Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 Families, Education, Preschool, and Promise Levy IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION PLAN Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 I. LETTER FROM DEEL DIRECTOR 3 II. INTRODUCTION 4 PRIOR LEGISLATION STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT 4 5 III. OVERVIEW 8 THEORY OF CHANGE INVESTMENT AREAS AND CORE STRATEGIES GOALS AND OUTCOMES GUIDING PRIORITIES AND PRINCIPLES PARTNERSHIP AND ALIGNMENT COMMITMENT TO RACE AND SOCIAL JUSTICE ALIGNMENT WITH CITY INVESTMENTS AND INITIATIVES EVALUATION OVERVIEW SPENDING PLAN QUALITY IMPLEMENTATION AND MANAGEMENT OF INVESTMENTS METHODOLOGY AND TIMELINE FOR AWARDING INVESTMENTS PRIMER TO SECTION IV 8 8 10 11 12 13 15 15 20 21 22 27 IV. FEPP INVESTMENT AREAS 28 PRESCHOOL AND EARLY LEARNING INTRODUCTION STRATEGIES SPENDING PLAN ALIGNMENT WITH RSJI ALIGNMENT WITH CITY RESOURCES STRATEGY #1: PRESCHOOL SERVICES AND TUITION STRATEGY #2: QUALITY TEACHING STRATEGY #3: COMPREHENSIVE SUPPORT STRATEGY #4: ORGANIZATIONAL AND FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY #5: SPP CHILD CARE SUBSIDIES STRATEGY #6: HOMELESS CHILD CARE PROGRAM STRATEGY #7: FAMILY CHILD CARE MENTORSHIP AND QUALITY SUPPORTS EVALUATION K-12 SCHOOL & COMMUNITY-BASED INTRODUCTION STRATEGIES SPENDING PLAN 28 28 28 29 30 30 31 35 39 42 46 47 49 52 55 55 56 56 Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 MONITORING AND PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT ALIGNMENT WITH RSJI ALIGNMENT WITH CITY RESOURCES STRATEGY #1: SCHOOL-BASED STRATEGY #2: OPPORTUNITY & ACCESS STRATEGY #3: WRAPAROUND SERVICES STRATEGY #4: CULTURALLY SPECIFIC AND RESPONSIVE EVALUATION K-12 SCHOOL HEALTH INTRODUCTION STRATEGIES SPENDING PLAN ALIGNMENT WITH RSJI ALIGNMENT WITH CITY RESOURCES STRATEGY #1: SCHOOL BASED HEALTH CENTERS STRATEGY #2: SCHOOL NURSING STRATEGY #3: ORAL HEALTH STRATEGY #4: HEALTH SYSTEM ENHANCEMENT EVALUATION SEATTLE PROMISE INTRODUCTION STRATEGIES SPENDING PLAN ALIGNMENT WITH RSJI ALIGNMENT WITH CITY RESOURCES STRATEGY #1: TUITION STRATEGY #2: EQUITY SCHOLARSHIP STRATEGY #3: COLLEGE PREPARATION AND PERSISTENCE SUPPORT EVALUATION 57 57 58 58 64 70 78 84 87 87 87 88 88 88 89 92 94 95 96 99 99 99 100 101 101 102 104 105 109 V. APPENDIX 112 V.I FEPP 7-YEAR SPENDING PLAN V.II RESOLUTION 31821 POLICY GUIDE V.III YEAR 1 (SCHOOL YEAR 2019-2020) FEPP IMPLEMENTATION V.IV YEAR 1 (SCHOOL YEAR 2019-2020) SEATTLE PRESCHOOL PROGRAM TUITION SLIDING FEE SCALE V.V EVALUATION DESIGN DETAIL V.VI EVALUATION INDICATORS V.VII ABBREVIATIONS V.VIII GLOSSARY V.IX ENDNOTES 113 115 116 121 122 123 131 133 137 Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 I. Letter from DEEL Director January 14, 2019 Mayor Jenny Durkan Seattle City Council Seattle Residents and Families Thank you for the opportunity to present the Families, Education, Preschool and Promise Implementation and Evaluation (I&E) Plan. The Department of Education and Early Learning (DEEL) envisions a city where all children, youth, and families have equitable access and consistent opportunities to high-quality educational services, support, and outcomes. Dwane Chappelle Director, Department of Education and Early Learning We recognize that one size does not fit all, and different circumstances require different approaches and allocation of resources. This is why we partner with Public Health—Seattle and King County, Seattle Colleges, Seattle School District, and community-based organizations to design strategic investments in education that will work to eliminate the opportunity gaps that exist within our City. By leading with race and social justice and providing Seattle residents access to educational opportunities from preschool through post-secondary, we will transform the lives of Seattle’s children, youth, and families. Over the next seven years, DEEL intends to partner with families and communities to advance educational equity, close opportunity gaps, and build a better economic future for Seattle through our stewardship of FEPP investments. This will be achieved through: • High-quality early learning services that prepare children for success in kindergarten • Physical and mental health services that support learning • College and job readiness experiences that promote high school graduation • Post-secondary opportunities that promote attainment of a certificate, credential, or degree As Seattle continues to face an affordability crisis, supporting the education continuum through investments in quality preschool, year-round expanded learning programs, and access to college will help build economic opportunity for all young people in Seattle by creating pathways to good-paying jobs. We must ensure that every child has the opportunity to succeed. To that end, DEEL will continue to empower teachers, parents, and communities to achieve this vision. On behalf of DEEL staff, we stand behind Mayor Durkan’s vision for the Seattle Preschool Program, K-12 and Community, Health, the Seattle Promise, and Black male achievement. In gratitude, Dwane Chappelle Director, Department of Education and Early Learning Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 II. Introduction Prior Legislation Since 1990, Seattle voters have demonstrated a strong commitment to education and supporting students. The Families and Education Levy (FEL) was first approved by voters in 1990 and renewed three times in 1997, 2004 and 2011. In 2014, Seattle voters also approved the Seattle Preschool Program (SPP) Levy, deepening the City’s investment in early childhood education. In April 2018, Mayor Jenny A. Durkan released the Families, Education, Preschool and Promise (FEPP) Action Plan, which established the broad policy and funding framework for the FEPP Levy. Mayor Durkan affirmed the City’s commitment to eliminating educational disparities by investing in Seattle’s youth across the education continuum from preschool to post-secondary. Following eight public meetings with the City Council Select Committee on the FEPP Levy, two public hearings, and Council amendments to the FEPP Levy, City Council unanimously voted on June 18, 2018 to send the FEPP Levy to the ballot for voter consideration. Council also passed Resolution 31821 on June 18, 2018“a resolution relating to education services… and providing further direction regarding implementation of the program funded by [the FEPP] Levy.” Mayor Jenny A. Durkan signed Ordinance 125604 and Resolution 31821 on June 27, 2018. On November 6, 2018, Seattle voters approved the FEPP Levy, a seven-year, $619 million property tax levy to “replace two expiring levies and initially fund expanded early learning and preschool, college and K-12 education support, K-12 student health, and job readiness opportunities.” 1 The FEPP Levy replaces and expands the FEL and SPP levies, which both expired on December 31, 2018. The FEPP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan (“The Plan”) outlines the Department of Education and Early Learning’s (DEEL) commitment to achieving educational equity through four investment areas: Preschool and Early Learning, K-12 School and Community-Based, K-12 School Health, and the Seattle Promise. “Proceeds may be spent only in accordance with an Implementation and Evaluation Plan (“The Plan”) approved by ordinance. The Plan may be amended by ordinance. The Plan shall set forth the following: priority criteria, measurable outcomes, and methodology by which Proceeds-funded strategies will be selected and evaluated; the process and schedule by which DEEL will select and contract with partners to provide services; and the evaluation methodology to measure both individual investments and overall impacts of the Education-Support Services.” --Ordinance 125604, Section 7 Ordinance 125604 establishes an “Oversight Committee to make recommendations on the design and modifications of FEPP Levy-funded programs and to monitor their progress in meeting their intended outcomes and goals.” Eleven appointed members of the FEPP Levy Oversight Committee (LOC) were confirmed by the Gender Equity, Safe Communities, New Americans, and Education Committee on December 14, 2018 and by the full City Council on December 17, 2018. Ordinance 125604 establishes the qualifications and terms of LOC appointments. DEEL will engage the LOC consistent with guidance outlined in Ordinance 125604 and Resolution 31821 regarding review of annual reports, review, and advisement on proposed FEPP investment modifications, and commitment to outcomes-based accountability model. Subsequent LOC appointments will be made by the Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 Mayor and Council following an open call for applicants. Youth and young adults, especially current or former Seattle Promise students, and parents of students served by FEPP Levy investments will be encouraged to apply. “The Committee shall review an annual report of Levy outcomes and indicators for the previous school year; review and advise on proposed course corrections, program modifications, and program eliminations; and periodically review and advise on program evaluations. The Council requires that before the Executive submits to the Council the Implementation and Evaluation Plan, Partnership Agreements, or proposes any changes in Levy funding requiring Council approval by ordinance, the Executive will seek the recommendation of the Committee.” --Ordinance 125604, Section 8 Stakeholder Engagement DEEL utilized a variety of methods to engage community stakeholders across the preschool to post-secondary continuum and throughout the city to inform development of the I&E Plan. The result of the many conversations, advisory groups, workgroups, and community meetings is a plan that incorporates the diverse voices of Seattle and encapsulates the needs of the community. DEEL’s FEPP Levy stakeholder engagement approach to share information and solicit input to shape FEPP Levy policy and program design began in the fall of 2017. Stakeholder engagement focused on both individual FEPP Levy investment areas and across the education continuum broadly. A variety of strategies were utilized to engage stakeholders including individual conversations, advisory groups, workgroups, and community meetings (Table 1). Table 1. Stakeholder Engagement Strategy Outreach Objectives • Operate with a race and social justice lens • Be respectful and inclusive of Seattle communities • Meaningfully and authentically engage stakeholders to leverage their expertise and insight • Garner support and confidence among stakeholders for FEPP Levy Strategies Used • Individual conversations • Advisory groups • Workgroups • Focus groups • Community meetings Greater Community Engagement DEEL engaged the community by holding several community meetings throughout the city. Additionally, DEEL consulted the FEL/SPP and FEPP Levy Oversight Committees as partners in implementation creation. Levy Oversight Committee: The FEL/SPP Levy Oversight Committee (LOC) members were engaged at their August 2018 meeting, and in reflection on current DEEL FEL and SPP Levy-funded programs and services, provided feedback to DEEL staff on three foundational policy issues: (1) Equity approach for the Seattle Preschool Program and Seattle Promise, (2) Theory of Change, and (3) Evaluation strategy and outcomes. On December 17, 2018, 11 members of the FEPP LOC were confirmed by Seattle City Council. FEPP LOC members were engaged at two meetings (January 24, 2019 and February 7, 2019) to provide feedback on the proposed FEPP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan policy direction. The LOC reviewed the complete FEPP Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 I&E Plan draft, asked questions of DEEL staff, and provided additional policy guidance to inform the Plan. On February 28, 2019, the FEPP LOC endorsed the Mayor’s proposed FEPP Levy I&E Plan and recommended transmittal of the Plan to Council. Community Meetings: DEEL and its community partners scheduled a series of seven community meetings between January-March 2019. Meetings were held in each of the seven council districts and were designed to inform all FEPP Levy implementation and programmatic investments. Students, families, and community members were invited to ask questions, share feedback on proposed implementation design, and engage in dialogue with City staff at all events. Preschool and Early Learning: This part of the planning process was designed to inform improvements to the Seattle Preschool Program for FEPP-funded implementation. • Early Learning Directors: DEEL hosts monthly meetings with all Early Learning Directors. Over the course of the past six months, directors received information about the progress of Levy planning and provided feedback on key policy and program considerations. • Provider Feedback Group: The Provider Feedback Group is comprised of SPP agency and site directors who volunteered to meet monthly as part of FEPP implementation planning. In total, the group met six times. Participating organizations included: Children Home Society of Washington, Child Care Resources, Chinese Information Service Center, Creative Kids, Northwest Center, Primm ABC Child Care, Seattle Schools District, Tiny Tots, and YMCA of Greater Seattle. In addition to recurring group meetings with Early Learning Directors and a Provider Feedback Group, DEEL Early Learning staff conducted individual and small group meetings with community organizations. K-12 School and Community-Based: Engagement efforts informed the development of strategies across the FEPP K-12 School and Community-Based investment area. DEEL staff sought feedback from staff at FEL-funded Levy schools, Seattle School District central office staff, community-based organizations (CBOs), and other stakeholders. • School Partners: Principals and staff from FEL-funded Levy schools were engaged to inform improvements and expansions of K-12 investments for FEPP implementation, including but not limited to, college and career readiness programming, expanded learning and out-of-school time, and methods for tracking progress and measuring success. School leaders were engaged from the FEL Elementary School Innovation Cohort, FEL Middle School Innovation Cohort, FEL Middle School Linkage Cohort, and the FEL High School Innovation Cohort. • School District Partners: Partners and colleagues from Seattle School District central office were engaged to inform strategy implementation, award selection, and to develop mechanisms to collaboratively support the success of FEPP Levy investments within Seattle School District. • Summer Learning Providers: Representatives from FEL-funded summer learning programs were engaged to share feedback with DEEL on funding and contracting processes, successful CBO-school partnerships and CBO roles in supporting student academic achievement, and K-12 evaluation approaches. • Community Leaders: DEEL engaged community leaders representing organizations such as the Our Best Advisory Council, All Home Workgroup, Regional Network of Expanding Learning Partners, and Youth Development Executives of King County. Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 K-12 School Health: Public Health—Seattle & King County engaged school-based health providers, school principals, and communitybased organizations to inform the development of measurable outcomes and evaluation methodology and provide feedback on the investment strategies. Seattle Promise: Efforts to develop implementation policies for the Seattle Promise were led by a Design Team. Program design was built by scaling and improving the 13th Year Seattle Promise scholarship program started at South Seattle College. • Design Team: The Seattle Promise Design Team was convened by DEEL to build out the implementation and programmatic components of Seattle Promise. The Design Team consisted of staff representing the City of Seattle (Mayor’s Office, DEEL, and Office of Civil Rights), Seattle School District, Seattle Colleges, King County Promise, and the College Success Foundation. The Design Team met monthly from April 2018-December 2018 for a total of eight meetings, with topic-specific sub-committees meeting separately between regular monthly meetings. The Design Team worked to address Seattle Promise implementation and expansion considerations such as student eligibility criteria and program evaluation strategy for the Seattle Promise, which included setting realistic outcomes and metrics, as well as how to employ efficient data collection models as the program expands. • Focus Groups: To assess successes and challenges with current 13th Year Seattle Promise scholarship implementation, DEEL facilitated focus groups with current 13th Year scholars at South Seattle College. Students were given an opportunity to share feedback on the high school support they received, Readiness Academy and Summer Bridge experiences with 13th Year, and the impact 14th year funding will have toward their post-secondary success. • Family and Student Engagement: The Seattle Colleges hosted a series of community events in November and December of 2018. The purpose of these events was to share information with and engage Seattle Promise students and their families to inform Design Team planning. Seattle Promise staff also held regular office hours at partner high schools during this time. Events were held in partnership with National Association for College Admission Counseling, the United Negro College Fund, Friends of Ingraham, Rainier Beach High School, and Running Start. Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 III. Overview Theory of Change The FEPP Levy presents a historic opportunity for DEEL to improve Seattle residents’ preschool through postsecondary and college and career preparation experiences. To articulate the change desired and the method for achieving results, DEEL engaged in a reflective process with guidance from the FEL/SPP LOC to develop a Theory of Change (ToC). The FEPP ToC serves as a high-level illustration of how and why change will occur as a result of FEPP Levy investments across the education continuum. The FEPP ToC articulates that overarching goal (what FEPP ultimately aims to achieve), the core strategies (how FEPP will achieve), and the outcomes (change and impact expected along the way). Furthermore, the ToC shows the different pathways that might lead to change in a broader ecosystem acknowledging that short, medium, and long-term outcomes will be achieved at system, program, and child/youth-levels. To build the ToC, the following components were considered: (1) problems or issues to be solved, (2) community needs and assets, (3) desired results, (4) influential factors, (5) strategies, (6) assumptions, and (7) expected outcomes. The FEPP ToC tells the story of the FEPP Levy and its stated goal to “partner with families and communities to achieve educational equity, close opportunity gaps, and build a better economic future for Seattle students” (Figure 1). 2 DEEL’s FEPP Levy ToC is a visual representation of DEEL’s belief that • If we invest in the education continuum, preschool through post-secondary… • By partnering with families and communities to increase access to and utilization of three core strategies for historically underserved students… • Then positive child/youth, program, and system levels outcomes will be achieved. Investment Areas and Core Strategies The FEPP Levy includes four investment areas across the educational continuum: (1) Preschool and Early Learning, (2) K-12 School and Community-Based, (3) K-12 School Health, and (4) Seattle Promise. Within investment areas, the FEPP ToC identifies three core strategies for funding: (1) Equitable Educational Opportunities, (2) High-Quality Learning Environments, and (3) Student and Family Supports. Each FEPP core strategy contributes to the overarching goal of the FEPP Levy to “achieve educational equity, close opportunity gaps, and build a better economic future for Seattle students.” • Equitable Educational Opportunities promotes access by supporting tuition subsidies, expanded learning and academic support, and college and career readiness activities to provide students opportunities beyond basic K-12 education. • High-Quality Learning Environments includes strategies such as professional development for educators, organization and facilities development, culturally and linguistically responsive practices, and investments in educator and staff diversity to promote a culture and climate that creates positive impacts on students’ educational outcomes. • Student and Family Supports provides additional supports to address social and non-academic barriers to academic services. This core strategy includes student health services, family engagement, and whole child supports. Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 Figure 1. FEPP Levy Theory of Change FEPP LEVY THEORY OF CHANGE Overall Goal Fa rtner with and communities to advance educational equitv. close oprJortunit'g.r gaps, and build a better economic future for Seattle students lnve stment Areas Co re FEPP invests in three core strategies across the education continuum to achieve educational equitv. Strategies Equitable Educational Student and Famitv Learning Gpportunities Supports Environments Tuition Sub?idiES Student Heatti'l SEMCE Professional Development Facilities Development Famine Engagement Organizational DEVEIDIJM Expanded Learning and . Educator Diversi Madam Support Whole can stupor: ti . Culturally Responsive College El'ld Career Readiness Practices DUTCDMES ?ver!? African Amencanj?ieck, Hispantchattno, Hatlve Amencan, Paci?c Islander, underserved Asian populations, and other students of color achieve academicallv across the preschool to post-secondarvr continuum 1l"'outl't Kindergarten Meeting or exceeding grade level learning standards Healthv and readvto learn Graduating high school college and career ready Accessing and completing post-secondarv education Highnualitv teaming environments and service deliver-.r Authentic outreach and engagement with families and partners Famitv satisfaction with and connection to services Culturaliv responsive practices Programs Closure of lace-hased opportunityr gaps Alig'In'Ient, collaboration, and trust aniling partners Sustainable development Multiple access points to high-oualitv services across the education continuum Svstems ill! Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 Goals and Outcomes The FEPP Theory of Change identifies one overall goal, uniting FEPP investments preschool through postsecondary. Each investment area also has specific goals and outcomes for children/youth-level, program-level, and system-level impacts, to more holistically understand the FEPP Levy’s impact. FEPP goals and outcomes are aspirational measures that will help quantify the impact of FEPP’s four investment areas and will be used to align programs, systems, and strategies. Table 2. FEPP Levy Goals and Outcomes Investment Area Goal FEPP Levy: Preschool Partner with families and to Post-secondary communities to achieve Continuum educational equity, close opportunity gaps, and build a better economic future for Seattle students. Preschool and Early Learning Seattle students have access to and utilize high-quality early learning services that promote success in kindergarten. Outcomes • African American/Black, Hispanic/Latino, Native American, Pacific Islander, underserved Asian populations, and other students of color achieve academically across the preschool to post-secondary continuum • • • • K-12 School and Community-Based Seattle students have access to and utilize college and job readiness experiences that promote high school graduation. • • • • • • • • Children are kindergarten ready Learning environments are evidencebased, high-quality, culturally responsive, and equitable Students and families have multiple ways to access high-quality early learning services Race-based opportunity gaps are closed Students are academically prepared by meeting or exceeding grade level learning standards Students graduate high school on-time Students graduate high school college and career ready Contracted partners provide targeted, high-quality instruction and services that are evidence-based and/or promising practices Students are educated by a more diverse educator workforce Students have access to a network of expanded learning opportunities Structures are promoted for advancing college awareness and access to career preparation resources Race-based opportunity gaps are closed Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 K-12 School Health Seattle students have access to and utilize physical and mental health services that support learning. • • • • Seattle Promise Seattle students have access to and utilize post-secondary opportunities that promote attainment of a certificate, credential, or degree. • • • Students are healthy and ready to learn School Based Health Centers are evidencebased, high-quality, and provide culturally responsive and equitable care Providers implement a best practice model of medical and mental health care Race-based opportunity gaps are closed Seattle Promise students complete a certificate, credential, or degree or transfer Seattle Promise delivers high-quality services and clear pathways to success Race-based opportunity gaps are closed Guiding Priorities and Principles The FEPP Levy Implementation & Evaluation Plan adopts the priorities for Levy funding and implementation principles outlined in Ordinance 125604 and re-stated in Table 3 below. These priorities and principles were developed by the FEL/SPP Levy Oversight Committee and guide how DEEL will implement and execute funding strategies to achieve the FEPP Levy’s stated goals. Table 3. FEPP Levy Priorities and Principles Priorities for Levy Funding Priority #1: Invest in Seattle children, students, families, and communities that have been historically underserved to increase access to educational opportunities across the education continuum. Priority #2: Establish agreements with community-based organizations, the Seattle School District, Public Health-Seattle & King County, Seattle Colleges, and other institutional partners to allow data-driven and outcomes-based decision making. Priority #3: Implement or continue evidence-based strategies and promising practices to improve program quality and achieve equity in educational outcomes. Priority #4: Provide access to capacity-building opportunities for historically underserved Seattle communities to improve program instruction, quality, and infrastructure. Implementation Principles Principle #1: Prioritize investments to ensure educational equity for historically underserved groups including African American/Black, Hispanic/Latino, Native American, Pacific Islanders, underserved Asian populations, other students of color, refugee and immigrant, homeless, English language learners, and Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer (LGBTQ) students. Principle #2: Ensure ongoing and authentic student, family, and community engagement and support. Principle #3: Maximize partnerships with community, cultural and language-based organizations. Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 Principle #4: Ensure Levy proceeds are supplemental and complementary to existing public funding structures and services; funding is never used to supplant state-mandated services. Principle #5: Implement competitive processes to identify organizations to partner with the City to deliver services to children and youth. Principle #6: Implement accountability structures based on student outcomes, performance-based contracts, performance-based awards, and practice continuous quality improvement. Principle #7: Provide financial support that increases access to expanded learning opportunities and affordable services for families and educators. Principle #8: Report annually on investments, access to services, and progress toward achieving educational equity. Partnership and Alignment The City is committed to closing persistent opportunity and achievement gaps through partnerships and networked success. The success of FEPP Levy investments in meeting intended goals and outcomes (Table 2) depends on the strength of partnerships between the City, community partners, contracted partners, and institutional partners such as Public Health—Seattle & King County (PHSKC), Seattle Colleges, Seattle School District and the Washington State Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF). At the forefront of this aligned partnership, Seattle School District is committed to ensuring equitable access, eliminating opportunity gaps, and striving for excellence in education for every student. Seattle School District is responsible for educating all students through high-quality curriculum and instruction that supports students in achieving the necessary academic skills at each grade level, so students graduate college and career ready. FEPP Levy investments support this goal through a variety of strategies including high-quality preschool and early learning services, expanded learning and out-of-school time programming, college and career readiness experiences, wraparound services, and culturally specific and responsive approaches. In addition to a strong partnership with the school district, community-based partners and philanthropic organizations interested in education are critical in providing programs and other support services to close opportunity gaps and advance racial equity in the educational system. Many families rely on community agencies to provide support in culturally specific ways and build stronger connections with schools. These agencies bring their own cultural wealth and resources to accentuate the mission of the Levy and improve student outcome results. For FEPP investments to achieve their intended goals and outcomes, city, school, and community partners will need to be innovative, flexible, and accountable and utilize data to inform practice. Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 The FEPP priorities and principles (Table 2), as well as DEEL’s core values of equity, collaboration, transparency, and results, serve as the foundation for DEEL’s approach to partnership and stewardship of FEPP investments. The priorities and principles charge DEEL to uphold service to and equity for historically underserved communities, evidence-based and promising practices, provider capacity building, competitive funding processes, fiscal responsibility, ongoing community engagement, annual evaluation, and formalized partnership agreements. Consistent with Ordinance 125604, DEEL will establish agreements with its contracted partners for services that seek to achieve educational equity. The Executive will submit to Council two Resolutions for Partnership Agreements with the FEPP Levy’s primary institutional partners: (1) Seattle Colleges and (2) Seattle School District. The Partnership Agreements will be submitted to Council in Quarter 1, 2019. The Partnership Agreements, once fully executed, will be in effect for the life of the FEPP Levy. Partnership Agreements can be amended by both parties conditional upon LOC recommendation and Council approval. Subsequent contractual agreements, such as data-sharing agreements, will be fully executed with institutional and community-based partners annually, before the beginning of each new School Year (SY). Commitment to Race and Social Justice The City of Seattle launched the Race and Social Justice Initiative (RSJI) in 2004 to eliminate racial disparities and achieve racial equity in Seattle. 3 The goals and strategies of RSJI are to 1. end racial and social disparities internal to the City by improving workforce equity, increasing City employees’ RJSI knowledge and tools, and increasing contracting equity; 2. strengthen the way the City engages its community and provides services by improving existing services using RSJI best practices and enhancing immigrants’ and refugees’ access to City Services; and 3. eliminate race-based disparities in our communities. 4 RSJI directs City departments to implement racial equity toolkits (RET) in budget, program, and policy decisions, including review of existing programs and policies. Furthermore, in November 2017 Mayor Jenny A. Durkan signed Executive Order 2017-13 affirming the City’s commitment to RSJ and stating that the City shall apply a racial equity lens in its work, with a focus in 2018 on actions relating to affordability and education. Consistent with this charge, the Department of Education and Early Learning demonstrates alignment to the RSJI through utilization of Racial Equity Toolkits, commitment to the Our Best Initiative, and the FEPP Levy’s commitment to educational justice. Racial Equity Toolkits DEEL commits to apply RETs toward FEPP Levy budgetary, programmatic, and policy decisions in order to minimize harm and maximize benefits to Seattle’s communities of color. In partnership with DEEL’s RSJI Change Team, DEEL will present RETs pertaining to FEPP investments (Table 4) to City Council as part of the department’s annual Change Team presentation. Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 Table 4. FEPP Levy Racial Equity Toolkit Timeline RET Topic FEPP Levy RFI/RFP/RFQ Processes Family Child Care Mentorship and Quality Supports Seattle Preschool Program Eligibility and Qualifying Factors Homelessness/Housing Support Services Seattle Promise Homelessness/Housing Support Services Anticipated Start Qtr 3 2018 Qtr 3 2019 Qtr 3 2019 Qtr 2 2019 Qtr 2 2019 Qtr 2 2019 Anticipated Council Presentation Qtr 2 2019 Qtr 1 2020 Qtr 1 2020 Qtr 1 2021 Qtr 1 2021 Qtr 1 2021 Our Best Initiative In 2017, the Office of the Mayor launched Our Best, the City’s racial equity commitment to improve life outcomes for young Black men and boys through systems-level changes, policy leadership, and strategic investments in five impact areas: education, safety, health, economic mobility, and positive connections to caring adults. The FEPP Levy will invest in community-based recommendations identified for the education and positive connections impact areas by the Our Best Advisory Council. Further detail on these investments can be found in Section IV regarding the K-12 Culturally Specific and Responsive, Strategy #4. Education is Social Justice DEEL believes that education is social justice and that the work of the Department is necessary to combat Seattle’s persistent racial inequities from education, to health, to justice system involvement and ultimately to people’s lived experience and economic realities. The FEPP Levy invests preschool to post-secondary and increases access to equitable educational opportunities, high-quality learning environments, and student and family supports for historically-underserved communities. FEPP investments prioritize serving African American/Black, Hispanic/Latino, Native American, Pacific Islanders, underserved Asian populations, other students of color, refugee and immigrant, homeless, English language learners, and LGBTQ communities to achieve of the overall goal of achieving educational equity. DEEL Mission: Transform the lives of Seattle’s children, youth, and families through strategic investments in education DEEL Vision: We envision a city where all children, youth, and families have equitable access and consistent opportunities to high-quality educational services, support, and outcomes Educational Equity: Access to educational opportunities and academic achievement are not predicated on a person’s race --January 2019 Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 Alignment with City Investments and Initiatives Cities Connecting Children to Nature The City of Seattle joined the Cities Connecting Children to Nature (CCCN) initiative in February 2018. CCCN is an initiative of the National League of Cities (NLC) and Children & Nature Network (CNN). The CCCN initiative offers guidance, technical support, and fundraising assistance to local municipalities in establishing new connections between children and nature through exposure to promising practices, access to national experts, and structured peer learning and training opportunities. 5 Spending time in nature is proven to enhance educational outcomes by improving children’s academic performance, focus, behavior, and engagement in learning. 6 The CCCN initiative is led by Seattle Parks and Recreation and DEEL is part of the core leadership team. DEEL supports the use of FEPP Levy funds to increase equitable access to nature where possible. Best practices include green schoolyards, green job pathways, outdoor play, and out-of-school-time activities in parks. Evaluation Overview A comprehensive and rigorous evaluation framework provides the foundation for transparency and accountability to stakeholders. The FEPP evaluation framework is guided by the FEPP Theory of Change and seeks to answer one overarching question: To what extent, and in what ways, do FEPP investments improve educational equity, close opportunity gaps, and build a better economic future for Seattle students? Evaluation Values To answer this overarching question, and a broader set of evaluation questions throughout the life of the FEPP Levy, DEEL and partner agencies will implement five evaluation values: (1) practice accountability, (2) strive for continuous quality improvement, (3) commit to asset-based indicators, (4) disaggregate data by subpopulations, and (5) promote good stewardship of public funds. Accountability: Accountability refers to the responsibility of both DEEL and contracted partners to implement investments with fidelity, manage funds effectively, and ensure activities make progress toward achieving outcomes. DEEL will leverage a number of accountability structures including performance-based contracts, program evaluation activities, and public reporting to promote transparency and to assess program strengths and areas for program improvement. Continuous Quality Improvement: Continuous quality improvement (CQI) refers to the ongoing, realtime data monitoring and reporting of indicators and outcomes to understand fidelity of program implementation, progress towards intended results, and program effectiveness. DEEL and FEPP contracted partners practice CQI by collecting data, analyzing results, and making on-going course corrections to efficiently manage investments to achieve desired outcomes (Figure 2). Analysis is iterative and informs improvements happening at three levels of impact: child/youth, program, and system. Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 Figure 2. DEEL Continuous Quality Improvement Cycle Data Disaggregation: While FEPP Levy goals and outcomes are often framed at the population level with the intent to achieve outcomes for all Seattle students, DEEL’s evaluation activities are committed to disaggregating data to better understand who is being served, how well, and with what results. When outcomes are presented merely in aggregate, race-based inequities are hidden and enabled to persist. DEEL commits to disaggregate data by age, race, ethnicity, languages spoken, socioeconomic status, gender, ability, and income to the extent possible to promote equity in our investments. Data sharing between DEEL, Seattle School District, Seattle Colleges, and contracted partners will comply with Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA),4 Higher Education Act (HEA),5 and other applicable laws, such as the City’s obligations under the Public Records Act. Asset-based Indicators: Too often, social investments that seek to reduce disparities track progress on key indicators from a deficit frame. FEPP Levy evaluation activities commit to utilize asset or strengthsbased indicators that focus on the behavior desired (e.g. students attending 95% or more of school days vs. students absent 10 or fewer days). Additionally, FEPP evaluation efforts commit to understanding the broader context in which our investments are operating—for example, how different subgroups and systems have historically interacted. Context is key to collecting meaningful data and to understanding what changes are or at not occurring. A sample of proposed indicators to asses FEPP investments are included in Appendix subsection “Evaluation Indicators.” DEEL has authority to modify the evaluation indicators and data sources utilized over the life of the FEPP Levy. Good Stewardship: As stewards of public funds, DEEL is committed to evaluating whether investments are achieving their intended purposes. FEPP will leverage performance management, continuous quality improvement, and program evaluation activities to measure whether FEPP investments are producing the best results, contributing to new learnings and understandings, and effectively using public funds. Evaluation Approach The FEPP evaluation values will be embedded in a three-tiered evaluation approach consisting of: (1) monitoring and performance management, (2) process evaluation, and (3) outcome evaluation to assess whether FEPP investments have improved educational equity, closed opportunity gaps, and built a better economic future for Seattle students (Figure 3). The following provides a more detailed explanation of each evaluation approach. Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 Figure 3. FEPP Evaluation Approach and Timeline Monitoring and Performance Management (Ongoing, Years 1-7) Process Evaluation (Periodically, Years 2-7) Purpose: Tracks and reports Outcome Evaluation on key progress outcomes (Periodically, Years 2-7) Purpose: Explores how and indicators to support FEPP is making progress continuous quality Purpose: Determines FEPP towards short-term improvement. return on investments by outcomes and improvements in practice, assessing progress toward and attainment of longplanning, and design. term outcomes and goals. Monitoring and Performance Management Evaluation activities will monitor progress toward performance indicators. All investment areas are required to collect specific numeric performance data for each funded strategy. Performance indicators are defined annually through DEEL’s performance-based contracting process. Tracking performance measures allows FEPP to measure the quantity and quality of services provided to children, youth, families, and communities as well as the results achieved by providers. This information informs continuous quality improvement (CQI) activities. Process Evaluation Process evaluations help DEEL determine how to improve practice, planning, and design. Information gleaned enables partners to inform, manage, improve, or adjust programs, services, and practices. These types of evaluations provide possible early warnings for implementation challenges. Potential evaluation questions under this design can include whether FEPP activities were delivered as intended. Furthermore, process evaluation can provide specific stakeholders with information on if the services provided were effective, how they were effective or ineffective, and what can be done to improve outcomes. In most cases, these types of evaluations would be considered descriptive. Descriptive evaluation designs aim to describe a strategy, process, or procedure. Descriptive information provides an observational snap shot or a trend analysis of investments on progress towards outcomes. Commonly used descriptive designs include qualitative or mixed method casestudies, cross-sectional quantitative survey, and time-series designs. Descriptive evaluation designs do not seek to draw cause-and-effect claims. Outcome Evaluation Outcome evaluations assess to what extent a program, service, or strategy was successful in achieving its intended outcomes. Outcome evaluations occur after several years of implementation and seek to determine the effectiveness in producing change after fidelity has been established. FEPP’s outcome evaluations will assess three levels of impact (system, program, and child/youth-level) when analyzing the Levy’s overall effectiveness. The schedule for assessing levels of impact will vary based on how quickly results are expected, whether the investment is new, etc. For example, some changes in child-level data may be expected and therefore evaluated during the mid-point of FEPP implementation, whereas larger systems-level changes may not be affected and evaluated until the final years of implementation. In most cases, outcome evaluations are often considered causal. Causal evaluation designs aim to establish a direct link between an intervention and outcome(s). Common causal evaluation designs include pre-experimental, experimental, quasi-experimental, and ex-post Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 facto designs. The evaluation design selected will guide the data collection method, analysis, and timeline (see Appendix subsections “Evaluation Design Detail” and “Evaluation Indicators” for additional detail). Evaluation Timelines and Reporting All FEPP investment areas will participate in ongoing monitoring and performance management activities as part of the CQI process. A subset of strategies/programs will be selected for process and/or outcome evaluations during the lifetime of the Levy. Designs for process and outcome evaluations will be informed by a set of criteria including, but not limited to: (1) stakeholder interest, (2) quality of data, (3) high potential to see impact, (4) ability to provide new evidence to fill a gap in knowledge, and (5) evaluation resources identified. Evaluations may be conducted through partnerships with DEEL, partner agencies, and external evaluators. DEEL recognizes the importance of external evaluators to provide an objective and impartial stance, which is essential to ensuring transparency and credibility. DEEL is committed to sharing success, opportunities for improvement, and lessons learned during implementation of the FEPP Levy. In accordance with Ordinance 125604, DEEL will report annually to the LOC and public on investments, access to services, and progress toward achieving educational equity. The FEPP Annual Performance and Evaluation Report will provide data on the performance of levy-funded activities, including progress toward meeting overall FEPP Levy goals and outcomes as well as performance indicators, lessons learned, and strategies for continuous quality improvement. Information may be shared through a variety of formats such as research briefs, data dashboards, community-based workshops, public forums, or web-based publications. Table 5. FEPP Evaluation Framework and Timeline Detail Monitoring and Performance Process Evaluation Management Purpose Tracks and reports on key Explores how FEPP is making process indicators to support progress towards short-term continuous quality outcomes and improvement improvements in practice, planning, and design Example Questions • Was the service delivered? • Was the service delivered to the intended population? • What was the dosage of the service delivered? • How are services delivered? • Was the service implemented as intended (or was there fidelity to the program model)? • Do the strategies work or not—and how and why? • Were students and families satisfied with the services? • What challenges are encountered in implementing the Outcome Evaluation Determines FEPP return on investments by assessing progress toward and attainment of long-term outcomes and goals • Were population-level changes observed? • Were improved outcomes observed among participants compared to similar non-participants? • Were the desired FEPP goals and outcomes achieved? • What changed on a broader population or community level? Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 strategy or program and how were they resolved? • What was the quality of the services provided? Data Collection Methods and Sources • Provider performance measures • Internal City data-systems • Conducting individual interviews or focus groups with program staff, participants, and other stakeholders • Observing activities • Reviewing documents • Compiling survey data on the population served and services delivered • Extracting data from agency and partner data systems • Conducting individual interviews or focus groups with program staff, participants, and other stakeholders • Observing activities • Reviewing documents • Compiling survey data on the population served and services delivered Evaluation Design Methods Descriptive Descriptive and/or causal Descriptive and/or causal* DEEL staff and contracted partners review progress toward target indicators identified and make course corrections to promote positive outcomes DEEL staff and/or external evaluators conduct observational, rigorous, qualitative, and quantitative data analysis** DEEL staff and/or external evaluators conduct quasiexperimental and observational designs** Timeline Ongoing beginning in Year 1 Periodically beginning in Year 2 Periodically beginning in Year 2 *Comparison of outcomes among similar students/schools not receiving Levy services using causal evaluation approaches. **External, third-party evaluators to participate pending available funding. Contracted partners to participate as necessary. Conditions While the FEPP Levy presents an opportunity for DEEL to implement aligned preschool through post-secondary strategies, many other efforts are underway regionally to positively affect educational outcomes for Seattle’s children and youth. FEPP’s efforts are part of a larger collective impact. As such, there will be external factors (e.g. changes in Seattle School District funding, new state assessments, etc.) that may influence FEPP’s impact as well as how DEEL evaluates strategies over the life of the FEPP Levy. DEEL is committed to identifying these external factors and understanding how they may affect strategy implementation and results observed. Further, FEPP Levy investments are intended to improve outcomes for students who access and utilize FEPP-funded services and programs; DEEL does not make claims that FEPP-Levy investments will improve outcomes for entire schools, the Seattle School District as a whole, and/or the Seattle Colleges as a whole. Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 Spending Plan The FEPP Levy makes strategic investments across the preschool through post-secondary continuum. To do so, the Levy funds four investment areas: (1) Preschool and Early Learning, (2) K-12 School and Community-Based, (3) K-12 School Health, and (4) Seattle Promise. Throughout the Plan, all budget totals and percentages shown are sevenyear figures, unless otherwise stated. Detailed spending plans are included within each FEPP Investment Area section in the Plan (Section IV). Figure 4. FEPP Levy 7-Year Investment Area Totals 7-YEAR COST $637.8 MILLION K-12 School Health $67.2M (11%) Seattle Promise $40.7M (6%) Preschool and Early Learning $341.8M (54%) K-12 School and The largest budget allocation within Community-Based the FEPP Levy is to Preschool and $188.1M (29%) Early Learning ($341.8M, 54%). This investment area largely represents a continuation and expansion of the four-year pilot SPP Levy. While not detailed specifically in the Plan, DEEL’s other early learning investments also receive substantial funding from other funding sources, including: Sweetened Beverage Tax, General Fund, Washington State’s Early Childhood Education and Assistance Program (ECEAP), SPP tuition, and other small grants. This funding leverages and supplements FEPP Levy investments whenever possible. The two K-12 investment areas—K-12 School and Community-Based and K-12 School Health—are a combination of new and expanded past FEL investment strategies. Unlike the Preschool and Early Learning investment areas, the K-12 School and Community-Based investment area is almost entirely funded through the Levy. Funding for this area totals $188.1M or 29%. K-12 School Health investments ($67.2M, 11%) are administered in partnership with Public Health Seattle-King County (PHSKC) and Seattle School District and are similar to investments made previously through the 2004 and 2011 FEL. The Seattle Promise investment area ($40.7M, 6%) provides funding for the Seattle Promise College Tuition Program (Seattle Promise) such that all Seattle public school students may access post-secondary education. The City will administer this new program in partnership with the Seattle Colleges. DEEL’s central administration costs related to the FEPP Levy are embedded within and across each investment area proportionally. The totals for the four investment areas are inclusive of the administration costs. The administration budget reflects a portion of DEEL’s central administrative labor and non-labor costs as well as Citywide indirect costs, including IT and facilities; this is 7% of the total Levy. 1 1 As of January 2019. Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 Quality Implementation and Management of Investments Performance-based Contracting DEEL uses performance-based contracts and awards for all FEPP Levy investments. Consistent with other governmental and procurement definitions of performance-based contracting, DEEL defines performance-based contracting as a) outcomes-based rather than process-based contracting that b) includes measurable performance standards and c) incentivizes desired performance through the payment structure. A key component to the success of performance-based contracting is the implementation of continuous quality improvement (CQI) cycles throughout the contracting period in order to evaluate efficacy of funded programs. Management and Reporting of Levy Funds Consistent with Ordinance 125604, “the [Levy Oversight] Principle 6. Implement accountability Committee shall review an annual report of Levy outcomes and structures based on student outcomes, indicators for the previous school year; review and advise on performance-based contracts, proposed course corrections, program modifications, and performance-based awards, and practice program eliminations; and periodically review and advise on continuous quality improvement. program evaluations. The Council requires that before the --Ordinance 125604, Section 2 Executive submits to the Council the Implementation and Evaluation Plan, Partnership Agreements, or proposes any changes in Levy funding requiring Council approval by ordinance, the Executive will seek the recommendation of the Committee.” Throughout the year, DEEL will monitor actual spending in each investment area. Per Council Resolution 31821, the priority for unspent and unencumbered funds at the end of each fiscal year will be to supplement the Seattle Preschool Program, with the goal of increasing the number of available preschool slots for three- and four-year old children. Any other proposed use of annual underspend will be reviewed and recommended by the LOC and approved by the Council through the annual budget process or other legislation. Contracts Oversight As part of DEEL’s commitment to Levy Principle #6, DEEL will regularly monitor contract performance and progress towards contracted performance outcomes. This may require rejecting renewal or extension of existing contracts that have failed to meet the agreed-upon outcomes over the course of one or more contract periods. In most cases, DEEL will first work with contracted agencies to provide a corrective plan and, if appropriate, technical assistance in order to course correct or, through mutual agreement, adjust a target or goal. If this is not successful in achieving the contracted outcomes, DEEL may attempt additional interventions or coaching, if possible. If performance does not improve to meet contract standards, DEEL will utilize appropriate contract remedies, which may include early termination or nonrenewal. Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 Methodology and Timeline for Awarding Investments Equitable access to funding FEPP Levy principles and priorities emphasize promoting equitable access to funds and capacity-building opportunities. The Levy provides an opportunity for DEEL to work with a variety of community, cultural, and language-based organizations, in addition to institutional, governmental and school partners. Working with such a broad range of partners requires that DEEL continually examine its funding processes and mechanisms to prioritize equitable access to funding opportunities for all potential partners who could achieve Levy outcomes. Additionally, the Levy invests in new areas where DEEL needs to broaden its partnership reach and work with providers who may not have worked with the department or City prior to the Levy. As part of the development of the Plan, DEEL began a Racial Equity Toolkit on the Request for Investments (RFI), Request for Proposal (RFP), and Requests for Qualifications (RFQ) processes. Based on initial feedback from providers and organizations from Early Learning and K-12, the department centered its focus on the following elements of the process: outreach, technical assistance, evaluation, and review. The department will continue to refine its RFI, RFP, and RFQ processes throughout the beginning of 2019 in preparation for the release of the majority of FEPP investment area RFIs as it continues working through the RET process in 2019. Consistent with the CQI practice DEEL applies to contract management, DEEL will use the same approach to its funding processes with a goal of continuously improving practice and process based on feedback, outcomes, and best practices. The department will continue to revisit the outcomes and recommendations of the Racial Equity Toolkit overtime. Priority 4. Provide access to capacitybuilding opportunities for historically underserved Seattle communities to improve program instruction, quality, and infrastructure. Principle 3. Maximize partnerships with community, cultural and language-based organizations. Principle 5. Implement competitive processes to identify organizations to partner with the City to deliver services to children and youth. --Ordinance 125604, Section 2 Supports for applicants A key component of providing equitable access to DEEL funds is the support and assistance offered to applicants. While DEEL has historically offered workshops in advance of RFI deadlines and provided technical assistance with awarded organizations, the department is committed to increasing the support offered to applicants throughout the process, especially first-time applicants or new organizations that have not worked with the department or City previously. DEEL will provide multiple avenues for potential applicants to receive technical assistance in advance of RFI application deadlines. This may include, but is not limited to: • In-person workshops; • One-on-one technical assistance sessions • Online webinars and materials on the basics of applying for DEEL funding Some of these elements will be common across DEEL, with the goal of minimizing the number of unique processes or forms an applicant must use to apply for multiple DEEL funding opportunities. DEEL is continuing to build out supports for applicants through its RET process. Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 Supports for contracted partners Additionally, DEEL is working to support awarded applicants and contracted partners, especially those who have not contracted with the department before. This may include additional one-on-one technical assistance provided by contracts staff before contract execution and workshops on common contract elements or processes to better prepare awarded groups for what to expect when contracting with DEEL. Method DEEL will use a combination of RFI, RFP, and RFQ processes to competitively award Levy proceeds. These investments are identified throughout the Plan and described in subsection “How will investments be managed and phased in?” DEEL will issue RFIs for investments in the Preschool and Early Learning and K-12 School and Community-Based areas. PHSKC will issue RFIs for investments in K-12 School Health. DEEL has authority to direct award contracts to Seattle Colleges, Seattle School District, and Public Health—Seattle King County (PHSKC), and other community partners. Further, DEEL has authority to enter into agreements with the Department of Parks and Recreation, Human Services Department, and other City Departments to transfer Levy funds for purposes consistent with FEPP Levy requirements and this Plan. DEEL has authority to use consultants to complete tasks such as, but not limited to, external program evaluations or to supplement technical assistance to applicants. The selection of consultants and the issuance of RFPs will follow the process established under SMC Chapter 20.50. Eligible schools, community-based organizations, and government agencies will be required to compete for funds by submitting an application that outlines how they will achieve the specific outcomes stated in the RFI. The RFI application will require applicants to develop and commit to a plan that will meet stated outcomes. DEEL will review applications and contract with schools, organizations and government agencies as applicable, to invest funds in the applications that are likely to achieve the greatest results for the amount of funds contracted. Once DEEL has selected contracted partners through an RFI process, DEEL has authority to negotiate changes to specific program elements to meet the intended targets or outcomes, or to adjust for available funding. An outline of the anticipated timeline and frequency of RFIs, RFPs, and RFQs is provided below. Timeline School Year 2019-2020 The Levy introduces not only a new investment area, Seattle Promise, but also makes significant shifts in investment goals and outcomes for existing investments areas from preschool through K-12. In order to allow existing Families and Education Levy (FEL) and Seattle Preschool (SPP) Levy partners time to align plans and resources to new FEPP strategies and outcomes, DEEL will phase-in new investments and strategies during the first year of FEPP Levy implementation. For School Year (SY) 2019-2020, DEEL will largely maintain existing FEL and SPP investments at SY 2018-2019 school year funding levels and similar contract terms. This applies to the following areas: • SPP, Step Ahead, and Pathway provider • Elementary Community Based Family Support • Elementary School Innovation sites • Middle School Innovation sites • Middle School Linkage sites • High Schools Innovation sites • Summer learning programs in early learning, elementary, middle, and high school • School-Based Health Centers Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 A complete list of providers is included in the Appendix. DEEL will continue direct contracts previously awarded through competitive processes or sole source in SY 201920, including: • Homeless Child Care Program with Child Care Resources • Sports and Transportation with Seattle Parks and Recreation • Family Support Services with Seattle School District • Culturally Specific Programming with Seattle School District • Educator Diversity with Seattle School District Some new FEPP investments will begin in SY 2019-2020. These services include, but are not be limited to: • Family Child Care Mentorship and Quality Supports • Homelessness/Housing Support Services • Mentoring • School Based Health Centers • Seattle Promise Early Learning and Preschool Providers The SPP will conduct competitive RFI processes when contracting with new provider agencies to deliver preschool services, beginning in School Year (SY) 2020-2021. For SY 2019-2020, DEEL will continue to contract with existing providers and may expand the number of classrooms and children served if mutually agreed to by both parties. Contracted agencies will be required to meet SPP program and evaluation requirements. Early Learning and Preschool providers under contract with the City as of January 2019 and in good standing with DEEL, will not need to reapply to provide these services during the seven years of the FEPP Levy. Sequence of RFIs and RFQs During SY 2019-2020, for new investment or program areas, DEEL will endeavor to release RFIs in a timely manner, so schools and partner organizations have sufficient time to align with the new Levy strategies and outcomes. The RFI process for SY 2020-2021 FEPP investments will begin in Quarter 2, 2019. The following investments will be selected through a competitive RFI process for SY 2020-2021 implementation. DEEL has authority to bid additional investments through competitive RFI processes not identified below. The following table outlines the FEPP investment procurement (RFI, RFP, RFQ) release timeline scheduled to occur throughout the life of the Levy. Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 Table 6. FEPP Investments Procurement 7-Year Release Timeline Funding Opportunities Type of Anticipated Funding Funding Process Process Release Preschool and Early Learning Facilities Pre-Development RFQ Q2 2019 (Architectural Services) Family Child Care Mentorship and RFI Q2 2019 Quality Supports SPP Provider Facilities Fund RFI Q2 2019 Comprehensive Support Services RFQ Q3 2019 SPP and other preschool providers RFI Q4 2019 K-12 School and Community-Based Homelessness/Housing Support RFI Q2 2019; Services Q2 2022 Mentoring RFQ Q2 2019 School-Based RFI Q2 2019 Culturally Specific Programming RFI Q4 2019 Opportunity and Access RFI Q1 2020; Q1 2023 K-12 School Health*** School Based Health Centers RFP Q2 2019 (Meany MS, Robert Eagle Staff MS, and Lincoln HS) School Based Health Centers RFP Q3 2019 (Nova HS) School Based Health Centers RFP Q1 2020 (all Elementary Schools) Anticipated Funding Process Frequency* Anticipated Duration of Award** As-Needed n/a One-time 6-Year Annually As-Needed Annually Varies n/a 6-Year Two-times 3-Year; 4-Year n/a 6-Year 6-Year 3-Year; 3-Year As-Needed One-time One-time Two-times One-time 7-Year One-time 6-Year One-time 6-Year *Frequency subject to change **All awards are reauthorized annually, up to term indicated, conditioned upon achievement of contract outcomes ***All K-12 School Health processes administered by PHSKC Review process DEEL is working to streamline the RFI/RFQ/RFP review processes as well as complete a racial equity toolkit (RET) on the outreach, technical assistance, evaluation, and review processes DEEL has used for FEL and SPP investments. The process described below is the minimal required process that DEEL will adhere to for all RFIs and RFPs. Workshops All RFI processes will include at least one bidders’ workshop which will provide an opportunity for applicants to ask questions or request clarifications about the RFI/RFP process or content. All documents provided during the workshop, including handouts, notes, recorded questions and answers, will be posted to the DEEL website. Workshops will be advertised and posted through the DEEL website, listservs, and organizational networks whenever possible. Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 Submittal RFI/RFP applications are due no later than the time stated as part of the posted timeline, included in the RFI/RFP. RFQs may include deadlines for regularly scheduled reviews. This will be specified in the RFQ posting. DEEL has traditionally only accepted paper copies of RFI and RFP responses; however, the department is exploring accepting online submittals as well. This approach, if implemented, will be specified in the RFI or RFP postings. DEEL reserves the right to not consider late applications received after the deadline. Review & Evaluation The evaluation panel is a key component of the review process. DEEL will continue to identify evaluators that represent a broad range of expertise and perspectives, including program staff, other City and governmental staff, community members, partner agency staff, and others, barring conflicts of interest. All evaluators must sign a Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest Statement at the beginning of the process. DEEL is reviewing the evaluation process through a RET and will likely implement changes to require all evaluators take an anti-bias training in advance of participating on a panel. When evaluating RFI and RFP responses, DEEL will use a variety of methods to determine which proposals are best positioned to meet intended outcomes including but not limited to past success at achieving results, means and methods proposed, commitment of leadership to improving outcomes, and the costs of programs or proposals. Investment area and strategy specific criteria for FEPP investments are provided in the subsection, “What are the provider criteria?” As part of the evaluation and review process, DEEL may require interview sessions and site visits for applicants, as needed. These sessions would be focused on clarifying questions only and would not introduce new or separate rating criteria; however, evaluators may update their scores following clarification sessions. After finalizing recommendations based on evaluators’ scores and determining the final award amounts based on available funding, the DEEL Director will review and approve the final rankings and funding levels of RFI/RFP applications. Notification process Following the DEEL Director’s approval, DEEL will notify applicants at the same time by email about the status of their proposal. After applicants have been notified about the status of their proposal, DEEL will post a list of awarded agencies and organizations to its website. Appeals Process RFI/RFP/RFQ applicants may appeal certain decisions during the process. These decisions include: • Violation of policies or guidelines established in the RFI/RFP/RFQ • Failure to adhere to published criteria and/or procedures in carrying out the RFI/RFP/RFQ process • Non-renewal or extension of contract Applicants may submit a written appeal to the DEEL Director within four business days of the date of written notification of their award status. Notification of appeal to the Director may be delivered in person or by email. DEEL may reject an appeal that is not received within the required timeline. An applicant must file a formal appeal. An intent to appeal expressed to DEEL does not reserve the right to an appeal. No contracts resulting from the RFI/RFP process can be issued until the appeals process is completed. The DEEL Director will review all appeals and may request additional facts or information from the applicant. A written decision will be made within four business days of receipts of the appeal and shall be delivered by email to the applicant making the appeal. Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 PRIMER TO SECTION IV FEPP Core Strategies are aligned to FEPP Levy investment areas. Shaded tiles are used in Section IV of this report to map FEPP investment area strategies to FEPP Theory of Change core strategies; a darkened and bolded core strategy name indicates where alignment to the Theory of Change exists. Equitable Educational Opportunities High-Quality Learning Environments Student and Family Supports FEPP Levy Outcomes are evaluated by three levels of impact: 1. System-level outcomes are expected changes in the systemic conditions, infrastructure, or processes needed to support program-level and child/youth-level outcomes. 2. Program-level outcomes are expected changes in practices, policies, or adult behavior, knowledge, or skills that support child/youth-level outcomes. 3. Child/youth-level outcomes are the expected changes in a young person’s behavior, knowledge, or skills because of participation in FEPP-funded programs and services. Each level of impact will have outcomes, indicators, and measures. Systemlevel Programlevel Child/ Youthlevel Logic Models are used to visually depict how FEPP Levy investments will achieve stated outcomes. Each logic model includes inputs, outputs, and outcomes. Inputs include operational elements such as staff, partners, funding, data, facilities, and/or communication. Outputs include strategies, programs, and participants. Outcomes are time-bound and categorized as short, medium, and long-term. Outcomes reflect the three levels of impact: system, program, child/youth. All logic model elements tie back to the Theory of Change core strategies. To read a logic model, process information from left to right, flowing from inputs, to outputs, to outcomes. Follow color-coded arrows to connect information. Bolded outcomes represent the long-term outcomes of a FEPP Levy investment area. Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 IV. FEPP Investment Areas Preschool and Early Learning Introduction The Seattle Preschool Program (SPP) launched in the 2015-16 school year with the goal of providing accessible, high-quality preschool services for Seattle children designed to improve their readiness for school and to support their subsequent academic achievement. The first four years of SPP were designed to be a demonstration phase, wherein the City would establish sustainable practices to achieve its goal of eliminating race-based disproportionalities in kindergarten readiness. In working with preschool provider partners over the past four years it has become clear that to be successful, SPP must be flexible enough to be responsive to community needs, while at the same time maintaining clear standards of quality. Under FEPP, SPP will maintain its high-quality standards while incorporating a more flexible design to enhance partnerships and alignment while reducing barriers to participation for families and providers. The City has provided quality supports to preschool providers and tuition assistance to families since 2004, when the Step Ahead preschool program was created. In 2015, the City launched the SPP. Around the same time, DEEL also created a preschool program called Pathway, modeled after Step Ahead, but with the mission to support providers to transition to SPP by providing additional supports needed to meet SPP quality standards. Strategies Preschool and Early Learning Goal: Seattle students have access to and utilize high-quality early learning services that promote success in kindergarten. Outcomes: 1. Children are kindergarten ready 2. Learning environments are evidencebased, high-quality, culturally responsive, and equitable 3. Students and families have multiple ways to access high-quality early learning services 4. Race-based opportunity gaps are closed As described in Ordinance 125604, Section 6, “Major program elements are intended to increase children’s kindergarten readiness and may include: financial support for preschool and childcare tuition, ongoing comprehensive supports for quality teaching, and support for early learning infrastructure development.” The Preschool and Early Learning investment area funds seven strategies: 1. Preschool Services and Tuition: Provides access to free or affordable high-quality preschool through SPP and Pathway, with a focus on meeting the needs of historically underserved populations. 2. Quality Teaching: Supports quality improvement through culturally-responsive professional development, coaching, and data-driven decision-making. 3. Comprehensive Support: Funds DEEL’s model for providing health supports and technical assistance to all partner preschool agencies and provides supplemental funding to partners to meet the individualized needs of children and families, with a focus on those who support children from historically underserved populations. Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 4. Organizational and Facilities Development: Supports facilities and business-related investments to support quality environments and sustainable business practices. 5. SPP Child Care Subsidies: Provides access to child care before and after the preschool day and during the summer. 6. Homeless Child Care Program: Provides financial and case management support for families experiencing homelessness to improve their access to licensed early learning programs. 7. Family Child Care Mentorship and Quality Supports: Increases the number of licensed child care providers in the City of Seattle. Spending Plan Preschool and Early Learning investments are allocated across seven strategies (93%), evaluation (2%), and DEEL administration (7%). The largest budget allocation within Preschool and Early Learning funds Preschool Services and Tuition($146.6M, 43%). The remaining funding is split across Comprehensive Support ($70.2M, 21%), Quality Teaching ($60.2M, 18%), Organizational and Facility Development ($15.4M, 4%), SPP Child Care Subsidies ($9.70M, 3%), Homeless Child Care Program ($2.8M, 1%) and Family Child Care Mentorship and Quality Supports ($4.0M, 1%). The Preschool and Early Learning investment area includes funding for evaluation ($8.3M) by a combination of internal and external evaluators. The DEEL administration budget reflects a portion of DEEL’s central administrative labor and non-labor costs as well as Citywide indirect costs, including IT and facilities. This is capped at 7% across the Levy. Table 7: Preschool and Early Learning 7-Year Budget Totals by Strategy Strategy Total Preschool Services and Tuition $146,637,714 Quality Teaching $60,212,079 Comprehensive Support $70,199,979 Organizational and Facility Development $15,375,406 SPP Child Care Subsidies $9,699,036 Homeless Child Care Program $2,800,000 Family Child Care Mentorship and Quality Supports $4,000,000 Evaluation $8,271,646 Administration $24,617,321 Total Preschool and Early Learning $341,813,182 Percent 43% 18% 21% 4% 3% 1% 1% 2% 7% 100% Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 Table 8. Preschool and Early Learning Investment Timeline FEPP Levy School Year Year 2 Year 1 SY SY 2019-20 202021 Seattle Preschool Program SPP Child Care Subsidies Comprehensive Support Services Facilities Pre-Development (Architectural Services) SPP Provider Facilities Fund Family Child Care Mentorship and Quality Supports Homeless Child Care Program Continue and expand with current partners Year 3 SY 202122 Year 4 SY 202223 Year 5 SY 202324 Year 6 SY 202425 Year 7 SY 202526 RFI for new agencies* Direct contract with SPP/Pathway partners* RFQ* RFQ* for architects RFI* for Preschool partners; Direct contract with developers; Direct contracts for small facilities improvements Direct contract with Imagine Institute; RFI* Direct contract with Child Care Resources *Annually/As-Needed **SY 2019-20 will continue contracts with existing Seattle Preschool Program, Step Ahead, and Pathway providers Alignment with RSJI According to the Washington State Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, in 2017, 46.7% of Washington kindergarteners were found to be kindergarten ready in all six areas assessed (Social Emotional, Physical, Language, Cognitive, Literacy, and Math). 7 Across the state, children from historically underserved populations were comparatively less likely to be deemed kindergarten ready. For example, 31.5% of children from low-income families, 26.8% of children from families experiencing homelessness, 30.7% of children with limited English proficiency, and 18.5% of children with special education needs met expectations in all six areas assessed. With the launch of SPP in 2015, the City committed to investing in Seattle’s children’s success in school and life. Success for children means adopting an equitable investment strategy. Partners who serve families from historically underserved populations may require enhanced supports (e.g., coaching, resources, health consultation). Since 2014, DEEL has involved the community in Racial Equity Toolkits (e.g., development of the SPP Comprehensive Evaluation Strategy, the Family Child Care (FCC) Advisory Council, and the FCC-SPP Pilot) and made recommended course correction whenever possible. Alignment with City Resources As of Quarter 1, 2019, the City funds early learning and preschool programs through a variety of revenues and resources, including Sweetened Beverage Tax (SBT) proceeds, Washington State’s Early Childhood Education Assistance Program (ECEAP) grant, and City General Fund. Early learning programs funded through these other revenue sources include the Parent-Child Home Program (PCHP), Nurse Family Partnership (NFP), Comprehensive Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP), Developmental Bridge program, and other investments such as coaching and health supports for child care providers serving children from birth-three and specialized Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 supports for Family Child Care providers. These non-FEPP Levy funded programs are intended to supplement and complement the services and programs funded through the Levy. Strategy #1: Preschool Services and Tuition Equitable Educational Opportunities High-Quality Learning Environments Student and Family Supports What are Preschool Services and Tuition? Preschool Services and Tuition funds: (1) Seattle area preschool providers to deliver quality preschool services to prepare children for success in kindergarten and beyond, and (2) full or partial tuition assistance for families of eligible children to reduce the financial barriers to participating in quality preschool. During the SPP demonstration phase, children from low and moderate-income families (at or below 300% of federal poverty) attended SPP for free. Families at or above 301% of federal poverty were required to pay tuition on a sliding scale. Under FEPP, DEEL will increase access to high-quality preschool by • expanding the program slots to serve approximately 2,500 children by SY 2025-26, and • increasing the free tuition threshold to include families up to and including 350% of federal poverty, or $87,600 for a family of 4 (previously 300%, or $75,300 for a family of 4 in 2018). Families above 350% of federal poverty will continue to pay tuition on a sliding scale. Why are Preschool Services and Tuition important? High-quality preschool has been shown to have positive impacts on children’s social and emotional development, health, pre-academic skill development, and executive function skills. 8 Providing tuition assistance reduces the financial burden of working families whose children attend high-quality preschool. Creating a network of quality preschool providers increases the supply of available high-quality services and associated benefits. Funding for preschool and tuition benefits: • Children, by providing access to high-quality preschool to prepare them for their transition to kindergarten. 9 • Families, by improving affordability. In 2016, Child Care Aware of America estimated that the average cost of center-based care in Washington State to be over $10,000 for a 4-year-old. 10 Cost for full day preschool in Seattle can reach over $12,000 a year or $1,200 a month. 11 • Seattle School District and the community, by reducing the long-term costs for remediation and special education. Some states found that investing in high-quality preschool programs led to a 10% reduction in third-grade special education placements. 12 The Perry Preschool program study shows reduced costs in remedial education, health and criminal justice system expenditures. 13 Who is served by Preschool Services and Tuition? Seattle children who are at least 3-years-old by August 31 and not yet eligible for kindergarten in Seattle School District are eligible to receive subsidized tuition. 14 Children from families who are at or below 350% of the federal poverty ($87,600 for a family of four in 2018) will attend free of cost to the family. For families above 350% of federal poverty, tuition will be based on a sliding scale. Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 • Year 1 of FEPP (SY 2019-20): SPP will maintain child prioritization policies from the SPP Demonstration Phase with two changes. 1. Children who are 3- or 4-years old experiencing homelessness or currently placed in the foster care system receive priority over all other applicants. 2. All 3-year old children, regardless of family income, are now eligible to apply and receive a seat in the program. As part of the policies maintained from the Demonstration Phase, 4-year-old children will receive priority over 3-year-old children. 2 • Years 2 through 7 of FEPP (SY 2020-21 through SY 2025-26): DEEL will revise its selection process to have five tiers of priority, listed below: Table 9. Priority Levels for DEEL-Selected Children in SPP Tiers Prioritization Criteria 1 Children who are 3- or 4-years old experiencing homelessness 2 Children who are 3-or 4-years old currently placed in the foster care system 3 Children who are 4-years old* 4 Children who are 3 years old with at least one of the qualifying factors** 5 Children who are 3 years *4-year old children with siblings who attend programming co-located at an SPP site will be prioritized. **Current proposed qualifying factors include children on an IEP, dual language learners, previous participation in state or city subsidy programs (i.e., Working Connections, CCAP), current sibling participating in SPP or programming co-located at an SPP site, previous participation in state, county or city sponsored home visiting programs, ECEAP or Early Head Start. In anticipation of selection for the second year of FEPP, DEEL will conduct a racial equity toolkit (RET) that will review Tier 4. The toolkit will assess the list of eligible qualifying factors, as well as whether it would be appropriate to provide a rank order of qualifying factors. What are the provider contracting criteria for Preschool Services and Tuition? Agencies with sites that meet the minimum qualification for SPP are eligible to apply (Table 10). The City uses a mixed-delivery model for preschool, which includes classrooms operated by Seattle School District, classrooms operated by community-based organizations (CBOs), and services provided in family childcare centers (FCCs). DEEL contracts with agencies to provide preschool services directly to children in school-, center-, and homebased settings. Operationally it is feasible to add homeless and foster care priority in the first year. It is beyond the resources and operational capacity of DEEL to further change our selection process due to the compressed timeline. 2 Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 Table 10. Minimum qualifications for SPP Sites Category Seattle Preschool Program - Minimum Qualifications* Licensing All sites of preschool services must be: • Licensed by the Washington State Department of Children, Youth, and Families (“the State”), OR • Exempt from licensing by the State because entity is a public school or institution of higher education. Quality** If regulated by the Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF): • Hold a rating of Level 3 or above in the State’s Early Achievers (EA) program, or successfully complete DEEL’s Pathway requirements If regulated by the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI): • Hold a rating of Level 3 or above in the State’s Early Achievers (EA) program, OR • Meet early learning quality standards comparable to EA, as determined by DEEL Service Hours 15 Class Size and Ratio 16 Offer full-day, to approximate the typical public school day. • • The maximum class size is twenty. There must be at least one adult for every ten children. o Lower class sizes and ratios are permissible. *DEEL will conduct site visits prior to contracting with new sites. **Because providers occasionally experience delays with the EA ratings process, DEEL may choose to contract with an agency for a site that has not yet received an EA rating if the agency has other SPP sites meet SPP Quality Standards. All new sites will be expected to meet all Quality eligibility criteria within one calendar year of opening. If significant structural challenges persist, DEEL has authority to determine an equivalent measure of quality. Contracted preschool provider partners will: • Professional Development. Use a DEEL-approved curriculum and execute quality improvement and professional development plans and meet DEEL contractual requirements; participate in ongoing professional development and continuous quality improvement, and meet annual targets related to teacher qualifications, training, and compensation. • Evaluation. Participate in program evaluation activities, which may include classroom observations, child-level assessments, self-evaluations, and surveys. Evaluations may be carried out by third-party evaluators or directly by DEEL. • Reporting. Adhere to DEEL’s data collection and reporting protocol and timelines. • Requirements. Adhere to DEEL’s contracting guidelines and deliverable requirements. Preschool agencies that meet implementation expectations and performance targets through annual review will be eligible to continue contracting with DEEL for preschool through SY 2025-26. DEEL reserves the right to discontinue contracts with providers that fail to meet the contractual obligations and to defund locations that have been significantly under-enrolled for multiple consecutive years. What are the key elements of Preschool Services and Tuition? There are three primary elements of preschool services and tuition, which include: • Preschool Services. Preschool providers are eligible to receive funds to deliver preschool services. o The City will expand the number of slots each program year, with a goal to serve approximately 2,500 children by 2025-26. Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 o o o o • There will be three types of preschool providers in SPP: Seattle School District, CBOs, and FCCs. FCCs will contract with DEEL through administrative “hubs.” A hub is an organization that contracts with DEEL to provide technical assistance to a group of FCC subcontractors to facilitate their participation in City early learning programs. DEEL may directly contract, as needed, with providers of ECEAP, Head Start, Step Ahead or Pathway, and Seattle School District without competitive processes for the duration of FEPP. Expansion by existing SPP providers meeting performance standards will be negotiated with DEEL annually without a competitive process. Agencies new to contracting with the City to provide preschool services will be identified through a competitive process beginning in SY 2020-2021. Tuition Assistance. Families of eligible children will have access to tuition assistance for SPP. o Families with household income at or below 350% federal poverty (below $87,850 for a family of four in 2018) may participate in City-funded preschool free of charge. o Families with household income above 350% federal poverty will pay a portion of the cost for participation in SPP (see Appendix: Year 1 SPP Tuition Sliding Fee Scale). o DEEL has authority to modify the sliding scale; City Council will be notified of modifications at least 30 days before they are put into effect. How will Preschool Services and Tuition be managed and phased in? • Preschool Services. The City will ramp up SPP in each of the seven years of the levy. The expansion schedule is outlined in Table 11. Table 11. Approximate Number of Children Assumed in FEPP Spending Plan Program FEL/SPP Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 SY 2018SY 2019SY 2020-21 SY 2021-22 SY 2022-23 20 3 19* SPP 1,4151,700 – 1,825 – 1,950 – 2,075 – 1,615 1,750 1,875 2,000 2,125 Pathway 200 200 200 200 *Last year of SPP/FEL levies; included for reference. o Year 5 SY 2023-24 Year 6 SY 2024-25 Year 7 SY 2025-26 2,200 – 2,250 200 2,325 – 2,375 200 2,450 – 2,500 200 Year 1 of FEPP (SY 2019-20): DEEL will continue working with existing 2018-19 providers that remain in good standing to expand services to an additional 200-250 children. Through direct award, DEEL will negotiate a performance-based contract with providers to administer preschool services, inclusive of monitoring and achievement of contract goals and performance targets. The Seattle School District contract will be consistent with terms of the partnership agreement.  At the discretion of DEEL, the following types of providers will have contracting priority for SPP expansion in year 1: 1. City of Seattle 2018-19 contracted Step Ahead providers 2. City of Seattle 2018-19 contracted Pathway providers 3. City of Seattle 2018-19 contracted SPP providers (including FCC administrative hubs). Year 1 ramp-up will occur among partner agencies contracted to provide preschool services in SY 2018-19. These agencies are not required to reapply via a competitive process to continue contracting in Year 2 and beyond. 3 Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 4. City of Seattle 2018-19 contracted ECEAP providers o Years 2 through 7 of FEPP (SY 2020-21 through SY 2025-26): DEEL’s overarching priority for Years 2-7 is to expand SPP to areas of the city with long waitlists for City-funded preschool. 4 Local demand, as determined by waitlists, and a providers’ ability to offer special education inclusion or dual language programming, as defined by DEEL, will be considered when approving expansion sites.  DEEL has authority to contract directly with: 1. SPP providers in good standing 5 2. Agencies that contract with DEEL to provide preschool services as of SY 201819 (Step Ahead, ECEAP, Pathway) 3. Seattle-based providers of ECEAP and Head Start that do not contract with DEEL as of SY 2018-19 In addition, providers new to contracting for publicly-funded preschool will be selected through a competitive RFI process. Priority will be given to those that have a history of supporting children from historically underserved populations, including dual language and programs that specialize in inclusion. • Tuition Assistance. Tuition assistance will be made immediately available to families at the start of SY 2019-20 upon confirmation of eligibility and enrollment. Families determined to be ineligible for the program will not receive DEEL tuition assistance. Strategy #2: Quality Teaching Equitable Educational Opportunities High-Quality Learning Environments Student and Family Supports What is Quality Teaching? Quality teaching funds professional development and other workforce development supports to increase teachers’ knowledge and capacity to create and sustain high-quality, evidence-based, and equitable learning environments for preschool children. All quality teaching investments are designed to improve teaching practices and learning environments in SPP and Pathway and sustain these improvements through FEPP and beyond. Specifically, quality teaching funds the following types of activities and investments: • Instructional coaches’ labor and training. DEEL coaches provide intensive, intentional, and reflective onsite coaching to classroom-based staff. The coaches use the lenses of equity and cultural responsiveness to understand the professional development and specific needs of all instructional staff in the classroom. The coaches also provide guidance and training to directors, site supervisors, and other key personnel. • Curriculum materials and training. Pre-service and in-service curriculum training supports teachers’ knowledge of curriculum content. DEEL coaches have in-depth knowledge of the approved curricula, as If specialized services are in demand, such as SPP Plus Special Education Inclusion or dual-language programs, expansion of these services will also be prioritized. 5 DEEL will develop end-of-year “quality assurance” process to ensure all SPP providers offer high-quality programming and are continually advancing in their practice. 4 Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 • • well as an understanding of diverse learning needs and adult learning. To support teachers to implement curricula with fidelity, coaches model culturally and linguistically responsive teaching and support teachers’ reflective practice. DEEL is committed to and will work with early learning stakeholders and other partners to support that emergent bilingual development of children who are dual language learners. During FEPP, DEEL will promote early learning and literacy development in children’s first (or home) language and ensure that all early learning providers receive training to understand the importance of integrating a child’s home language into the curriculum to promote linguistic, socialemotional, and cognitive development. Curriculum supported in the SPP demonstration phase (i.e., HighScope and Creative Curriculum) will continue under FEPP. Assessment materials and training. Assessments may include: o Ages & Stages Questionnaires (ASQ-3 and ASQ-SE). Questionnaires designed to assess the development of children and provide early awareness of delays or disorders to help children and families access needed supports. 17 o Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS). CLASS PreK is an assessment tool used to rate classroom practices in preschool by measuring the interactions between children and adults. CLASS uses research-driven insights to improve how teachers interact with children every day to cultivate supportive, structured, and engaging classroom experiences. 18 o Early Childhood Environmental Rating Scales (ECERS). An observational tool used to assess process quality related to the arrangement of space both indoors and outdoors, the materials and activities offered to the children, the supervision and interactions (including language) that occur in the classroom, and the schedule of the day, including routines and activities. 19 o Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT4). The PPVT measures vocabulary skill. The adult presents a series of pictures to each child. There are four pictures per page, and each is numbered. The adult says a word describing one of the pictures and asks the child to point to or say the number of the picture that the word describes. o Program Quality Assessment (PQA). Validated rating instruments designed to measure the quality of early childhood programs and identify staff training needs. 