1crayon.jpg (10866 bytes)  July 20, 1999 -- Meeting Summary

9:00am - 12:00pm

Chaps Room

The Radisson Inn

SeaTac, Washington

 
Commission Attendance
Mona Lee Locke, co-Chair; Don Brunell, Yolanda Cortinas-Trout, Alex Deccio, Robbin Dunn, Sheri Flies, Marty Jacobs, Dee Ann Perea, Yvonne Ullas, Dee West, Gayle Womack, and Kyle Yasuda.
Special Guests
Liz Dunbar, Assistant Secretary for Economic Services, DSHS
Rick Cocker, Cocker Fennessy
Dave Sharp, Bozell Worldwide
Meeting Summary
Mona Locke opened the meeting by making a few housekeeping announcements. First, TVW is here to record our meeting and has asked that Commissioners speak up a bit into the microphones. Second, Mrs. Locke indicated that if we did not have many people available to attend the August 17 meeting that we would consider canceling this meeting. She asked for a show of hands of those able to attend. Seeing that most Commissioners present would be able to attend the meeting will remain as scheduled for now. **The August 17 meeting has now been canceled. The next scheduled meeting is on September 21.
Robin Zukoski then made a few brief announcements. First, Robin explained that Commissioners had in front of them a packet of letters received regarding the Bill of Rights as well as a couple of newspaper articles about the Commission.
Second, Robin explained that during the June meeting given the shortage of time and the number of people who wished to give comment we failed to ask those testifying to state their names. Therefore we were unable to directly attribute comments in the meeting summary. Robin asked that during public comment today that people testifying state their name and any organization they may be representing. Robin also clarified that, as in past meeting summaries, public comment is not taken verbatim and we will continue to summarize public comments in the future.
Last, Robin announced that on August 6, University of Washington is hosting a seminar on language and children’s issues. Lynn Kagan will be speaking during lunch. Commissioners are encouraged to attend.
Mona Locke then introduced guest Speaker Liz Dunbar who is the Assistant Secretary for Economic Services at the Department of Social and Health Services. Liz was invited to advise the Commission about the impact of the recent changes requiring a mother with an infant 3 months old to participate in the TANF program.
Presentation
In 1996, Federal Welfare Reform changed the strict entitlements for welfare recipients to a block grant to the states with a fixed dollar amount. This legislation also placed a five-year limit on public assistance for individuals. In our state, participation in WorkFirst is required to get benefits. All women with children 12 months and older were required to participate in the program.
In 1997, the Washington State Legislature passed a bill on welfare reform requiring women with children 3 months and older to participate effective July of 1999. During the 1999 legislative session DSHS tried to continue the exemption at 12 months of age but it failed to pass.
With the requirement to implement these changes, DSHS wants to try to reach TANF participants during a woman’s pregnancy. DSHS also wants to focus on: 1) families, 2) infant safety, and 3) economic self-sufficiency. Also of importance to the agency was the use of social workers to provide the initial assessments.
Some of the major principles that the design team put together to assist in the implementation of this new program were:
That all pregnant women and parents would receive an initial assessment to determine their circumstances.
A customized individual responsibility plan would be developed based on the needs of the parent and children.
Safe and appropriate child care would be a prerequisite to WorkFirst participation.
Program implementation will be gradual occurring over a six-month period. An individual’s review date will determine the date of their entry into the program.
Child care remains a major issue throughout the implementation of the requirement that mothers of infants participate in WorkFirst. If child care is not accessible for an infant they can be exempt from the program. They are however still asked to check periodically for open slots.
Discussion
Don Brunell asked if there is any way to track if the kids are getting safe child care. Is there follow up once a child is placed?
Liz explained that if a child care is licensed it is monitored by DSHS and therefore the standards have been met and it is deemed safe. Generally, there are no resources or authority to monitor all situations. There is data available on who participates, ages of children, the type of care used, as well as those individuals who are exempt because of the lack of available care.
Don Brunell followed up by saying that providing basic care is one thing – naps, diaper change, lunch. But the way the brain develops presents other developmental challenges. Is information about this development being distributed to child care providers?
Liz responded that providers learn about early development through education and training. We also need to focus on things geared toward parents like HeadStart, Even Start and Parent Education.
