April 22, 2026 · Education · 13,193 words · 15 speakers · 220 segments
The Education Committee will come to order. Mr. Beck, will you please call the roll?
Representatives Bacon?
Here.
Bradfield?
Here.
Flannell?
Here.
Garcia-Sander?
Present.
Gilchrist?
Here.
Hamrick?
Excused.
Hartzook?
Here.
Johnson?
Here.
Phillips?
Yes.
Stuart Kay?
Here.
Story?
Yes.
here mr. chair here all right we have one bill on the agenda today a Senate
bill 80 we have both of our bill sponsors at the table
madam chair thank you mr. chair thank you members of the Education Committee today we are excited to bring before you Senate bill 80 which is the in relation to the cradle and a cradle to career grant program which is designed to help communities build stronger systems of support for children and families while creating pathways to long-term economic mobility. This bill recognizes that when we invest in education, health, and community partnerships, we create better outcomes not only for children, but for entire communities. What this bill does, this bill creates the Cradle to Career Grant Program within the Colorado Department of Human Services. It provides grants to support coordinated community-based services that help families move toward economic mobility and reduce poverty. It focuses on connecting children and youth with high-quality educational and extracurricular opportunities, while also connecting families with health and social services. It seeks to improve prenatal and early childhood outcomes, student achievement, and workforce readiness. It allows local governments, education providers, higher education institutions, tribes and tribal organizations, and non-profit organizations to apply for grants. It establishes an advisory board to help develop grant guidelines, review applications, and approve potential grant recipients. And it requires applicants to submit an economic mobility needs assessment and comprehensive proposal for addressing needs in their community. It requires applicants to identify community partners that could serve as subcontractors in delivering services. It requires grant recipients to annually report on performance indicators and outcomes tied to economic mobility, and it requires the Department of Human Services to submit an annual report to the General Assembly on the program's outcomes and impacts. This bill also allows the department to seek and accept gifts, grants, and donations to support the program. At this point, I would like to pass it on to my co-prime sponsor, who will articulate the good that this could do in our community, as well as why this bill is needed, and we will be respectfully asking for your yes vote. Thank you very much. And before we proceed,
we are now joined by Representative Hamrick. Representative English.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First, why this bill matters for Colorado. It's place-based, cradle-to-career strategies, our proven data-driven approach to improving educational attainment, workforce readiness, and long-term economic stability by aligning education, health, housing stability, and workforce systems that these initiatives strengthen Colorado's communities while reducing long-term public costs. And the key benefits are it breaks cycles of generational poverty through continuous support from early childhood through employment It strengthens Colorado workforce by preparing young people for high demand family sustaining careers It supports housing stability and neighborhood resilience by investing directly in communities. It maximizes state investments by coordinating existing programs and reducing duplication. It promotes accountability through data-driven performance, measurement, and outcome reporting, and it leverages additional federal philanthropic and private sector funding. These initiatives provide coordinated support from prenatal development through education, workforce training, and into sustaining local careers. The role of the state is the state will support state support will enable communities across Colorado to implement comprehensive locally driven strategies with measurable results. By investing in cradle to career models, Colorado can improve educational outcomes, strengthen its workforce, support housing stability and ensure long term economic mobility for families. Senate Bill 2680 represents a strategic evidence-based investment in Colorado children's families and communities supporting this legislation will help ensure coordinated, accountable, and sustainable solutions that strengthen neighborhoods and economic opportunity across the state. And with that, I'll stop right there.
Thank you very much. Any questions for the bill sponsors? Representative Garcia-Sander.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am curious, just reading through the types of programs this grant would fund, how do we know that this is not going to displace programs that already exist? Is there anything new or different about this grant program that would be something that there isn't already an existing program for?
Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Rep. Garcia-Sander, for the question. I don't see it as a replacement of good programs that are already happening, rather than as I see it more as an opportunity to support the good programs that are already happening if they meet the qualifications within this.
