Cincinnati Preschool Promise

Board of Managers

Minutes of Wednesday, June 7, 2017, Special Board Conference Call/Meeting

8:30am – 9:30am

Board Members Participating In/On Conference Call:

Dr. Kimya Moyo, Pastor Ennis Tait, Deborah Mariner Allsop, John E. Pepper, Steve Shifman, Timothy J. Fogarty, Sallie Westheimer, Laura Sanregret, Micah E. Kamrass, Cheryl Rose, Terri C. England, Jasmine Jones, Stephanie Byrd (ex-officio)

Board Members Not Participating In/On Conference Call:

Fr. Michael Graham, O’Dell Owens M.D., Gary Lindgren, Kathy Young

Board ObserversParticipatingIn/On Conference Call:

Greg Landsman, Cincinnati Preschool Alliance

Leshia Lyman, United Way of Greater Cincinnati

Kelley Bagayoko, Cincinnati Public Schools

Board Observers Not Participating In/On Conference Call:

Jennifer Wagner, CPS Primary

Ross Meyer, UWGC Secondary

Cincinnati Preschool Promise Staff ParticipatingIn/On Conference Call:

Stephanie Byrd, Vanessa White, Anne Sesler and Creola Dickerson

Parthenon StaffParticipatingIn/On Conference Call:

Malavika Dhawan,Dan Lesser

  1. Welcome and Call to Order

Stephanie Byrd called the meeting to order at 8:33am.

  • Questions and comments from last Board Call
  • Deborah Allsop asked if Cincinnati Public Schools (CPS) has provided feedback on the prioritization or the interpretation of the prioritization schedule in the Master Agreement. Kelley Bagayoko responded that CPS is convening later today to discuss.
  1. Malavika Dhawan Presented Pre-Read PowerPoint Slides

Ms. Dhawan stated that the goal is for the Board to vote on the budget next week and that prioritization and reserves would be cover today. Attendees were referred to materials provided prior to meeting.

Slide 2:

  • Ms. Dhawan walked through materials on the slide, including changes since last week’s call. She underscored that the board can reevaluate Tuition Assistance policy in the fall as more data comes in.

Slide 3:

  • Ms. Byrd stated the goal for the Board to reach a consensus on 1) The Pros and Cons of the interpretation of prioritization 2) Reserves to protect the unknown 3) The process to evaluate the data. Ms. Dhawan reminded the board that both the Cincinnati Preschool Promise(CPP) and CPS Board must agree on the budget.

Slide 4:

  • Ms. Byrd highlighted constraints on the funding, including the onset of Cost of Quality (Wages) in future years, as well as the fact that the first year should be considered a pilot year.

Slide 9:

  • Ms. Byrd noted that the projections had been updated since last week to reflect an increased enrollment in full-day seats relative to part-day seats. With the projected level of funding in the first interpretation, CPP would likely have sufficient funding for 4YO’s <200% FPL in the first and second years. CPP would leave itself flexibility in the fall to cover additional 4YO or 3YO as enrollment data comes in.
  • Ms. Allsop stated that there may be funds elsewhere in the budget that function as a built-in reserve.
  • John Pepper said it is incumbent upon the Board to have a reserve given the many unknowns. He noted that the reserveis only 2% of the budget.
  • Cheryl Rose agreed that a reserve is needed to maintain some flexibility.
  • Sallie Westheimer stated that if you build more flexibility into the predetermined amount, you may need less of a reserve. She also asked if the CPP and CPS percentages were the same as last week. Ms. Dhawanconfirmed the splits were the same.
  • Pastor Tait stated that CPS is seeing more requests for full-day. Ms. Westheimer noted that when CPS talks about full-day, they are referring to a full school day and community providers are talking about a full work day, which is longer. We need to think about how this impacts working families.
  • Ms. Byrd noted that the $4.4m for CPS reflects the higher rate of full-day enrollment. This number is dynamic as enrollment continues.
  • Dr. Kimya Moyo asked if the provider says full work day, does it provide before and after care. Ms. Westheimerreplied that the answer is complicated. They are providing 8-10 hours of education of children throughout the day. It is not like an after-school program, in that there is continuity throughout the day.
  • Terri England noted that most providers provide continuity of care for school aged children. Preschoolers versus school aged children would change ratios.
  • Ms. Bagayokoasked for clarification on what the Master Agreement says about full-day and full-year. Ms. Byrd replied that the Master Agreement states that full day that CPP will cover is 6.5 – 8 hours, and cover the school year.

Slide 10:

  • Ms. Dhawan explained how this interpretation assumes the same split of funding for community and CPS for simplicity. She pointed out that we cannot fund 3 and 4YO and without reaching into 4YO <200-300. Mr. Pepper noted that we would be $1m over budget and it would make more sense to start at 4YO <200.
  • Ms. Allsop noted that research shows that can have the greatest impact by serving the neediest 3 and 4YO’s. Questioned whether we should be in a concrete mode to only do 4YO and asked at what point could we pivot in year 1? Ms. Byrd suggested establishing a date sometime in November to evaluate the take-up rates and determine if we are on track for meeting the minimums in the Master Agreement. We can decide at that point to pivot. Ms. Dhawan noted that there are “lead forms” to collect interest from parents in lower prioritization levels if this is the route we want to go.
  • Laura Sanregret stated that she believed once we got started, we could only be able to fund 4YO’s <200%FPL and in year 5, that money is only going to fund 4YOs. Ms. Byrd pointed out that a reduction in Quality Improvement funding starts in year 3. Money would be available for Tuition Assistance. Ms. Sanregret agreed.
  • Dr. Moyo voiced a concern that the Master Agreement indicates that we are trying to serve 3 and 4YO’s and we should and make it clear to the public that we are committed to moving into 3YO’s as soon as possible. Ms. Byrd reiterated our goal to serve 3 and 4YOs and we need to position ourselves to do that in the future, and we may not be able to do that if we try to fund both today.
  • Pastor Tait noted that we need to ensure that we communicate whatever we decide to the public clearly.
  • Ms. Byrd noted that she would be surveying each board member as to their position on the prioritization and that the Board will vote on the 13th based on an administration recommendation, which will be based on the survey responses and this conversation.
  • Ms. Rose noted that our guiding principle will help illuminate the path forward.
  • Ms. Bagayoko added as context, in CPS, there will be a lot of 3YOs that will go unfunded
  1. Wrap-up, concluding remarks, including:
  • None noted

Adjourn:

Pastor Tait adjourned the Board Conference call at 9:35

Future Meetings:

July 18th – 4:00pm – 6:00pm Board Meeting

August 14th – 4:00 – 6:00pm Board Meeting

Submitted by Creola Dickerson, Senior Administrative Assistant, Cincinnati Preschool Promise

Cincinnati Preschool Promise Board Minutes / June 7, 2017Page 1 of 3