Yolanda Cortinas-Trout noted that providers are required to take a certain number of hours of training and they learn much of this in that training.
Robin Zukoski asked on behalf of Kathy Barnard, what type of training are DSHS workers receiving to know what appropriate child care is?
Liz explained that WorkFirst is holding a big conference for line workers – they hope that this is some of the information they will take away from the conference.
Sheri Flies noted that if a parent can’t find safe care for the children they become exempt from the rule. She asks who determines if it is safe? Does DSHS or can the parent decide?
Liz responded that Child Care Resource and Referral has information on licensed facilities. If a slot is available but the parent is uncomfortable with the facility they would sit down with a caseworker and discuss these issues.
Sheri followed up by asking if there were a lot of people exempt because of the lack of infant care.
Liz said yes. They would like to see more infant care available.
Dee White asked how far along they are in working with other agencies.
Liz responded that the design team has been working with all the effected agencies and working with St. Board of Community and Technical Colleges.
Marty Jacobs asked if there is funding available for local programs. She noted that a program in Spokane wants to help and participate but was told that there is no funding to support them.
Liz explained that there are resources available. This is so new and a bit out of the mainstream that local offices are still gathering information about resources and may not have the information. They will continue working with local offices to make sure they have knowledge about what is available.
Marty commented further that research states that the quality of child care isn’t what it should be – even with licensed programs. DSHS Staff needs to be sensitive to why a parent is hesitant about a particular child care setting.
Liz said yes, we want the social workers to work closely with parents.
Sheri Flies noted that licensing for child care has a minimum standard. How many years will it take to raise these standards to produce a better quality environment?
Liz responded that she did not feel qualified to answer this question. The child care licensing division of DSHS might better answer that question.
Kyle Yasuda asked what the magnitude of the problem is – how many children are effected?
Liz said that including pregnant women the program covers approximately 18,000 families. After taking into account special circumstances and those that are exempt the number is around 9,000.
Robin Dunn asked how Washington State compares to other states.
Liz explained that the majority of states kept with the 12 month rule. Less then 10 states changed the rule requiring mothers to look for work when their youngest child is 3 months old.
Marty Jacobs noted that the legislature did not fund subsidies for these kids. How will DSHS make this up? Liz explained that the legislature funded a bill that did not pass, the funds will come from that.
Dee Ann Perea asked how parent education is being defined.
Liz explained that it is still open and that a variety of organizations are offering parent education like community colleges, churches and local government organizations.
Sheri Flies asked if they received funding for more staff support. How will they implement this?
Liz responded that there is no allotment for new staff. The gradual implementation over the 6-month period will help. They can also get help from other agencies.
Sheri commented that this looks like a very difficult undertaking particularly without additional resources.
Mona Locke then asked what would be the ideal for TANF.
Liz responded that more on-site care and opportunities for parents and children would be of benefit.
Gayle Womack noted that subsidies that are going to the child care side of things can help provide incentives.
Mona Locke asked if they can forge those types of partnerships.
Liz responded yes.
Marty Jacobs noted that a higher subsidy rate could be given for higher quality programs.
Liz explained that the Governor is still considering additional reinvestments in WorkFirst.
Robbin Dunn said that licensing standards are sound but they still are the minimum.
Sheri Flies asked how long an individual would be deferred if child care was not immediately available.
Liz explained that if no child care was available they could ultimately be deferred up to the age 6. Although child care availability does not seem to be a problem for toddlers.
Yvonne Ullas noted that the five year time limit is still being counted throughout this process.
Kyle Yasuda asked if it could be predicted where kids will fall – in private care, child care center, etc.
Liz noted that based on older data generally 60% of children are in licensed facilities, 40% are in home care.
Kyle noted that with all of our focus and attention on licensed care facilities we could completely miss the unlicensed facilities.
Liz commented that more and more people are working weekends and odd hours when regular care is not available.
Yolanda Cortinas-Trout noted that she didn’t think Resource and Referral could provide information and rate child care facilities based on quality.
Liz agreed that they couldn’t address the quality issue. Resource and Referral can only provide information on those facilities that are licensed.
Mona Locke suggested that the Commission write a letter to DSHS with suggestions. She asked if there were other ideas to support the TANF issue.