Representative Garcia-Sander. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And so just for thank you for that, Chair Lukens. So I guess just to clarify, programs that already exist to provide support to the areas outlined like safe and affordable housing, high quality childcare and early childhood programs, et cetera, those programs will apply to this grant to support their programs. Okay. I guess my question is, is that not already being addressed through current grants?
Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair, thank you. So I was nodding, but I didn't physically say the word yes. So for those listening online, I'm saying the word yes. But yeah, I mean, this is as with any additional grant program that we are offering. Like this intent is for the creation for a Cradle to Career Grant program that is focused on economic mobility opportunities and the reduction of poverty And so if there is a nexus to that then these entities could apply for this grant program so I guess it it also a question of I mean why do we add any grant programs to the system so this is this is like a targeted grant program to address
that that problem and aim to reduce poverty representative hard sick thank you mr. chair
Thank you, sponsors.
It's interesting the concepts that are described kind of follow along with my colleague. I mean, they exist in a lot of other areas. What I also am curious about from a funding perspective, so the more we stand at bureaucracy, there's a cost that goes to that versus just funding existing programs to streamline and achieve what we're trying to do here. But if we don't get the gifts, grants, and donations, it specifies that we've got to go to funding. We have to go for appropriations and general funding. So if other programs are already in existence, why are we not streamlining what they have and plugging this in where it's already appropriations versus asking something for gifts, grants, and donations? And if we don't get that, then we have to go back to appropriations and go through another step. It just seems like we're adding duplicate steps in here to systems that already exist, and I was curious why.
Representative English. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, the way this program is structured, it is structured responsibly, and the department may seek and accept gift grants and donations to support it, but it will not be implemented until sufficient funding is available to operate it effectively. But as of now, there is no general fund appropriations, and it will be funded through gift grants and donations. Did I misunderstand the question?
Representative Hartzik.
No, it specifically states in the fiscal note. If you don't get it, it goes to funding for appropriations. It states that in the fiscal note.
Okay.
So that's my question. If we already have programs that are being funded, and we're saying this is going to go to grants and donations, and if that doesn't work, then it has to go to state funding. Again, an added layer of bureaucracy. Why would we not just fund the things to start with that are in existence and streamline where we're at? Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Rep Hartzook. Perhaps you can point – I see the word may appropriate. Perhaps I'm looking at a different section than what you were looking at in the fiscal note, but I agree that the intent of this is that it is funded by gifts, grants, and donations. And so if we needed to bring an amendment on second reading, that would specify that this needs to be paid for by gifts, grants, and donations, not general fund. I also am in full agreement that our general fund and state budget is in dire straits, and this should be paid for by gifts, grants, and donations. So I guess can you clarify where exactly you're saying has to instead of may?
Representative Hartzik.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Chair, Madam Chair. Okay. On the front page where it says appropriations, it talks about gifts, grants, and donations, it says see state appropriations section. Flip to the last page. It says state appropriations. If you don't have it, then it goes to appropriations for the $903,782.
Representative English.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do believe there is a list of intended funders that Rep. Lukens and I do not have right now in front of us, but President Coleman can definitely answer those questions Madam Chair Thank you Mr Chair I sorry Rep Hartzik it says on the last page it says quote if sufficient gifts grants or donations are not received the program will not be implemented
Do you have the updated fiscal note from April 7th?
Or do you have the one from February?
Representative Hartzik. Representative Hartzik.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, that's what it's saying, that it goes to appropriations. It will need to be appropriated. So back to my original question. We already have funding and systems that are in place that are being funded via a whole variety of things. why are we not working in those existing systems and funding structures to achieve what we're doing here versus creating something new, gifts, grants, and donations? And if that's not there, then it has to go to appropriations to be funded. Why would we do, I guess, two parallel entities?
It appears we have some clarity from the committee, so I will call on AML Bacon. That was conspicuous.