20 o Teaching Strategies Gold (TSG). Authentic, ongoing, observation-based formative assessment system that helps teachers and administrators determine children’s strengths and areas for growth. 21 o Other assessments that evaluate cultural responsiveness, inclusive practices and whole child programming will likely be introduced during the life of the FEPP Levy. Workforce development supports: Workforce development supports include: o Training institutes. DEEL funds multiple training opportunities for preschool teacher, site supervisors, and directors, including: the director’s instructional leadership series; training institutes (pre-service training in late summer, the data institute in winter, and “Children Race and Racism” in the spring); and professional learning communities (PLCs). o SPP scholars’ tuition support. DEEL provides funding for preschool instructional staff to continue their formal education toward degrees and credentials related to early childhood education. Though service commitments vary by the amount of the investment, the typical recipient of tuition supports commits to working in City-contracted preschool classrooms for three years. o Support for SPP teacher compensation. SPP contracts require partner agencies to pay teachers who meet SPP education standards (e.g., a lead teacher who has a bachelor’s degree in early childhood education) at minimum levels, as determined by DEEL. Quality teaching provides the funds to enable partner agencies to meet these requirements. Why is Quality Teaching important? According to the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC): Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 “A highly-qualified early childhood educator--one who knows how to create a dynamic, accountable learning environment--is at the center of a high-quality early learning experience. Research has shown that children who attend high-quality preschool are better prepared to be successful in school and in their future careers. The economic and community benefits of high-quality early learning and development experiences for all young children cannot be understated and include, increased graduation rates, increased economic wellbeing for all communities, and the long-term development of a high-quality professional workforce. Yet, despite the important role early childhood educators play, and despite increased public demand and incremental financing for high-quality early learning, it is difficult to earn a living wage being an early childhood educator. … It is not enough to demand highquality education for young children; we also must ensure that educators are provided with affordable high-quality training and education opportunities.” 22 DEEL’s multidimensional approach provides the early learning workforce with the opportunity to earn degrees, 23 access fair compensation, 24,25 and develop in ways that allow the City to maximize its investment in preschool and early learning. Who is served by Quality Teaching? Quality teaching supports are provided to site-based instructional staff (lead and assistant teachers,) who work with children in SPP and Pathway programs. Additional support and guidance are provided to directors, site supervisors, and FCC owner/operators on an as-needed basis. What are the provider criteria for Quality Teaching? DEEL staff provide coaching and training supports to contracted agencies’ instructional staff. DEEL also partners with culturally and linguistically responsive trainers and external evaluators to conduct assessments. Providers will develop quality improvement and professional development plans subject to mutual agreement. What are the key elements of Quality Teaching? The key elements of quality teaching include coaching, curriculum training, assessments and workforce development. • Equity-focused, culturally and linguistically responsive coaching. Coaching supports teacher learning, which leads to positive academic, emotional, and social outcomes for SPP and Pathway children, teachers, and families. Using an equity lens and grounded in race and social justice, coaches work to support the professional development needs of each teacher, director, site supervisor, and preschool program. The DEEL coaching approach focuses on culturally and linguistically responsive teaching, which: o Applies strengths-based interventions, strategies, and supports. o Supports children to direct their own learning and to work with others, allowing them to be confident and proactive. 26 o Encourages children to use home cultural experiences as a foundation to develop skills, which allows more significant and transferable learning; and makes school knowledge applicable to real-life situations. 27 • Curriculum training and implementation. A high-quality curriculum helps to ensure that staff cover important learning areas, adopt a common pedagogical approach, and reach a certain level of quality across age groups and regions. 28 DEEL’s coaches are formally trained in DEEL-approved curricula and have a deep understanding of how to adapt instructional approaches to meet diverse learning needs. Coaches use this training to support the implementation of approved curricula with fidelity by: o Funding training on the curriculum to support teachers’ curriculum content knowledge and certification. Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 Supplying formally trained coaches to model culturally-responsive teaching and help teachers adapt their instructional approaches to meet the diverse learning and development of all children. Assessment and continuous quality improvement. Regular teacher-led formative assessments of student progress in research-based core curricula are now considered critical components of high-quality instruction during primary grades. 29 Having standards for early learning and development, promotes continuity for children across early opportunities. Coaches: o Leverage assessment data to help preschool site-staff to develop cohesive, equity-driven, highquality preschool programs. Review assessment tools and data through a racial equity and antibias lens to determine if teaching practices are achieving the desired goals for all children. Workforce development. The cost of providing high-quality preschool programming is increasing nationally and for Seattle providers especially. Community partners report that with the increase in minimum wage, recruiting and retaining high-quality early educators has become more difficult. With labor and other costs increasing, providers are struggling to keeping child care affordable for families. DEEL funds early learning professionals in preschool programs to improve their practice while alleviating some of the costs to providers, through: o Hosting training institutes throughout the year. o Creating opportunities for instructional staff to participate in professional learning communities (PLCs) to support learning and build community with their peers. o Funding scholarships for instructional staff to continue their formal education toward early learning degree completion. 30 All levels of instructional staff who aspire to be lead teachers have access to the SPP Scholars Tuition Support Program (SPP Scholars), with a special emphasis on recruitment of staff from historically underserved populations. o Funding SPP agencies to improve early learning workforce compensation for teachers who meet education standards. o • • How will Quality Teaching be managed and phased in? DEEL will continue to support quality teaching using the strategies below and will implement a differentiated approach that is responsive to the needs and types of providers throughout the city. • Equity-focused, culturally and linguistically responsive coaching. With SPP expansion, coaching will align with the phase-in of children and classrooms over the next seven years. o Expert coaching will be provided to preschool classrooms based on differentiated levels of need, which may include recent child and classroom assessment results, and teachers’ longevity and experience in the field. o Coaching sessions differ based on observations, interactions, and assessments. o Coaching “dosage” consists of the duration of the coaching, as well as the number of hours spent during an average visit. o Each classroom will receive at least one coaching contact per month. o Dual language programs will receive coaching and training that is based on a coherent framework that builds upon research and ensures that all teachers understand first and second language development. • Curriculum training and implementation. Providers will be required to use a developmentally appropriate, research-based curriculum approved by DEEL. DEEL coaches will support and train teachers in the implementation and adaptation of the curriculum to meet the needs of all children, including children with special needs and dual language learners. • Assessment and quality improvement. DEEL coaches work in partnership with Child Care Aware, the Washington State Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF), Public Health — Seattle & King County (PHSKC), and the University of Washington to administer assessment tools and/or analyze Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 • assessment data using a CQI framework. Coaches will leverage assessment data to help preschool sitestaff develop cohesive, equity-driven, high-quality preschool programs. Assessment tools and data will be reviewed through a racial equity and anti-bias lens to determine if teaching practices are achieving the desired goals for all children. Workforce development. DEEL will coordinate culturally and linguistically responsive trainings, and institutes, and provide access to academic course work that leads to degree completion in partnership with institutions of higher education. o All workforce development activities will be aligned with the Washington state Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF). o DEEL will work with the Early Childhood Education Workforce Council to support alternate career pathways that meet state and local education standards. o All SPP teachers will be required to meet the Washington State Core Competencies for Early Care and Education. In addition:  Lead teachers will be required to have bachelors’ degrees in early childhood education (or related fields) or a professional development plan in place to complete the degree requirement within four years.  Assistant teachers will be required to have associate degrees in early childhood education, or related fields, or a professional development plan in place to complete the degree requirement within four years.  Site and agency leaders, including school principals, agency and site directors, and FCC owner/operators, will develop a quality assurance process to enhance their knowledge and skills related to early learning management and quality.  An alternate, non-degree pathway to meeting DEEL’s education requirements will be available to experienced teachers with track records of culturally-responsive, highquality teaching. Strategy #3: Comprehensive Support Equitable Educational Opportunities High-Quality Learning Environments Student and Family Supports What is Comprehensive Support? Comprehensive support funds are intended to eliminate barriers for 1) providers to support all children in the classroom, including those with individualized needs, and 2) families to access preschool services. Services provided by comprehensive supports include: 1. Child Care Health Consultation (CCHC): CCHC is a strategy that promotes the health and development of children, families, and child care staff by promoting healthy and safe child care environments. 2. Supports for children with individualized needs: DEEL provides resources to partner agencies to meet the individualized needs of children in the classrooms. 3. Support for specialized program models: DEEL provides resources for SPP classrooms that offer specialized programming, such as dual language programs and special education inclusion (e.g., SPP Plus). 4. Technical assistance and contract management labor: DEEL staff provide technical assistance to support preschool providers to understand and implement contract requirements. Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 5. Support for preschool outreach, application, and enrollment labor: DEEL staff manage and support the application and enrollment processes in partnership with contracted preschool partners. 6. Family Support and Engagement: DEEL will focus on supporting families and increasing family engagement by convening a family advisory board that will provide family voice and guidance into further development of SPP policies and programs and developing an approach to provide family support. Why is Comprehensive Support important? As DEEL continues toward a universal preschool program model, it must also ensure that any child can fully participate in the program. Providers and classrooms have seen a rise in children attending preschool who are experiencing homelessness or other trauma, as well as children exhibiting challenging behaviors requiring additional supports. Additionally, families may experience challenges that create barriers for their children to successfully access and participate in preschool such as transportation challenges and unstable housing situations. Funding for comprehensive support is an important component of high-quality preschool in that these supports help eliminate barriers to participation, interrupt inequitable practices, and create positive and inclusive interactions and classroom environments for all children. 31 Investing in comprehensive birth-to-five early childhood education is a powerful, cost-effective way to mitigate negative consequences on child development and adult opportunity. Longitudinal studies have shown significantly fewer behavioral risks and better physical health in participants who have gone through a comprehensive preschool program. 32 Who is served by Comprehensive Support? Preschool providers that contract with DEEL to provide SPP or Pathway are eligible to be supported by comprehensive support beginning in Year 1. When DEEL develops its Family Support model in Year 2, the intended recipients will be SPP and Pathway families. The Family Advisory Board will provide further guidance to DEEL on how to best support families so that they can support their children to be successful in the programs. What are the provider criteria for Comprehensive Support? Criteria for comprehensive support providers will vary by investment. All providers will be expected to have experience and demonstrated competency in working with children from historically underserved communities. Providers will be required to provide culturally relevant and accessible supports and use strengths-based language in communication with preschool partners, families, and community. What are the key elements of Comprehensive Support? 1. Child Care Health Consultation (CCHC): For over a decade, the City has partnered with Public Health Seattle-King County (PHSKC) to provide health-related supports to City-funded preschool programs using a Child Care Health Consultation (CCHC) model. CCHC provides tailored consultation, training, and support to child care providers and families to address their most pressing needs and provide overall assistance in identifying and implementing change to improve health and safety and optimal child development, such as trauma-informed care. 2. Supports for children with individualized needs: DEEL provides resources to partner agencies to meet the individualized needs of children in the classrooms and support the zero expulsion and suspension policy. Examples include temporary additional classroom support, specialized consultations or instructional materials to support children exhibiting challenging behaviors in the classroom. 3. Support for specialized program models: During the SPP demonstration phase, DEEL developed partnerships with Seattle School District and other community providers to offer specialized Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 programming in SPP classrooms, such as special education inclusion (e.g. SPP Plus) 6 and dual language programming. Because these approaches require additional materials and training, funds will be available to support the implementation of the models. 4. Technical assistance and contract management: DEEL staff supports providers to implement SPP and Pathway with fidelity by providing technical assistance to meet program and contract requirements. This includes ensuring that providers understand policies related to supporting all children in the classroom as well as how to access needed resources. 5. Support for preschool outreach, application, and enrollment: DEEL will provide technical assistance and application support to families seeking to apply to SPP. 7 DEEL will continue to conduct targeted outreach to recruit families to the program. DEEL commits to (1) coordinating with community partners to share information about how to support families to access City resources, (2) meeting with stakeholders, providers, and community in spaces that are accessible and familiar to them, and (3) providing interpretation and quality translation as a resource whenever feasible. DEEL will also continue to provide application and enrollment services as it has during the SPP demonstration phase by having a mix of DEEL and provider-selected preschool participants. 6. Family Support and Engagement: Research has shown that family engagement is crucial to supporting the growth and development of young children. Learning does not stop in the classroom and families will be supported in ways that eliminate barriers for them to support their children attending preschool and continuing their learning at home. DEEL will be developing a family support model for Year 2 implementation. Furthermore, a family advisory board will provide a structure for DEEL to consult with families on program and policies decisions prior to implementation. How will Comprehensive Support investments be managed and phased in? In Year 1 of FEPP (SY 2019-20), DEEL will implement comprehensive support investments as described below. 1. Child Care Health Consultation (CCHC): DEEL will contract with PHSKC to implement its CCHC model subject to mutual agreement. 2. Supports for children with individualized needs: DEEL will continue to support children with individualized needs. Providers will continue to use the process developed during the SPP demonstration phase, which may include classroom observations, child assessment and screening results. 3. Support for specialized program models: DEEL will continue to provide resources for SPP classrooms that offer specialized programming, such as dual language programs and special education inclusion (e.g. SPP Plus). In 2019, DEEL will use information gathered from the Dual Language Summit 8 to develop its dual language model and support framework, and to develop a clear policy statement supporting dual language learners in preschool. The support framework will be designed to ensure that all instructional supports, learning environments, curricula, and assessments are relevant for children who are dual language learning and foster their emerging bilingual and bicultural development. 4. Technical assistance and contract management labor: DEEL staff will continue to provide technical assistance to support preschool providers to understand and implement contract requirements. In SY 2017-18, Seattle School District collaborated with the City to develop “SPP Plus”, which combines District special education funds with City preschool funds to deliver a fully inclusive setting for children with IEPs. In SY 2018-19, there were 9 SPP Plus classrooms operated by Seattle School District, in addition to four other similar programs offered by other community partners. 7 DEEL makes preschool applications available in English, Amharic, Chinese, Somali, Spanish and Vietnamese and will update its language selection throughout the life of the FEPP Levy, per City policy (see: https://www.seattle.gov/iandraffairs/LA). For more information on SPP enrollment, see https://earlylearning.microsoftcrmportals.com. 8 Slated for Spring 2019. 6 Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 5. Support for preschool outreach, application, and enrollment labor: DEEL staff will continue to manage and support the outreach, application, and enrollment processes in partnership with contracted preschool partners. DEEL will: • Conduct outreach to provide information about SPP to Seattle families. • Continue to take an equity-focused approach by targeting SPP and Pathway outreach toward historically underserved populations. • Conduct outreach in partnership with local resource centers, nonprofits that provide services to immigrants and refugees, churches, community health clinics, and other organizations that support underserved communities. • Provide translated marketing materials to partner organizations to share with families of preschoolers beginning in SY 2019-20. • Identify efficiencies to streamline the application, selection, and enrollment processes to reduce family wait time. • Maintain the enrollment database. • Continue to directly provide technical assistance and contract management and support for preschool application and enrollment to contracted preschool partners. • Encourage waitlisted families to consider other locations that have immediate openings. • Promote sites that have current openings when responding to general inquiries from families. 6. Family Support and Engagement: DEEL will develop a family support model that will include a family advisory board and a funding model and framework for family support. Recognizing that the City’s administration of funding for comprehensive support requires an ongoing race and social justice lens in Years 2 (SY 2020-21) through 7 (SY 2025-26), DEEL will: • Implement the approach to family support developed in Year 1. • Continue to review, assess, and refine comprehensive support policies to maximize benefit for children and families from historically underserved populations. • Apply a racial equity lens to investment strategies and evaluations and make course corrections as needed. Strategy #4: Organizational and Facilities Development Equitable Educational Opportunities High-Quality Learning Environments Student and Family Supports What is Organizational and Facilities Development? Organizational and facilities development funds non-classroom-based supports for the expansion and sustainability of SPP. As a mixed-delivery, partnership-based model, SPP’s community-based partners must have (1) sustainable business practices and strong organizational management skills, and (2) resources to develop and maintain high-quality early learning facilities and environments. Historically, funds have been used to develop new licensed preschools, as well as improve the quality of existing preschool environments, through a competitive funding program and partnerships with developments entities such as low-income housing providers and Seattle Parks and Recreation (SPR). As the City has made these investments, providers are required to provide service commitments to the Seattle Preschool Program. Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 Since the start of the SPP demonstration phase, DEEL has developed and implemented programs to support organizational capacity-building and facility expansions. Notable investments from the SPP demonstration phase include: • Facilities Funds: o Start-up funds. Funding is intended to enhance and maintain the quality environments of SPP classrooms through the purchase of equipment and materials. Classrooms joining SPP receive startup funds and are able to access additional funds to meet classroom needs in subsequent years. o Pre-Development Services Program. This program connects providers with architects experienced in child care to support early development of facilities projects, particularly focusing on licensing, budgeting and building code feasibility. Over the SPP Demonstration Phase, DEEL formalized over 15 projects between community-based preschool providers and DEEL’s pool of architects as part of the Pre-Development Program. o SPP Provider Facilities Fund. SPP and Pathways providers may submit proposals for facilities funding. Over the course of the SPP demonstration phase, the program has made 12 grants. Providers that received grants for facility projects were required to make service commitments to the City, ranging between one and ten years. o Direct investments. DEEL works in collaboration with development partners to create new facilities and classrooms for preschool. DEEL had three primary direct investments during the demonstration phase that included investments in ten Seattle Parks and Recreation (SPR) community centers to create licensed SPP classrooms, a new preschool at the SPR-managed Miller Annex, and a new preschool center as part of an affordable housing project at the former site for Fire Station 39, the Tony Lee Apartments in Lake City • Organizational Capacity: o Organizational Capacity Program. Provides short-term consultation in the areas of finance, fundraising, technology, human resources, and other business skills to our providers depending on their needs. o Hub-Network model for FCCs. Hubs identified through competitive processes to be SPP providers (see Strategy #1: Preschool Services and Tuition), provide business training and technical assistance to FCC providers participating in SPP intended to tailor technical assistance and training for family child care providers, which operate as small businesses. During the course of the FEPP Levy, DEEL will build from SPP’s earlier successes and continue funding similar investments to support organizational capacity-building and facilities development to continue supporting partners in their organizational growth and sustainability and to increase the number of preschool classrooms in Seattle. Why is Organizational Capacity and Facilities Development important? Research demonstrates high-quality learning environments support improved academic outcomes. 33 In working with community to identify the challenges of participating in SPP, partners cited: (1) the lack of available and licensable space as a barrier to SPP program expansion, and (2) organizational capacity related to board development, fundraising plans, human resources, and financial management as ongoing challenges for sustainability. Moving forward, DEEL recognizes there are equity concerns as SPP continues to expand. Smaller community providers, such as FCCs and small child centers have different needs than larger or more well-resourced providers. To support equitable investments, DEEL intends to develop avenues for smaller providers to access the resources they need to support their business operations and improve or expand their facilities. Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 Who is served by Organizational and Facilities Development? Following the SPP demonstration phase model, DEEL will make the services described in “What is Organizational and Facilities Development?” available to SPP and Pathway providers. What are the provider criteria for Organizational and Facilities Development? Provider criteria for organizational and facilities development vary by investment. The overarching requirement for contracts is that funds are used to expand or enhance the delivery of SPP or Pathway preschool services. What are the key elements of Organizational and Facilities Development? There are two main elements of organizational and facilities development, which include: • Facility development funds. DEEL will support in the improvement and expansion of early learning facilities and environments by investing in: o Start-up funds to help new SPP and Pathway providers purchase quality equipment and materials to enhance the quality of the learning environment. o An annual SPP Provider Facilities Fund grant cycle modeled off the program developed during the Demonstration Phase. The fund will explore having an alternate pathway for SPP family child care partners to apply for funds and creation of a rolling application process for small, direct award grants. o The continuation of Pre-Development Services Program that will provide resources to our provides to explore the feasibility of new facility projects. o Direct investment opportunities with development partners such as other government departments or community development entities. Any investments with these partners will require the development partners to hold a competitive process for the SPP provider that will operate the new early learning space. • Organizational supports. DEEL will manage a series of organizational supports that can be tailored to the needs of our preschool partners. These include: o An Organizational Capacity Program that will connect consultants or other partners with business-related expertise to provide coaching and consultation to DEEL’s preschool partners. The program may also explore opportunities for shared-service models in areas such as human resources or finance. o Technical assistance and business-related training opportunities that are responsive to the organizational needs of our providers. Supports will emphasize sustainability. DEEL will communicate supports to all participants, be flexible in meeting beneficiaries where they are, and leverage resources already existing in the community wherever possible. How will Organizational and Facilities Development investments be managed and phased in? • Year 1 of FEPP (SY 2019-20): DEEL will continue to implement the Start-up, Organizational Capacitybuilding, Pre-Development Fund, and SPP Provider Facilities Fund 34 as developed and implemented in the SPP demonstration phase. o For Organizational Development and Pre-Development Services Programs, all FEPP-funded preschool providers will be eligible, including school, center, and home-based providers. Services will be available to providers through a non-competitive application process, subject to mutual agreement and the availability of funds. o For the SPP Provider Facilities Fund, center- and school-based providers are, and will continue to be, eligible to apply for funds. Recipients of Facilities Funds are required to pay prevailing wages Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 o o o • and to dedicate improved facilities to SPP for between 3 and 10 years, depending on the size of the City’s investment. During year 1 of FEPP, DEEL will also explore avenues to expand eligibility to SPP family child care providers and create a rolling application process for small, direct award grants. DEEL has authority to directly negotiate small facilities awards (under $50,000) with partners. Large facilities awards ($50,000 or more) will be awarded through competitive RFI processes.  Priorities for this fund will include but not be limited to: • Facility funding proposals that expand licensed capacity of SPP and projects that have been well vetted for regulatory, financial, and project schedule feasibility. • Facility funding proposals that are geographically located in parts of the City with higher proportions of low-income families; and • Facility funding proposals that are geographically located in part of the city with few existing SPP classrooms.  Providers receiving services through the SPP Provider Facilities Fund will also be required to: • Agree to service commitments to SPP for a specified number of years indexed to the amount of funds they receive. • For grants over $250,000, the provider or grantee will: o Commit to additional protections for the City, which may include property covenants, deeds of trust, or other legal agreements. o Contribute additional fund sources to the project beyond City funding from the SPP Provider Facilities Fund. o If the grantee is a Pathway provider, they will commit to participating in SPP by the following school year. DEEL will also continue to explore opportunities for development partnerships with SPR as well as other community-based development organizations, such as low-income housing providers, subject to mutual agreement and the availability of funds. For these direct investments of facility funds, DEEL will continue to collaborate with development partners to run a competitive process for preschool partners to operate new preschool spaces. Years 2 through 7 of FEPP (SY 2020-21 through 7 SY 2025-26): DEEL will continue its support, as detailed above, but also: • Open an RFQ process to identify community partners to support Organizational Capacitybuilding. • Conduct an evaluation to assess the efficacy and equity of DEEL’s current approach and make course corrections as needed. This analysis will include: o Analysis of the racial, ethnic, and language breakdown of SPP agencies that benefited from these supports during the SPP Demonstration Phase. o Engagement with preschool directors to assess the benefits and limitations of DEEL’s approach to these supports. Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 Strategy #5: SPP Child Care Subsidies Equitable Educational Opportunities High-Quality Learning Environments Student and Family Supports What are SPP Child Care Subsidies? SPP child care subsidies fund child care for SPP and Pathway participants by providing supplemental funding for the City’s Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP). SPP is only offered during the school year for six hours a day. CCAP provides funding for the summer and/or for extended day (before/after preschool). CCAP helps incomeeligible, working Seattle families pay for child care by issuing vouchers that may be used to pay for services with providers that have active Vendor Services Agreements (VSAs) with DEEL. 35 • The City typically pays between 25% to 70% of the average provider's rate. • Families are responsible for paying the difference between the voucher amount and the provider's regular rate. Under FEPP, DEEL will continue its practice of using the Levy as fund source for CCAP to benefit SPP and Pathway participants. Additionally, DEEL will explore the feasibility of offering a 10-hour option for preschool participants that is jointly funded by preschool services, tuition, and SPP child care subsidies. Why are SPP Child Care Subsidies important? CCAP vouchers, funded by SPP child care subsidies, enable children whose parents work to participate in SPP and Pathway by offering subsidized extended care for children. Most parents of young children in the U.S. work outside the home and require child care beyond the typical six-hour school day. Both adults are employed in 56% of married couples raising young children. For single, custodial parents of young children, 65% of women and 83% of men are employed. 36 SPP child care subsidies support the goals of the City’s RSJI because they reduce barriers to program participation for low and middle-income families and support providers who have a history of serving children from historically underserved populations. Who is served by SPP Child Care Subsidies? To be funded by SPP child care subsidies, families must meet the CCAP eligibility criteria and children must participate in a FEPP-funded preschool program. Other children in the family may participate in CCAP, but may not be funded by FEPP. 9 DEEL has authority to change SPP child care subsidies eligibility criteria to align with CCAP. SY 2018-19 CCAP eligibility criteria are: • Live within the Seattle city limits. • Be employed or be enrolled in education or job training. • Meet income guidelines based on family size, 200.1% - 300% of federal poverty as of 2018. • Not be eligible for the State’s Working Connections Child Care program or the University of Washington’s Child Care Subsidy. What are the provider criteria for SPP Child Care Subsidies? Child care providers with Vendor Services Agreements (VSAs) with DEEL may accept CCAP vouchers; there are approximately 180 providers with VSAs as of 2018. Providers are required to: Funding source (FEPP - SPP Child Care Subsides or Sweetened Beverage Tax - CCAP) is determined by DEEL. Fund source determination does not impact families’ application process. 9 Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 • • • • Provide quality care to children participating in their program as evidenced by annual City assessment. Participate in the State of Washington Early Achievers program. 37 Collect any co-pays from participating families. Maintain child attendance records and report attendance to DEEL monthly. Additional criteria for participation are outlined in VSAs. What are the key elements of SPP Child Care Subsidies? Key elements include: • Alignment will City programs and processes. SPP child care subsidies funding is used to fund preschool participants in CCAP. Families with children in CCAP who are not in preschool can complete one family application process, inclusive of all of their children. • Responsive support for Seattle families. SPP child care subsides provides the funding that can be used to ensure eligible families can access CCAP vouchers for care before and after the preschool day, during school breaks, and over the summer. How will SPP Child Care Subsidies be managed and phased in? CCAP vouchers are calculated based on family size, income, hours of care needed, and age of the child. A family applying to CCAP receives one voucher for each child in care. The voucher authorizes monthly child care payments to an approved child care program. In Year 1 of FEPP (SY 2019-20): • Continue to use SPP child care subsidies to fund child care subsidies for SPP and Pathway participants by providing supplemental funding for the City’s Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP). In Years 2 (SY 2020-21) through 7 (SY 2025-26) of FEPP: • DEEL will develop a pilot for a 10-hour tuition sliding scale that DEEL anticipates will combine preschool tuition assistance and SPP child care subsidies. DEEL has authority to reassess eligibility requirements and provider criteria at that time. • The results of the 10-hour model pilot will be presented to the Seattle City Council and include recommendations for the future of the 10-hour model. • DEEL will continue to review its processes annually to identify ways to simplify application processes for families. Strategy #6: Homeless Child Care Program Equitable Educational Opportunities High-Quality Learning Environments Student and Family Supports What is the Homeless Child Care Program? On November 2, 2015, Seattle declared a State of Emergency on homelessness. To serve families experiencing homelessness, DEEL contracts with Child Care Resources’ (CCR) Homeless Child Care Assistance Program. CCR has implemented this program for over 15 years and provides child care subsidies to families experiencing homelessness, co-payments for families receiving state child care vouchers, navigation of state child care subsidy programs, and case management. Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 Why is the Homeless Child Care Program important? Research indicates that the first five years of a child’s life are critical to brain development, academic achievement, and outcomes later in life. 38 Children in families experiencing homelessness and who are unstably housed are more likely to experience challenges in school than their stably housed peers. Children in unstable housing situations experience environments that can inhibit their emotional, cognitive, and behavioral development. Additionally, research indicates that: • Students who experienced homelessness as very young children are more likely than their stably housed peers to score poorly on standardized assessments across an array of content areas including math, reading, science, and language in early elementary school. 39 • Children experiencing homelessness are more likely to be diagnosed with learning disabilities. 40 • Homelessness during infancy and toddlerhood has been linked to later child welfare involvement and early school failure. 41 • The achievement gaps between homeless and low-income elementary students tend to persist, and may even worsen, over time. 42 • Parents experiencing homelessness face many barriers in accessing child care. Helping families find practical child care allows them to participate in the job training, education, and other programs essential to supporting their transition to stable housing situations. 43 Who is served by the Homeless Child Care Program? FEPP Investments in the Homeless Child Care Program will be for families in Seattle that meet the federal McKinney-Vento Act definition of homeless. To be eligible, children and youth are likely in some of the example situations: • Children and youth sharing housing due to loss of housing, economic hardship, or a similar reason. • Children and youth in motels, hotels, trailer parks, por campgrounds due to a lack of alternative accommodations. • Children and youth in living in emergency or transitional shelters. • Children or youth abandoned in hospitals. • Children and youth awaiting foster care placement. • Children and youth whose primary nighttime residents not ordinarily used as a regular sleeping accommodation. • Children and youth living in cars, parks, public spaces, abandoned buildings, substandard housing, bus or train stations. • Migratory children and youth living in any of the above situations. CCR reaches these families through their statewide child care information and referral call center as well as referrals either directly or through partner agencies. What are the provider criteria for the Homeless Child Care Program? In SY 2018-19, DEEL contracts with Child Care Resources (CCR) to manage the Homeless Child Care Assistance Program. CCR has a 15-year track record of effectively serving families experiencing homelessness. They have cultivated partnerships with the Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF), who administer the state Working Connections Child care Subsidy Program, and early learning providers through their resource and referral role. Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 What are the key elements of the Homeless Child Care Program? DEEL and CCR will continue to engage over the FEPP Levy period to make programmatic adjustments to more effectively serve children experiencing homelessness. • Program Management. The SY 2018-19 program funds: o Approximately 350 vouchers each year for children in Seattle who meet the McKinney-Vento definition of homelessness. o Provides staffing support for CCR to administer the voucher program and provide case management services. • Child Care Subsidies. These subsides are for families experiencing homelessness in Seattle and are ineligible to access the Working Connections Child care (WCCC) subsidy. o Subsidies will also provide short term assistance when families are involved in critical housing and family stabilization activities while navigating WCCC eligibility; • Co-payment Supports. These payments are for working families eligible for WCCC but who are unable to meet the co-payment amount due to unstable living situations. • Technical Assistance. CCR will offer navigation services to assist families with eligibility requirements for the WCCC subsidy. Case management services will support the families in eliminating barriers to eligibility which will aid in resolving their housing and employment challenges more quickly. As a close partner with DCYF, CCR can navigate the WCCC program and engage with families referred from the subsidy program. Maintaining this crucial relationship with early learning providers will strengthen CCR’s ability to advise families on their child care options and openings. CCR is also able to provide critical feedback to barriers for homeless families around accessing care with their vouchers and advocate for policy changes. Participation in the Homeless Child Care Program does not adversely impact eligibility for participation in other City-funded early learning programs. How will the Homeless Child Care Program be managed and phased in? Through direct award, DEEL will negotiate a performance-based contract with CCR to administer the homeless child care program, inclusive of monitoring and achievement of contract goals and performance targets. In the event that CCR does not meet contractual obligations or no longer provides these services, a new partner will be identified through a competitive process. Contracts will be renegotiated annually to provide annual funding amounts and to ensure the services are responsive and flexible to the changing circumstances of Seattle families. Strategy #7: Family Child Care Mentorship and Quality Supports Equitable Educational Opportunities High-Quality Learning Environments Student and Family Supports What is Family Child Care Mentorship and Quality Supports? FEPP will provide $4 million over the course of the levy to support quality Family Child Care (FCC) in Seattle to: 1. Increase access to quality FCC sites in Seattle 2. Provide quality enhancements to FCC partners FCCs are an important component of the early childhood landscape in Seattle. With 369 licensed homes in Seattle (in 2018) and the capacity to serve over 3,000 children, FCCs serve children in mixed-age environments, and are ethnically and linguistically diverse. A recent DEEL study found that 206 of the 369 licensed FCC Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 providers in Seattle speak Amharic, Arabic, or Somali. 44 Noting the importance of FCCs as small businesses and their role in supporting the development of Seattle children, particularly children of color and those from immigrant families, DEEL has recently expanded its investments in FCC programming and began a process to develop a cohesive FCC support strategy. Over the past year, DEEL commissioned an FCC Study and convened a Family Child Care Advisory Council (FCCAC) to further support this work. The study, conducted by Dovetailing and informed by the FCCAC, included recommendations for DEEL’s FCC support strategy. Specifically, their report recommends developing a more robust and informed outreach strategy for FCCs, providing peer group supports for professional learning, funding and advocating for business supports, and engaging in a process to align of City-funded programs and initiatives. The study highlighted the current isolation of FCC providers and potential benefits of providing supports that strengthen relationships, promote cultural competency, and strengthen quality. During FEPP, the City intends to direct contract with the Imagine Institute to co-develop and pilot an approach for providing supports. DEEL will also work with the Washington State Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DYFC) to explore opportunities for alignment with their approach to mentorship. DCYF is piloting an FCC Mentorship program statewide in 2018. The State pilot has focused on pairing current practitioners with aspiring FCC providers with the goal of licensing fifty new providers across Washington each year. DEEL’s mentorship program commits to: • Engaging with local community partners to develop priorities for FCC Mentorship and Quality Supports in ways that are aligned with the needs of FCCs in Seattle and responsive to the Seattle context. • Funding efforts to support new and/or unlicensed providers to become licensed participants in public subsidy programs. • Completing a RET in accordance with the City’s RSJI. • Periodically assessing the efficacy of the program in achieving the goals, codeveloped and executed with community partners, to inform course corrections and adjustments during the levy period. Why are Family Child Care Mentorship and Quality Supports important? As the State and the City have sought to raise quality, new requirements have been codified for participation in publicly-funded child care subsidy programs, such as the State’s Working Connections Child Care Program and CCAP. Requirements include revised licensing standards and participation in the State’s Quality Rating and Improvement System, Early Achievers. Successful navigation of requirements can be a barrier to participation for FCCs. While standards are becoming more resource-intensive for providers, costs for families are also rising. Seattle is one of the fastest growing cities in the country, adding over 114,000 people since 2010, which marks a nearly 20% population increase.45 It is now estimated that it costs $75,000 a year in King County to be self-sufficient with one preschool-aged child and one school-aged child. This is a 59% increase since 2001, while wages have only increased over that time by 41%. 