Liz reiterated the need to stimulate awareness and creation of good programs like HeadStart.
Dee White noted that program at the local level need to know clearly what the expectations are.
Don Brunell asked if we could redirect programs and focus on the programs that are working.
Liz noted that the Audit Review Committee compiles a report every six months of what programs are working. WorkFirst is included in this report. WorkFirst also has key performance measures that the Governor follows closely.
Don responded that things are changing so fast that we need to be able to respond to changing needs.
Mona Locke asked Senator Deccio what the atmosphere and discussion was on this TANF change during the legislative session.
Alex Deccio explained that not only were they following federal law but many also felt that people who are not on assistance return to the workforce on average of 3 months after the delivery of a child. If people not on assistance were doing this why should it be different for those on assistance.
Mona asked if this was an open and shut case or if legislators would revisit the issue next year.
Alex explained that it appeared that people were very adamant about this change to the 3 month rule.
Kyle Yasuda noted that we shouldn’t give up on the legislative process.
Gayle Womack said that on top of the social workers assigned by DSHS, DDD clients also get a nurse and family resource person assigned. This could get very confusing for the family.
Liz responded that yes and people are aware of this and working with the DD community about how to best address these issues.
Mona Locke again asked if sending a letter to DSHS, the Governor and legislators was a good idea. Many agreed and consensus was reached to draft a letter. Robin Zukoski would draft a letter and have it available to review prior to the next meeting.
Marty Jacobs suggested we include and encourage legislators to fund innovative programs.
Don Brunell commented that it even goes beyond that where laws and rules may need to be changed based on assessments of programs resulting in better coordination.
Senator Deccio asked Liz how extensive JLARC is auditing WorkFirst.
Liz explained they are looking at WorkFirst as a whole.
Senator Deccio followed up by asking if they were getting into the child care issue.
Liz responded that she wasn’t sure to what extent and what their plans were but could look into it.
Mona Locke then thanked Liz Dunbar for joining the Commission in this discussion. Mona then introduced Rick Cocker of Cocker Fennessy and Dave Sharp of Bozell Worldwide who have been contracted by the Commission to carry out the public engagement campaign.
Public Engagement Campaign
Presentation by Rick Cocker and Dave Sharp
Rick Cocker started by explaining that Cocker Fennessy would be involved in the public relations part of the campaign and Bozell Worldwide would be involved in the creative advertising side.
Rick and Dave then presented to the Commission a time line for the campaign and what would be involved at each step and suggested that the Commission form a subcommittee to focus on the campaign. They then asked Commissioners for their input.
Don Brunell asked if benchmarking and research could include individual focus groups.
Dave Sharp answered yes, focus groups will be included through interviews etc.
Don Brunell then asked why they wanted to extend the tracking study into October of 2000. Isn’t this too late? Don’t you want to know up front if things are working?
Dave explained that they can do a variety of things. For example, mini polls could be taken along they way until they reach the benchmark stage.
Rick Cocker explained that when working with other companies and organizations we may be able to be included in on surveys they are conducting as another way to test the market.
Mona Locke then asked what they need from the Commission in order to begin work.
Rick explained that based on the outline they want feedback to insure commissioners are happy with the route they are going. Comments on what the size and scope is would also be helpful.
Mona then asked with the money allotted, 1.0 million, with potential for more, where could we go?
Rick explained that they were thinking about an A and B track depending upon the level of partnership. One level at the minimum the next level at a more significant level.
Sheri Flies then asked what are the dollar figures for this outline – what will this cost?
Dave explained that this would be a minimum of 1.5 million – what the Commission has been allotted. 3.5 million dollars could sustain the campaign over 2 or 3 years.
Rick Cocker noted that a more minimal effort would focus more on a public information effort and special events, a significant effort would include mass media like television.
Don Brunell noted that we need to know what priority information we want to get out of this. Then let the PR folks go to work. Second, good research is critical. We need to decide what information we want them to research and test.
Dave noted that this will also help us gain partnerships.
Mona Locke noted that the main focus is getting information out about development of children 0-3 and that it can make a huge difference in the first 3 years of life that can make a difference in the long run.
Sheri Flies noted that we need to expand into the community as a whole, and that children who fall through the cracks can be our problem tomorrow.