Here's what is often tricky about the terms appropriations. So even when we receive gifts, grants, and donations, the money still comes into the state, which then means the state has to send the money back out for the purpose. And that's why it says appropriated. It doesn't indicate general fund. The fiscal note is written to the expectation that you will get $989,000. And then the next year looks like a million dollars. And so what the fiscal note says that is key here on the last page, if a differing amount of revenue is received than estimated, and again, that's $900,000, CDHS may request adjustments in its spending authority. So even if we're spending cash funds, if we're spending gifts, grants, and donations, we still need to give the agencies the authority to spend that, and that's what I believe that means. And so it says timing of the expenditures may occur in later years. If sufficient grants, you know, gifts, grants, or donations are not received, the program will not be implemented. So because we see the language around the appropriation, I do believe that means to literally put the money back out there. That is technically also called an appropriation. And I do believe what they would have to ask for is the spending authority. Some of us have written bills, like I don't know if any of you have, like I wrote a whole bill with State Department dollars, and we had to still ask for the spending authority for the Secretary of State to spend out of a cash fund, if that makes sense. So I do not see here where there is any expectation on the general fund. But I would, I think, one piece of clarity that might be helpful might be around that. And maybe, I don't know if your fiscal analyst is here, maybe we can ask the fiscal analyst. Oh, okay, never mind.
For the record, we will be contacting the fiscal analyst to come up. Are you finished with your statement, Emil Bacon? Representative Hartzog.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I still have seen consistently in finance when we do this, yes, do they still need to go to appropriations to get the permission? Yes, but what I've also seen is when it's not funded via gifts, grants, and donations, once we've written the funding line in there, then we come back and go, oh, it needs to have appropriations. Back to the original question, we're now, just for the sake of argument, we can have this conversation offline because I don't want to hold up the committee, But you now have got to fund something separate. And I'm saying, why can't we fund what exists and streamline it in our existing programs? Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Rep. Hartsook. One, this is also, if this bill passes out of committee today, it is routed to finance. So we also have opportunities to talk about this more in the finance committee. And also perhaps we can have a conversation to address your amendment or to address what you were trying to say via amendment. Also, I think at this point it may be most helpful if you also directed the question to the Colorado Department of Human Services, which is – and they are here to testify.
Representative Hamrick.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. A couple questions. Curious about small nonprofits. So to apply an entity must submit a community economic mobility needs assessment and a comprehensive proposal. Do rural or smaller community-based organizations have the staff time and data expertise to complete these high barrier applications without initial funding?
Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Rep. Hamrick, for the question. That is an ongoing issue in rural Colorado. You're absolutely right. and we've talked about this before, that just in general applying for grant programs is more challenging in rural areas that don't have the staff capacity to apply for programs at the same rate as larger programs. That is a problem, yes.
So there's nothing in the bill that sort of helps them apply? I know I did an HVAC bill that actually had a piece of the fiscal note was based on helping rurals and small communities write grants. Is there anything in there about that?
Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Rep. Hamrick. The answer to your question is no, but I love that amendment idea.
Representative Hamrick.
Thanks. Second question, as far as in the bill, it talks about high-quality educational and extracurricular programming, but I don't see CDE or Colorado Department of Early Childhood mentioned at all in there. So explain that.
Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Rep. Hamrick. This bill is not specifically intended for only education. So it is originally intended actually as a local government bill. Local government.
Representative Hamrick, we also do have the fiscal analyst in the room if we want to bring him up as well.
Yeah, it's trying to define high-quality educational and extracurricular programming, so I thought that CDE or CDEC would be involved in that definition.
I'm sorry, was that a question or was that a statement?
Or a statement, I guess. Or a question. Why aren't they involved?
Madam Chair.
I don't know the answer to your question.
All right, we will now call up the fiscal analyst. We'll go to Representative Story.
Representative Story I thought you were going to the fiscal analyst to do their thing before I start We can do that too if you don have a yeah
Go ahead. Do we have any – we'll take a pivot from our current list. Who has a question for the fiscal analyst? I'll go back to our original question. We have the fiscal analyst up. Who has a question for the fiscal analyst? AML Bacon.
Go ahead.
You're good.