46 Families, particularly those with the youngest children, have limited choices for care due to a lack of availability and high costs of licensed child care. 47 DEEL’s initial approach has value because: • DEEL’s 2018 FCC Study, informed by discussions with the FCCAC, recommended outreach, peer group supports, professional learning, business and financial supports, and alignment of programs and initiatives as high-priority ways to support FCCs. Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 • • Mentoring that includes access to knowledge and experience, increased professional and personal confidence, greater collaboration in the workplace, and increased capacity to deliver positive outcomes has been shown to be an effective strategy for improving teacher practice and supporting growth on the job. 48 Connecting novice early learning professionals with relationship and inquiry-based supports provided by trainers with adult learning knowledge is a proven strategy for increasing their personal and professional capacity. 49 Who is served by Family Child Care Mentorship and Quality Supports? Recipients of the family child care mentorship and quality supports will be determined after a community engagement process. The City will explore a focus on FCC providers who have been newly licensed within the past several years and providers unlicensed, as of Qtr 1 2019, who aspire to open licensed FCC and have the goal of participating in City-funded subsidy programs. What are the provider criteria for Family Child Care Mentorship and Quality Supports? In SY 2019-20, the City will contract with the Imagine Institute to administer family child care mentorship and quality supports subject to mutual agreement. Further, DEEL and the Imagine Institute will engage the FCC Advisory Council, DCYF, and other community partners to develop the strategy and determine the provider criteria for these services and supports. What are the key elements of Family Child Care Mentorship and Quality Supports? The FCC mentorship and quality supports approach will have three key elements: • Quality and business support for newly licensed programs. As a means to sustain new licensed FCC providers, DEEL will work with community partners to provide culturally and linguistically responsive, targeted supports to sustain and strengthen FCC’s quality and sustainability. • Partnering with community-based organizations. DEEL intends to co-design this strategy and then contract with one or more community-based agencies to implement it. • FCC Mentorship. As part of the support strategy, DEEL intends will fund a peer mentorship program using experienced and licensed providers as mentors. New or aspiring FCC providers will work toward becoming licensed with the goal of providing additional high-quality slots for families of Seattle. How will Family Child Care Mentorship and Quality Supports be managed and phased in? Through direct award, DEEL will negotiate a performance-based contract with the Imagine Institute to codevelop the City’s approach to family child care mentorship and quality supports. DEEL and the Imagine Institute will engage in an inclusive planning process to develop the types of supports, create the support criteria, and develop a contracting structure beginning in Qtr 3 2019. The planning process approach will include: • Close engagement with DCYF and Imagine Institute to gather key learnings from the implementation of the statewide FCC Mentorship Program pilot. • A review of DEEL’s strategic plan and the recommendations of the Family Child Care Advisory Council (FCCAC) to ensure strategic alignment. • Setting program policies and annual targets for the FCC support strategy. Prior to finalization, DEEL will review draft policies and contracting structures through a RET in alignment with the City’s RSJI. Since this a new set of supports for the City, DEEL will assess the effectiveness of the supports annually and revise the approach as necessary. Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 Evaluation Preschool and Early Learning evaluation activities will track progress toward outcomes (Table 12). Evaluation for FEPP strategies (i.e. Preschool, Extended Day Childcare, Comprehensive Supports) beginning in SY 2019-20 will follow the approach detailed herein. Table 12. Preschool and Early Learning Goal and Outcomes Goal • Seattle students have access to and utilize high-quality early learning services that promote success in kindergarten. Outcomes • • • • Children are kindergarten ready C/Y Learning environments are evidence-based, high-quality, culturally responsive, and equitable P Students and families have multiple ways to accessing high-quality early learning services S Race-based opportunity gaps are closed S *Outcomes are coded as S = System-level impact, P = Program-level impact, and C/Y = Child/youth-level impact FEPP evaluation activities will assess outputs, short, medium, and long-term outcomes, and monitor progress toward the Preschool and Early Learning goal that Seattle students have access to and utilize high-quality early learning services that promote success in kindergarten (Figure 5). Preschool and Early Learning investments apply the FEPP core strategies of promoting Equitable Educational Opportunities (preschool services and tuition, child care subsidies, homelessness child care program), High-Quality Learning Environments (organizational and facilities development, quality teaching, family child care mentorship and quality supports), and Student and Family Supports (comprehensive support). Preschool and Early Learning investment outcomes are aligned with current early learning literature identifying essential elements of high-quality preschool programs shown to promote children’s development from preschool to kindergarten. Sample evaluation questions and indicators are detailed in the Appendix. Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 Figure 5. Preschool and Early Learning Logic Model *Outcomes are coded as S = System-level impact, P = Program-level impact, and C/Y = Child/youth-level impact DEEL will design a rigorous evaluation approach for the Preschool and Early Learning investment area in accordance with available funding and staffing resources (Table 13). Preschool and Early Learning outputs and outcomes will be evaluated annually to monitor and assess performance. DEEL will implement one or more process evaluations after strategies have been implemented for a few years (i.e. Years 2-3) to assess whether short-term outcomes are being achieved. Results will inform mid-course corrections as needed. Finally, outcome evaluations will focus on the medium and long-term outcomes to determine the return on invest based on the strategy results achieved. The culminating outcome evaluation (occurring in year 6) will help show overall impact of strategies at the child, program, and system-level. Process and outcome evaluations may focus on one or more strategy within the broader Preschool and Early Learning investment area depending upon identified areas of focus and available resources. Evaluation activities with identified staffing and/or funding resources are marked by an “X” in the table below. Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 Table 13. Preschool and Early Learning Evaluation Timeline* Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 SY SY SY SY SY SY SY Evaluation Tier 2019- 2020- 2021- 2022- 2023- 2024- 202520 21 22 23 24 25 26 Monitoring and Design X X X X X X X Performance Execution X X X X X X X Report X X X X X X X Process Evaluation Design X X X X Execution X X X X Report X X X X Outcome and Design X X X Impact Execution X X X Report X X X *Timelines subject to change Responsible Entity DEEL DEEL and External Evaluators DEEL and External Evaluators Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 K-12 School & Community-Based Introduction K-12 School and Community Investments are specifically designed to close opportunity gaps and ensure students graduate from high school college career ready and prepared for the post-secondary pathway of their choice. Since 2014, more than 75% of Seattle School District students graduate on-time annually, and rates continue to improve. In fact, 4-year high school graduation rates improved from 72.6% in 2013 to 79.0% in 2017. However, when graduation rates are disaggregated by race, significant opportunity gaps become evident. In 2016, on-time graduation rates for Black, Latino, and American/ Indian/Alaskan Native students at Seattle School District were 70.3%, 62.8% and 54.5% respectively, when compared to 84% for white students and 80.9% for Asian students. Such gaps have proven persistent and must be addressed in order to reduce disparities in educational attainment, promote equitable local economic development, and support the state’s workforce needs. K-12 School & Community-Based Goal: Seattle students have access to and utilize college and job readiness experiences that promote high school graduation. Outcomes: 1. Students are academically prepared by meeting or exceeding grade level learning standards 2. Students graduate high school on-time 3. Students graduate high school college and career ready 4. Contracted partners provide targeted, highquality instruction and services that are evidence-based and/or promising practices 5. Students are educated by a more diverse educator workforce 6. Students have access to a network of expanded learning opportunities 7. Structures are promoted for advancing college awareness and access to career preparation resources 8. Race-based opportunity gaps are closed K-12 School and Community Investments will direct services towards students with the greatest need and fund evidence-based and promising practices targeting academic preparation and social, emotional, and behavioral skill building that lead to high school graduation and college and career readiness. Investments will offer supplemental services using culturally and linguistically responsive approaches designed to close opportunity gaps for historically underserved students, schools, and communities. Services are primarily intended to serve students not yet meeting grade level learning standards and/or African American/Black, Hispanic/Latino, Native American, Pacific Islander, underserved Asian populations, and other students of color. Providing access to expanded learning opportunities is a key element of K-12 investments. K-12 investments will increase access to high-quality before and after school, summer, and other out-of-school time learning experiences that support the development of academic, social, emotional, and physical interests of students. FEPP-funded expanded learning opportunities will foster college and career readiness through activities such as tutoring and academic support, mentoring, social and emotional learning, family engagement, and culturally responsive supports. The roadmap towards high school graduation in Washington State is changing and FEPP investments to support equitable outcomes and academic preparation for students are timely. Beginning with the Class of 2021 (SY Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 2020-21), Seattle public high school students must earn a total of 24 credits – up from 20 credits in previous years. The new credit requirements are aligned with the College Academic Distribution Requirements (CADRs) of state post-secondary institutions and include four years of English language arts, three years of mathematics, three years of science, and three years of social studies. Along with new credit requirements, students must also pass state assessments aligned to college and career readiness learning standards. 10 Students must also be prepared for what comes after high school. With 70 percent of the high-demand and family-wage careers in our state requiring a post-secondary credential by 2030, FEPP K-12 & Community investments will fund opportunities to develop college and career readiness strategies and skills for students, especially those from backgrounds historically underrepresented on college campuses, many of whom face obstacles in obtaining the skills, experiences, and resources that enhance their ability to take advantage of postsecondary programs. With the enhanced credit requirement and expanded emphasis on college and career readiness, FEPP Levy K-12 & Community investments will fund critical academic preparation and college and career readiness services for students in need of additional support as they progress toward graduation. Strategies To reduce opportunity and achievement gaps and increase the overall number of students graduating from high school prepared for the college or career path of their choice, K-12 School & Community-Based investments take a multi-pronged approach to address academic and non-academic barriers. The K-12 School and CommunityBased investment area funds four strategies: 1. School-Based: These investments offer intensive support to a limited number of schools. Services will include extended in-school and expanded learning opportunities, academic support and socialemotional skill development, college readiness programming, and career exploration experiences. 2. Opportunity & Access: These investments will support school and community partnerships, increase access to expanded learning opportunities, promote 21st century skill building and college and career awareness, prevent or limit academic loss during school breaks, and support school and community partnerships by investing in community-based organizations and eligible schools not receiving SchoolBased awards. 3. Wraparound Services: These investments support students by providing family support services and wraparound care, reducing and preventing non-academic barriers to student learning, supporting youth experiencing homelessness, and providing services to support extended day programming. 4. Culturally Specific and Responsive: These investments foster equitable learning opportunities, diversify the educator workforce, create positive connections between peers and adults, and offer programming reflective of racial and cultural diversity within the community. Spending Plan The K-12 School and Community-Based investment area budget allocates funding for School-Based Investments ($115.06M, 61%), Wraparound Services ($23.27M, 12%), Opportunity & Access ($11.90M, 6%), Culturally Specific & Responsive ($10.89M, 6%), Policy and Program Support (8%), and DEEL Administration (6%). Policy and program support include the cost of DEEL’s K-12 Division staff. The administration budget reflects a portion of DEEL’s central administrative labor and non-labor costs and is capped at 7% across the Levy. In 2017, the Washington State Legislature passed House Bill 2224, creating additional pathways to high school graduation for students who do not meet standard on statewide assessments. 10 Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 Table 14. K-12 School and Community-Based 7-Year Spending Plan Totals by Strategy Strategy Total Percent School-Based $115,062,865 61% Opportunity & Access $11,900,074 6% Wraparound Services $23,270,680 12% Culturally Specific & Responsive $10,889,353 6% Policy and Program Support $15,813,574 8% DEEL Administration $11,119,032 6% Total K-12 School and Community-Based $188,055,577 100% Monitoring and Performance Management To respond to the rich diversity and shifting needs of schools and communities, K-12 School and CommunityBased investments will be guided by an outcomes-based approach and an implementation framework that allows for innovative, context-specific interventions rather than a one-size-fits-all approach. School leaders and service providers will work collaboratively to identify the specific services, learning opportunities, and interventions best suited to their school and/or community and most likely to achieve improved outcomes for students and families. Investments will be guided by an accountability structure that incentivizes improvement on measurable outcomes and indicators tied to the achievement of FEPP Levy goals. K-12 & Community-Based investment recipients will develop workplans that rely on approaches that have demonstrated success in achieving results on stated outcomes. Funded partners will operationalize their work through a continuous cycle of improvement that includes implementation of evidence-based or promising practices, timely data collection about program services, clients, and outcomes, ongoing data use and analysis, and the application of course corrections as needed. When implementing course corrections, partners will monitor data on a regular basis and review with DEEL. After reviewing data, DEEL and partners will determine what actions, if any, have been taken to improve outcomes. If actions to-date have not resulted in improved outcomes, DEEL will provide technical assistance to program staff to improve the efficacy of current strategies and/or to try different strategies. If measurable improvements are not made within a year, DEEL may redirect funding to a different partner or program. To ensure quality implementation of investment strategies and to achieve desired results, DEEL commits to • conducting regular site visits to observe programs, discuss implementation, and provide feedback, • ensuring the existence and/or development of systems to collect, monitor, and analyze data, • supporting the use of quality assessment tools, and • providing access to learning opportunities that emphasize high-quality program implementation. Alignment with RSJI K-12 and Community investments promote the advancement of educational equity by directing services and supports toward historically underserved students, schools, and communities, specifically students not yet meeting grade level learning standards and/or African American/Black, Hispanic/Latino, Native American, Pacific Islander, underserved Asian populations, and other students of color. Performance within each investment strategy will be closely tracked to ensure race-based opportunity gaps are reduced and ultimately eliminated. Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 Alignment with City Resources K-12 School and Community Investments are specifically designed to complement and leverage not only the other investments strategies included in the FEPP Levy but also other City-funded investments. This includes but is not limited to: • Community Learning Centers collaboratively supported through Seattle’s Department of Parks and Recreation • The Children and Youth Summer Meal program supported by the Human Services Department • Transportation provided through the ORCA Opportunity Program • Educational initiatives and programs supported by Seattle Public Library, the Office of Arts and Culture— Creative Advantage, and Human Services Department—Upward Bound, and others Strategy #1: School-Based Access to Equitable Educational Opportunities High-Quality Learning Environments Student and Family Supports What are School-Based Investments? School-based investments build and expand upon successes from the 2004 and 2011 Families and Education Levies (FEL). Students who meet grade level learning standards through elementary, middle, and high school are more likely to graduate and enroll in post-secondary programs or successfully transition into the workforce. FEPP school-based investments will provide supplemental services at the school level to ensure that students who are not yet meeting grade level learning standards receive the necessary academic and non-academic supports needed to graduate from high school prepared for college and career. Investments will be directed toward elementary, middle, and high schools with high concentrations of students not yet meeting grade level learning standards and/or African American/Black, Hispanic/Latino, Native American, Pacific Islander, underserved Asian populations, and other students of color. Schools will serve as hubs for Levy-funded interventions coordinated and delivered by school staff and community partners. Schools receiving Levy funds will be required to implement interventions in two key focus areas: (1) Expanded Learning and Academic Support and (2) College and Career Readiness. Interventions will positively contribute to one or more of the following indicators designed to positively impact students being served by FEPP-Levy investments: • Proficiency in English language arts as measured by state assessment(s) • Proficiency in mathematics measured by state assessment(s) • Achieving typical or high growth in core subjects as measured by state and local assessments • English language learners making gains on the state English language proficiency assessment • Attending 90% or more school days over the course of an academic year • Passing core courses with grades of C or better • On-time promotion to the next grade level • Reduced instances of suspension and expulsion • On-time high school graduation • Meeting state standards through alternative graduation pathways such as: o Achieving a minimum score on the SAT or ACT o Achieving a minimum score on an Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate test Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 • • • • • o Completing a dual credit course such as Running Start or College in the High School Completing early drafts and a final submission of the state defined High School and Beyond Plan Applying for the state’s College Bound Scholarship Engaging in expanded learning experiences such as: a summer job, internship, and/or volunteer opportunity; enrollment in a summer learning program; completing a career and technical education (CTE) program. Submitting state and federal financial aid applications (FAFSA/WAFSA) Applying to the Seattle Promise college tuition program Why are School-Based Investments important? The Families and Education Levy has a longstanding history of investing directly in schools and improving student outcomes; particularly for students that are not yet meeting grade level learning standards. By investing in supplemental services, in addition to what schools are able to provide through state and district funding, FEPP Levy school-based investments offer students the support needed to meet grade level learning standards. These unique City investments ensure that those students who need more support, get more support as they pursue high school graduation and the post-secondary pathway of their choice. To build on growth made during the regular academic calendar it is important for students – particularly those served by Levy investments – to exercise the skills they’ve gained and stay involved in learning experiences. During extended school breaks and over the summer, students can lose academic skills and knowledge if not engaged in learning or enrichment, a phenomenon known as summer learning loss or summer slide. This phenomenon appears to disproportionately impact low-income and students of color and is a major driver of opportunity and achievement gaps. As a result, students may not return to school in the fall prepared to succeed and are at greater risk of falling behind academically or dropping out of school. Participation in quality expanded learning opportunities can alleviate or eliminate summer learning loss and positively impact student attendance, academic achievement, and key social and emotional development indicators such as engagement, motivation, and self-esteem. Who is served by School-Based Investments? School-based investments will be directed toward elementary, middle, and high schools with high concentrations of students not yet meeting grade level learning standards and/or African American/Black, Hispanic/Latino, Native American, Pacific Islander, underserved Asian populations, and other students of color. Levy-funded schools will serve as hubs where services are coordinated and delivered by new and/or existing school staff as well as community-based organizations. Enrollment in interventions provided through school-based investments will prioritize students that meet one or more of the following criteria: • From historically underserved communities who experience systemic inequities in educational achievement because of their race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status, English proficiency, familial situations, housing status, sexual orientation, or other factors • African-American/Black, Hispanic/Latino, Native American, Pacific Islander, underserved Asian populations, and other students of color • From groups historically underrepresented on college campuses and in STEM-related career fields, including students of color, first-generation students, and low-income students • Not yet meeting grade level learning standards on local/district assessments • Scoring a Level 1 or 2 on state assessments in math, reading/ELA, or science • Scoring a Level 1 or 2 on the state English language proficiency test in one or more domains Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 • • • • • Not making gains on the state English language proficiency test Not passing a core course in middle or high school Not earning enough credits to promote on-time to the next grade level Involved in one or more discipline incidents (e.g. short-term/long-term suspension, etc.) Chronically absent, defined by missing 10% or more days in a school year (18 days or more) What are the provider criteria for School-Based Investments? When evaluating RFI applications, DEEL will use a variety of methods to determine which proposals are best positioned to meet intended outcomes including but not limited to past success at achieving results, the means and methods proposed, commitment of school leadership to improve outcomes, and the costs of programs or proposals. Depending on the RFI under consideration, DEEL will use some, or all, of the criteria listed below. In addition, DEEL may use other criteria as part of its evaluation and due diligence process to ensure that school applicants have the capacity and commitment to achieve results. Criteria for School-based investments include: • Title I and/or schools with high concentrations of students not yet meeting grade level learning standards and/or African American/Black, Hispanic/Latino, Native American, Pacific Islander, underserved Asian populations, and other students of color • Commitment of the school principal to implement the proposed plan, as well as consideration for the history of previous principal turnover at the applicant school • Previous success achieving academic outcomes and measurably closing opportunity and achievement gaps • Commitment of teachers and school staff to work extended hours (e.g. before- or after-school, weekends, breaks, summers), or the ability to hire qualified staff during these periods; • Commitment to implement expanded learning opportunities (e.g. in-school learning, out-of-school time programs, and summer learning programs) • Tiered approach to intervention services that address multiple barriers to student success, including academic, social/emotional, behavioral, and health • Systems and structures in place to collect, analyze, and evaluate data; data is used to assess students’ needs, identify appropriate interventions, and track student progress toward outcomes • Plan to measurably close opportunity and achievement gaps, especially for African-American males; • Systems that foster partnership with families, use of culturally responsive communication techniques, and multiple opportunities and mechanisms for families to engage in decision-making processes • Use of culturally responsive instructional practices • Systems in place at schools to modify strategies when not successful • Use of Washington State K-12 Learning Standards and standards-based grading practices • Experience operating high-quality after-school programs, summer learning programs, or other out-ofschool time programs as a strategy to improve academic achievement • Previous success partnering with community-based organizations, or willingness and capacity to partner with community-based organizations • Ability to leverage multiple funding sources to maximize impact What are the key elements of School-Based Investments? School-based investment recipients will be required to implement interventions in two key focus areas, 1) Expanded Learning and Academic Support, and 2) College and Career Readiness. Key elements of each focus area are described as follows. Schools may use Levy funds or leverage non-Levy funds such as district, philanthropic, or community partner funds to implement key elements. Levy-funded schools are strongly Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 encouraged to partner with community-based organizations that may be able to provide support in culturallyand linguistically-specific ways, foster stronger connections between families and schools, and create highquality enrichment experiences. Expanded Learning and Academic Support School-based investments in expanded learning and academic support include high-quality intervention and student enrichment experiences that increase instructional time and foster college and job readiness through activities such as tutoring, mentoring, academic and social and emotional learning, science, technology, engineering and math (STEM), education technology, project-based learning, and culturally-responsive supports. Participation in expanded learning provides students that otherwise would not have such exposure with enriching experiences that have lifelong benefits. According to research, participation in quality expanded learning opportunities positively impacts student attendance and grade point average. Students also improve key social and emotional development indicators such as engagement, motivations, and self-esteem. Key elements include: • Extended in-school learning Levy-funded schools will be expected to provide additional hours of instructional time during the regular school day to offer qualifying students more time to master academic skills. Additional focused instruction from a certified teacher or other educators creates more time for students to master academic skills, supports greater depth and breadth of learning, and fosters stronger relationships between students and teachers. Examples of extended in-school learning strategies include, but are not limited to: o academic tutoring sessions or intervention services provided through push-in/pull-out models and aligned to student needs (i.e. individual, small group, pre-teaching, re-teaching), o academic case management (i.e. student specific planning and coordination inclusive of academic assessment, progress monitoring, and advocacy for services, classes, and supports), o learning labs, and o opportunities to engage in culturally relevant instructional practices. • Out-of-school time programs Levy-funded schools will be expected to provide additional learning opportunities outside of the regular school day to support students who have fallen behind academically and help them catch up with their peers. Before and after-school programs, winter and spring break camps, and Saturday School are strategies to expand learning time. In addition, out-of-school time programs should be supplemented with enrichment activities that will support student learning. Enrichment activities provide students with the opportunity to develop deeper learning skills such as teamwork, public speaking, and creative problem solving. Enrichment activities that are paired with academic interventions provide a comprehensive and integrated experience. Specific out-of-school time activities that may be used include, but are not limited to o targeted small group instruction, o one-on-one tutoring, o homework help, o test preparation, o STEM programming, o visual and performing arts, o service learning, Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 o o • college and career exploration, and work-based or career-connected learning. Summer learning programs Levy-funded schools will be expected to operate a summer learning program to provide students not yet meeting grade level learning standards and/or African American/Black, Hispanic/Latino, Native American, Pacific Islander, underserved Asian populations, and other students of color opportunities to engage in additional academic instruction, participate in enrichment experiences, and access a safe, structured environment in the summer. Levy-funded summer learning programs will provide at least 90 hours of additional academic instruction as well as college and career-related enrichment experiences. In elementary and middle school, summer programs should be focused on helping students meet standard on state assessments in math or reading. In high school, summer programs should provide students with opportunities to meet district graduation requirements such as recovering credit, earning first-time credit, repairing grades, completing service learning hours, or updating their High School and Beyond Plan. In addition, all summer programs should provide students with college and career-focused enrichment such as career panels, college or industry visits, SAT/ACT test preparation, beginning the college application, or connections to work-based learning opportunities. College and Career Readiness School-based investments in college and career readiness support students in developing the knowledge and skills necessary to pursue the post-secondary pathway of their choice including qualification for entry-level, credit-bearing college courses without the need for remedial coursework. 50 Key elements of School-Based Investment college and career readiness activities include: • College Knowledge and Advising College knowledge and advising is a critical component of college and career readiness. In addition to the academic requirements needed to graduate from high school, students must also develop a wide range of knowledge, skills, and abilities to be truly prepared for college, career, and life. Students need advising to become knowledgeable of the post-secondary opportunities available to them, including two-year colleges, four-year colleges and universities, vocation-technical schools and programs, and life skills programs. Services will be incorporated within the school day or out of school time. Activities may include: o Developing learning environments that foster interest in college matriculation and offer students information to assist them in planning academic schedules and extracurricular activities so they will have the necessary credits and qualifications to be competitive postsecondary program applicants; o Creating a college-going culture by discussing the benefits of higher education and instilling the cognitive and non-cognitive skills needed to persist through completion; o One-on-one and group discussions of college admission requirements and post-secondary planning (applications, FAFSA completion, various post-secondary pathways including apprenticeships, certificates, associate degrees, and bachelor’s degrees and opportunities to stake credentials) that is thoughtfully tracked and updated within a student’s Washington State High School and Beyond plan; o Providing experiences that are unique to the interests of each student including: visits to college campuses, opportunities to meet with post-secondary admission representatives Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 and recruiters, as well as understanding various post-secondary pathways such as apprenticeships, certificates, degrees, and stackable credentials; o Adequate college admission testing preparation (SAT/ACT) that includes instruction, multiple practice tests, help with registration, and opportunities to improve scores; o Assistance with key college entrance requirements including completion of post-secondary applications, letters of recommendation, training and assistance on financial literacy, and completion/submission of the FAFSA and WASFA; o Continued support including evaluating acceptance options with students, reviewing financial aid packages, and helping to remove barriers which may affect first day enrollment; o College counseling, resources, and experiences will provide students with supports and tools that provide exposure and preparation to key post-secondary opportunities; o Leverage the Washington State High School and Beyond plan to provide experiences that are unique to the interest of each student and include visits to college campuses, opportunities to meet with post-secondary admission representatives and recruiters, and understand various post-secondary pathways including apprenticeships, certificates, associate degrees, bachelor’s degrees, and opportunities to stack credentials; and o Inclusion of family within college advising structures through student led conferences, college information nights, and assistance with financial literacy as it pertains to college admissions. • Career Connection and Exploration Career Connection and Exploration experiences will provide students, teachers, and families with a deep knowledge of the workforce and connections to current and future industry opportunities. These activities should supplement current basic education curricula and be embedded within the classroom as well as incorporated into enrichment activities that occur outside of the school system. Activities may include: o Career academy programs, skills centers, career and technical education programs, dualcredit programs that lead to college credit and industry-recognized certifications; o Courses that fulfill the Personalized Pathway Requirement for high school graduation; o Increased awareness of job opportunities in the Seattle region through career fairs, site visits, in-school presentations, internships, and pre-apprenticeships; o Work-based learning opportunities such as internships, pre-apprenticeships and summer jobs to give students real work experience and marketable skills; o Project-based learning in partnership with industry that incorporates Common Core standards with industry standards and skills; o Opportunities for students to obtain soft and hard skills that are transferable to a wide range of industries and career opportunities, including resume writing, professional networking, interviewing, software proficiency, and administrative support; o Time for planning and professional development for school staff on industry standards; o Discussion and interpretation of career and interest inventories; o Opportunities for students to identify an appropriate match between interest and potential career paths using tools such as the Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board’s Career Bridge; and o Use of student High School and Beyond Plan to connect them with the right career-related classes, programs and opportunities that match their skills, interests and abilities. Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 How will School-Based Investments be managed and phased in? School-Based Investments will be awarded through a competitive RFI process and managed by DEEL. DEEL will negotiate performance-based contracts with schools, inclusive of monitoring and achievement of contract goals and performance targets. Seattle School District contracts will be consistent with terms of the partnership agreement. Eligible schools will submit an application that describes in detail the outcomes to be achieved, the means and methods to achieve results, and proposed community partners. Contracted schools will develop workplans that rely on approaches that have demonstrated success in achieving results on stated outcomes. Evidence-based or promising practices will be an expected component of each workplan as will a progress monitoring system defining mechanisms for data collection, analysis and evaluation, and course corrections. Contracted schools will participate in continuous quality improvement (CQI). • In Year 1 of FEPP (SY 2019-20), DEEL will continue working with existing SY 2018-19 Seattle School District schools (21 elementary schools, 16 middle schools, and 5 high schools). Through direct award, DEEL will negotiate a performance-based contract with Seattle School District to administer schoolbased investments, inclusive of monitoring and achievement of contract goals and performance targets, and consistent with terms of the partnership agreement. (For additional details, see Appendix subsection “School Year 2019-2020.”) • DEEL will conduct a competitive RFI process in 2019 to re-bid all school-based funds for Years 2 (SY 2020-21) through 7 (SY 2025-26) of FEPP. If funds remain following the 2019 RFI process, a second call for applicants will be issued in 2020 for SY 2021-22 implementation. Contracted schools that meet implementation expectations and performance targets through annual review will continue to receive a school-based award through SY 2025-26. Table 15. School-Based Investment Timeline and Number of Awards FEPP Levy Year* Qtr 2 2019 Year 1 SY Year 2 SY Year 3 SY Year 4 SY Year 5 SY Year 6 SY Year 7 SY Elementary Middle High 2019-20** RFI*** 21 16 5 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 Up to 20 Up to 5 Up to 5 2024-25 2025-26 * All awards are reauthorized annually, up to term indicated, conditioned upon achievement of contract outcomes **SY 2019-20 Year 1 FEPP Levy implementation will maintain existing SY 2018-19 FEL contracted schools (21 elementary schools, 16 middle schools, and 5 high schools) ***The Qtr 2 2019 RFI is for SY 2020-21 implementation; A second RFI will be conducted in advance of SY 2021-22, Year 3 FEPP Levy implementation, if funding remains to be allocated following the RFI process Strategy #2: Opportunity & Access Access to Equitable Educational Opportunities High-Quality Learning Environments Student and Family Supports What are Opportunity & Access Investments? The Opportunity and access investment strategy increases access to enrichment and academic experiences for students not yet meeting grade level learning standards and/or African American/Black, Hispanic/Latino, Native American, Pacific Islander, underserved Asian populations, and other students of colors. Opportunity and access Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 is a new investment area that allows for multiple service delivery methods—schools, community-based organizations, and government agencies—to promote student development of academic and non-academic skills likely to lead to on-time graduation and matriculation into post-secondary programs. Funding will be directed toward community-based organizations, schools not receiving School-Based Investments, and government agencies with the goal of improving student performance on defined outcomes and increasing the number of students graduating prepared for college or career. Opportunity and access investments will focus in two key areas: (1) Expanded Learning Opportunities and (2) College and Career Readiness in order to reach the K-12 goal of on-time high school graduation and promotion of college and career readiness. Interventions will positively contribute to one or more of the following indicators among students served by FEPP-Levy investments: • Proficiency in English language arts as measured by state assessment(s) • Proficiency in mathematics measured by state assessment(s) • Achieving typical or high growth in core subjects as measured by state and local assessments • English language learners making gains on the state English language proficiency assessment • Attending 90% or more school days over the course of an academic year • Passing core courses with grades of C or better • On-time promotion to the next grade level • Reduced instances of suspension and expulsion • On-time high school graduation • Participation in enrichment activities that provide exposure to career interests • Completion of a career interest inventory • Participation in at least one college campus visit by 8th grade • Participation in at least two industry tours and/or presentations annually • Participation in project-based learning that is connected to 21st century skill development • Completing early drafts and a final submission of the state defined High School and Beyond Plan Students increase knowledge and awareness of college and career pathways • Students participate in a CCR activity/exploration that is connected to their HSBP • Meeting state standards through alternative graduation pathways such as: o Achieving a minimum score on the SAT or ACT o Achieving a minimum score on an Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate test o Completing a dual credit course such as Running Start or College in the High School • Submitting state and federal financial aid applications (FAFSA/WAFSA) • Successful submission of an application to a post-secondary program in 12th grade • Students participate in a work-based learning experience (paid or non-paid) • Applying to the Seattle Promise college tuition program • Engaging in expanded learning experiences such as: a summer job, internship, and/or volunteer opportunity; enrollment in a summer learning program; completing a career and technical education (CTE) program. Why is Opportunity & Access important? Students who are on-track academically and develop key social and academic behaviors such as student engagement, self-discipline, and social competence, are more likely to graduate from high school on-time and matriculate into post-secondary programs. Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 Who is served by Opportunity & Access? Opportunity and access investments will prioritize students not yet meeting grade level learning standards and/or African American/Black, Hispanic/Latino, Native American, Pacific Islander, underserved Asian populations, and other students of color. Enrollment in interventions provided through opportunity and access investments will prioritize students that meet one or more of the following criteria: • From historically underserved communities who experience systemic inequities in educational achievement because of their race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status, English proficiency, familial situations, housing status, sexual orientation, or other factors • African-American/Black, Hispanic/Latino, Native American, Pacific Islander, underserved Asian populations, and other students of color • From groups historically underrepresented on college campuses and in STEM-related career fields, including students of color, first-generation students, and low-income students • Not yet meeting grade level learning standards • Scoring a Level 1 or 2 on state assessments in math, reading/ELA, or science • Scoring a Level 1 or 2 on the state English language proficiency test in one or more domains • Not making gains on the state English language proficiency test • Not passing a core course in middle or high school • Not earning enough credits to promote on-time to the next grade level • Involved in one or more discipline incidents (e.g. short-term/long-term suspension, etc.) • Chronically absent, defined by missing 10% or more days in a school year (18 days or more) What are the provider criteria for Opportunity & Access? When evaluating RFI applications, DEEL will use a variety of methods to determine which proposals are best positioned to meet intended outcomes including but not limited to past success at achieving results, the means and methods proposed, commitment of school leadership to improve outcomes, and the costs of programs or proposals. Depending on the RFI under consideration, DEEL will use some, or all, of the criteria listed below. In addition, DEEL may use other criteria as part of its evaluation and due diligence process to ensure that applicants have the capacity and commitment to achieve results. Opportunity and access dollars will direct funding toward community-based organizations, public schools not receiving a school-based investment, including Seattle School District and charter schools, and government agencies, such as Seattle Parks and Recreation, to ensure that students from historically underserved communities receive the necessary academic, enrichment, and social activities that promote on-time high school graduation and college and career readiness. Funded partners agree to an outcomes-based, performance contracting model and the use of data within a CQI framework. Criteria for opportunity and access investments include: • Stated commitment to racial equity and directing additional resources to student populations based on the unique needs of historically underserved communities • Demonstrated history of serving students not yet meeting grade level learning standards and/or African American/Black, Hispanic/Latino, Native American, Pacific Islander, underserved Asian populations, and other students of color • Systems that foster partnership with families through lifelong educational, college, and career goals using culturally responsive communication techniques, culturally responsive instructional practices, and multiple opportunities and mechanisms for families to engage in decision-making processes Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 • • • Systems and structures in place to collect, analyze, and evaluate data; data is used to recruit students, assess students’ needs, identify appropriate interventions, track student progress toward outcomes, and adjust instructional and programmatic practices Governance structure that provides oversight on organizational budget, operations, and use of data Experience and proven history of achieving positive academic and/or non-academic outcomes for priority students What are the key program elements of Opportunity & Access? Opportunity and access investment recipients will serve qualifying students in two key focus areas, 1) College and Career Readiness, and 2) Expanded Learning Opportunities. Key elements of each focus area are described as follows. Contracted partners may use Levy funds, or leverage non-Levy funds, to implement program elements. Partnerships between schools and community-based organizations are strongly encouraged to leverage strengths in academic preparation and data-driven decision-making, culturally- and linguisticallyspecific programing, fostering connections between families and schools, and creating high-quality enrichment experiences. College and Career Readiness College and career readiness investments for students support the cognitive and non-cognitive skills necessary for adequate preparation for post-secondary opportunities. Activities can take place during the school day, afterschool, and in the summer. Strong partnerships between schools and CBOs is encouraged to promote shared community and school leadership in achieving levy goals. • College Knowledge and Advising College counseling, resources, and experiences will provide students with supports and tools that provide exposure and preparation to key post-secondary opportunities. These opportunities will serve qualifying secondary students and can be incorporated within the school day or during out of school time and may include some of the following activities: o Creating a college-going culture by discussing the benefits of higher education and instilling the cognitive and non-cognitive skills needed to persist through completion. o One-on-one and group discussions of college requirements and post-secondary planning that is thoughtfully tracked and updated within a student’s Washington State High School and Beyond plan. o Leverage the Washington State High School and Beyond plan to provide experiences that are unique to the interest of each student and include visits to college campuses, opportunities to meet with post-secondary admission representatives and recruiters, and understand various post-secondary pathways including apprenticeships, certificates, associate degrees, bachelor’s degrees, and opportunities to stack credentials. o Adequate college admission testing preparation (SAT/ACT) that includes multiple practice test, instruction, help with registration, and opportunities to improve scores. o Assistance with key college requirements including completion with post-secondary applications, training and assistance on financial literacy and completion with the FAFSA and WASFA. o More time for one-on-one and group discussions of college requirements and post-secondary planning (applications, FAFSA completion, various post-secondary pathways including apprenticeships, certificates, associate degrees, and bachelor’s degrees and opportunities to stake credentials). o Inclusion of family within college advising structures through student led conferences, college information nights, and assistance with financial literacy as it pertains to college admissions. Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 • Career Connections and Exploration Career connections and exploration are activities that provide students, K-12 teachers, and families with a deep knowledge of the workforce and connections to current and future industry opportunities. These activities should supplement current basic education curricula and be embedded within the classroom as well as incorporated into enrichment activities that occur outside of the school system. Career connections and exploration provide: o Project-based learning in partnership with industry that integrates common core standards and industry standards and skills o Opportunities for students to obtain soft and hard skills that are transferable to a wide range of industries and career opportunities including resume writing, professional networking, interviewing, software proficiency, and administrative support o Increased awareness of job opportunities in the Seattle region through career fairs, site visits, inschool presentations, internships, and pre-apprenticeships o Time for planning and professional development for school staff on industry standards o Discussion and interpretation of career and interest inventories o Opportunities for students to identify an appropriate match between interest and potential career paths using tools such as the Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board’s Career Bridge • Academic Preparation Academic preparation is identified as one of the critical transition points that are fundamental to later student success. In Washington state, proficiency on the Smarter Balanced Assessment is one of the measurements that indicate a student is ready for college level courses. Further, proficiency in reading by 3rd grade and completion of algebra by 8th grade are outcomes that indicate that students are on the pathway to on-time high school graduation. Additional academic preparation and increased instruction provides: o Developing learning environments that foster interest in college matriculation o More time with a certificated teacher mastering content standard o Stronger relationships between teachers and students o Additional planning time and professional development for staff o Opportunities for credit recovery in a program that has the ability to offer credits that satisfy Washington State 24 credit diploma requirement o Differentiated instruction that supports supplemental learning o Supporting students in planning academic schedules and extracurricular activities so they have the necessary credits and qualifications to be competitive post-secondary program applicants Expanded Learning Opportunities Expanded learning opportunities are academic or enrichment experiences that take place afterschool, during school breaks, and in the summer. Services and activities provide additional instruction or learning time and support college and career readiness. Services will complement school day activities and curriculum and provide students with the opportunity to engage in meaningful enrichment activities (i.e. arts and culture, STEM programming, sports, health and wellness, and leadership development). • Academic Expanded learning opportunities that focus primarily on academics provide additional instructional or learning time. Academic programs can be remedial or accelerate learning and are intended to improve academic outcomes. Academic programs provide students with an additional 45-90 minutes of instruction per day and are led by a certified teacher afterschool or on weekends. Academic program activities provide: Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 o o o o o o Opportunity for students to receive more time to master key mathematical, reading, and writing skills More time with certificated instructional staff Opportunity to engage in culturally relevant instructional practices Increased confidence in students through pre-teaching of math and ELA standards Better alignment between core instruction (i.e. common core standards) and academic ELO programming Academic activities aligned with student needs (tutoring, small group instruction, pre-teaching, and reteaching) • Enrichment Specialized enrichment programs provide unique experiences and develop skills and interests in students. Enrichment activities allow for students to develop very specific skills while building noncognitive skills necessary for success in academic and social settings. Enrichment activities should be developed and led by content experts and complement academic supports that are provided within the school day. Enrichment program activities provide: o Opportunity to participate in programming that builds “soft” skills, promote character, leadership development, and unity among students o Opportunity to engage in culturally relevant programming and instructional practices within the community o New experiences for underrepresented student populations while eliminating financial barriers to access o Skill development in specialized in-demand fields such as science, technology, engineering, and computer science o Opportunities for students to develop and/or strengthen their awareness and interest in various college and/or career pathways • Combination (Academic and Enrichment) Combination programs are housed in schools and provide both academic supports and enrichments activities. Programs must be jointly operated by schools and community-based organizations or government agencies. All services and activities must complement school day activities and curriculum and provide students with the opportunity to engage in meaningful enrichment activities (i.e. arts and culture, STEM, sports, health and wellness, and leadership development). Combination program activities provide: o Coordination between out-of-school time staff, school leader, and school staff o Development of shared academic and non-academic goals and outcomes o Streamlined services for students and families between out-of-school time activities and basic education services o Academic and enrichment activities that center student needs and interest o Opportunity for students to receive more time to master key mathematical, reading, and writing skills o Opportunity to participate in programming that builds “soft” skills, promote character, leadership development, and unity among students How will Opportunity & Access be managed and phased in? Opportunity & Access investments will be awarded through a competitive RFI process and managed by DEEL. DEEL will negotiate performance-based contracts with schools, CBOs, and government agencies inclusive of monitoring and achievement of contract goals and performance targets. Seattle School District contracts will be consistent with terms of the partnership agreement. Eligible applicants will submit an application that describes Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 in detail the outcomes to be achieved, the means and methods to achieve results, and proposed school and/or community partners. Contracted partners will develop workplans that rely on approaches that have demonstrated success in achieving results on stated outcomes. Evidence-based or promising practices will be an expected component of each workplan as will a progress monitoring system defining mechanisms for data collection, analysis and evaluation, and course corrections. Contracted providers will participate in continuous quality improvement (CQI). Opportunity & Access investments will begin in Year 2 of FEPP Levy implementation (SY 2020-21) through Year 7 (SY 2025-26). DEEL will conduct a competitive RFI process in 2020 to award the new FEPP Levy Opportunity & Access funds for SY 2020-21 through SY 2022-23. Opportunity & Access funds will be rebid in 2023 for investment in Year 5 SY 2023-24 through Year 7 SY 2025-26.Annual contract reauthorization is conditioned upon achievement of contract outcomes. Table 16. Opportunity & Access Investment Timeline SY Qtr 2 SY 2020SY SY FEPP 2019-20 2020 21 2021-22 2022-23 Levy Year 1** Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year* 3-Year K-12 N/A RFI Qtr 2 2023*** RFI SY 2023-24 Year 5 SY 2024-25 Year 6 SY 2025-26 Year 7 3-Year * All awards are reauthorized annually, up to term indicated, conditioned upon achievement of contract outcomes **See SY 2019-2020 Detail in Appendix for additional information ***In 2023, all Opportunity & Access funds will be rebid Strategy #3: Wraparound Services Access to Equitable Educational Opportunities High-Quality Learning Environments Student and Family Supports What are Wraparound Services Investments? Wraparound Support investments are intended to help eliminate non-academic and socioeconomic barriers to learning. Services funded by Wraparound Support include: (1) family support services, (2) homelessness/housing support services, and (3) middle school sports and transportation services. 1. Family Support Services: These investments provide case management and other in-school wraparound services for students who are chronically absent and not yet meeting grade level learning standards. Funding will support direct intervention to connect families to economic resources that address nonacademic barriers to student learning. 2. Homelessness/Housing Support Services: These investments provide funding assistance to help unstably housed students and families and prevent further homelessness. 3. Sports and Transportation Services: These investments provide coaching stipends for Middle School sports and transportation services from K-12 levy-funded activities that occur outside of the school day (such as after school, weekend, or summer programming). Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 Interventions will positively contribute to one or more of the following indicators: Family Support Services: • Management of student caseload: enrollment in academic interventions, provision of services and referrals, high school seniors completing financial aid and Seattle Promise applications, coordination of services • Improved attendance rate for chronically absent students • On-time promotion to the next grade level • Participation in enrichment activities that provide exposure to career interests • Parent/family participation in school engagement activities and events • Connections between identified student needs and access to services Homelessness/Housing Support Services: • Students assessed for services • Student attendance and mobility • Service referral rates • Distribution of funding assistance • Prevention of homelessness and transitions to stable housing Sports and Transportation Services: • Student participation and attendance • Passing core courses Why is Wraparound Services important? A whole-child approach is essential to improving student outcomes. Students who are experiencing the stress of food or housing insecurity cannot focus on academics. The wraparound supports are designed to address some of the non-academic barriers that impact a student’s ability to be successful in the classroom including meeting basic needs. Parental involvement is key in these investments. These resources directly connect the family to supportive services to support parents as they take an active role in their student’s educational experiences. 1. Family Support Services: Barriers to learning take on many different forms. For this reason, family support is critical to the success of students not yet meeting grade level learning standards. Family support services help remove barriers to student learning through activities such as meeting students’ basic needs, providing interventions to help students develop social, emotional, and self-regulation skills, and creating connections to economic resources that help the student’s family maintain stability. Students who are frequently absent miss critical learning time and opportunities. Furthermore, students whose basic needs are not being met often struggle to focus on academics. Teachers frequently lack the time and resources to help support students with their basic needs. Investments in family support services will provide additional support and resources to students with significant non-academic needs, so students can focus on academics and teachers can focus on teaching. Student stability, or consistent enrollment at assigned school, is also a significant driver of student academic outcomes. Family support services help to address some of these non-academic barriers that are keeping students out of the classroom. By providing case management, parental support, and connection and referral to supportive services, students are more likely to be in school, and ready to learn. Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 2. Homelessness/Housing Support Services: Recent estimates indicate that there are over 2,000 students experiencing homelessness in Seattle School District. Seattle School District’s McKinney Vento (MKV) Office is a federally funded program operating under the principle that students experiencing homelessness are guaranteed the right to a free, appropriate, public education. The MKV Act ensures students experiencing homelessness can remain enrolled in schools they have been attending, whether or not they still meet residency requirements, guarantees students have access to the transportation they need to attend school, and waives some documentation requirements. Neither MKV, nor Seattle School District, provide funding for housing to MKV eligible families. Although the City of Seattle and King County have a robust homeless service delivery system, many MKV eligible families are unable to access those services. To receive City-funded housing support services, a family must be in a shelter or unhoused. Over half of Seattle School District’s MKV families are not literally homeless but are living in precariously unstable housing situations. These families are often “doubled-up” or staying in someone else’s home with no feasible way to obtain sable housing of their own. This experience can be time-limited and disruptive to a students’ school experience. Research shows that unstable housing often results in the same academic outcomes for students as those that are literally homeless. Students experiencing homelessness—whether living in hotels/motels, in shelters, unsheltered, or doubled up—have significantly lower academic outcomes than their housed peers, even when comparing to low-income, housed peers. Statewide, students experiencing homelessness (including doubled-up students) have a 62% attendance rate, compared to an 86% attendance rate for their housed peers. Further, three in four students experiencing homelessness do not meet the proficiency level on state math assessments and have a four-year graduation rate that is more than 25 percentage points lower than their housed peers (55% versus 81%). Student mobility is greater for homeless students as well. During SY 2015-16, 10% of Seattle School District’s homeless students changed schools compared to only 3% of stably housed students. While students who are doubled up or unstably housed have similar academic outcomes as students who are literally homeless, they do not have similar access to housing resources to support family stabilization resulting in a services gap. FEPP homelessness supports seek to address this gap by connecting families experiencing unstable housing to emergency assistance dollars or other existing housing support services. This service will create a much-needed bridge for families in the housing services gap, while also building upon the existing systems for homeless support services. Students will receive resources based on their demonstrated need, with homeless support services bolstered by additional family support services when necessary. DEEL intends to work with the City’s Human Services Department and create a partnership with a community-based housing service provider to administer the prevention funding. This will enable the school district, school administrators, and teachers to focus on students’ academic needs while leveraging an experienced housing partner for housing assistance. DEEL will review draft policies and contracting structures through a RET in alignment with the City’s RSJI. 3. Sports and Transportation: Both Seattle School District and the FEPP Levy fund out-of-school time opportunities for students. This can include academic and enrichment programming after school, during the summer, or on weekends. Middle school athletics promotes school connectedness, a key predictor of school attendance. Athletics help build school community and student engagement as well as provide students the opportunity to engage in physical activity in a group setting. Participation in sports Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 programming requires meeting academic thresholds, which could incentivize students to maintain good academic standing. While Seattle School District provides transportation for qualified students at the end of the traditional school day, some students may not have access to transportation past that time. This lack of transportation options can prevent students from participating in after school extracurricular activities that provide social and academic enrichment to their school experience. Investing in transportation services can help ensure all students who wish to participate in after school activities are able to. Who is served by Wraparound Services? 1. Family Support Services: • Targeted support for students who are chronically absent and not yet meeting grade level learning standards. • Students will be identified in collaboration with program staff and school staff in consideration of the student’s needs. • Services will prioritize students who are chronically absent due to issues of basic needs. 2. Homelessness/Housing Support Services: • Students who are living doubled up or in other unstable housing as identified by Seattle School District staff including school-level staff and MKV staff. • Funding is designed to serve families who have unstable housing but who could likely become stabilized with a small amount of financial or housing counseling support. • Students may also be referred if they are currently on the MKV list. • In some instances, the family’s need may extend beyond the housing support services, in this instance, the family will be connected to the City and County homeless service delivery system. 3. Sports and Transportation: • Middle school coaching stipends are available to every Seattle School District school serving grades 6-8. • Transportation funding will be available to schools with middle school sports programming as well as K-12 schools hosting FEPP-funded in order to support access to after school, summer, and weekend programming. What are the provider criteria for Wraparound Services? 1. Family Support Services: DEEL will contract with Seattle School District to administer family support services subject to mutual agreement. Seattle School District and DEEL will collaborate to identify which schools will receive family support services. Allocation of family support services to specific schools will be independent from school-based investments. Allocations will be directed toward Seattle School District schools with high concentrations of students meeting the one or more of the following criteria: • Not yet meeting grade level learning standards • Scoring a Level 1 or 2 on state assessments in math, reading/ELA, or science • Scoring a Level 1 or 2 on the state English language proficiency test in one or more domains • Not making gains on the state English language proficiency test • Experiencing homelessness • Recipient of free/reduced price lunch support • Chronic absenteeism, defined by missing 10% or more days in a school year (18 days or more) Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 Seattle School District partners will commit to data-driven CQI which includes: • Assessing student needs, including academic needs, and identifying non-academic barriers to student success; • Developing a tiered approach to wraparound intervention services that address multiple barriers to student success, including academic, social/emotional, behavioral, and health; Systems that foster partnership with families, use of culturally responsive communication techniques, and multiple opportunities and mechanisms for families to engage in decisionmaking processes; • Use of culturally responsive methods representative of the communities being served; • Systems to collect, analyze, and evaluate data; • Identifying opportunities for professional development and other staff training; • Daily/weekly use of data to assess students’ needs, identify appropriate interventions, ensure referrals are being completed, and track student progress toward outcomes; and, • Ability to modify strategies when they are not successful—DEEL will encourage course corrections, collaboration, and professional development to achieve outcomes; 2. Homelessness/Housing Support Services: Any existing housing support service provider with a City contract for prevention services, as of February 2019, will be eligible to submit a letter of interest. A provider will be selected based on criteria including demonstrated ability to stably house families using financial support, demonstrated success in serving families of color, and implementation workplan proposal. DEEL will partner with the selected provider to co-design the final implementation of housing support services so that plans are aligned with City, County, and Seattle School District resources and initiatives. The selected provider will commit to data-driven CQI which includes: • Assessing student and family housing needs; • Systems to collect, analyze, and evaluate data; • Reporting on the speed in which students and families are referred to services, assessed for housing services, and receive housing services; • Systems that foster partnership with families, use of culturally responsive communication techniques, and multiple opportunities and mechanisms for families to engage in decisionmaking processes; • Use of culturally responsive methods representative of the communities being served; • Ability to modify strategies when they are not successful—DEEL will encourage course corrections, collaboration, and professional development to achieve outcomes. If housing outcomes are not met, DEEL will conduct a second RFI. 3. Sports and Transportation: DEEL will contract with Seattle Parks and Recreation to administer FEPP sports and transportation funding subject to mutual agreement. DEEL and SPR will collaborate to ensure that transportation funding is best leveraged with existing resources to meet the needs of students. • All Seattle School District middle schools and K-8 schools will have access to partial coaching stipends provided through the FEPP Levy. • Transportation support will be available to all Seattle School District schools. However, if funding is insufficient to meet school requests, funding will be prioritized to provide transportation home from Levy-funded programs for students in the following rank order: o Middle school sports transportation Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 o o Middle school Levy-funded programs for students not yet meeting grade level learning standards K-12 Levy funded programs for students not yet meeting grade level learning standards What are the key program elements of Wraparound Services? 1. Family Support Services: The provision of family support services through the FEPP Levy will take a whole-child approach to student support. Services provided for students and families will encourage collaboration with and connection to other existing resource systems. Key elements include: • Student needs assessment: o Coordination and collaboration with school principals, teachers, guidance counselors, school nurses, and other school staff to identify student/family needs and develop a multidisciplinary intervention plan • Student support services: o Case management, care coordination and crisis support; including help meeting basic needs, addressing attendance concerns, and support with homework o Connection to other levy-funded or Seattle School District-funded interventions as appropriate, including school-based health centers and coordination on McKinneyVento resources dedicated to homeless students o Assistance with completion of post-secondary opportunity applications including Seattle Promise and FAFSA/WASFA for high school students receiving case management services • Parent/guardian support services: o Home visitation and/or neutral site meeting o Partnership in parental advocacy and support advocating for their student’s education o Family support to access school attendance and student performance data o Provide parents with information on what their students should be doing to succeed in school including activities they can do at home with students to improve academic outcomes o Support family attendance at teacher conferences and school activities o Connect families with interpretation resources and translated materials o Facilitate family access to culturally responsive school and community resources o Refer families to housing supports when appropriate. • School-wide collaboration: o Coordination with schools’ Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS), Student Intervention Teams (SIT), and social emotional learning (SEL) programs to support student learning at school and at home. 2. Homelessness/Housing Support Services: A school point of contact or other Seattle School District representative will identify a student as homeless or unstably housed, then contact the identified housing support service provider to connect the student and their family to housing resources. The provider will meet the family where they are and assess their housing needs and their housing options. Key elements include: • Emergency Assistance Funding: o The housing provider will help the family by issuing flexible, emergency assistance dollars to prevent the family from falling further into homelessness and help stabilize the family. Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 • o Funds can be used to pay for rent, housing deposits, and other housing-related expenses. Referral/Connection to Services: o If the family’s needs are beyond what the housing support service partner can provide, they will connect the family to alternative housing resources including services provided by the City of Seattle, King County, and the Seattle Housing Authority. o The School Point of Contact will also refer the student to the McKinney Vento Office at Seattle School District for a separate housing assessment. 3. Sports and Transportation: DEEL and Parks will work together to best leverage FEPP funds with existing resources to meet the needs of students and families. Key elements include: • Middle School Coaching Stipend: o Athletic programs for students to provide partial funding for coaches in middle schools and K-8 schools. o Sports may include soccer, ultimate frisbee, basketball, volleyball and track. • Transportation: o Transportation home for students participating in Levy-funded out-of-school time programs, including bus transportation to one-time levy events (e.g. college visits, career-oriented field trips, etc.) o Transportation funding will be leveraged in combination with other FEPP investments and Seattle School District resources to maximize services for students not meeting grade level learning standards and ensure students can participate in Levy-funded programming that occurs outside the traditional school day. How will Wraparound Services be managed and phased in? Wraparound Services investments will be awarded through a combination of direct award and RFIs. Family support services and homelessness/housing support services will be managed through performance-based contracts. An ongoing analysis of data will serve as the chief mechanism to ensure that funds complement the program of basic education, serve students not meeting grade level learning standards, and are aligned to FEPP goals and outcomes. 1. Family Support Services: Through direct award, DEEL will negotiate a performance-based contract with Seattle School District to administer family support services, inclusive of monitoring and achievement of contract goals and performance targets, and consistent with terms of the partnership agreement, beginning in SY 2019-20. This contract will be reauthorized annually conditioned upon achievement of contract outcomes. Resources (funds, staffing, etc.) will be allocated based on eligibility criteria. Alternate funding sources should be leveraged by Seattle School District to ensure the FEPP investment is supplemental and complementary to existing state and federal funding. Resource allocation for family support services may be shifted over the course of Levy implementation as determined by program outcomes, student need, local funding opportunities, demographic changes, and district and state policy shifts. In accordance with DEEL’s commitment to data-driven CQI, DEEL will provide programmatic oversight through monthly reviews of funding allocations, staff assignments, quarterly opportunities for professional development, reviews of students enrolled in and receiving services, and cross-system coordination. Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 2. Homelessness/Housing Support Services: Homelessness/Housing Support Services will be awarded through a competitive RFI process and managed by DEEL. DEEL will negotiate performance-based contracts with partners to administer homelessness/housing support services, inclusive of monitoring and achievement of contract goals and performance targets. DEEL will partner with HSD for contract management. DEEL will conduct a competitive RFI process in Qtr 2, 2019 to award funds for SY 2019-20 through SY 2021-22. Homelessness/Housing Support Service funds will be rebid in Qtr 2, 2022 for investment in Year 4 SY 2022-23 through Year 7 SY 2025-26. Annual contract reauthorization is conditioned upon achievement of contract outcomes. The identified provider will partner with DEEL, HSD, Seattle School District, and other key partners to codesign the best service delivery model to support existing resources and fill identified needs. In doing so, the selected provider will: • Implement a scope of work that is complementary to existing Seattle School District resources and the homeless service delivery system in Seattle; • Collaborate with Seattle School District to develop a service delivery model and provide housing support services; • Collect, analyze, and regularly submit data to track student and family progress; and • Attend quarterly meetings to discuss opportunities to improve the service delivery system. 3. Sports and Transportation: Through direct award, DEEL will manage a contract with the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) to implement Sports and Transportation funds beginning in SY 2019-20 through SY 2025-26. Resources will be allocated to Seattle School District schools based on eligibility criteria. Available alternate funding sources should be leveraged by Seattle School District to ensure the FEPP investment is supplemental and complementary to existing state and federal funding. DEEL as the authority to reallocate resources over the life of the Levy as determined by program outcomes, student need, local funding opportunities, demographic changes, and district and state policy shifts. In accordance with DEEL’s commitment to data-driven CQI, DEEL will provide programmatic oversight through regular reviews of funding allocations, students receiving services, and cross-system coordination. Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 Table 17. Wraparound Services Investment Timeline FEPP Levy School Year* Year 1 Year 2 Qtr 2 2019 Family Support Services Homelessness/Housing Support Services Sports and Transportation SY 201920 SY 202021 Year 3 SY 202122 Qtr 2 2022 Year 4 SY 202223 Year 5 SY 202324 Year 6 SY 202425 Year 7 SY 202526 Direct contract with Seattle School District; 7-Year 3-Year RFI 4-Year RFI** Direct contract with Seattle Parks and Recreation; 7-Year * All awards are reauthorized annually, up to term indicated, conditioned upon achievement of contract outcomes **Open only to City prevention housing support service providers contracting with the City’s Human Services Department as of January 2019. Contracted partner will have the opportunity to renew contract if they have successfully demonstrated an ability to achieve contract outcomes Strategy #4: Culturally Specific and Responsive Access to Equitable Educational Opportunities High-Quality Learning Environments Student and Family Supports What are Culturally Specific and Responsive Investments? The Culturally Specific and Responsive (CSR) investments are intended to expand access to high-quality service and supports designed to increase positive identity development, academic knowledge, and social emotional learning for Black/African-American males and other historically underserved students. This investment strategy prioritizes the infusion of race/ethnicity, culture, language, and gender into programming to build academic mindsets and promote college and career readiness. The CSR investments align with the City’s Our Best initiative and recommendations from the Our Best Advisory Council (June 2018). Our Best is an explicit commitment to racial equity by the City of Seattle to improve life outcomes for young Black men and boys through systems-level changes, policy leadership, and strategic investments. Key elements within the CSR strategy include: (1) Culturally Specific Programming, (2) Mentoring, and (3) Educator Diversity. 1. Culturally Specific Programming: Investments aimed at offering school-based programming that reflect racial and cultural diversity within the community and incorporate students’ culture, history, language, and socialization into core pedagogy, curricular materials, and academic learning and enrichment activities. 2. Mentoring: Investments aimed at providing promising, evidence-based and leading high-quality mentoring and healing-centered approaches to promote positive identity development and college and career readiness. 3. Educator Diversity: Investments aimed at increasing the number of linguistically, racially, and culturally diverse educators. Interventions will positively contribute to one or more of the following indicators: 1. Culturally Responsive Programming: • Student program participation rates • Improved school attendance rates • On-time promotion to the next grade level Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 • • • Passing core courses Reduced disciplinary incidents (i.e. suspension and/or expulsion) On-time graduation and enrollment in a post-secondary pathway 2. Mentoring: • Student program participation rates • Number of mentor-mentee matches made and sustained • Students build relationships with trusted adults • Mentor-mentee relationship satisfaction • Improved school attendance rates • Student participation rates in enrichment activities that provide exposure to career interests 3. Educator Diversity: • Outreach, recruitment and enrollment of aspiring educators in preparation programs • Program retention and completion • Professional development and mentoring opportunities Improved diverse educator representation and retention in Seattle School District Why is Culturally Specific and Responsive important? Culturally Specific and Responsive (CSR) investments are intended to expand access to high-quality, equitable learning opportunities and support for Black/African-American males and other historically underserved students with the intent to increase positive identity development, academic knowledge, and social emotional learning. This investment strategy aims to build academic resiliency and promote college and career readiness by acknowledging concepts of race/ethnicity, culture, language, and gender to positively inform students' selfesteem and academic self-image. As classrooms and communities locally and across the country become increasingly diverse, improving culturally responsive and identity-safe learning environments is a critical component of education systems working to serve all students well. 51 The CSR strategy is responsive to feedback from students, parents and community members who identified affirming race and valuing culture within schools and student activities as a priority. 52 1. Culturally Specific Programming: Culturally specific programming (CSP) is an authentic, studentcentered approach that helps students experience success through the consistent use of curricular materials, learning methodologies, and instructional strategies that are validating, comprehensive, empowering, emancipatory, and transformative. 53 This type of programming empowers students to both experience and attain academic success by capitalizing on their culture through integration, engagement, and appreciation of the perspectives, multiple forms of capital, and diverse lived experiences they bring into the classroom. In addition to emphasizing that issues of culture, language, cognition, community and socialization are central to learning, research indicates that: • Culturally responsive programming is a powerful predictor of increased academic success, school attendance, and social emotional development. 54 • Universal use of Euro-centric and dominant-culture curriculum, representation and perspectives leads many populations of students, particularly students from historically underserved populations, to disengage from academic learning. 55 • Well-designed and taught culturally responsive curricula and programming promotes equitable learning and has positive academic and social outcomes for students—from attendance, academic performance and overall GPA. 56 • Culturally responsive approaches motivate students to learn. 57 Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 2. Mentoring: Research has shown that youth involved in high-quality mentoring show significantly higher protective factors (e.g., academic success, on-time high school graduation, well-being) and lower risk factors (e.g., any associated negative social, health or academic outcome) than non-mentored youth. 58 3. Educator Diversity: Research suggests that greater representation in the educator workforce can improve outcomes for all students, particularly students of color. However, as student diversity continues to grow, educator diversity consistently trends disproportionately White. In Washington State, during the 2017-18 school year, students of color represented 46% of the student population while teachers of color were just 11% of the educator workforce. 59 For the same year, Seattle School District students of color represented 53% of the student population and educators of color represented 19% of the workforce Research indicated that: • Having just one Black/African-American teacher not only lowers Black/African-American students’ high school dropout rates and increases their desire to go to college, it can also make them more likely to enroll in college. Furthermore, Black/African-American male teachers can improve not only Black/African-American male student outcomes but also all students’ schooling outcomes. 60 • Educators of color and multi-lingual educators tend to have higher academic expectations for students of color, which can result in increased academic and social growth among students. 61 • Students of color profit from having among teachers who reflect their own racial group and can serve as academically successful role models and who can have greater knowledge of their heritage culture. 62 • Positive exposure to individuals from a variety of races and ethnic groups, especially in early years, reduces stereotypes, shifts implicit biases and promotes cross-cultural relationships. 63 • All students benefit from being educated by teachers from a variety of different backgrounds, races and ethnic groups, as this experience better prepares them to succeed in an increasingly diverse society. 64 Who is served by Culturally Specific and Responsive Investments? 1. Culturally Specific Programming: Funding will serve public school students in grades 6-12 that are not yet meeting grade level learning standards with prioritization for Black/African-American males and other students of color. 2. Mentoring: Funding will serve students attending schools participating in FEPP-funded CSP, with prioritization for Black/African-American males and other students of color. 3. Educator Diversity: Funding will serve diverse, aspiring educators, with prioritization for multi-lingual and Black/African-American males. What is the provider criteria for Culturally Specific and Responsive? 1. Culturally Specific Programming: Funding will be available to public schools, including Seattle School District and charter schools, that meet one or more of the following criteria: • Focus implementation and prioritized support to Black/African-American males • Demonstrate clear commitment to targeted universalism as a driver for advancing educational equity for historically underserved populations • Use culturally responsive practices, pedagogy or exemplary curricula to close gaps for priority populations • Have staff or an implementation team that reflect the priority student population • Are geographically located in areas of high concentration of the priority populations Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 • • • • • • • • • Utilize the local community as an extension of the classroom learning environment Use professional development that is culturally responsive throughout the contract period Implement authentic family engagement and student leadership development Have systems and structures in place to collect, analyze, and evaluate data; data is used to recruit students, assess students’ needs, identify appropriate interventions, track student progress toward outcomes, and adjust instructional and programmatic practices Governance structure that provides oversight on organizational budget, operations, and use of data Experience and proven history of achieving positive academic and/or non-academic outcomes for priority students Plan to measurably close opportunity and achievement gaps, especially for African-American males Experience operating high-quality after-school programs, summer learning programs, or other out-of-school time programs as a strategy to improve academic achievement Ability to leverage multiple funding sources to maximize impact 2. Mentoring: Funding will be available to community-based organizations who meet one or more of the following criteria: • Focus implementation and prioritized support to Black/African-American males • Demonstrate clear commitment to targeted universalism as a driver for advancing educational equity for historically underserved populations • Use culturally responsive practices, pedagogy or exemplary curricula to close gaps for priority populations • Have staff or an implementation team that reflect the priority student population • Are geographically located in areas of high concentration of the priority populations • Utilize the local community as an extension of the classroom learning environment • Use professional development that is culturally responsive throughout the contract period • Implement authentic family engagement and student leadership development • Have systems and structures in place to collect, analyze, and evaluate data; data is used to recruit students, assess students’ needs, identify appropriate interventions, track student progress toward outcomes, and adjust instructional and programmatic practices • Governance structure that provides oversight on organizational budget, operations, and data use • Experience and proven history of achieving positive outcomes for priority students (academic and/or non-academic) • Plan to measurably close opportunity and achievement gaps, especially for African-American males • Experience operating high-quality after-school programs, summer learning programs, or other out-of-school time programs as a strategy to improve academic achievement • Ability to leverage multiple funding sources to maximize impact 3. Educator Diversity: Funding will be available to Seattle School District and CBOs who meet one or more of the following criteria: • Focus implementation and prioritized support to Black/African-American male and multi-lingual educators • Demonstrate clear commitment to targeted universalism as a driver for diversifying the teacher workforce in Seattle School District Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 • • • • • • • • • Use of targeted strategies to cultivate robust mentorship, build social capital and professional networks, and provide culturally responsive support with Black/African-American male and multi-lingual educators Have staff or an implementation team that reflect the priority populations Utilize community-based assets in recruitment, induction and retention activities, and throughout contract period Use culturally responsive professional development throughout the contract period Have systems and structures in place to collect, analyze, and evaluate data; data is used to recruit, assess needs, identify appropriate course corrections, track progress toward outcomes, and adjust programmatic practices Governance structure that provides oversight on organizational budget, operations, and use of data Experience and proven history of recruiting and retaining educators of color and/or multi-lingual educators Bold plan to measurably close workforce diversity gaps, especially for Black/African-American male and multi-lingual educators Ability to leverage multiple funding sources to maximize impact What are the key programs elements of Culturally Specific and Responsive? Culturally specific and responsive investment recipients will implement services in three focus areas: (1) culturally specific programming, (2) mentoring, and (3) educator diversity. Partnerships between public schools, including Seattle School District and charter schools, and CBOs are strongly encouraged to leverage respective strengths in academic preparation and data-driven decision-making, culturally- and linguistically-specific programing, fostering connections between families and schools, and creating high-quality enrichment experiences. Key elements of each focus area are described as follows. 