Rick Cocker noted that discussion of different target audiences is very important and the tactics used for each audience is different.
Marty Jacobs said that we also need to consider bilingual issues.
Gayle Womack asked if we can actually make an impact with the money allocated to the Commission.
Dave noted that the commitment should be long term to have an impact. It will drop off after a year so long term is the best.
Don Brunell noted that we may compete with other groups. Are there ways to look at building upon what they are already doing?
Dave noted that yes it is important to look at these issues because we should not be recreating the wheel.
Yvonne Ullas asked how realistic the multi-faceted approach is.
Dave explained that it is very realistic. The critical part is identifying the target audience and the possible approaches.
Robin Zukoski then asked if we had to choose between the parents and caregivers, or the community at large what would it be.
Don Brunell suggested that this isn’t something we should decide yet. We need to wait to see what research tells us before making this decision.
Rick said that we’ll first need to evaluate the level of awareness. This will give us insight as to where the different audiences fit in terms of their awareness level.
Mona Locke then asked which comes first – do we pick a focus first?
Rick Cocker explained that surveys tell us what people think, focus groups tell us why people think the way the think.
Sheri Flies noted that it would be helpful if they could lay out what 1.5 million dollars would do. For example, specific types of media and the staying power it would have. She also suggested to show what 3 million dollar would give the campaign. Based on your experience what is the way to go?
Don Brunell suggested that maybe they could bring this information back in August.
Rick Cocker noted that he would like to meet with the subcommittee within the next two weeks to focus more and also come back in August.
Mona Locke asked if they had enough information.
Rick said for now they did and would come back in August after meeting with the subcommittee.
Robin Zukoski asked a point of clarification – during the last meeting the Commission decided to focus on parent education and child care – is this to be the focus of the campaign.
No, this was the focus of the foundation not the campaign.
Mona Locke then thanked Rick and Dave for their time.
Parent Education Update
Dee Ann noted that discussion needs to take place next month on the parent education issue and this is just an update for the Commission. The subcommittee has come up with 3 recommendations:
Support the training of parent educators through the implementation of curricula in community and technical colleges.
Expand the PEPS program outside King County, using the strong collaboration model between the program and parent education programs in community and technical colleges in King County.
Create a state level position/office that supports the development and expansion of parent education programs through community-based programs.
Robbin Dunn asked if we were looking state wide for these three issues.
Dee Ann responded yes. She explained that this is for Commissioners to review and think about and that a more detailed presentation will follow in August where more discussion can take place.
Research Update
Robin indicated that we need to decide what we want from the research study. Do we want a laundry list of current programs or do we want a model/best practices where we can replicate programs?
She further suggested that the Commission should work with Community Networks to help do the information study/assessment. Then the Commission can make recommendations based on their findings.
Marty Jacobs noted that we do need some sort of laundry list to get to the best practices.
Robin agreed and would research this further.
Public Comment
The Commission then moved to public comment. Mona Locke explained that there were 10 minutes remaining in the meeting for public comment and that since 10 speakers signed up each would have 1 minute to speak. Robin Zukoski also reminded the audience that public comments would be summarized in the meeting summary as the Commission has done in the past.
Sharon Oldfield stated that the Commission was established on early childhood brain development and she states that there is no scientific data that suggests that the child will succeed or not succeed as a result of these early childhood experiences. Sharon believes that brain research is the rationale for the Children’s Bill of Rights and it is not valid and states that the brain research premise is pseudo-science and serves a political agenda, not children and families. Ms. Oldfield submitted a written statement.
Marcia Mack stated that she stood silent when phonics were removed from school and stood silent with the introduction of Goals 2000 but now with the Children’s Bill of Rights she will no longer stand silent. She states that the preamble lacks proof and asks if scientific studies prove that a brain does not grow without nurturing experiences. She asks how many children were tested, who did this testing and who paid for it. She has worked in first grade, kindergarten, preschool and daycare. What children need based on her scientific study are their mothers not a myriad of care givers. Sharon also stated that Bill Gates should stop giving computers to libraries until they filter pornography. Ms. Mack submitted a written statement.