So there – I don't know how long you've been in here. There have been questions about when the fiscal note, the last page of the fiscal note, it is – it says that the program will not be implemented if they do not raise the money. I think it's the $900,000. I think what we're trying to understand in regards to that is what does that mean? And is that definitive in the sense that the money has to be raised first and then it could be implemented? And is there a world then if for some reason the general fund would have to backfill this grant? Or if there could be a request later that the general fund be used to fund this program?
Mr. Armstrong. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. For the record, John Armstrong, legislative council staff.
And thank you, Representative Bacon. And it sounds like Representative Hartzook, you had some discussion about this topic as well before I got here. My apologies for being late. Under the re-engrossed bill at the bottom of page 17, the bill is pretty explicit that says the General Assembly shall not appropriate general fund money for the purposes of etc. So I just want to address that piece of I think the bill is pretty clear that the General Assembly may not appropriate general fund for the program in the future. And the bill is constructed and the fiscal note was constructed to follow the bill such that we follow the effective date provisions of this. and a lot of the effective date language in the bill states that while the program and the um the the program is created all of the work that the department of human services is required to do is entirely contingent upon receiving sufficient gifts grants and donations to implement it so why that language appears in the fiscal note at the end of the paragraph states that if sufficient gifts, grants, and donations are not received, it is presumed that while the bill is on the books that the program will not be implemented per the effective date language at the end of the bill. I hope that answers your question, but if you have follow-ups, I'm happy to try and answer them as best as I can. We could also maybe get the drafter in here if there's that kind of a question. But I structured this fiscal note similar, I think, to similar legislation that was contingent on gifts, grants, and donations where we assume that if sufficient gifts, grants, and donations are received, it gets implemented. And if it's not received, it does not get implemented in brief.
We'll go with Rep. Hamrick and then Rep. Bradfield.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for coming, Josh.
So the fiscal note seems to address staff needs in CDHS, right, for creating the grant
process but not for funding the grant program who is applying for these funds on behalf of the department and is this deemed under current workload mr armstrong thank you mr chair thank you representative hammer for the question um i think what i would point you to is in Table 2 page 4 of the fiscal note the line that says grants That is money that, after gifts, grants, and donations are received, CDHS distributes to any organization that applies to it. So the $900,000 is not entirely being kept by Department of Human Services. The split that I have between grants and between administration is 90% grants and 10% administration. So the numbers that you're seeing in the fiscal note, 10% of that amount required is for administrative purposes, for them to be able to process the applications, review applications, and send out the grant dollars. And then the remaining that line that says grants in table two is the money that then is distributed to any organization that applies for it.
Representative Hamrick.
So are we to assume then that there's ongoing money from a grant, a continuous grant, or who in CDHS is going to, like, keep the money coming in? Does that make sense? Like, applying for the money from these groups to put into the grant fund?
Mr. Armstrong.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative Hamrick. We put the trigger in about the grant program gets implemented in the budget. We're assuming a sufficient amount of dollars. I assume that that administration also entails a bit of future fundraising if they expect the grant program to continue in future years.
Representative Bradfield.
Okay.
This is for Mr. Armstrong.
let's let's make the scenario i'm thinking of is um in a period of time 600 000 came in for by gifts grants and donations but it does not meet that 900 000 threshold uh what happens
mr armstrong thank you mr chair thank you representative bradfield for the question
Because the effective date language is written such that the program is not implemented unless a sufficient amount of gifts, grants, and donations is received, and that $600,000 would be under that threshold, that money would be refunded and reverted back.
Representative Bradfield.
That was...