1. Culturally Specific Programming: • Expanding implementation of school-based and school-day culturally responsive programs including teaching pedagogy and curriculum (.i.e. Kingmakers of Seattle) • Professional development and training, particularly for Black/African-American educators • Professional development targeted for supporting educators working with priority populations 2. Mentoring: • Group mentoring, or healing-centered circles (school- or community-based), linked to building academic outcomes, strengthening intergenerational relationships and increasing social capital of priority populations, particularly Black/African-American males • High quality one-to-one mentoring, school- or community-based, linked to academic learning and social emotional development outcomes for priority populations, particularly Black/AfricanAmerican males • Culturally responsive training and professional development supports for mentors, particularly Black/African-American males 3. Educator Diversity: • Targeted outreach and recruitment to preparation programs to increase the pipeline of diverse educators, including recruitment into the profession or scaffolding from classified to certified instructors • Tuition assistance for educator preparation programs • Culturally responsive retention activities and opportunities for diverse educator candidates • Targeted engagement, academic guidance, and mentoring opportunities for diverse educators Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 • Targeted coaching, professional development and career guidance for diverse educators to receive socioemotional support How will Culturally Specific and Responsive be managed and phased in? Culturally Specific and Responsive investments will be awarded through a combination of direct award and competitive application processes. All CSR investments be managed through performance-based contracts. 1. Culturally Specific Programming: In Year 1 of FEPP (SY 2019-20), DEEL will negotiate performancebased contracts with four Seattle School District schools (i.e. Aki Kurose, Asa Mercer, Denny International, Interagency Academy) and one technical assistance provider (Oakland Unified School District) to maintain existing CSP administration and implementation. Contracts will monitor achievement of goals and performance targets consistent with terms of the partnership agreement. While CSP programming includes a technical assistance contract with OUSD for Year 1 of FEPP, in Years 2- 7 DEEL has authority to modify or reallocate funding to other technical assistance or programming that benefit Black/African-American males. In Qtr 4 2019, DEEL will conduct an RFI to competitively bid funding to expand CSP implementation to two additional schools for Years 2 (SY 2020-21) through 7 (SY 2025-26) of FEPP. Funding for CSP from Year 2 (SY 2020-21) through Year 7 (SY 2025-26) will reach up to six schools and will be reauthorized annually conditioned upon achievement of contract outcomes. 2. Mentoring: DEEL will conduct an RFQ in Qtr 2 2019 to identify mentoring providers specializing in best practice, culturally responsive mentoring. CSP schools will be administer mentoring investments and will be required to subcontract with mentoring providers identified through DEEL’s RFQ process. Funding will be reauthorized to CSP schools annually through SY 2025-26, conditioned upon achievement of contract outcomes. CSP schools will reauthorize subcontracts with approved mentoring providers annually conditioned upon achievement of contract outcomes. CSP schools retain the right to reduce subcontract award size or change mentoring providers upon contract reauthorization. 3. Educator Diversity: In Year 1 of FEPP (SY 2019-20), DEEL will negotiate a performance-based contract with Seattle School District to administer educator diversity investments, inclusive of monitoring and achievement of contract goals and performance targets, and consistent with terms of the partnership agreement. As the Educator Diversity investment continues and as performance is monitored, DEEL has authority to direct award or competitively re-bid some or all educator diversity funds to invest in innovative approaches to increase educator diversity in Seattle School District. Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 Table 18. Culturally Specific and Responsive Investment Timeline Year 2 Year 3 FEPP Levy Year 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 4 SY SY School Year* SY 2019 Culturally Specific Programming Mentoring*** Educator Diversity RFQ 2019-20* Direct contract with 4 schools and OUSD** 2019 RFI*** 202021 202122 Year 4 SY 202223 Qtr 1 2023 6-Year Year 5 SY 202324 Year 6 SY 202425 Year 7 SY 202526 Direct contract with CSP schools; 7-Year Direct contract with Seattle School District; 7-Year *All awards are reauthorized annually, up to term indicated, conditioned upon achievement of contract outcomes **Seattle School District schools include Aki Kurose, Asa Mercer, Denny International, and Interagency Academy ***Expands eligibility to Seattle public schools, including Seattle School District and charter schools, and adds two new CSP schools **** Funds are subcontracted by CSP schools to mentoring providers identified through RFQ process Evaluation K-12 School and Community-Based evaluation activities will track progress toward outcomes (Table 20). For SY 2019-20, the K-12 School and Community-Based strategies continued from FEL will be evaluated as outlined in the 2011 FEL Implementation and Evaluation Plan (i.e. School Based Innovation and Linkage, FEL Summer Learning, and Community Based Family Support). 65 Evaluation for FEPP strategies beginning implementation in SY 2019-20, will follow the approach detailed herein (i.e. Wraparound Services and Culturally Specific and Responsive). All K-12 School and Community-Based strategies will follow FEPP evaluation designs SY 2020-21 through SY 2025-26. Table 19. K-12 School and Community-Based Goal and Outcomes Goal • Seattle students have access to and utilize college and job readiness experiences that promote high school graduation. Outcomes • Students are academically prepared by meeting or exceeding grade level learning standards C/Y • Students graduate high school on-time C/Y • Students graduate high school college and career ready C/Y • Contracted partners provide targeted, high-quality instruction and services that are evidence-based and/or promising practices P • Students are educated by a more diverse educator workforce P • Students have access to a network of expanded learning opportunities S • Structures are promoted for advancing college awareness and access to career preparation resources S Race-based opportunity gaps are closed S *Outcomes are coded as S = System-level impact, P = Program-level impact, and C/Y = Child/youth-level impact FEPP evaluation activities will assess outputs, short-, medium-, and long-term outcomes, and monitor progress toward the K-12 School and Community-Based goal that Seattle students have access to and utilize college and job readiness experiences that promote high school graduation (Figure 6). K-12 School and Community-Based Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 investments apply the FEPP core strategies of Equitable Educational Opportunities (school-based and opportunities and access), Student and Family Supports (wraparound services), and High-Quality Learning Environments (culturally specific and responsive and organization and professional development). Sample evaluation questions and indicators are detailed in the Appendix. Figure 6. K-12 School and Community-Based Logic Model *Outcomes are coded as S = System-level impact, P = Program-level impact, and C/Y = Child/youth-level impact K-12 School and Community-Based Investment outcomes are aligned with local, regional and statewide goals including the Seattle School District’s District Scorecard, the Road Map Project’s PreK to Post-secondary education outcomes, and the Washington School Improvement Framework from the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. DEEL will evaluate the K-12 School and Community-Based investment area consistent with funding and staffing available (Table 20). K-12 School and Community-Based outputs and outcomes will be evaluated annually to monitor and assess performance. Process evaluations will be conducted after strategies have been implemented for a few years (i.e., Years 2-3) to inform strategy implementation approaches (outputs) and short-term outcomes to monitor progress and make mid-course corrections when needed. Outcome evaluations will focus on the medium- and long-term outcomes to determine the return on invest based on the results and show overall impact. Process and outcome evaluations may focus on one or more strategy within the K-12 School and Community investment area depending upon identified areas of focus and available resources. Evaluation activities with identified staffing and/or funding resources are marked by an “X” in the table below. Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 Table 20. K-12 School and Community-Based Evaluation Timeline* Evaluation Tier Monitoring and Performance Process Evaluation Outcome and Impact Design Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Responsible SY SY SY SY SY SY SY Entity 2019- 2020- 2021- 2022- 2023- 2024- 202520 21 22 23 24 25 26 X X X X X X X DEEL Execution X X X X X X X Report X X X X X X X Design ** *** Execution ** *** Report ** *** Design *** ** DEEL and/or External evaluators Execution *** ** Report *** ** DEEL and/or External evaluators *Timelines subject to change **Denotes planned process and outcome evaluation to be conducted by DEEL’s Performance and Evaluation Unit if additional evaluation funding is secured ***Denotes proposed process and outcome evaluations to be conducted by external evaluators if additional evaluation funding is secured Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 K-12 School Health Introduction K-12 Student Health investments are designed to increase access to comprehensive medical and mental health care and other services, promote early intervention, prevention, and treatment of health-related barriers to learning and life success, and increase the number of students graduating prepared to the post-secondary pathway of their choice. K-12 School Health investments provide direct student support services and are an important bridge between health and education to promote school attendance and improved academic performance. Research has consistently demonstrated that physical and mental health concerns can be barriers to learning. 66 These investments provide direct student support services, with a particular focus on historically underserved populations. The City has invested in school health services since the first FEL in 1990. Starting with the first school-based health center (SBHC) at Rainier Beach High School in 1990, expenditures grew in the 2011 FEL to include health center services in 25 elementary, middle, and high schools, school nursing, an oral health pilot, and health system enhancements across the Seattle School District system. Community members have repeatedly supported both the continuation and expansion of City supported school-based health services. DEEL partners with Public Health–Seattle & King County (PHSKC) to manage the K-12 School Health investment by providing support to community providers and Seattle School District. Strategies K-12 School & Community-Based Goal: Seattle students have access to and utilize physical and mental health services that support learning. Outcomes: 1. Students are healthy and ready to learn 2. School Based Health Centers are evidencebased, high-quality, and provide culturally responsive and equitable care 3. Providers implement a best practice model of medical and mental health care me 4. Race-based opportunity gaps are closed As described in Ordinance 125604, Section 6, “Major program elements are intended to provide safe, ageappropriate, culturally-competent care to help children be healthy and ready to learn and may include: comprehensive primary medical care, mental health care, care coordination, connection to community supports, outreach and health education.” The K-12 School Health investment area funds four strategies: 1. School Based Health Centers: These investments provide comprehensive medical and mental health services including preventive, early screening, and integrated treatment to keep students healthy and in school. SBHCs utilize evidence-based practices, exercise cultural responsiveness and gender competency, and provide an accessible source of health care. 2. School Nursing: These investments supplement the Seattle School District nursing program by providing additional support to schools with an SBHC on campus. Nursing activities integrate with and complement the services of SBHCs. 3. Oral Health: These investments complement SBHC services by providing mobile and/or school-based dental services for students at schools with SBHCs. 4. Health System Enhancement: These investments support systems-level continuous quality improvement to advance and improve the delivery of medical and mental health services to students. Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 The strategy funds ongoing training, technical assistance, clinical consultation, data management, program evaluation, and the application of measurement-based care and standardized models of school-based health service delivery. Spending Plan The K-12 School Health investment area represents 11%, or $67.2 million, of the FEPP Levy. K-12 School Health investments are allocated across four strategies (93%) and DEEL administration (7%). The largest budget allocation within K-12 School Health funds School Based Health Centers ($51.35M, 76%). The remaining funding is split across School Nursing ($7.76M, 12%), Oral Health ($2.70M, 4%), and Health System Enhancement ($0.97M, 1%). The DEEL administration budget reflects a portion of DEEL’s central administrative labor and nonlabor costs as well as Citywide indirect costs, including IT and facilities. This is capped at 7% across the Levy. Table 21: K-12 School Health 7-Year Budget Totals by Strategy Strategy Total Percent School Based Health Centers (SBHC) $51,353,162 76% School Nursing $7,761,107 12% Oral Health $2,701,368 4% Health System Enhancement $972,482 1% DEEL Administration $4,467,104 7% Total K-12 School Health $67,255,222 100% The Levy provides base funding for each SBHC, fulfilling up to 70% of the total operating budget for each site. School Based Health Centers are operated by community-based healthcare providers who contribute additional resources including private grants and donations, patient generated revenue, Medicaid reimbursement, and King County Best Starts for Kids funding. DEEL and PHSKC will continue to monitor potential local, regional, state, and federal funding sources for K-12 School Health, consistent with Principle 4 that FEPP Levy investments remain “supplemental and complementary to existing public funding structures and services… [and] never used to supplant state-mandated services.” 67 Alignment with RSJI K-12 School Health investments provide universal access to comprehensive medical and mental health services to individuals and groups, with targeted equity strategies for historically underserved students built into the service delivery model. While health services are universally accessible to students at participating school buildings, outreach and referrals for services are made to students of greatest need, such as those experiencing non-academic barriers to learning and those less likely to access care in the community. Public Health Seattle— King County’s School-Based Partnerships Program (SBPP) advances evidence-based and informed, high-quality, equitable, culturally relevant health care to support all students to be healthy and academically successful. The School-Based Partnerships Program is focused on equity and social justice and aligns with the City of Seattle’s RSJI, King County’s Equity and Social Justice (ESJ) Strategic Plan and other local policies. Alignment with City Resources K-12 School Health investments are a direct complement to FEPP Levy K-12 School and Community-Based investments. Funded school-based partners are expected to coordinate with schools to support school-wide and/or site-specific initiatives to promote and enhance a healthy and safe school environment. These initiatives Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 may include efforts to promote positive school climate, healthy eating, physical activity, communicable disease prevention, student action councils, and school attendance. SBHC staff will also contribute to and partner with school leadership by participating on student intervention/support teams and other committees that can benefit from provider expertise. Lastly, the SBHC team is expected to integrate and coordinate services with school staff including the school nurse, school counselors, teachers and administrators, as well as with other community partners and Best Starts for Kids (BSK) investments. Strategy #1: School Based Health Centers Equitable Educational Opportunities High-Quality Learning Environments Student and Family Supports What are School Based Health Centers? School Based Health Centers (SBHCs) provide comprehensive, integrated medical and mental health services including preventive, early screening, and integrated treatment to keep students healthy, in school, and achieving academically. SBHCs utilize evidence-based practices, exercise cultural responsiveness and gender competency, and provide an accessible source of health care. Support for student health needs include preventive care like well-child exams, immunizations and family planning, and care for acute health needs, diagnosis, treatment, and referral. Mental health services are age appropriate and include screening, counseling, and mental health treatment. Why are School Based Health Centers important? SBHCs are an important bridge between health and education. A broad array of research and a recent systematic review has found that SBHCs are effective in improving a variety of education and health-related outcomes. 68 SBHCs are proven to increase school attendance, increase student grade point average (GPA), increase on-time grade promotion, reduce school suspension rates, and reduce high school non-completion. In a 2009 study, Seattle SBHC users demonstrated improved attendance and GPA as compared to non-users. 69 Healthcare utilization also improved, including substantial increases in immunizations and other preventive services. 70 Access to school-based health care services reduces time out of school for students, time out of work for families, and enables integration of academic goals into the medical and mental health treatment of students. Who is served by School Based Health Centers? SBHCs are located at participating Seattle School District school buildings. All K-12 students attending those schools are eligible to receive care. The 2011 Families and Education Levy (FEL) provided funding for 25 SBHCs. The FEPP Levy adds funding for four additional SBHCs: two middle school, one high school, as well as partial funding for an additional high school health center, for a total investment in up to 29 SBHCs. There are SBHCs at all of the comprehensive middle and high schools. If a student’s school does not have an SBHC, they may receive services at an SBHC located at a nearby school. While services are universally accessible to all Seattle School District students, outreach and referrals for services are made to students of greatest need such as those experiencing non-academic barriers to learning and those less likely to access care in the community. Outreach efforts are targeted to students not yet meeting grade level learning standards and special populations such as students experiencing homelessness, LGBTQ students, and other historically underserved groups. Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 What are the provider criteria for School Based Health Centers? Community-based health care organizations are the lead providers for the implementation and management of SBHCs. Providers are required to meet and demonstrate proficiency in the following criteria: A. Organizational Capacity • Demonstrated experience in providing high quality, culturally responsive health care to adolescents • Ability to leverage sufficient financial and in-kind resources • Sufficient internal capacity controls to meet all required fiscal, data and other reporting B. Experience with Focus Population • Experience collaborating with schools and community partners • Demonstrated success in overcoming barriers to care for elementary, middle, and high school youth C. Partnership Readiness • Demonstrated effective collaboration and problem-solving with students, families, schooland community-based partners D. Service Model and Implementation • Service model incorporates best practices in health and mental health care for youth and aligns with the King County SBHC model of care • Service model reflects stakeholder input and local data and addresses the needs and service gaps unique to the site and school community • Vision for SBHC contribution to equity and social justice E. Financial Resources • Demonstrated ability to leverage other financial and in-kind resources, including billing for reimbursable services • Leveraged resources equal to at least 30% of the operating budget • Budget is realistic for the scope of services proposed What are the key elements of School Based Health Centers? • Increased access and utilization of preventive care (family planning, well-child exams, and immunizations) • Comprehensive primary and acute health care assessment, diagnosis, treatment and referral • Age-appropriate reproductive health care • Sexually transmitted disease screening and treatment • Mental health screening, counseling, treatment and referral • School-wide and targeted health education and health promotion • Information and assistance to eligible students’ families about how to access and enroll in health insurance programs • Intensive interventions to support school success • Coordination with schools on health, academic, and integration with other Levy-funded strategies How will School Based Health Center investments be managed and phased in? Through direct award, DEEL will negotiate a performance-based contract with PHSKC to administer SBHC investments, inclusive of monitoring and achievement of contract goals and performance targets. PHSKC will administer RFIs and performance-based contracts with community providers. In SY 2019-20, the SBHC strategy area will continue FEL SY 2018-19 SBHC investments, funding existing partnerships at eight elementary school, five middle school, and 12 high school building SBHCs as well as add two new middle school and one new high Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 school for a total investment in 28 SBHCs (See Appendix subsection “School Year 2019-2020” for more detail). In 2019, PHSKC will conduct an RFI to competitively re-bid all Elementary School SBHC investments for SY 2020-21 implementation. Contracts will be reauthorized annually conditioned upon achievement of contract outcomes. The SBHC strategy includes $1.4 million over the life of the FEPP Levy to support the creation of a SBHC at Nova High School. This investment is intended to provide partial seed funding for a SBHC at Nova and encourage a community partner(s) to contribute the remainder of funding needed to operate the health center, this may include expenditures related to planning and preparation for this venture. In addition to the funding and partnership required for a long-term sustainable and successful SBHC at Nova, there are space and operational considerations that need to be planned for as well. Beginning in 2019, PHSKC will conduct a 6-12 month planning phase for a future SBHC at Nova. To ensure stakeholder voices are gathered and considered, time is needed to bring people together to explore options. The planning phase will include the convening stakeholders, specification of best practices for service delivery, and identification of additional fund sources. The PHSKC School-Based Partnerships Program (SBPP) has managed King County’s SBHC system for the past 27 years. For each SBHC, SBPP Program Managers work closely with the health service provider, school district, and school staff to support and advise on all aspects of SBHC implementation and operations. The SBPP team will continue to provide training and technical assistance to its cadre of clinical providers, clinic coordinators, and Seattle School District partners. Examples include but are not limited to: • Capacity-building around data and reporting; • Coordination of monthly trainings for medical providers on topics relevant to school-based clinical practice, such as asthma management, sports medicine, and relationship abuse; • Quarterly half-day trainings for mental health providers on various behavioral health practice modalities, which provide an opportunity for Continuing Education Units (CEUs); • Bi-annual joint trainings for school-based clinicians and school nurses to support school-clinic collaboration on key areas of school health. SBPP organizes an annual full day retreat for clinic and school staff to review program performance, promote quality improvement initiatives, support site-level planning, and provide additional clinical training for providers; • Provision of regular performance data to the health service provider and school to monitor progress of the implementation and support continuous quality improvement; and • Added support and collaborative problem solving in cases where the health service provider is experiencing challenges in meeting service expectations and contract performance targets. Table 22. School Based Health Center Investment Timeline Number of SBHCs by Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 School Level SY 2019-20 SY 2020- SY 202121 22 Elementary Secondary 8 continuing* 17 continuing* 3 new** Up to 8 Up to 21 Up to 8 Up to 21 Year 4 SY 202223 Year 5 SY 202324 Year 6 SY 202425 Year 7 SY 202526 Up to 8 Up to 21 Up to 8 Up to 21 Up to 8 Up to 21 Up to 8 Up to 21 *Investments directly awarded to community health providers operating a FEL funded SBHC in 2018-19 at existing Seattle School District partner schools **Addition of 3 new SBHCs at RESMS, Meany MS, and Lincoln HS, community health providers will seek funding through a competitive process Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 Table 23. School Based Health Center RFI Schedule Anticipated Release RFI Issued Date* School Based Health Centers Qtr 2 2019 (Meany MS, Robert Eagle Staff MS, and Lincoln HS) School Based Health Centers Qtr 3 2019 (Nova HS) School Based Health Centers Qtr 1 2020 (all Elementary Schools) Anticipated Awards 3 sites Anticipated Funding Start Date September 2019 1 site Fall 2020 8 sites September 2020 *Timeline subject to change Strategy #2: School Nursing Equitable Educational Opportunities High-Quality Learning Environments Student and Family Supports What is School Nursing? Investments contribute to the Seattle School District nursing program providing additional support to schools with an SBHC on campus. Nursing activities integrate with and complement the services of SBHCs. This investment will supplement state and local resources and provide technical and clinical support to all Seattle School District school nurses. Why is School Nursing important? The FEPP Levy-funded school nursing investment integrates with and complements SBHC services. In SY 201819, state education funding allocated 9.0 FTE certificated school nurses to Seattle School District. 71 However, the Seattle School District staffing model for allocation of certificated school nurses requires a nurse-to-student ratio of 1.0 FTE certificated school nurse to 5,689 students (enrollment based on regular education only). Based on this ratio, in SY 2018-19, Seattle School District employs over 60.0 FTE certificated school nurses. While 9.0 FTE are funded by the State, Seattle School District uses local levy support to fund the remaining 54.0 FTE (FEPP Levy and Seattle School District Educational Programs and Operations Levy). FEPP Levy funding supplements school nurse FTE above current district funded allocations at sites with SBHCs. In addition, FEPP provides FTE funding for Seattle School District central support staff and continuous quality improvement activities such as program development and monitoring and evaluation of school nursing implementation district-wide. School nursing investments support collaboration between Seattle School District school nurses and SBHC agency partners in meeting mutual goals. FEPP-funded school nurses serve as a liaison between the school community and SBHC providers. The school nurse is often a student’s first point of contact in providing direct health care services as well as referring students and families to SBHC services. School nurses work with SBHC agency partners to improve immunization compliance, promote increased student use of SBHC services, and collaborate in addressing students with emotional, behavioral, or attendance concerns that get in the way of health and academic achievement. The result of the investment has demonstrated improved results, including, but not limited to: Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 • • • improved immunization compliance rates; early identification and referral of behavioral concerns; and improved attendance for at risk students. Who is served by School Nursing? All students in a school building can access the care of a school nurse. School nurses support the entire population of the school with prevention services, daily management of chronic or acute conditions, coordination with special education and referral to SBHC services when needed. SBHC staff provide primary medical and mental health care to registered students with diagnosis and treatment available on site. The FEPP school nursing investment directly impacts students attending schools with SBHCs due to increased collaboration time between school nurses and SBHC staff. Further, this investment provides standardized clinical and technical support of all Seattle School District school nurses, regardless of fund source, around immunization and school nurse supported services. What are the provider criteria for School Nursing? PHSKC will contract with Seattle School District to hire school nurses subject to mutual agreement. Minimum qualifications, as of SY 2018-19, include a B.A./B.S. degree in nursing from an accredited college or university, valid Washington State Educational Staff Associate (ESA) Certificate, and valid license to practice nursing in WA State. 72 What are the key elements of School Nursing? • Provide evidence-based nursing care and expand access to health services that close opportunity and achievement gaps • Collaborate with SBHC staff to provide coordinated support for students with physical, behavioral, and mental health conditions • Screen students for behavioral risk factors and provide appropriate interventions to support academic success • Act as school health liaison for dental health programs, perform oral health education, screening, and referral services • Increase compliance with state childhood immunization requirements by: o Providing education to families and students about the benefits of immunizations o Assisting families in evaluating their school-age children’s compliance with immunization requirements o Providing referrals and follow-up with families o Assuring that immunization compliance is tracked accurately and consistently across Seattle School District immunization datasets How will School Nursing investments be managed and phased in? Through direct award, DEEL will negotiate a performance-based contract with PHSKC to administer school nursing investments, inclusive of monitoring and achievement of contract goals and performance targets. In SY 2019-20, PHSKC will direct award to Seattle School District Health Services and administer a performance-based contract. Seattle School District Health Services will partner with PHSKC to develop a program model inclusive of ongoing program planning and evaluation of Seattle School District school nurse health care delivery services in schools with SBHCs as well as ongoing monitoring of progress towards meeting program goals. This contract will be reauthorized annually conditioned upon achievement of contract outcomes. Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 Seattle School District Health Services will continue to standardize evidence-based nursing practice across school buildings. The delivery of evidence-based school nursing care is associated with improved student attendance, academic achievement, better health outcomes, and improved immunization rates, therefore, providing quality evidence for measuring change. 73,74 Seattle School District Health Services is committed to partnering with SBHC agencies for delivering services that promote improved student health outcomes and academic achievement. Strategy #3: Oral Health Equitable Educational Opportunities High-Quality Learning Environments Student and Family Supports What is Oral Health? Oral health investments build on SBHC investments by providing mobile and/or school-based dental services for students at schools with SBHCs. Why is Oral Health important? Oral health is an important part of overall health and affects children’s ability to succeed academically. 75 Tooth decay is a common chronic childhood disease and is experienced more often by youth of color and youth in lowincome households. Further, untreated oral disease can interfere with students’ learning. Providing dental care in schools improves students’ oral health and is thus an opportunity to reduce barriers to learning. Provision of school-based dental care improves students’ oral health. Who is served by Oral Health? Students who attend schools with School Based Health Centers have access to school-based dental services. FEPP Levy funding will support services in an estimated ten schools annually, with portable equipment and services provided by a community healthcare agency. A competitive process was held to identify participating schools under FEL. What are the provider criteria for Oral Health? PHSKC engaged in a competitive process to select a CBO to provide oral health services beginning in SY 201314. As part of this process, PHSKC convened a group of key stakeholders and experts in school-based and oral health to develop a strategy and implementation plan. A multidisciplinary review panel including Seattle School District school nurses, community members familiar with provision of dental services, PHSKC staff, and City staff, convened to review applications. After extensive review, Neighborcare Health was selected as the provider for FEL-funded school-based dental services. Provider criteria for oral health may include the following: • Previous experience providing similar services and achieving targets • Demonstrated use of data to design, implement and modify programs • Demonstrated ability to jointly plan and implement strategies with schools and with community-based organizations to achieve targets • Demonstrated ability to leverage financial and in-kind resources to achieve targets What are the key elements of Oral Health? • Oral screening and examination • X-rays • Preventive oral care including cleanings, sealants, and fluoride treatments Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 • • • • Restorative treatment including fillings or extractions Oral health education and health promotion Care coordination and referral to help students establish a dental home, defined as an ongoing relationship between the dentist and the patient, inclusive of all aspects of oral health care delivered in a comprehensive, continuously accessible, coordinated, and family-centered way 76 Linkages to connect students and families to community-based and/or specialty dental care that may not be provided in school setting 77 How will Oral Health investments be managed and phased in? Through direct award, DEEL will negotiate a performance-based contract with PHSKC to administer oral health investments, inclusive of monitoring and achievement of contract goals and performance targets. In SY 2019-20, PHSKC will direct award to Neighborcare Health and administer a performance-based contract. PHSKC Program Managers will work closely with Neighborcare Health to develop and implement the oral health program and ensure achievement of targets and deliverables. This contract will be reauthorized annually conditioned upon achievement of contract outcomes. Strategy #4: Health System Enhancement Equitable Educational Opportunities High-Quality Learning Environments Student and Family Supports What is Health System Enhancement? Health system enhancement investments advance the quality of care being provided in FEPP-funded SBHCs. The health system enhancement strategy invests in systems-level improvements to advance and improve the delivery of medical and mental health services to students; this investment does not fund direct services. Health system enhancement dollars fund ongoing training, technical assistance, clinical consultation, data management, program evaluation, quality improvement and the application of measurement-based care and standardized models of school-based health service delivery. Why is Health System Enhancement important? SBHC providers need to stay up-to-date on data and clinical consultation best practices in order to provide highquality care to Seattle youth. Program evaluation promotes CQI by assessing clinical practice, outcomes, and partnerships to maximize the benefit of FEPP Levy investments. Previous Levy investments in systems enhancement investment in clinical psychiatric consultation has contributed to the development of a schoolbased mental health model that assures high-quality, consistent, and standardized care for all students. Evaluation of this model has advanced the field of school-based mental health and the role of measurementbased care in improving mental health and academic outcomes. 78,79 Who is served by Health System Enhancement? Health system enhancement serves adult providers to the benefit of all students who utilize SBHC services. Professional development is designed to respond to provider needs based on the students they serve. PHSKC collects data on the services students receive and aligns to student academic indicator data to support providers’ understanding of students’ holistic needs. Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 What are the provider criteria for Health System Enhancement? Provider criteria for health system enhancement may include the following: • Expertise in public health program evaluation and/or School Based Health Centers • Prior experience articulating the strengths and barriers to providing equitable, high quality care through quantitative and qualitative measures • Expertise serving children and adolescents in psychiatric medicine • Specific experience with SBHC delivery model • Expertise in their topic(s) presented; Experience serving youth populations • Knowledge and expertise in data management, epidemiology, and health communication practices What are the key elements of Health System Enhancement? • Professional development and ongoing support of medical and mental health providers in the use of evidence-based practice in schools • Development and implementation of key standards of practice for school-based health care delivery • Implementation and ongoing management of a web-based mental health monitoring and feedback system to track goal attainment • Outcome data to support ongoing evaluation and commitment to continuous quality improvement How will Health System Enhancement investments be managed and phased in? Through direct award, DEEL will negotiate a performance-based contract with PHSKC to administer health system enhancements, inclusive of monitoring and achievement of contract goals and performance targets, beginning in SY 2019-20. PHSKC Program Managers work closely with the evaluator, clinical providers, and consultants to support and advise on key aspects of SBHC planning and implementation. PHSKC will collaborate with partners to define the annual program evaluation and clinical consultation plan. PHSKC will collaborate with DEEL for data management and organize professional development opportunities in collaboration with partners as needed. This contract will be reauthorized annually conditioned upon achievement of contract outcomes. Evaluation K-12 School Health evaluation activities will track progress toward outcomes throughout the life of the FEPP Levy, SY 2019-20 through SY 2025-26, as detailed herein (Table 24). Table 24. K-12 School Health Goal and Outcomes Goal • Seattle students have access to and utilize physical and mental health services that support learning. Outcomes • • • • Students are healthy and ready to learn C/Y School Based Health Centers are evidence-based, high-quality, and provide culturally responsive and equitable care P Providers implement a best practice model of medical and mental health care S Race-based opportunity gaps are closed S *Outcomes are coded as S = System-level impact, P = Program-level impact, and C/Y = Child/youth-level impact FEPP evaluation activities will assess outputs, short-, medium-, and long-term outcomes, and monitor progress toward the K-12 School Health goal that Seattle students have access to and utilize physical and mental health services that support learning (Figure 7). K-12 School Health investments apply the FEPP core strategies of Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 Student and Family Supports (SBHCs, oral health, and school nursing) and High-Quality Learning Environments (health system enhancements such as professional development trainings, partner learning collaboratives, stakeholder engagement, data tracking, and performance review). Sample evaluation questions and indicators are detailed in the Appendix. Figure 7. K-12 School Health Logic Model *Outcomes are coded as S = System-level impact, P = Program-level impact, and C/Y = Child/youth-level impact DEEL will evaluate the K-12 School Based investment area, consistent with funding and staffing available to execute a rigorous design (Table 25). K-12 School Health outputs and outcomes will be evaluated annually to monitor and assess performance. Process evaluations will be conducted after strategies have been implemented for a few years (i.e., Years 2-3) to inform strategy implementation approaches (outputs) and short-term outcomes to monitor progress and make mid-course corrections when needed. Outcome evaluations will focus on the medium- and long-term outcomes to determine the return on invest based on the results and show overall impact beginning in Year 6. Process and outcome evaluations may focus on one or more strategy within the broader K-12 School Health investment area depending upon identified areas of focus and available resources. Evaluation activities with identified staffing and/or funding resources are marked by an “X” in the table below. Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 Table 25. K-12 School Health Evaluation Timeline Evaluation Tier Monitoring and Performance Process Evaluation* Outcome and Impact* Design Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Responsible SY SY SY SY SY SY SY Entity 2019- 2020- 2021- 2022- 2023- 2024- 202520 21 22 23 24 25 26 X X X X X X X DEEL Execution X X X X X X X Report X X X X X X X Design Execution ** Report ** Design DEEL, PHSKC, and External Evaluators ** *** Execution *** Report *** DEEL, PHSKC, and External Evaluators *Timelines subject to change **Denotes planned process and outcome evaluation to be conducted by DEEL’s Performance and Evaluation Unit if additional evaluation funding is secured ***Denotes proposed process and outcome evaluations to be conducted by external evaluators if additional evaluation funding is secured Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 Seattle Promise Introduction King County faces a skills gap that prevents local students from accessing local jobs. An estimated 70% of all jobs in Washington State will require some post-secondary education by 2020 80; however, only 74% of Seattle School District graduates go on to post-secondary institutions, and only 31% of Washington’s high school students go on to attain a post-secondary credential by the age of twenty-six. A report published by Seattle School District found that for the class of 2015, “historically underserved students of color (Black, Hispanic, Native American, and Pacific Islander) attend college at a rate of 17 percentage points lower than White, Asian, and Multiracial students.” Historically underserved students who do attend college are more likely to enroll in a two-year institution and require remedial coursework. Further, persistence rates for this same graduating class show disproportionate impacts between many students of color and their peers who attend two-year institutions. Seattle Promise Goal: Seattle students have access to and utilize postsecondary opportunities that promote attainment of a certificate, credential or degree. Outcomes: 1. Seattle Promise students complete a certificate, credential, degree or transfer 2. Seattle Promise delivers high-quality services and clear pathways to success 3. Race-based opportunity gaps are closed To ensure that Seattle students have the education and resources to tap into the local job market, Mayor Jenny Durkan called for the development of Seattle Promise such that all Seattle public school students may access and complete post-secondary education. The intent of the program is to reduce and/or remove financial barriers that keep some public high school graduates from earning a credential, certificate, degree, or transfer to 4-year institution. Seattle Promise builds upon the success of the 13th Year Scholarship Program, established at South Seattle College in 2008 and expanded to all Seattle Colleges in 2017—North Seattle College, Seattle Central College, and South Seattle College. Strategies As described in Ordinance 125604, Section 6, “Major program elements are intended to increase student access to post-secondary and job training opportunities and may include: post-secondary success coaches, readiness academics, the equivalent of two years of financial support for tuition, and non-tuition financial support.” The Seattle Promise investment area funds three strategies: 1. Tuition: Seattle Promise students that meet all program requirements are eligible to receive up to 90 attempted college credits or two-years of attendance, whichever comes first, at the Seattle Colleges towards a student’s initial credential, certificate, degree, or transfer to a 4-year institution. 