commissioned After-School Partnership issues
paper
Assisted start-up of revitalized school-to-work
effort at DC Public Schools
16
Early Results: Health Care
Staff support to public / private Health Policy
Group
Commissioned issue paper on policy options for
health systems reform
Co-sponsored survey on services to uninsured
17
1998 Transition: from ad hoc project to
a sustainable organization
Vision: To all residents and trustees of the
February 17, 1998
Nation's Capital, Washington DC is a city that
can work. It is a vibrant mosaic of communities
working together to ensure that Washington is a
great place to live, to work and to visit.
Mission: To mobilize a cross-section of leaders
to resolve issues affecting the governance and
quality of city life, by providing information,
technical assistance and resources.
18
1998 Strategic Plan Priorities: Fiscal &
Governance
Gain understanding of interim governance
structures
Identification of remaining fiscal needs
Municipal management assistance
Promote investment in "civil society" and "civic
culture"
19
1998 Strategic Plan Priorities:
Economic Development
Work Force Development
Neighborhood Revitalization
Economic Development Corporation
20
1998 Strategic Plan Priorities:
Education
School-to-Work Initiative
Appropriate involvement in other education
February 17, 1998
initiatives
21
1998 Strategic Plan Priorities: Youth,
Families & Neighborhoods
Neighborhood-based Service Delivery
Neighborhood Information Systems
Community Outreach
Citywide Youth Investment Strategy
22
DC Renewal
Empowered citizens constructively engaged
Accountable leadership
February 17, 1998