All right. Do we have any additional questions for the fiscal analyst while he is up here? One, one. Thank you, Mr. Armstrong. All right, now we'll move back to our questions for our sponsors. Representative Story.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have questions for the bill's sponsors. So you mentioned that CDE has not been involved, Department of Education has not been involved, But it does talk throughout the bill about education and, you know, that providing high-quality educational and academic enrichment opportunities for K-12 students. I mean, that's all about education. So how does CDE not have a place in this when there is a strong focus on high quality educational and academic enrichment opportunities for K-12? I mean that is their business And who going to determine out of this process that they providing high quality educational and academic enrichment opportunities Like what authority you know And so I feel like even while there are other elements it is still talking about that And so I have concerns about that, that CDE is not involved. And I also, along with my colleague, am concerned about if we're focusing on people in poverty and trying to give them more opportunities, And we know that there are significant populations of poverty throughout the state, but also in rural Colorado in areas where they often are under-resourced. And so even if it is in metro area, like a community that lives in poverty and they don't have a lot of opportunities or can't find them or whatever, those communities also are going to be under-resourced in order to figure out how to provide, you know, how to write grants and pull all that information together. And so I am more curious about that, what the planning is for that. And then it does seem like this bill is trying to provide more grant funding for other grant funds. And that this sort of layered approach is also troubling to me. And then finally, what measures are going to be implemented to ensure that if this work is done, if grants do come in and grants are awarded, what measures are in place to ensure that the money is being spent appropriately and that it can be measured to identify its worth. It's value, it's return on investment. There's just so much missing in this bill, I think, that just is not providing all the details, I think, that are necessary. I know I asked a lot of questions, but I have more when you get through those.
Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Rep Story, for the questions. So I do think that, so first of all, CDE was involved in the conversations when they were stakeholding this. This is a Senate bill. It started in the Senate. And they have been involved throughout this. This is an opportunity to build a framework and have measures going forward for a cradle to career grant program. as the additional questions that you had. I think that at this point, it's probably going to be most beneficial if we have our folks here from the Colorado Department of Human Services to answer your question.
Representative English.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. It says every grantee must report annually on performance indicators tied to economic mobility outcomes, not just services delivered, but the actual real impact. And it also means that the department must report back to us, the General Assembly, each year so that we can measure the results.
Representative Story.
Okay. But still, what experts do you have on board that are going to be able to... to analyze, you know, how that, you know, what findings they are sharing are, you know, what needs to be done with the money. Like a whole bunch of people in a room could decide that we want to put together a grant program and we're going to do all these good things, but none of us are experts in this field. We just have this idea, and it just seems like we need experts involved and engaged, subject matter experts that have a strong understanding of what is necessary to provide, again, high-quality educational and academic enrichment opportunities for K-12. Like who's going to dictate what those activities look like when they're giving out this grant money? And who's going to be able to evaluate whether those activities actually did provide high quality educational and academic enrichment opportunities for K-12 students? And this is just one part of it. I mean, this could be applied to every other element where there's an interest in handing out grant monies.
Representative English.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, each applicant must complete a clear economic mobility needs assessment for their defined service area and submit a comprehensive community-driven plan that coordinates support from the prenatal care, early childhood stability to workforce readiness and career placement, they must identify their partners up front. Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
So on page 9 of the bill, line 8, it also articulates the advisory council. Yeah, that's the – So this is the group of experts that would make up the council. It articulates, you know, it says, line 15, one member who is an educator with experience in early child care and education. Line 17, one member who is a representative of a nonprofit organization or institution of higher education. Line 21, one member who has expertise in post-secondary education and state workforce readiness. It goes on to talk about the on line 23, the president of the Senate shall appoint a member who at the time of the appointment has been serving in professional capacity at a public school. This, you know, it goes on to page 10. I don't need to continue reading it out loud, although I certainly can. And that is where we articulate who the experts are that make up the council that will be overseeing this.
Representative Story.