Julanne Burts stated she was here to voice her opposition to work being done by the Commission on child care issues and the Children’s Bill of Rights. She stated that for years the cry of the left has been don’t force morality on me and today she joins them in that cry. She says don’t force your morality on our families. Don’t seek to solve the problems of a small minority by imposing government solutions on all of us. Please respect our right to diversity of thought, religion, and morality and stay out of our families. Ms. Burts submitted a written statement.
Marda Kirkwood stated that she was offended by what she heard today. She feels there is an assumption that parents are incompetent and need a government Nanny and that there is an assumption that the Commission knows better than they do. She states there is no scientifically validated research to back assumptions about brain development and states that even the ineffectiveness of HeadStart doesn’t move you to question it. She states that the Commission plans to mount a massive propaganda campaign and asks how many parents will sell their children’s birthright for a Beanie Baby and a Happy Meal. She states she will not trust her precious children to the self-anointed experts. Ms. Kirkwood submitted a written statement.
Chris Shardelman stated that even with DSHS reasoning that their failing is by cause of lack of funds yet the Commission takes the federal grants and uses that money. The Commission and the Legislature failed to remember the failure of the children’s initiative. There is no validated research. Chris stated that several studies show that children have to have a constant mother figure to thrive, children are susceptible to depression in the first years of their life and sensitive to change, the child who forms no lasting bond shows attachment problems as an adult (due to the time limit, Ms. Shardelman was unable to finish her comments).
L.A. Erak states that there is no appropriate role for state or any other government in early education. It is the inherent right of parents to oversee the upbringing and education of their children according to their beliefs. She states that knowing this it’s easy to see that this commission has no authority. She states that only in a totalitarian society do you have government raising children. The Bill of Rights states that no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property. She asks what part of liberty don’t you understand. She states that Gary and Mona Locke, Melinda Gates, Rob Reiner and the rest of you may want the state to raise your children, but the citizens of Washington do not. Ms. Erak submitted a written statement.
Dorothy Youtz stated that she and the local community networks are proud of the Commission’s work and applaud it’s efforts on behalf of children.
Lloyd Gardner asked how much money is being spent on the Commission including the public engagement campaign. He also asked if he needed to put his question in writing (Robin Zukoski explained that she would talk to Mr. Gardner after the meeting).
Julie Coen stated that when she first read the Children’s Bill of Rights she was horrified and states she was reading communist propaganda. She states that she abhors the entire undertaking. As stated in the Children’s Bill of Rights she asks who defines "quality environment". And further asks is the state the epitome of parenthood, why must she be required to use government agency support. Further who determines what is "socially acceptable". She states she is a Christian and asks was Jesus Christ socially acceptable in his time and states he was not. Ms. Coen submitted a written statement.
Rachel Hawkridge gave background on two individuals who overcame extreme hardship and went on to be successful people. She states that many of our most talented people overcame a large burden of adversity. The two people she referred to were Thomas Edison and Steven Cannel. She states that neither of these men would have fit into the mold created by the Commission or the Children’s Bill of Rights. She states that brain research is inconclusive and should more accurately be called mind or cognitive research. She believes that there is much truth in the old saying "that which doesn’t kill us, makes us stronger." Protecting children from all adversity would damage them. Ms. Hawkridge submitted a written statement.
Bob Ross stated that his take on this whole commission is that it is a travesty, and injustice to parenthood. It’s not a matter of rights, but entitlements without parental consent. The state should not evolve into a surrogate parent for all children. He asks are so many parents so destitute, ignorant, and selfish that they will be seduced through slick advertising by a government program. The human race has raised their children for eons and once the bond is broken it cannot be repaired.
Jean Hueston commented that she applauds and supports the efforts of the Commission. She is interested in the Commission’s interest in working with the community networks on the research project and asks that the Commission touch base with the networks soon as they will be soon entering into their two-year contract.
After the public comment was over Don Brunell made a few comments. Don explained that the Commission does not intend to impose anything on anyone. He realizes that most of us are good parents but that there are a few who are not paying attention. He explains that we all want parents to connect with their children and that is why we are here. The commission has no socialistic or communistic agenda and will not being imposing anything on anyone. We are here to help parents connect with their children in positive ways.
Several public audience members wanted to respond to Don Brunell’s comments but Ms. Locke explained that time was up and that they could talk to commission members after the meeting.
The meeting was closed.

   Meetings | Home