2. Equity Scholarship: Additional financial support to Seattle Promise students with a zero Expected Family Contribution (EFC), to assist with non-tuition related expenses such as books, child care, food, housing, transportation, etc. Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 3. College Preparation and Persistence Support: Provides students with college and career readiness supports beginning in 11th grade and continuing through their 14th year, in three stages: (1) college ready and college transition; (2) persistence; (3) completion. Spending Plan The Seattle Promise investment area represents 6%, or $40.7 million, of the FEPP Levy. Seattle Promise investments are allocated across the three program strategies (93%) and administration (7%). The largest budget allocation within Seattle Promise is for College Preparation and Persistence Support ($18.12M, 45%), followed by Tuition ($15.96M, 39%), and Equity Scholarship ($3.63M, 9%). Table 26: Seattle Promise 7-Year Budget Totals by Strategy Strategy Total Tuition $15,959,801 Equity Scholarship $3,634,618 College Preparation and Persistence Support $18,115,889 DEEL Administration $2,972,171 Total Seattle Promise $40,682,480 Percent 39% 9% 45% 7% 100% Program costs by major cost category Seattle Promise budget estimates are based on projections of high school enrollment over the life of the FEPP Levy as well as graduation and college matriculation trends (Table 27). Table 27: Seattle Promise 7-Year Enrollment and Matriculation Estimates Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Student Participation SY SY SY SY SY 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 12th Grade Students* 1,360 1,360 1,360 1,360 1,360 th 13 Year Students** 261 544 544 544 544 th 14 Year Students*** 129 157 326 326 326 Total 13th and 14th Year 390 701 870 870 870 Students Year 6 SY 2024-25 1,360 544 326 Year 7 SY 2025-26 1,360 544 326 870 870 *The 12th Grade Student estimate was modelled using an average of 50% (or 80 students per school) of graduating seniors from 17 Seattle School District high schools **The matriculation rate from 12th grade to 13th year at Seattle Colleges is assumed to be 40% ***The persistence rate from 13th to 14th year is assumed to be 60%. The cost model assumes full implementation for 13th year students in SY 2019-20, the 1st year of FEPP Levy investment, and full implementation for 14th year students in SY 202122. Seattle Promise tuition is intended to be a last-dollar scholarship; a last-dollar scholarship means that the Seattle Promise scholarship will cover all tuition costs after Federal and State supports, and individual student scholarships are applied. The tuition budget assumes $2,500 per Seattle Promise student, which is the net average amount (after other funding is utilized) of anticipated unmet need per year. The equity scholarship assumes $1,500 per eligible Seattle Promise student, per year. Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 The FEPP Levy funds two types of positions at the Seattle Colleges through the College Preparation and Persistence Support strategy: (1) Student Success Specialist to provide services to 11th and 12th graders and (2) Seattle College Support Staff (i.e. advisors) to provide services to 13th and 14th Year Seattle Promise students. The College Preparation and Persistence Support budget assumes approximately 1.0 FTE Student Success Specialist for up to 300 high school seniors and approximately 1.0 FTE College Support Staff for up to onehundred 13th and 14th Year Seattle Promise students. The College Preparation and Persistence Support budget also provides for instructional support, speakers, transportation, supplies, and equipment related to Readiness Academy activities as well as the administration costs to Seattle Colleges such as general overhead fees for facilities, IT, accounting, etc. Readiness Academy is a suite of activities associated with preparing Seattle youth for Seattle Promise and post-secondary opportunities (see Seattle Promise- Strategy #3 for more information). The DEEL Administration line includes a portion of DEEL's central administrative labor and non-labor costs, including City central costs such as facilities and IT, and is capped at 7% across the Levy. As stated in Resolution 31821, “Seattle Colleges has committed to work with private donors to contribute $3.1 million over the life of the levy, resulting in a total combined investment of $43.8 million for the Seattle Promise program.” DEEL will continue to monitor potential local, regional, state, and federal funding sources for Seattle Promise, and ensure that FEPP Levy investments in the Seattle Promise are “supplemental and complementary to existing public funding structures and services… [and] never used to supplant state-mandated services” (Principle 4). 81 Alignment with RSJI The Seattle Promise is a universal access program with targeted equity strategies designed for historically underserved students. The equity strategy within Seattle Promise is to provide non-tuition financial supports, called an equity scholarship, for students with the highest financial need. Equity scholarships are aimed at reducing financial barriers to college completion such as cost of books, childcare, transportation, and housing. Further, the Seattle Promise investment, specifically the College Preparation and Persistence Support strategy, is complemented by K-12 School and Community-Based investments. More specifically, while Seattle Promise support for 11th and 12th grade high school students is distributed equally across public high schools, K-12 school-based investments are prioritized to serve up to five public high schools with high concentrations of students not yet meeting grade level learning standards, African American/Black, Hispanic/Latino, Native American, Pacific Islander, underserved Asian populations, and other students of color, and/or designated as Title 1, thereby providing additional layered support for the students who need it the most. Alignment with City Resources While the Seattle Promise investment is largely a new line of business for DEEL and the City, the program is building off initial success and past efforts to provide the resources and supports necessary to pursue postsecondary education. The Seattle Promise expands earlier City investments in the 13th Year Promise Scholarship Program funded by General Fund and revenues from the City’s Sweetened Beverage Tax. Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 Strategy #1: Tuition Access to Equitable Educational Opportunities High-Quality Learning Environments Student and Family Supports What is Tuition? Seattle Promise tuition is a last-dollar scholarship, meaning that the Seattle Promise scholarship will cover all tuition costs after Federal and State supports and individual student scholarships are applied. The Seattle Promise scholarship will cover up to 90 attempted credits or two-years of enrollment, whichever comes first, at the Seattle Colleges towards a student’s initial credential, certificate, degree, or transfer to a 4-year institution. The tuition assistance can be used towards remedial courses that are eligible for financial aid assistance 82. Tuition assistance is applied only while the student is enrolled with the Seattle Colleges and does not follow students if they transfer out of Seattle Colleges. Students must enroll full-time (i.e., minimum of 12 credits per quarter) in Fall, Winter, and Spring quarters. Students will be supported during Summer quarter if they choose to attend, however this is optional for Seattle Promise students. Seattle Promise tuition does not cover fees due to the wide range of possible costs associated with specific programs. Seattle Promise tuition cannot be used outside of the Seattle Colleges. The student is responsible for payment of tuition costs beyond 90 credits. Given the structure of Seattle Promise tuition as a last-dollar scholarship, low-income college applicants are likely to receive tuition assistance through State and Federal programs and not Seattle Promise tuition supports. However, the last-dollar approach allows for Levy dollars to serve more Seattle students than would be possible if applied before State and Federal assistance. Research on Promise programs nationally shows that the simpler the enrollment process, the higher the Promise program application rates. Universal-access Promise programs have been shown to increase college-going culture population-wide and increase post-secondary enrollment among students of color. Why is Tuition important? With the high cost of college and living expenses many students and families are not able to afford to attend college. Inability to pay post-secondary tuition has proven to be a key factor where students do not access and/or complete a post-secondary education. Seattle Promise aims to remove this barrier for Seattle students. Who is served by Tuition? All graduates of Seattle public high schools, including Seattle School District and charter schools, who meet eligibility milestones from 12th grade through their 14th year, will be eligible for tuition support (Figure 8). In the event that demand for Seattle Promise tuition supports exceed supply, tuition funds will be prioritized for low-income, first-generation (i.e. students who are first in their family to attend college), and/or African American/Black, Hispanic/Latino, Native American, Pacific Islander, underserved Asian populations, and other students of color. In collaboration with Seattle Colleges, DEEL will collect and analyze Promise Student enrollment, persistence, and completion trends to better understand how FEPP-funds are being utilized. DEEL and the Colleges will use this analysis to inform the further refinement of a student prioritization mechanism that responds to Seattle student and family needs, and promotes equitable access to post-secondary opportunity. What are the provider criteria for Tuition? DEEL will contract with the Seattle Colleges to administer the tuition investment subject to mutual agreement. For the past 10 years, South Seattle College has administered the 13th Year Promise Scholarship Program; this Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 program informed many program elements within the Seattle Promise. Seattle Program tuition scholarships will be calculated by the Seattle Colleges financial aid office based on completed application and federal/state financial aid supports. What are the key elements of Tuition? Seattle Promise students must meet the following eligibility milestones from 12th grade through their 14th year, in order to become and remain a Seattle Promise student (Figure 8): 1. Complete a Seattle Promise application during 12th grade 2. Complete a Seattle College application during 12th grade 3. Complete FAFSA or WAFSA and financial aid file 4. Participate in Seattle Colleges Readiness Academy activities during 12th grade 5. Graduate from a Seattle public high school, including Seattle School District and charter schools 6. Participate in Seattle College Summer Bridge Program 7. Enroll into one of the Seattle Colleges 8. Meet with Seattle College Advisor quarterly 11 9. Maintain Satisfactory Academic Progress (SAP) as determined by the Seattle College campus that the student attends 83 84 85 86 Figure 8. Eligibility Criteria for Seattle Promise Students How will Tuition investments be managed and phased in? Through direct award, DEEL will negotiate a performance-based contract with Seattle Colleges to administer tuition investments, inclusive of monitoring and achievement of contract goals and performance targets, and consistent with terms of the partnership agreement. The financial aid departments for each of the Seattle College campuses will manage the tuition supports for the Seattle Promise students on their campus. The tuition supports will be administered through the student’s financial aid award. DEEL has authority to modify eligibility criteria for tuition as implementation of the Seattle Promise program matures and performance is monitored. In Years 1 (SY 2019-20) through Years 2 (SY 2020-21): • Public school graduates of Seattle School District and Seattle Promise students will be eligible for tuition if their District/school has a current, effective Partnership Agreement with the City. Does not include summer quarter, as summer enrollment is not a requirement for program eligibility. However, Seattle Promise services will be available during the summer if requested. 11 Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 • DEEL commits to completing a Racial Equity Toolkit (RET) in accordance with the City’s RSJI. In Years 3 (SY 2021-22) through 7 (SY 2025-26) of FEPP: • As a result of the RET, DEEL will develop a series of recommendations to expand access to Seattle Promise for Opportunity Youth and public charter school students. • DEEL will seek the recommendation of the LOC to implement new eligibility criteria and notify Council 30 days before new policies take effect. Strategy #2: Equity Scholarship Access to Equitable Educational Opportunities High-Quality Learning Environments Student and Family Supports What is Equity Scholarship? Equity scholarship is an investment for Seattle Promise students who face financial barriers to post-secondary education. Equity scholarship dollars are intended to fund non-tuition related expenses such as books, child care, food, housing, transportation, etc. Why is Equity Scholarship important? Many Promise programs nationally have found the need for financial supports that go beyond tuition. College students face several financial barriers that keep them from completing their post-secondary education. Expenses such as books, transportation, and living costs can be up to 80% of the cost associated with attending college. 87 The 13th Year Promise Scholarship Program administered by South Seattle College did not historically include an equity scholarship. City investments through SBT and FEPP Levy have made this new program element possible. Who is served by Equity Scholarship? In addition to the eligibility criteria detailed in Figure 8, Seattle Promise students must have zero Expected Family Contribution (EFC) as determined by their financial aid award to be eligible for the equity scholarship. Zero EFC indicates that the student has high financial need. While students with high financial need will receive support from federal financial aid and possible state need grants to pay for tuition, students with zero EFC often experience additional non-tuition, financial barriers to college completion (e.g. books, child care, food, housing, transportation). EFC is an index number that college financial aid departments use to determine how much financial aid the scholar would receive. The information reported on FAFSA or WAFSA forms is used to calculate the EFC. 88 What are the provider criteria for Equity Scholarship? DEEL will contract with the Seattle Colleges to administer the equity scholarship subject to mutual agreement. For the past 10 years, South Seattle College has administered the 13th Year Promise Scholarship Program; this program informed many program elements within the Seattle Promise. What are the key elements of Equity Scholarship? Students must maintain program eligibility and show financial need (i.e., zero EFC) in order to access and continue to receive equity scholarship supports. Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 How will Equity Scholarship investments be managed and phased in? Through direct award, DEEL will negotiate a performance-based contract with Seattle Colleges to administer equity scholarship investments, inclusive of monitoring and achievement of contract goals and performance targets, and consistent with terms of the partnership agreement. The financial aid departments for each of the Seattle College campuses will manage the equity scholarship for the Seattle Promise students on their campus. Equity scholarships will be administered through Seattle Promise students’ quarterly financial aid file beginning in the Fall quarter of their 13th year. Students can use equity scholarship funds for specified school-related expenses such as books, child care, food, housing, and/or transportation. DEEL has authority to modify eligibility criteria for equity scholarship support as implementation of the Seattle Promise program matures and performance is monitored. In Years 1 (SY 2019-20) through Years 2 (SY 2020-21): • Public school graduates of Seattle School District and Seattle Promise students will be eligible for the equity scholarship if their District/school has a current, effective Partnership Agreement with the City. • DEEL commits to completing a Racial Equity Toolkit (RET) in accordance with the City’s RSJI. In Years 3 (SY 2021-22) through 7 (SY 2025-26) of FEPP: • As a result of the RET, DEEL will develop a series of recommendations to expand access to Seattle Promise for Opportunity Youth and public charter school students. • DEEL will seek the recommendation of the LOC to implement new eligibility criteria and notify Council 30 days before new policies take effect. Strategy #3: College Preparation and Persistence Support Access to Equitable Educational Opportunities High-Quality Learning Environments Student and Family Supports What is College Preparation and Persistence Support? College preparation and persistence support is a suite of services provided to 11th and 12th grade high school students and 13th and 14th Year Seattle Promise students. This investment reaches Seattle youth at each stage of their college-going experience, starting in the 11th and 12th grades, into the summer after they graduate, and throughout their college experience. College preparation and persistence support investments aim to prepare Seattle youth to access college, persist through college, and complete a certificate, credential, degree, or transfer to a four-year institution. Why is College Preparation and Persistence Support important? A lessoned learned from early implementation of the 13th Year Promise Scholarship Program at South Seattle College, was that offering just tuition to students was not enough as many students did not continue with their educational pursuits. Nationally, Promise programs that only offer tuition or financial supports do not have strong student completion results. Providing wraparound services has proven to be a necessary component in helping students complete college. Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 Who is served by College Preparation and Persistence Support? 11th and 12th grade students at eligible public high schools, including Seattle School District and charter schools, and all 13th and 14th Year Seattle Promise students will be provided college preparation and persistence support. 13th and 14th Year Seattle Promise students will be required to participate in persistence and completion activities in order to maintain eligibility for the Seattle Promise tuition and/or equity scholarship awards. What are the provider criteria for College Preparation and Persistence Support? DEEL will contract with the Seattle Colleges to administer college preparation and persistence support subject to mutual agreement. Seattle Colleges staff, specifically Student Success Specialists and College Support Staff, will be primarily responsible for delivering support services. Student Success Specialists will complete deliverables such as, but not limited to the following, for public school 11th and 12th graders: • Conduct outreach • Conduct Readiness Academy programming • Collaborate and align efforts with college and career readiness CBOs and high school counselors • Support students with Seattle Promise application and enrollment, in group and individual settings • Support completion of FAFSA or WASFA • Lead Seattle College campus visits and tours, and connect students with campus leadership, resources, and support staff • Deliver Summer Bridge program and college transition support for matriculating Seattle Promise students • Support students with navigating assessment and placement options to encourage college-level course placement College Support Staff will complete deliverables such as, but not limited to the following, for Seattle Promise students during their 13th and 14th Years: • Meet with students quarterly • Maintain maximum ratio of up to 100 Seattle Promise students per 1 Support Staff • Support students to complete annual financial aid files • Provide program and course registration guidance • Support students with academic and non-academic needs • Refer and connect students to proper campus supports What are the key elements of College Preparation and Persistence Support? Seattle Promise college preparation and persistence supports are administered in three stages: (1) college ready and college transition, (2) persistence, and (3) completion. Supports are provided in one-on-one and group settings to allow for individualized supports. 1. College Ready and College Transition: This stage provides outreach and supports to prospective Seattle Promise students and families to share information needed for Seattle Promise participation and promote opportunities available at Seattle Colleges. Activities include workshops and support services to prepare Seattle Promise students for their 13th year, fall quarter enrollment and matriculation to the Seattle Colleges and occur at high schools and on Seattle Colleges campuses. • Outreach: Student Success Specialists will provide outreach to 11th and 12th graders beginning in the spring of their junior year, as an opportunity to inform students and families about the Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 • • • • • Seattle Promise program well in advance of required eligibility activities. Outreach to 12th graders will be designed to inform students and families of the steps and requirements needed to meet and maintain Seattle Promise eligibility. College Selection: The Seattle Promise is portable among Seattle College campuses and programs only, meaning that students can take classes at any Seattle College campus, regardless of where the high school they graduated from is located. 12 Students may attend any of the three Seattle Colleges. The Success Specialist will work with students and families at public high schools to discuss their options, identify the Seattle Colleges campus that best fits their academic and career goals, and complete and submit the application for their desired school. Students must complete a Seattle College application to attend the school. Readiness Academy: Readiness Academy is a suite of activities associated with preparing Seattle youth for Seattle Promise and post-secondary opportunities. Through Readiness Academy, 12th grade students will receive group and individualized supports. Supports will come in the form of workshops, one-on-one assistance, academic placement, and Seattle Colleges campus visits. The workshops and one-on-one supports will consist of, but not be limited to, financial aid filing completion assistance, Seattle Promise and Seattle Colleges application assistance, career awareness, and placement support. Readiness Academy provides students with tools to be successful on campus as well as builds cohorts of future 13th and 14th Year Promise students to support each other once in college. Application Assistance: Success Specialists will assist students and families with completion of the Seattle Promise application beginning in the fall of senior year. Financial Aid File: Students must complete their financial aid file, including their FAFSA or WASFA, by the deadline determined by the Seattle Colleges. Seattle Promise leverages Federal and State tuition assistance to maximize support for all students. The Success Specialist will communicate deadlines to students and families at participating public high schools as well as provide support to assist with completion. Participate in Summer Bridge: The summer bridge program connects students to the Seattle College campus they enrolled in. Summer Bridge will take place during the summer between high school graduation and the start of their 13th Year fall quarter. Upon high school graduation, the success specialist will contact matriculating Seattle Promise students to inform students and families of Summer Bridge program details. Seattle Promise students must participate in the Summer Bridge program to maintain Seattle Promise tuition and equity scholarship eligibility. Summer Bridge is crucial to connecting students to Seattle Colleges campuses and to their cohort of Seattle Promise students. Each Seattle Colleges campus will host a Summer Bridge program. 2. Persistence: The Seattle Promise supports students through a cohort model of academic, advising, and financial supports. • Cohort: Seattle Promise is designed in a cohort model. Seattle Promise students will enroll in their 13th Year fall quarter after graduating from a public high school, including Seattle School District and charter schools, and having met eligibility requirements. Cohort models for higher education have proven to be successful in supporting students through program completion and building a sense of peer support, family, and belonging. 89 • Academic Standing: Seattle Promise students must meet the Satisfactory Academic Progress 90 (SAP) as defined by the Seattle Colleges campus where they are enrolled. SAP includes enrolling 12 Portability will begin for the graduating class of 2020, effective for SY 2020-21 Seattle Colleges enrollment. Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 • • • • in a minimum number of credits, maintaining a minimum GPA, and completing the degree within the maximum timeframe. Advising: Seattle Promise students will meet with a Seattle College advisor at least quarterly to identify any academic, career, or personal issues that may impact persistence toward postsecondary completion and develop solutions for. Seattle College advisors will have a smaller case load than traditional advisors at the Seattle Colleges. Advisors will support up to 100 students per advisor; this will allow for a high quality of support. On-campus Supports: Seattle Promise students will have access to transfer and career preparation supports as well as academic supports such as course planning and tutoring services. Financial Aid File: Students must submit required documentation to confirm financial aid status. This documentation will include the FAFSA or WASFA, as well as financial aid documents required by the college of attendance. Equity Scholarship: Promise students with a zero EFC will be eligible to receive supplemental funding supports for non-tuition related expenses. 3. Completion: While enrolled at Seattle Colleges, Seattle Promise students will have access to non-FEPPfunded supports to promote preparation for life beyond college. Students will be supported with career and financial literacy guidance. Students who are transferring to a 4-year institution will be assisted with transition needs. How will College Preparation and Persistence Support investments be managed and phased in? Through direct award, DEEL will negotiate a performance-based contract with Seattle Colleges to administer college preparation and persistence support investments, inclusive of monitoring and achievement of contract goals and performance targets, and consistent with terms of the partnership agreement. College preparation and persistence support will be administered by Seattle Colleges staff including, but not limited to, Student Success Specialists and College Support Staff. Seattle Colleges staff will partner with public high schools and local college and career readiness CBOs to coordinate services. DEEL has authority to modify eligibility criteria for college preparation and persistence support as implementation of the Seattle Promise program matures and performance is monitored. In Years 1 (SY 2019-20) through Years 2 (SY 2020-21): • Public school graduates of Seattle School District and Seattle Promise students will be eligible for college preparation and persistence support if their District/school has a current, effective Partnership Agreement with the City. • DEEL commits to completing a Racial Equity Toolkit (RET) in accordance with the City’s RSJI. In Years 3 (SY 2021-22) through 7 (SY 2025-26) of FEPP: • As a result of the RET, DEEL will develop a series of recommendations to expand access to Seattle Promise for Opportunity Youth and public charter school students. • DEEL will seek the recommendation of the LOC to implement new eligibility criteria and notify Council 30 days before new policies take effect. Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 Evaluation Seattle Promise evaluation activities will track progress toward outcomes (Table 28). Evaluation for Seattle Promise strategies (i.e. tuition support, equity scholarship, college preparation and persistence activities) will follow the approach detailed herein for the life of the FEPP Levy (SY 2019-20 through SY 2025-26). Table 28. Seattle Promise Goal and Long-Term Outcomes Goal • Seattle students have access to and utilize post-secondary opportunities that promote attainment of a certificate, credential, or degree. Long-Term Outcomes • • • Seattle Promise students complete a certificate, credential, degree or transfer C/Y Seattle Promise delivers high-quality services and clear pathways to success P Race-based opportunity gaps are closed S *Outcomes are coded as S = System-level impact, P = Program-level impact, and C/Y = Child/youth-level impact FEPP evaluation activities will assess outputs, short-, medium-, and long-term outcomes, and monitor progress toward the Seattle Promise goal that Seattle students have access to and utilize post-secondary opportunities that promote attainment of a certificate, credential, or degree (Figure 9). Seattle Promise investments apply the FEPP core strategies of Access to Educational Opportunities (outreach, onboarding, and advising), Student and Family Supports (equity scholarship) and High-Quality Learning Environments (staffing model). Sample evaluation questions and indicators are detailed in the Appendix. Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 Figure 9. Seattle Promise Logic Model *Outcomes are coded as S = System-level impact, P = Program-level impact, and C/Y = Child/youth-level impact. DEEL, Seattle Colleges, and external evaluators will evaluate Seattle Promise consistent with funding and staffing available (Table 29). Seattle Promise outputs and outcomes will be evaluated annually to monitor and assess performance. Short- and medium-term outcomes will be evaluated utilizing process and outcome evaluations after strategies have been implemented for a few years (i.e., Years 2-3). Medium-term outcomes will be assessed beginning in Year 3. Long-term outcomes will be assessed with an impact evaluation approach beginning in Year 6. Process and outcome evaluations may focus on one or more strategy within the broader Seattle Promise program depending upon identified areas of focus and available resources. Evaluation activities with identified staffing and/or funding resources are marked by an “X” in the table below. Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 Table 29. Seattle Promise Evaluation Timeline* Evaluation Tier Monitoring and Performance Process Evaluation Outcome and Impact Design Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Responsible SY SY SY SY SY SY SY Entity 2019- 2020- 2021- 2022- 2023- 2024- 202520 21 22 23 24 25 26 X X X X X X X DEEL Execution X X X X X X X Report X X X X X X X Design ** *** Execution ** *** Report ** *** Design ** *** Execution ** Report ** DEEL and/or External Evaluators DEEL *** and/or External *** Evaluators *Timelines subject to change. **Denotes planned process and outcome evaluation to be conducted by DEEL’s Performance and Evaluation Unit if additional evaluation funding is secured. ***Denotes proposed process and outcome evaluations to be conducted by external evaluators if additional evaluation funding is secured. Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 V. Appendix Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 V.I FEPP 7-Year Spending Plan Year 1 SY 2019-20 Year 2 SY 2020-21 Year 3 SY 2021-22 Year 4 SY 2022-23 Year 5 SY 2023-24 Year 6 SY 2024-25 $16,294,202 $17,743,852 $19,238,233 $20,813,132 $22,456,735 $24,161,412 $25,930,147 $146,637,714 Quality Teaching $6,730,797 $7,367,928 $7,891,679 $8,565,456 $9,273,019 $9,805,355 $10,577,845 $60,212,079 Comprehensive Support Organizational & Facilities Development $7,910,369 $8,601,617 $9,203,129 $9,942,740 $10,721,751 $11,564,683 $12,255,691 $70,199,979 $2,936,649 $2,591,549 $2,330,112 $2,136,215 $1,944,977 $1,776,437 $1,659,468 $15,375,406 SPP Child Care Subsidies $1,096,200 $1,186,028 $1,279,712 $1,377,375 $1,479,139 $1,585,126 $1,695,456 $9,699,036 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $2,800,000 $571,429 $571,429 $571,429 $571,429 $571,429 $571,429 $571,429 $4,000,000 $1,369,760 $1,046,014 $1,086,003 $1,127,350 $1,169,964 $1,213,744 $1,258,811 $8,271,646 $3,262,594 $40,572,000 $3,196,795 $42,705,211 $3,333,574 $45,333,871 $3,476,268 $48,409,965 $3,625,138 $51,642,152 $3,780,454 $54,858,638 $3,942,498 $58,291,345 $24,617,321 $341,813,182 Elementary School $9,025,000 $8,000,000 $8,000,000 $8,000,000 $8,000,000 $8,000,000 $8,000,000 $57,025,000 Middle School $6,781,059 $3,038,100 $3,892,565 $3,989,880 $4,089,625 $4,191,865 $4,296,660 $30,279,754 High School Subtotal, School-Based Investments $3,499,891 $3,797,625 $3,892,565 $3,989,880 $4,089,625 $4,191,865 $4,296,660 $27,758,111 $19,305,950 $14,835,725 $15,785,130 $15,979,760 $16,179,250 $16,383,730 $16,593,320 $115,062,865 K-12 Opportunity & Access $0 $1,281,250 $1,601,563 $2,001,953 $2,252,197 $2,337,781 $2,425,331 $11,900,074 Subtotal, Opportunity & Access $0 $1,281,250 $1,601,563 $2,001,953 $2,252,197 $2,337,781 $2,425,331 $11,900,074 Sports $227,817 $233,512 $239,350 $245,334 $251,467 $257,754 $264,198 $1,719,433 Transportation $390,369 $400,128 $410,131 $420,384 $430,894 $441,666 $452,708 $2,946,281 $1,830,000 $1,903,200 $1,979,328 $2,058,501 $2,140,841 $2,226,475 $2,315,534 $14,453,879 Investment Area Preschool and Early Learning Preschool Services & Tuition Subsidies Homeless Child Care Program Family Child Care Mentorship & Quality Supports Evaluation Administration Total Preschool Year 7 SY 2025-26 Total K-12 School and Community-Based Family Support Services Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 Homelessness/Housing Support Services $550,000 $563,750 $577,844 $592,290 $607,097 $622,275 $637,831 $4,151,087 Subtotal, Wraparound Services $2,998,186 $3,100,590 $3,206,653 $3,316,509 $3,430,300 $3,548,170 $3,670,271 $23,270,680 Our Best $733,121 $760,464 $788,345 $810,512 $825,122 $840,069 $848,519 $5,606,152 Educator Diversity Subtotal, Culturally Specific & Responsive $700,000 $717,500 $735,438 $753,823 $772,669 $791,986 $811,785 $5,283,201 $1,433,121 $1,477,964 $1,523,783 $1,564,335 $1,597,791 $1,632,055 $1,660,304 $10,889,353 $1,968,493 $1,473,633 $2,094,142 $1,443,913 $2,176,329 $1,505,692 $2,259,074 $1,570,144 $2,347,819 $1,637,385 $2,437,320 $1,707,537 $2,530,396 $1,780,728 $15,813,574 $11,119,032 $27,179,383 $24,233,584 $25,799,149 $26,691,776 $27,444,742 $28,046,593 $28,660,351 $188,055,577 School Based Health Centers $6,919,287 $6,869,366 $7,075,447 $7,287,710 $7,506,342 $7,731,532 $7,963,478 $51,353,162 School Nursing Oral Health Health Systems Enhancement $1,012,874 $352,546 $126,915 $1,043,260 $363,122 $130,722 $1,074,558 $374,016 $134,644 $1,106,795 $385,236 $138,683 $1,139,998 $396,793 $142,844 $1,174,198 $408,697 $147,129 $1,209,424 $420,958 $151,543 $7,761,107 $2,701,368 $972,482 $592,036 $580,096 $604,916 $630,810 $657,824 $686,008 $715,413 $4,467,104 $9,003,658 $8,986,567 $9,263,581 $9,549,234 $9,843,801 $10,147,565 $10,460,816 $67,255,222 $1,638,113 $239,928 $2,130,234 $441,910 $2,319,386 $562,020 $2,377,371 $575,940 $2,436,805 $590,208 $2,497,725 $604,824 $2,560,168 $619,788 $15,959,801 $3,634,618 $1,974,534 $2,397,238 $2,573,388 $2,658,113 $2,745,789 $2,836,485 $2,930,342 $18,115,889 $393,909 $385,965 $402,479 $419,707 $437,681 $456,433 $475,997 $2,972,171 $4,246,484 $81,001,524 $5,355,347 $81,280,709 $5,857,273 $86,253,875 $6,031,131 $90,682,106 $6,210,482 $95,141,178 $6,395,467 $99,448,262 $6,586,295 $103,998,807 $40,682,479 $637,806,461 K-12 Policy and Program Support Administration Total K-12 School and CommunityBased K-12 School Health Administration Total K-12 Health Seattle Promise Tuition Equity Scholarship College Preparation & Persistence Support Administration Total Seattle Promise GRAND TOTAL Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 V.II Resolution 31821 Policy Guide Table 30. Guide to Locate Content detailed by Council in Resolution 31821 Council Priorities Section Quality Implementation and Management of Investments Underspend Page(s) 22 Outcomes-based accountability Annual progress reports Quality Implementation and Management of Investments 25 Quality Implementation and Management of Investments 25 Child care mentorship program Preschool and Early Learning (See: Strategy #7: Family Child Care Mentorship and Quality Supports) 55 Homeless child care program Preschool and Early Learning (See: Strategy #6: Homeless Child Care Program) 53 Seattle Preschool Program (SPP) Expansion Preschool and Early Learning (See: Strategy #1: Preschool Services and Tuition, How will Preschool Services and Tuition be managed and phased in?) 40 10-hour per day preschool model Preschool and Early Learning (See: Strategy #5: SPP Child Care Subsidies, What are SPP Child Care Subsidies?) 52 Parent-Child Home Program (PCHP) Child Care Assistance Program modifications (CCAP) School-Based Investments Preschool and Early Learning (See: Alignment with City Resources) 36 Preschool and Early Learning (See: Alignment with City Resources) 36 K-12 School and Community-Based (See: Spending Plan) 63 Family support programs K-12 School and Community-Based (See: Strategy #3: Wraparound Services, Family Support Services) 77 Opportunity & Access K-12 School and Community-Based, (See: Spending Plan) 63 Student homelessness K-12 School and Community-Based (See: Strategy #3: Wraparound Services, Homelessness/Housing Support Services) 77 Investment in technical skill and pre-apprenticeship programs K-12 School and Community-Based (See: What are the key elements of School-Based Investments/Opportunity & Access? Expanded Learning and Academic Support and College and Career Readiness) 67; 74 Nova High School SBHC K-12 School Health (See: Strategy #1: School Based Health Centers, How will School Based Health Center investments be managed and phased in?) 99 Seattle Promise equity focus Partnership Seattle Promise (See: Alignment with RSJI) 110 Seattle Promise (See: Spending Plan) 110 Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 V.III Year 1 (School Year 2019-2020) FEPP Implementation Building upon learnings from the 2011 Families and Education Levy (FEL) and 2014 Seattle Preschool (SPP) Levy, the FEPP Levy will continue successful investments to support student improvement. The FEPP Levy establishes a new post-secondary investment area (Seattle Promise), new investment strategies throughout the education continuum, and new desired outcomes for FEPP investments. To allow existing FEL and SPP contracted partners time to align plans and resources to new FEPP strategies and outcomes, DEEL is implementing a scaffolded approach to the phase-in of new investments and new strategies. During SY 2019-20, DEEL will phase-out expiring FEL and SPP strategies, policies, and practices while simultaneously beginning new FEPP investments and policies. DEEL intends to provide continuity of SPP and FEL services to Seattle students and families. 2011 Families and Education Levy Investments SY 2019-20 maintains the 2011 FEL investments, as defined in the 2011 FEL Implementation and Evaluation Plan (Ordinance 123834) 91, and continues funding to existing contracted partners (schools, community-based organizations, and government agencies) without a competitive RFI process. SY 2019-20 FEPP-funded investments include the following 2011 FEL strategies: • Elementary Community Based Family Support • Elementary School Innovation sites • Middle School Innovation sites • Middle School Linkage sites • High Schools Innovation sites • Summer learning programs in early learning, elementary, middle, and high school • School-Based Health Centers SY 2019-20 FEPP funds will serve student populations consistent with the 2011 FEL implementation plan. During SY 2019-20, 2011 FEL outcomes and indicators will continue. Consistent with 2011 FEL implementation policy, contracted providers and DEEL will negotiate performance measure targets to be included in each contract. DEEL will continue to track success on a regular basis through a system of data collection, data analysis, evaluation, and course corrections. Contracted partners of the above 2011 FEL strategies are guaranteed funding for one school year—September 2019 through August 2020—only. Schools and providers will be required to participate in competitive processes as outlined in the FEPP Implementation & Evaluation Plan for FEPP Levy Year 2 (SY 2020-21) implementation and beyond. Providers whose SY 2018-19 FEL-funded contracts will be renewed for SY 2019-20 implementation are listed in Table 31. Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 Table 31. SY 2019-20 Contracted Partners Elementary Community 1. Chinese Information Services Center Based Family Support 2. Refugee Women’s Alliance 3. Seattle Indian Health Board Elementary School Innovation sites 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Bailey Gatzert Beacon Hill Concord Dearborn Park Emerson Graham Hill Highland Park John Muir John Rogers Leschi Madrona (K-5) Martin Luther King Jr. Northgate Olympic Hills Roxhill Sand Point Sanislo South Shore (K-5) Viewlands West Seattle Wing Luke Middle School Innovation sites 1. 2. 3. 4. Aki Kurose Denny Mercer Washington Middle School Linkage sites 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Broadview Thomson K-8 Eckstein Hamilton Hazel Wolf K-8 Jane Addams Madison McClure Orca K-8 Pathfinder K-8 Salmon Bay K-8 South Shore (6-8) Whitman High Schools Innovation sites 1. 2. 3. 4. Cleveland STEM Franklin Ingraham Interagency Academy Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 5. West Seattle Summer Learning Early Learning 1. Launch 2. Neighborhood House 3. Refugee Women’s Alliance (ReWA) 4. Sound Child Care Solutions, Refugee and Immigrant Family Center Elementary School 1. Boys & Girls Club—Olympic Hills 2. Boys & Girls Club—Broadview-Thomson K-8 3. Catholic Community Services—Bailey Gatzert 4. Chinese Information and Service Center 5. Empowering Youth & Families Outreach—Emerson 6. Seattle Parks and Recreation—Northgate 7. John Muir Elementary 8. Beacon Hill International Schools 9. South Shore PK-8/Graham Hill Elementary 10. STEM Pathways Innovation Network 11. Sylvan Learning Center 12. Team Read—MLK Elementary Middle School 1. Academy for Creating Excellence 2. Boys & Girls Club—Smilow Rainier Vista Club 3. Computing Kids 4. El Centro de la Raza 5. eMode 6. Empowering Youth & Families Outreach 7. Life Enrichment Group 8. Seattle Parks and Recreation—Aki Kurose 9. Seattle Parks and Recreation—Mercer 10. Seattle Parks and Recreation—McClure 11. Seattle Parks and Recreation—Washington 12. Robert Eagle Staff 13. Aki Kurose 14. Denny 15. Hamilton 16. Woodland Park Zoo High School 1. ReWA—Seattle World School 2. Seattle Goodwill Industries 3. Southwest Youth & Family Services 4. Roosevelt 5. South Lake 6. Ingraham 7. Chief Sealth 8. Cleveland Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 9. 10. 11. 12. School-Based Health Centers Franklin West Seattle Urban League of Metropolitan Seattle WA-BLOC Neighborcare Health 1. Bailey Gatzert 2. Dearborn Park 3. Highland Park 4. Roxhill 5. Van Asselt 6. West Seattle 7. Denny International 8. Madison 9. Mercer 10. Chief Sealth 11. Roosevelt 12. West Seattle Odessa Brown Children’s Clinic, a clinic of Seattle Children’s Hospital 1. Beacon Hill 2. Madrona K-8 3. Garfield Kaiser Permanente 1. Aki Kurose 2. Washington 3. Franklin 4. Interagency Academy 5. Nathan Hale International Community Health Services 1. Seattle World School Public Health—Seattle & King County 1. Cleveland 2. Ingraham 3. Rainier Beach Swedish Medical Center 1. Ballard Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 2014 Seattle Preschool Levy Investments DEEL will continue to contract with existing providers (Table 32) and may expand the number of classrooms and children served if mutually agreed to by both parties. Contracted agencies will be required to meet SPP program and evaluation requirements. Early Learning and Preschool providers under contract with the City as of January 2019 and in good standing with DEEL, will not need to reapply to provide these services during the seven years of the FEPP Levy. Table 32. SPP Levy SY 2018-19 Contracted Partners Eligible to Continue in SY 2019-20 1. ARC - Alki Community Center 35. PSESD - Educare Seattle 2. ARC - Ballard Community Center 36. Seed of Life - Main 3. ARC - Bitter Lake 37. Seed of Life - MLK 4. ARC - Meadowbrook 38. Seed of Life - Rainier Beach Community 5. ARC - Queen Anne Community Center Center 6. Causey's - Main 39. Seattle School District - Arbor Heights 7. Causey's - MLK 40. Seattle School District - Bailey Gatzert 8. Child Care Resources 41. Seattle School District - BF Day 9. Children’s Home Society - Genesee Early 42. Seattle School District - Boren STEM Learning Center 43. Seattle School District - Broadview Thomson 10. Chinese Information Service Center - One 44. Seattle School District - Cedar Park Family Learning Center 45. Seattle School District - Dearborn Park 11. Chinese Information Service Center - Yesler 46. Seattle School District - EC Hughes CC 47. Seattle School District - Highland Park 12. Creative Kids - Carkeek 48. Seattle School District - Olympic Hills 13. Creative Kids - Viewlands 49. Seattle School District - Sand Point 14. Denise Louie - Beacon Hill Elementary School 15. Denise Louie - International District 50. Seattle School District - South Shore 16. El Centro de la Raza - Jose Marti 51. Seattle School District - Thornton Creek 17. Experimental Education Unit - UW 52. Seattle School District - Van Asselt 18. First Place 53. Seattle School District - West Seattle 19. Hearing, Speech and Deafness Center - Main Elementary 20. Launch - Delridge Community Center 54. Sound Child Care Solutions - RIFC 21. Launch - Highland Park 55. Sound Child Care Solutions - SWEL 22. Launch - Madrona 56. Tiny Trees - Beer Sheva 23. Launch - Miller Annex 57. Tiny Trees - Camp Long 24. Launch - Rainier 58. Tiny Trees - Carkeek Park A 25. Launch Beacon Hill 59. Tiny Trees - Jefferson Park 26. Northwest Center Kids - Chinook 60. Tiny Tots Early Learning Collaborative 27. Northwest Center Kids - Greenwood 61. Tiny Tots - Main 28. Primm ABC Child Care 62. United Indians - Daybreak Star 29. Refugee Women's Alliance - Beacon Hill 63. YMCA - Concord 30. Refugee Women's Alliance - Lake City 64. YMCA - Schmitz Park 31. Refugee Women's Alliance - MLK 65. Voices of Tomorrow - East African 32. Sound Child Care Solutions - Hoa Mai Development Center 33. Sound Child Care Solutions - Pinehurst at 66. Voices of Tomorrow - Family and Child Hazel Wolf Elementary Center 34. Sound Child Care Solutions - Pinehurst at Northgate Community Center Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 V.IV Year 1 (School Year 2019-2020) Seattle Preschool Program Tuition Sliding Fee Scale Year 1 (SY 2019-20) Seattle Preschool Program Sliding Fee Scale* Percent of federal Step Annual Tuition poverty** 351% 1 $1,000 366% 2 $1,375 381% 3 $1,750 396% 4 $2,125 411% 5 $2,500 426% 6 $2,875 441% 7 $3,250 456% 8 $3,625 471% 9 $4,000 486% 10 $4,375 501% 11 $4,750 516% 12 $5,125 531% 13 $5,500 546% 14 $5,875 561% 15 $6,250 576% 16 $6,625 591% 17 $7,000 606% 18 $7,375 621% 19 $7,750 636% 20 $8,125 651% 21 $8,500 666% 22 $8,875 681% 23 $9,250 696% 24 $9,625 711% 25 $10,000 *DEEL has authority to modify the sliding scale; City Council will be notified of modifications at least 30 days before modifications are put into effect **In 2018, the income for a family of four at 351% of federal poverty is $88,101. In 2019, it’s $90,383. See https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines for more information Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 V.V Evaluation Design Detail The following provides additional detail on evaluation designs and types that will be considered when conducting process and outcome evaluations 1. Descriptive designs are the most common in evaluation because they are descriptive and do not seek cause-and-effect. Commonly used designs include qualitative or mixed method case-studies, crosssectional quantitative survey, and time-series designs. Examples of qualitative designs includes comparative case studies using focus groups, interviews, and field observations. 