I think in many cases, these appointments are more specific and more pointed to recognize that it would be somebody from the Colorado Department of Education and someone from the early childhood education, you know, entity and someone from higher ed. And so when it says one member is an educator with experience in early childhood, okay, you could be an educator for one year and have experience in early childhood, but that doesn't mean you're necessarily a subject matter expert in that realm, you know, that can provide all the context and foundation for what you know is necessary for early childhood education and when thinking about later years for you know what they need going forward. I'm just concerned that it's, you know, for all the reasons that I was asking about. So what about, you know, the layering of this is an effort to provide more grant money to support existing grant programs that are already out there. Like, why do we think that that's needed? I mean, there's already after-school programming that is sponsored by the state and paid for by the state. That has passed in previous policy a number of years ago where we invested a significant amount of funding to provide for after-school programming. We don't have enough funding in K-12 programming, but we were supporting after-school programming. And then this, it sounds like, is also going to access additional gifts, grants, and donations to supplement more programs that are already funded, that already have funds. And I think just the whole tracking of it is just very odd. I have one more specific question for you at this moment. So it's gifts, grants, and donations, but we are identifying in the fiscal note 0.8 FTE going to for the first year and then going to a full FTE. and so it is a very odd thing to base FTEs on gifts, grants, and donations. Like that just doesn't make sense to me either. Generally, you have to have funding, defined funding, in order to pay staff, and we have .8 FTE, state FTE. a whole person almost and then going forward a full-time person going forward that is their whole job is based on whether those gifts grants and donations come in and that is also like not generally appropriate to do that so it sounds like this just wants to be a non-profit a standalone nonprofit, but we're trying to get the state involved in it. And I just, I think, I think a nonprofit should do this. If they believe there's this huge need out there to address an existing need that they feel is not being addressed, then that's cool. They should start a nonprofit and figure it out that way. But I just, I don't understand why the state is wanting to provide a framework in order to provide more grant money to grants that already exist out there. Just, if you can explain all that, that would be great. Why it's set up that way.
Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Rep. Story. there are a lot of questions in that and I'm just going to defer to the Colorado Department of Human Services and testimony representative story Thank You
Mr Chair are are they the only ones testifying today as Adam chair last checked I have not since we started testing testimony or started the bill Representative Johnson Thank you Mr Chair Thank you sponsors I have a question Page four line 14 it does say in order to improve prenatal
My question is what do you envision when you refer to prenatal outcomes being covered by this grant, and would this include abortion funding?
Who would like to answer that? Which bill sponsor would like to answer that?
From my understanding...
Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Rep. Johnson. From my understanding, there was conversations around abortion funding in the Senate, and they addressed that problem.
Representative Johnson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Do you remember how they addressed it? Because the language still seems the same. Is there any carve-outs saying that this specifically can't be used for abortion funding?
Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I can look at the amendments that were added in the Senate. I just don't think that Senator Simpson would have – I mean, I believe that this was – I think that they changed it to Leader Simpson ensured that it explicitly does not include abortion funding. But, I mean, it's somewhere in the bill. I just need to look through it.
Representative Johnson.
Thank you. And question, I mean, if it is carved out, amazing. I'm just curious, and maybe this is a question for CDPHE. how does that streamline with other statutes already in place in Colorado whenever we deal with health care, prenatal, women health, that we've said that abortion is part of that. So by carving this out, which I am in favor of, does that complicate any other statutes? And this could be a CDPHE question. Who would like to fill that?
Representative English.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I believe that is a question at CDPHE. PhD, probably answer. I'm sorry, CDHS.
All right.
Amel Bacon.
You're next on the list, Amel Bacon.
Sorry. I'm sorry. This will be a little bit long, but it will be for a question. And perhaps if the department can listen as well. I believe what the purpose of this grant is, is to emulate some programs that we've seen across the country, and in particular, help communities coordinate their resources so that they can ensure this outcome as the title suggests, right? It is cradle. So we're talking about babies. If anyone is familiar, I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, there's a little bit of commentary, but if anyone is familiar with, for example, the Harlem Children's Zone, what they famously did was organize blocks in Harlem to connect everything from prenatal care doctors, dentists, to schools, to college prep, and all of those things. I'm sure many of us are familiar with the Children's Zone. And so what I believe, and maybe you can confirm this or not because this is part of the question, what I believe the purpose of this grant is to do is that CDHS, which is Human Services, would be the administrator of the grant, but there seems like, you know, the bill says we will create a board to then there a question on issuing the grants and then the qualifications for the grants for that purpose How can maybe services or entities be aligned to ensure the full wraparound of kids from when they are born to when they want to leave high school And so when I look at the bill and when I look at some of the considerations, sorry, I'm going to pull it back up. Some of the considerations for the granting board. I see two things. I see language in here because the bill also says we want to target communities that are experiencing poverty. In the bill, the definition of poverty, because the bill defines poverty for this context, and I'm looking at page seven, that the comprehensive proposal, the grant proposal, targets a designated service area, and then it defines service area, in which at least 30% of households with children have an annual household income at or below 200% of the federal poverty line. And so my first question is about the purpose and structure of this board, which it is described in the fiscal note. It says the bill creates the five-member cradle-to-career advisory council within CDHS. The CDHS must collaborate with the council to develop program guidelines for these grants. And then it says, in addition to the regular things like background check, applicants for grants must comply with a community economic mobility. They must provide community economic mobility
needs assessment, a proposal of partnership with community entities, so that means people coming together, and then a proposal that details how the money will be used to promote mobility from poverty, which again, the bill posits begins with families just beginning in how we support child care. So my question for you all, and perhaps CDHS, since they will be the agency to help administer this is when we talk about a mobility needs assessment, I am curious if there is room or opportunity to collaborate with other agencies or to get data from other agencies on what a needs assessment is. And the reason why is, and maybe Rep. English, you might remember this, Three years ago, we passed a bill that was, the title was Task Force to Prioritize Grants Target Population. The whole point of that bill was to have five agencies come to, does anybody remember that? Thank you. was to have five agencies come together and specifically identify what were at-risk factors for youth so we can target grants to mitigate negative outcomes for that. CDE was involved in that. We were looking at truancy. We were looking at academic performance. Early childhood was involved because of cradle. What is it that we know about families who need access to child care? We have public safety. in regards to juvenile crime. We had CDLE with joblessness, right? And the reason why was to identify heated targets, communities in this state that could use this targeted support. What I see in this bill is then to name communities of poverty. And so I want to know how that overlaps. One, how many communities are we talking about hit this threshold? How do we define community? Is it zip codes that have, you know, the, what's the word? Low income marker, sorry. Is it by zip codes? how are you going to determine community by the status? Now, CDE does it by free and reduced lunch. And there are districts that are Title I districts. Does that make sense? But I don't know how that's defined, but other agencies have defined that. Am I making sense so far? Okay. And so I'm wondering if there is room here to be a little bit clearer about things like that. in consultation with as part of the grant issuing in the group, can we tie some things together? Can we look at the heat maps and the risk factors across these agencies that we had a whole task force working on that's not done, by the way, so I am concerned that they're still working on that over here, and now we have a whole apparatus to support a nonprofit that presumably would be some sort of coordinator, right? And so for human services and for your sponsors, I wonder if you'd be open to that conversation because CDPHE has a heat map of where they know toxins to be, health care deserts, all of those things. Right. And it's not just because of poverty level. But because that's not necessarily how you determine risk factors. It's about gaps. Right. CDE has a term. We just discussed that. Early childhood has a term for at risk. Does that make sense? And so I'm wondering if we can write in here that if we're going to have this grant issuing task force, that they also coordinate and tap into what the other agencies are doing to create. Now, the thing that I like about this bill is the challenge that we had with our bill from three years ago was first we wanted the agencies to actually identify the communities that need help. And given that it's taken three years, I know that's hard. So when you just say areas of poverty, that concerns me because I want to know if you expect that to be a contiguous neighborhood, right? I think there are some neighborhoods that have median income, but that's not quite zip code, that's neighborhoods, right? But also for the efficiency in this, We do have to talk to other agencies, especially about what this grant is trying to do. If we're going to talk about cradle to adulthood, you need to talk to the Department of Ed, especially if a local education provider is a grantee. Right? Like a whole school district can be a grantee. It's a local education provider is in the bill. Did I get it wrong? I okay if I got it wrong right right and so that means in most cases when local school districts they are they turn into hubs if we've done community schools before right that's where the dentist and the doctor is in the room and whatnot so I imagined with that language that schools might be hubs but guess what schools also want to know is this connected if kids get resources is that connected to academic outcomes is that connected to the kids being able to come in and do a test because their teeth don hurt and they fed Right And at some point, we need to recognize the interconnectedness in community when it comes to our agencies. And so if we're going to do cradle to whatnot, I just want to give a shout out. Department of Ed is actually really important because the determinant of success is academic success. And so that I would ask if that could be more in here. So all of this I did lead with it's going to be long. And I'll rephrase, right, just to be clear of the questions. And thanks for taking the notes. But is there an opportunity for us to be specific about looking at data from other agencies to coordinate to help actually determine what the communities are that can be targeted by these grants? or how are we going to define a community other than by poverty level? And is there another way to figure out how it's a contiguous space? Because I imagine the nonprofits that will be partners serve communities. They don't just serve, you know, the whole state. So that is my first very long-winded question. Thank you for your attention and time. Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, AML Bacon. From my understanding, they had to be broad in their definitions because a community or neighborhood in Denver looks very different than a community or neighborhood in Steamboat. And so that was the intent of how the bill was written. But from my understanding, when going through the grant process, like, of course, all of those components that you have articulated would be considered. To your question of would, like, are we interested in more conversations? Always interested in more conversations. And if there's an amendment to address the specific concern that you've expressed, like, I'm happy to look into that. Daniel Bacon.