2. Pre-experimental designs are the simplest type of causal design because they do not include an adequate control group. The most common design is a pre- and post-intervention involving collecting information on program participants/service recipients only. This information is collected at least twice: once before participant receives the program/service (baseline information) and immediately after participant received the program intervention. Pre-post designs are also effective for evaluating student, family, and staff knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors. 3. Experimental designs include participants or schools that are randomly assigned to Levy-funded groups and non-Levy funded groups. This approach creates a randomized trial—the “gold standard” design for evaluation. Experimental designs create a strong foundation for follow-up evaluation to assess lasting gains for children in kindergarten and later school years, and the greatest confidence for answering well-defined questions about “what works.” It also provides the most precise estimates for any sample size. If this is not possible, a quasi-experimental design may be more appropriate. 4. Quasi-experimental design is like an experimental design, except it lacks random assignment. To conduct a quasi-experimental design, a similar comparison group needs to be identified that did not receive the treatment (i.e., a group of students that are like those participating in FEPP-funded programs and services). 5. Ex-post facto designs are non-experimental designs decided after the fact that seek to determine the cause among existing differences. Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 V.VI Evaluation Indicators The overall FEPP Levy goal is to achieve educational equity, close opportunity gaps, and build a better economic future for Seattle students. To effectively monitor progress towards this goal, DEEL will disaggregate FEPP measures by age, race, ethnicity, languages spoken, socioeconomic status, gender, ability, and income to the greatest extent possible. Through the FEPP Levy, we will be reporting indicators in two ways: headline and secondary indicators. • Headline indicators refer to a small subset of critical measures identified across the preschool to postsecondary continuum that quantify FEPP outcomes (e.g., Kindergarten readiness, high school graduation, post-secondary access and completion). • Secondary indicators refer to intermediate measures DEEL will need to collect and monitor regularly as part of our CQI process to support progress towards the headline indicators. FEPP indicators will be selected and categorized within Year 1 (SY 2019-20) of the FEPP Levy. DEEL will align with key partners to the extent possible when selecting headline and secondary indicators. The following table provides sample indicators that may be used to monitor and evaluate FEPP investments. Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 Preschool and Early Learning Evaluation Questions Were staff and resources allocated as intended? Result Sample Category Input Communication Sample Indicators • # of outreach activities conducted by staff • % of families participating in engagement opportunities in their primary home language # of classrooms/sites that received coaching # of sites/agencies that received monitoring and technical assistance % of sites receiving semi-annual reports to inform sitelevel practice % of dual language learners who are assessed in their primary language % of funded slots fully utilized Staff • • Data and Evaluation • • Funding • • Who are the beneficiaries of early learning investments? Output Preschool Services and Tuition SPP Child Care Subsidies Homeless Childcare Program Quality Teaching • • • • • # of children served % of eligible children who return for a second year of program participation % of families satisfied with DEEL-funded services # of children accessing subsidies • # of children and families served • • % of SPP lead teachers meeting education standards % of teacher not meeting SPP education standards who are enrolled in a higher education program % of lead teachers who identify as people of color % of lead teachers in dual language classrooms who are native speakers of the non-English language of instruction % of lead teachers retained for 3 or more school years • • • Comprehensive support % funding invested in district, center, and home-based sites # of SPP agencies and sites by delivery model • • • % of partners receiving health consultation and support % of children with satisfactory attendance # of new preschool seats created through facilities investments Data Source DEEL DEEL Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 What is the observed quality of classrooms? How does quality vary within SPP across children and providers? Short and Medium-term outcomes How did the learning of children attending SPP classrooms progress? Short and Medium-term outcomes Organizational and facilities development Family Child Care Mentorship and Quality Supports Program quality • % of preschool partners receiving organizational capacitybuilding supports • # of FCC providers supported through investment strategy • % of sites achieving quality ratings that have been shown to have positive impacts on child outcomes (e.g., the Classroom Assessment Scoring System - CLASS) % of classrooms meeting expectations for structural quality (e.g., Early Childhood Environment Rating ScaleECERS) % of staff implementing approved curriculum with fidelity % children meeting widely held expectations (e.g., Teaching Strategies Gold) % of children meeting standard or making adequate growth in language and literacy (e.g., Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Woodcock Johnson Tests of Achievement) % of children meeting standard or making adequate growth in math (e.g., Woodcock Johnson Tests of Achievement) % of children meeting standard or making adequate growth in executive function (e.g., peg-tapping, Dimensional Change Card Sort Task) #, % found to be kindergarten ready in all domains observed (e.g., WaKIDS). • Child-level outcomes • • • • • Does SPP enrollment prepare children to be kindergarten ready? Long-term outcome Kindergarten readiness • Independent assessoradministered; DEEL SPP Teacheradministered and independent assessoradministered Seattle School District Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 K-12 School and Community-Based Evaluation Questions Result Are Levy focus students being served? Output Sample Categories K-12 participation Sample Indicators • • • • Did Levy investments increase college knowledge and career connections? Short and Medium-term outcomes College Knowledge and Advising • • • • • • • • • • Did Levy investments increase college knowledge and career connections? Short and Medium-term outcomes Career Connections and exploration • • • • • # of students receiving levy support #, % of students participating in one or more interventions by grade level # of hours/days of additional instruction time provided # of college career and readiness activities provided overall and by type # of students referred to wraparound services # of chronically absent students assessed for services #, % of students with increased knowledge and awareness of college and career pathways #, % of students participating in at least one college campus visit by 8th grade #, % of students annually reviewing and updating their High School and Beyond Plan starting in 8th grade #, % of eligible students registering for the College Bound Scholarship by the end of 8th grade #, % of students participating in a college and career readiness activity/exploration that is connected to their HSBP #, % of students completing federal and/or state financial aid applications (e.g., FAFSA, WASFA) #, % of students successfully submitting an application to a post-secondary program in 12th grade #, % of students successfully submitting Seattle Promise application #, % of students completing a career interest inventory #, % of students participating in enrichment activities that provide exposure to career interests #, % of students engaging in expanded learning experiences such as: a summer job, internship, volunteer opportunity; summer learning program; or a career and technical education (CTE) program #, % of students participating in project-based learning that is connected to 21st century skill development #, % of students participating in a work-based learning experience (paid or non-paid) Data Source Seattle School District and contracted partners Seattle School District Seattle School District Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 • Did Levy investments help close achievement gaps in elementary, middle, and high school state assessments? Short and Medium-term Outcome Academic Preparation • • • • • • • • • • • • Are high school graduation and college enrollment rates at Levy funded high schools increasing? Are there differences by student grade cohorts and student subgroups within levy funded schools? Were Levy funded schools more likely to have higher high school graduation and college enrollment rates compared to similar non-levy peer schools? Long-term Outcomes High school graduation • College and Career ready • #, % of students participating in at least two industry tours and/or presentations annually #, % of students achieving typical or high growth in core subjects as measured by state and local assessments #, % of English language learners making gains on the state English language proficiency assessment #, % of students attending 90% or more school days over the course of an academic year #, % of students not suspended or expelled #, % of students passing core courses with grades of C or better #, % of students achieving proficiency in English language arts as measured by state assessment(s) #, % of students achieving proficiency in mathematics measured by state assessment(s) #, % of students promoting on-time to the next grade level (credits) #, % of students meeting state standards through alternative graduation pathways #, % of students achieving a minimum score on the SAT or ACT #, % of students achieving a minimum score on an Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate test #, % of students completing a dual credit course such as Running Start or College in High School #, % of students graduating high school on-time (4 years or fewer) #, % of students ready for college and career (e.g., completing High School and Beyond Plans, possessing college and career readiness knowledge, exploring college and career opportunities, not taking remedial courses) Seattle School District Seattle School District Seattle School District; Seattle Colleges; National Clearinghouse Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 K-12 School Health Evaluation Questions What type of services did students receive and at what frequency? Result Sample Categories Output Health access and utilization Sample Indicators • #, % of students receiving health services • Average # of health visits conducted per student • • #, % of students who had at least one comprehensive well-child exam #, % of students receiving Body Mass Index screening and nutrition/physical activity counseling #, % of students receiving Annual risk assessments • #, % of students receiving Depression screenings • #, % of students receiving Chlamydia screenings • #, % of students receiving Drug and Alcohol screenings (SBIRT) #, % of students reporting improved symptom awareness • Did health services improve student health awareness? Did health services improve student health skill and behaviors? Short-term Outcome Medium-term Outcome Student health awareness Student health skills behaviors • • • • • Did students who received SBHC services healthy and ready to learn compared to similar students that did not receive services? Long-term Outcome Improved learning outcomes • • Data Source Provider Health records and PHSKC DEEL, PHSKC, and External Evaluators #, % of students reporting improved ability to make health decisions #, % of students reporting improved self-care, coping skills, and disease management skills #, % of students reporting pro-social behavior and engagement #, % of students reporting improved communication skills #, % of students receiving health services with improved attendance #, % of students receiving health services with improved academic preparation Seattle School District Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 Seattle Promise Evaluation Questions What type of services did students receive and at what frequency? Result Sample Categories Output College Ready and College Transition Sample Indicators • • • Did Seattle Promise increase Seattle College Enrollment? Short-term outcome College Ready and College Transition; Persistence • • • • • • Did Seattle Promise provide highquality services? Short-term outcome College Ready and College Transition; Persistence • • • Did Seattle Promise students persist to the 14th year? What are students intended pathway? Medium-term Outcome Persistence • • • • Data Source* # of outreach efforts conducted and events held (e.g., communication touch points and outreach presentations, FAFSA/WASFA workshops, cohort advising events) #, % of students participating in Seattle promise activities (e.g., Readiness Academy) #, % of completed Seattle Promise applications Seattle Colleges #, % of Seattle Promise students completing federal and/or state financial aid file (e.g., FAFSA or WASFA) #, % of Seattle Promise students participating in Summer Bridge #, % of Seattle Promise students enrolled at Seattle Colleges as full-time students starting in the fall semester #, % of Seattle Promise students participating in different pathways (e.g., prof tech, A.A, certificate, transfer) #, % of Seattle Promise students enrolling in college-level courses due to alternative placement pathways (SBAC scores, HS math grades) #, % of Seattle Promise students enrolling in development math or English courses each quarter (i.e., remedial courses) Seattle Promise student to staff ratios (i.e., High school outreach staff at up to 300:1; College advising staff at up to 100:1) % of case load who are Seattle Promise students Seattle Colleges Seattle Promise student satisfaction (e.g., outreach, onboarding and advising services; appointment availability) Diversity of Seattle Promise staff #, % of Seattle Promise students with continuous quarter enrollment #, % of Seattle Promise students persisting to 14th year #, % Seattle Promise students maintaining satisfactory academic progress (GPA, etc.) Seattle Colleges Seattle Colleges Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 • • To what extent are Seattle Promise students graduating from Seattle Colleges and to what extent can changes be attributed to the Seattle Promise program? Long-term Outcome Completion • • • • • • #, % of Seattle Promise students completing 15, 30, and 45 credits #, % of Seattle Promise students enrolling in different pathways (e.g., prof tech, A.A, certificate, transfer) #, % of Seattle Promise students receiving, completing, or transferring #, % of Seattle Promise students graduating within 150200% of normal time # of Seattle Promise students completing program pathways (certificate, credentials, or degrees by type) #, % of Promise students attempting 90 credits and not completing #, % of Promise students earning 90 credits and not completing # of types of Seattle Promise supports received *Should funding be secured for a 3rd party external outcome evaluation, indicators may be tracked for non-Seattle Promise comparable student groups Seattle Colleges Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 V.VII Abbreviations Abbreviation ASQ CCAP CCCN CCHC CCR City CLASS CNN CQI DCYF DEEL DLL EA EAP ECEAP ECERS FCC FEL FEPP LOI LOC NFP NLC OSPI PHSKC PLC PPVT4 PQA QPPD RET RFI RFP RFQ RSJI SBHC SBT Seattle Colleges Seattle Promise SP SPP SY Full Meaning Ages & Stages Questionnaires Comprehensive Child Care Assistance Program Cities Connecting Children to Nature Initiative Child Care Health Consultation College and Career Ready; College and Career Readiness City of Seattle Classroom Assessment Scoring System Children & Nature Network Continuous Quality Improvement Washington State Department of Children, Youth, and Families Department of Education and Early Learning Dual Language Learners Early Achievers Education Action Plan Early Childhood Education and Assistance Program Early Childhood Environmental Rating Scales Family Child Care Families and Education Levy Families, Education, Preschool, and Promise Letter of Intent Levy Oversight Committee Nurse Family Partnership National League of Cities Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction Public Health--Seattle King County Professional Learning Community Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test Program Quality Assessment Quality Practice and Professional Development Racial equity toolkit Request for Investment Request for Proposal Request for Qualification Race and Social Justice Initiative School Based Health Center Sweetened Beverage Tax South Seattle College, Seattle Central College, and North Seattle College, and Seattle Colleges District Seattle Promise College Scholarship Program Seattle Promise Seattle Preschool Program School Year Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 The Plan TSG ToC VSA Implementation and Evaluation Plan Teaching Strategies Gold Theory of Change Vendor Services Agreement Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 V.VIII Glossary Term Definition Access Adequate supply of and engagement in relevant and high-quality opportunities in the absence of geographical, financial, structural, social or cultural barriers that limit upward social mobility. Achievement Gap Significant and persistent disparity in academic achievement or educational attainment between different groups of students, including historically underserved students. An evaluation design that determines to what extent an intervention produced intended outcomes by taking into consideration other influencing factors. Expected changes in child or youth behaviors, knowledge, or skills Causal Evaluation Design Child/Youth-Level Outcomes City city College and Career Readiness College and Career/Job Ready Community-based Organization (CBO) Continuous Quality Improvement Contracted Partner Culturally Responsive Culture Data Disaggregation Descriptive Evaluation Design Dual Language Learners Early Childhood Environmental Rating Scales Educational Equity Equity/Equitable Evaluation Categories Refers to the City of Seattle as a consolidated governmental entity. Refers to Seattle as a consolidated geographical area. Being prepared and ready to qualify and succeed in entry-level, credit-bearing college courses leading to a post-secondary degree or certificate, or career pathway-oriented training program without the need for remedial coursework. Students equipped with the knowledge and skills deemed essential for success in postsecondary programs and in the modern workforce A public or private organization of demonstrated effectiveness that is representative of a community or significant segments of a community and provides educational or related services to individuals in the community. Ongoing, real-time data monitoring and reporting of indicators and outcomes to understand fidelity of program implementation, progress towards intended results, and program effectiveness A person, a public body, or other legal entity that enters into a contract with the City for providing FEPP Levy-funded services. See definition of “Partner”. The ability to learn from and relate respectfully with people of one’s own culture as well as those form other cultures. A social system of meaning and custom that is developed by a group of people to assure its adaptation and survival. These groups are distinguished by a set of unspoken rules that shape values, beliefs, habits, patterns of thinking, behaviors and styles of communication. The act of collecting and reporting data by sub-groups or component parts. Disaggregating data aids in identifying trends that may be otherwise masked when reporting in aggregate. Descriptive evaluation designs aim to describe a strategy, process, or procedure. This information provides an observational snap shot or a trend analysis of investments on progress towards outcomes. Descriptive designs do not allow claims that an intervention directly produced observed outcomes. Students learning two or more languages at the same time and/or students learning a second language while continuing to develop their first (or home) language. An observational tool used to assess process quality related to the arrangement of space both indoors and outdoors, the materials and activities offered to the children, the supervision and interactions (including language) that occur in the classroom, and the schedule of the day, including routines and activities. Access to educational opportunities and academic achievement are not predicated on a person’s race. Just and fair inclusion into a society in which all can participate, prosper and reach their full potential. Refers to multiple measures collecting information about a similar topic. Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 Expanded Learning Opportunities High-quality before-school, afterschool, summer, and youth development programs that create access to year-round learning to foster college and job readiness through activities such as family engagement, tutoring, mentoring, academics, social and emotional learning, science, technology, engineering and math (STEM), education technology, project-based learning, and culturally-responsive supports. Family and Community Engagement Family Engagement Consistent and persistent engagement with an entire community to establish a foundation of partnership, trust and empowerment. Goal General statement of intended result. Headline Indicator Refers to a small subset of critical measures identified across the preschool to post-secondary continuum that quantify FEPP outcomes. This small set of indicators are also often referred to as key performance indicators. Students who experience systemic inequities in educational achievement because of their race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, English proficiency, special education needs, community wealth, familial situations, housing status, sexual orientation, or other factors. (See also: Students of Color) Individuals who lack a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence, including children and youths who are sharing the housing of other persons due to loss of housing, economic hardship, or a similar reason; are living in motels, hotels, trailer parks, or camping grounds due to the lack of alternative adequate accommodations; are living in emergency or transitional shelters; or are abandoned in hospitals, children and youths who have a primary nighttime residence that is a public or private place not designed for or ordinarily used as a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings, children and youths who are living in cars, parks, public spaces, abandoned buildings, substandard housing, bus or train stations, or similar settings, and migratory children who qualify as homeless. (From McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act) 92 An instrument or unit that helps you measure change over time; An indication of the size, quantity, amount or dimension of an attribute of a product or process. Resources (human resources, employee time, funding) used to conduct activities and provide services. Historically Underserved Students Homeless Indicator Input Institutional Racism Kindergarten Ready Letter of Intent Logic Model Mentor Opportunity Gap Systemic inclusion of families in activities and programs that promote children’s development, learning, and wellness, including in the planning, development, and evaluation of such activities, programs, and systems. Institutional racism refers specifically to the ways in which institutional policies and practices create different outcomes for different racial groups. The institutional policies may never mention any racial group, but their effect is to create advantages for whites and oppression and disadvantage for people from groups classified as non-white. Children who are equipped with the knowledge and skills deemed to be essential for success in kindergarten, as measured by the Washington Kindergarten Inventory of Developing Skills (WaKIDS). Formal notification and non-binding document sent to contracted partner to communicate intended funding plans. A visual depiction of how inputs will achieve outputs and outcomes. One who provides a range of guiding, coaching, influencing and advising supports and activities to another. This can take place intergenerationally (between youth and adults) and intra-generationally (between peers), formally and informally, and in both one-on-one and highly socialized group contexts. A significant and persistent disparity in access to educational experiences and expanded learning opportunities between different groups of students, including historically underserved students. Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 Our Best Outcome Outcome Evaluation Output Parent The City's first-ever initiative focusing specifically on improving life outcomes for Black men and boys. As part of the City’s focus on eliminating race-based disparities through the Race and Social Justice Initiative (RSJI), Our Best is the City’s umbrella strategy for systems-level changes, policy development, and programmatic investments that carry an explicit benefit for and ensure that young Black men and boys have equitable access to Seattle’s vast opportunity landscape. Our Best aims to expand opportunity for young Black men and boys in five strategic impact areas: education, safety, health, economic mobility, and positive connections to caring adults. The condition or status of children, youth, communities, or systems. Represents a specific result a program or strategy is intended to achieve. It can also refer to the specific objective of a specific program. Evaluations aimed to assess return on investment by measuring changes in outcomes due to the intervention. Products and services delivered; completed product of a specific activity, whether executed internally by the organization or by an external contractor. Used as an inclusive and respective term for all adults—biological, adoptive, foster parents, grandparents, legal, adult siblings, and information guardians—who raise children. Partner References to “Partner” or “Contracted Partner” or “Partnership” are not intended to imply a partnership with the City in the legal sense of the meaning and shall not be deemed to create a legal partnership with joint liabilities and obligations. Post-secondary Opportunity Education and/or job training beyond high school, including apprenticeships, trades, certificate programs, career credentials, and degrees. Preschool An organized education program provided to children below the age and grade level at which the State provides free public education for all. Process Evaluation The systemic collection of information to document and assess how an intervention was implemented and operated. Process evaluations may also describe to what extent an outcome or impact was achieved. Expected changes in practice, policies, and/or adult behaviors, knowledge, or skills. Program-Level Outcomes Program Quality Assessment Race Race and Social Justice Initiative (RSJI) Racial Equity Request for Investment Request for Proposal Request for Qualification Result Validated rating instruments designed to measure the quality of early childhood programs and identify staff training needs A social construct that artificially divides people into distinct groups based on characteristics such as physical appearance (particularly color), ancestral heritage, cultural affiliation, cultural history, ethnic classification, and the social, economic and political needs of a society at a given period of time. Racial categories subsume ethnic groups. The City of Seattle’s commitment to realize the vision of racial equity and citywide effort to end institutionalized racism and race-based disparities in City government. More found at www.seattle.gov/rsji.com. Racial equity is the condition that would be achieved if racial identity no longer predicted outcomes. Racial equity is one part of racial justice, and thus includes works to address root causes of inequities, not just their manifestation. This includes elimination of policies, practices, attitudes and cultural messages that reinforce differential outcomes by race or fail to eliminate them. More prescriptive than an RFP, but similar in composition of elements in response (cost estimate, proposed approach, relevant information to the questions, etc.) Evaluates and scores various factors, including cost estimate/pricing, experience, technical expertise, etc. Assesses an agency’s qualifications to perform a scope of work. Refers to the systemic collection of information at a point in time. Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 School Based Health Centers School-based facilities that offer high-quality, comprehensive medical and physical health, mental health, oral health, and health promotion services provided by qualified health care professionals before, during, and after school to help students succeed in school and life. School Year Minimum or 180 days (average 1,027 hours) of schooling required for Kindergarten-12th grade students annually. Typically, these days occur between the months of September and June. The Seattle Colleges District, a multi-college district that includes South Seattle College, Seattle Central College, and North Seattle College Seattle Colleges Seattle public schools Seattle School Board Any public school operating within Seattle City limits including Seattle School District and charter schools, that is, a public school that is established in accordance with RCW 28A.710.010, governed by a charter school board, and operated according to the terms of a charter contract. The Board of Directors of Seattle School District No.1 Seattle School District Secondary Indicator Seattle School District No. 1 Refers to intermediate measures DEEL will need to collect and monitor regularly as part of our CQI process to support progress towards the headline indicators Social Justice Social justice includes a vision of society in which the distribution of resources is equitable, and all members are physically and psychologically safe and secure. Social justice involves social actors who have a sense of their own agency as well as a sense of social responsibility toward and with others and the society as a whole. Students from non-white racial or ethnic backgrounds. Expected changes in systemic conditions, processes, and/or adult behaviors, knowledge, or skills Pioneered by John Powell, targeted universalism means setting universal goals that can be achieved through targeted approaches. Targeted universalism alters the usual approach of universal strategies (policies that make no distinctions among citizens' status, such as universal health care) to achieve universal goals (improved health), and instead suggests we use targeted strategies to reach universal goals. Students of Color System-Level Outcomes Targeted Universalism Teaching Strategies Gold Authentic, ongoing, observation-based formative assessment system that helps teachers and administrators determine children’s strengths and areas for growth. Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 V.IX Endnotes City of Seattle. Proposition No. 1. Family, Education, Preschool, and Promise Levy. (2018). City of Seattle. Ordinance 125604. (2018). 3 City of Seattle. Race and Social Justice Initiative: Vision & Strategy 2015-2017. (2014). 4 City of Seattle. Resolution 31164.(2009). 5 Cities Connecting Children to Nature. (2018). [Brochure]. Retrieved from http://nlc.org/sites/default/files/users/user75/YEF_CCCN_Flyer2016.pdf 6 Cities Connecting Children to Nature. (2016). Nature Can Improve Academic Outcomes. [Brochure]. Retrieved from https://www.childrenandnature.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/CNN_AcademicOutcomes_16-10-27_O_newlogo.pdf 7 Washington Kindergarten Inventory of Developing Skills. (2017). Fall 2017 Data Summary. Retrieved from http://www.k12.wa.us/WaKIDS/Data/2017FallDataSummary.pdf 8 Child Trends. (2018). High-quality preschool can support healthy development and learning. Retrieved from https://www.childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/PreschoolFadeOutFactSheet_ChildTrends_April2018.pdf 9 Hatcher, Beth; Nuner, Joyce; Paulsel, Jean. (2012). Kindergarten Readiness and Preschools: Teachers' and Parents' Beliefs within and across Programs. Early Childhood Research & Practice, v14 n2. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ997132 10 ChildCare Aware. (2017). Parents and the High Cost of Child Care. Retrieved from http://usa.child careaware.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/12/2017_CCA_High_Cost_Report_FINAL.pdf 11 Tiny Trees Preschool. (2016, February 11). How much does preschool cost in Seattle? Our market analysis. Retrieved from https://tinytrees.org/2016/02/11/how-expensive-is-preschool-in-seattle-our-market-analysis/ 12 Muschkin, C. G., Ladd, H. F., & Dodge, K. A. (2015). Impact of North Carolina’s Early Childhood Initiatives on Special Education Placements in Third Grade. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(4), 478–500. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373714559096 13 Heckman Equation. Invest in early childhood development: Reduce deficits, strengthen the economy. Retrieved from https://heckmanequation.org/assets/2013/07/F_HeckmanDeficitPieceCUSTOM-Generic_052714-3-1.pdf 14 Seattle School District. Retrieved from https://www.seattleschools.org/departments/early_learning/kindergarten 15 Reynolds, A. J., Richardson, B. A., Hayakawa, M., Lease, E. M., Warner-Richter, M., Englund, M. M., Ou, S. R., … Sullivan, M. (2014). Association of a full-day vs part-day preschool intervention with school readiness, attendance, and parent involvement. JAMA, 312(20), 2126-34. 16 National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2018). Staff-to-Child Ratio and Class Size. Retrieved from https://www.naeyc.org/sites/default/files/globally-shared/downloads/PDFs/accreditation/early-learning/staff_child_ratio.pdf 17 Ages & Stages Questionnaires. ASQ-3 and ASQ-SE [questionnaires]. Retrieved from https://agesandstages.com/ 18 Teachstone. (2019). Classroom Assessment Scoring System. Retrieved from https://teachstone.com/class/ 19 Harms, Thelma, Richard Clifford, & Debby Cryer. (2005). Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (Rev. Ed., Updated). New York: Teachers College Press. 20 High/Scope Educational Research Foundation. Program Quality Assessments. Retrieved from https://secure.highscope.org/ecom/productpage/256e99ca-b629-4492-9781-819f4cc7533f?lang=en-US 21 Teaching Strategies. Teaching Strategies Gold. Retrieved from https://teachingstrategies.com/solutions/assess/gold/ 22 NAEYC. Why Teacher Quality Matters and How We Can Improve It. https://naeyc.org/sites/default/files/globallyshared/downloads/PDFs/our-work/public-policy-advocacy/Workforce%20Handout%203%204%2015.pdf 23 Bueno, Marisa, Darling-Hammond, & Gonzales, Danielle. (2010). A Matter of Degrees: Preparing Teachers for the Pre-K Classroom. Pre[K]Now. Retrieved from https://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/reports/prek_education/pkneducationreformseriesfinalpdf.pdf 24 U.S. Department of Education. (2016). Fact Sheet: Troubling Pay Gap for Early Childhood Teachers. Retrieved from https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/fact-sheet-troubling-pay-gap-early-childhood-teachers 25 http://nieer.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/3.pdf 26 Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). https://www.brown.edu/academics/education-alliance/teaching-diverse-learners/strategies-0/culturallyresponsive-teaching-0 27 Padron, Y. N., Waxman, H. C., and Rivera, H. H. (2002). Educating Hispanic students: Effective instructional practices (Practitioner Brief #5). 28 National Center on Early Childhood Development, Teaching and Learning. (2017). Research-Based Curriculum. Retrieved from https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/ncedtl-ecc-research-based-curriculum.pdf 29 Gettinger, M. Early Childhood Education Journal (2001) 29: 9. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011300704990 30 Howes, C., James, J. & Ritchie, S. (2003). Pathways to effective teaching. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 18(1): 104-120. 10.1016/S0885-2006(03)00008-5. 31 Weisenfeld, G., DiCrecchio, N. (2018). NIEER data report: State policies that support comprehensive services in preschool. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research. 1 2 Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 Muschkin, C. G., Ladd, H. F., & Dodge, K. A. (2015). Impact of North Carolina’s Early Childhood Initiatives on Special Education Placements in Third Grade. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(4), 478–500. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373714559096 33 Schneider, M. (2002). Do School Facilities Affect Academic Outcomes? National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities: Washington, D.C. 34 City of Seattle Department of Education and Early Learning. SPP Provider Facilities Fund Request for Investment 2018. Retrieved from https://www.seattle.gov/education/for-providers/funding-opportunities/spp_provider_pathway_facilities_fund-2018 35 City of Seattle Department of Education and Early Learning. Child Care Assistance Program. Retrieved from https://www.seattle.gov/education/for-parents/child-care-and-preschool/child-care-assistance-program 36 Whitehurst, Grover J. (2017, March). Why the Federal Government Should Subsidize Child Care and How to Pay for It. Evidence Speaks Reports, Vol. 2, 11. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/research/why-the-federal-government-should-subsidizechildcare-and-how-to-pay-for-it/ 37 Washington State Department of Early Learning. Early Start Act. Retrieved from https://del.wa.gov/government/Early-Start-Act 38 Administration for Children & Families. Self-Assessment Tool for Early Childhood Programs Serving Families Experiencing Homelessness. Retrieved from https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ecd/final_self_assessment_tool_for_early_childhood_programs_serving.pdf 39 Perlman, S. (2015). Access to Early Childhood Programs for Young Children Experiencing Homelessness: A Survey Report. Retrieved from http://naehcy.org/sites/default/files/pdf/naehcy-survey-report.pdf 40 Rafferty, Y., Shinn, M., & Weitzman, B. C. (2004). Academic achievement among formerly homeless adolescents and their continuously housed peers. Journal of School Psychology,42,179−199. 41 Perlman, S. & Fantuzzo, J. (2013). Predicting to Placement: A Population-based Study of Out-of-Home Placement, Child Maltreatment, and Emergency Housing. Journal of the Society for Social Work Research, Vol. 4, Iss. 2. 42 Obradovic, J., Long, J.D., Cutuli, J.J., Chan, C.K., Hinz, E., Heistad, D. & Maston, A.S. (2009). Academic Achievement of homeless and highly mobile children in an urban school district: Longitudinal evidence on risk, growth, and resilience. Development and Psychopathology, 21(2), 493-518. 43 Institute for Children, Poverty & Homelessness. (July 2014). Meeting the Child Care Needs of Homeless Families: How Do States Stack Up? Retrieved from https://www.icphusa.org/reports/meeting-the-child-care-needs-of-homeless-families/ 44 DEEL FCC Study: Landscape Analysis Draft 45 Balk, Gene. (2018, May 24). 114,000 more people: Seattle’s now decade’s fastest-growing big city in all of U.S. The Seattle Times. Retrieved from https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/data/114000-more-people-seattle-now-this-decades-fastest-growing-bigcity-in-all-of-united-states/ 46 Workforce Development Council of Seattle-King County. The Self-Sufficiency Standard for Washington State 2017. http://selfsufficiencystandard.org/sites/default/files/selfsuff/docs/WA2017_SSS.pdf 47 Cornwell, Paige. (2018, December 9). ‘You should get on a waiting list’: Seattle’s child-care crunch takes toll on parents, providers. The Seattle Times. Retrieved from https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/you-should-get-on-a-waiting-list-seattles-child-carecrunch-takes-toll-on-parents-providers/ 48 Institute of Medicine and National Research Council (2015). Transforming the Workforce for Children Birth Through Age 8: A Unifying Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.nap.edu/resource/19401/BirthtoEight_brief.pdf 49 Lutton, A. (Ed.). (2012). Advancing the profession: NAEYC standards and guidelines for professional development. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children; National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) & National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies (NAC-CRRA). (2011). Early childhood education professional development: Training and technical assistance glossary. Washington, DC. 50 Conley, David T. (2012). A Complete Definition of College and Career Readiness. Education Policy Improvement Center, NJ1. 51 Gay, Geneva. (2010). Culturally Responsive Teaching: Theory, Research, and Practice. Multicultural Education Series (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press. 52 City of Seattle Department of Education and Early Learning. (2016). Community Conversations Summary Report. Retrieved from www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/EducationSummit/CC_FinalReport-OnePager.pdf. 53 Seriki, Vanessa Dodo. (2010). Culturally Appropriate Curriculum/Education. In K. Lomotey (Ed.), Encyclopedia of African-American Education, Vol. I. (pp. 198-200). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 54 Demmert, W. & Towner, J. (2003). A review of the research literature on the influences of culturally based education on the academic performance of Native American students. Northwest Regional Education Laboratory. 55 Sleeter, Christine. (2011). The Academic and Social Value of Ethnic Studies: A Research Review. The Collection of Higher Education Policy for Minorities. Washington D.C.: National Education Association Research Department. 56 Ibid. 57 Wlodkowski, Raymond J., and Ginsberg, Margery B. (1995). Diversity and Motivation: Culturally Responsive Teaching. (1st ed.) JosseyBass Higher and Adult Education Series. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. 32 Att 1 - FEEP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan V1 DeWitt, D. J., Lipman, E. L., Da Costa, J., Graham, K., Larose, S., Pepler, D., Coyle, J., DuBois, D., Manzano-Munguia, M, & Ferro, A. (2016). Predictors of early versus late match relationship beginnings in Big Brothers Big Sisters community programs. Children and Youth Services Review. 59 Bazzaz, D. & Gillespie, K. (2018, December 14). Teacher Diversity in Washington State. The Seattle Times. Retrieved from https://projects.seattletimes.com/2018/teacher-diversity-wa/ 60 Gershenon, S. et. al. (2018). The Long-Run Impacts of Same-Race Teachers. National Bureau of Economic Research. 61 Ibid. 62 Ibid. 63 Ibid. 64 Ibid. 65 City of Seattle. Ordinance 123834. (2012). 66 National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. (2014). Health and Academic Achievement. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/health_and_academics/pdf/health-academic-achievement.pdf 67 City of Seattle. Ordinance 125604. (2018). 68 Knopf, J. A., Finnie, R. K., Peng, Y., Hahn, R. A., Truman, B. I., Vernon-Smiley, M., … Fullilove, M. T. (2016). School-Based Health Centers to Advance Health Equity. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 51(1), 114-126. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2016.01.009 69 Walker, S., Kerns, S., Lyon, A., Bruns E., and Cosgrove T. (March 2010). Impact of School-Based Health Center Use on Academic Outcomes. Journal of Adolescent Health, 46(3), 251-257. 70 Ibid. 71 Translated for Seattle School District’s adopted budget for 2018-19, that yields 8.837 nurses paid for by the state. State of Washington Superintendent of Public Instruction. (October 23, 2018). Apportionment Report 1191ED. Retrieved from http://www.k12.wa.us/safs/rep/app/1819/17001app.pdf 72 City of Seattle. School Nurse-Various FTE-Student Health Services [Job posting]. Retrieved from https://www.governmentjobs.com/careers/seattleschools/jobs/2278347/school-nurse-various-fte-student-healthservices?keywords=certificated%20school%20nurse&pagetype=jobOpportunitiesJobs 73 Moricca, M.L., Grasska, M.A., BMarthaler, M., Morphew, T., Weismuller, P.C., & Galant, S.P. (2013). School asthma screening and case management: Attendance and learning outcomes. The Journal of School Nursing, 29(2), 104-12. doi:10.1177/1059840512452668 74 Cooper, P. (2005). Life Before Tests: A district’s coordinated health approach for addressing children’s full range of needs. School Administrator, 62(9), 25-34. Retrieved from http://www.aasa.org/SchoolAdministratorArticle.aspx?id=7780 75 Herman Ostrow School of Dentistry of USC. (2012). Poor Oral Health Can Mean Missed School, Lower Grades. Retrieved from https://dentistry.usc.edu/2012/08/10/poor-oral-health-can-mean-missed-school-lower-grades/ 76 American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry. (2018). Definition of Dental Home the Dental Home. Pediatric Dentistry, 40(6). Retrieved from http://www.aapd.org/media/policies_guidelines/d_dentalhome.pdf 77 Knopf, J. A., Finnie, R. K., Peng, Y., Hahn, R. A., Truman, B. I., Vernon-Smiley, M., . . . Fullilove, M. T. (2016). School-Based Health Centers to Advance Health Equity. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 51(1), 114-126. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2016.01.009 78 Lyon, A.R., Pullmann, M.D., Whitaker, K., Ludwig, K., Knaster Wasse, J., and McCauley, E. (2017). A Digital Feedback System to Support Implementation of Measurement-Based Care by School-Based Mental Health Clinicians. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology. doi: 10.1080/15374416.2017.1280808 79 Lyon, A.R., Whitaker, K, French, W.P., Richardson, L.P., Knaster Wasse, J. and McCauley, E. (2016). Collaborative Care in Schools: Enhancing integration and impact in youth mental health. Advances in School Mental Health Promotion, 9(3), 148-168. doi: 10.1080/1754730X.2016.1215928 80 Georgetown Public Policy Institute (n.d.) 81 City of Seattle. Ordinance 125604. (2018). 82 United States Department of Education. (2017). Federal Student Aid Handbook, Vol. 1, (pp. 5-26). Retrieved from https://ifap.ed.gov/fsahandbook/attachments/1819FSAHbkVol1Ch1.pdf 83 South Seattle College. 2018-19 Satisfactory Academic Progress Requirements for Financial Aid Recipients. Retrieved from https://www.southseattle.edu/documents/financialaid/2018-2019/2018-19_SAP_Policy.pdf 84 Seattle Vocational Institute. Satisfactory Academic Progress. Retrieved from https://svi.seattlecolleges.edu/financial-aid/satisfactoryacademic-progress 85 North Seattle College. Financial Aid Satisfactory Progress. Retrieved from https://northseattle.edu/financial-aid/satisfactoryprogress#requirements 86 Seattle Central College. Financial Aid Student Responsibilities. Retrieved from https://seattlecentral.edu/enrollment-andfunding/financial-aid-and-funding/financial-aid/student-responsibilities 87 University of Wisconsin Madison, Institute for Research on Poverty. (2017). Poverty Fact Sheet: Financial Barriers to College Completion. Retrieved from https://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/factsheets/pdfs/FactSheet12-CollegeBarriers.pdf 88 FAFSA/WASFA form 89 Drago-Severson, E., Helsing, D., Kegan, R., Popp, N., Broderick, M., Portnow, K. (2001). The Power of a Cohort and of Collaborative Groups. Focus on Basics: Connecting Research and Practice, Vol. 5, Issue B. 90 https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/eligibility/staying-eligible#meet-basic-criteria 91 http://clerk.seattle.gov/~archives/Ordinances/Ord_123834.pdf 92 http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title42/chapter119/subchapter6/partB&edition=prelim 58