I'm going to, so for what it's worth, I know DHS is here. And if you could also weigh in on that. You know, when I look at the processes for eligible entities, I do think the clarity is helpful only because this has the potential to also help in different ways, right? And so if I'm just curious on how we anticipate, you know, unless we're just talking about supporting low-income kids across Denver, I'm just curious about what that means. Okay. That's interesting. All right. Okay. Swing that gavel, girl. Don't get overzealous. Okay. Right. And so I do think it's important for this. I understand broadness, but sometimes that broadness I feel like could then mean we lose the point of this, which is to target communities to coordinate. And so it's important to define, be clear on how that community can be defined. Is it just low-income people across Denver? is it these neighborhoods you know and and I think for the outcomes it's important because it can get very small or very big and so I just wanted to lay that out and I do think that it's important that we can assess what other agencies and honestly what other grants exist to do some of this work so if we have an opportunity to streamline because there's bill paper here maybe we should do that I'm interested in that because we've been interested in that for three years It took us a little bit of time to get CDLE data to get CDPHE data but they know where the kids are that are struggling and I would hate also for you all to spend the time determining that if other agencies have it but since we didn write it down in the bill it not happening slash can we put this on the record That's why I did a soapbox here, is to build a record, because some of us will be back to look at the efficacy of this program. And if it's another four years because we didn't walk across the hall to the other agency that has the data, I will be wholly frustrated. And so to the extent that we could write it down, writing it down means to me it will happen. And that's why I'm asking if that's an opportunity. And I heard you said we're always open to talking, and I really, really, really do want to advocate for that, that maybe we do more than talk about it. All right. Thank you.
Madam Chair. thank you any other questions oh oh sorry thank you representative Bradfield thank you um there
are seven different areas that this bill defines for use of the money and I'm just going to do the first three, promoting family stability and well-being, high-quality child care and early childhood programs, providing high-quality education and academic enrichment opportunities, and four more. That is so broad that one applicant could use the whole 900,000. And so what is the plan to narrow the scope of what can be applied for? or what is the plan to authorize the money to be spent for what they have applied for? I don't see that.
Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In regards to a specific plan, I would encourage you to ask that question to the Department of Human Services as they will be implementing this. Thank you.
Representative Hartzik. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Kind of dovetail that we've had some sidebar conversations here, and I don't want to keep belaboring the point, but my colleagues from both, what do we got? Arapaho, Jeffco, and Denver. we've passed several pieces of legislation that have been illuminated. One of the ones we haven't mentioned yet is the workforce development that we looked at, certainly in the education piece, is what's that ROI going in the workforce? Are they meeting what's being demanded out there? Which then would meet some of the metrics you're talking about here, economic development, all of that stuff that's in here. Those are the studies that we're putting out there, some of that stuff we haven't come back to. Are you open to, like has been mentioned, some of this stuff does kind of fit into more of a nonprofit function. Are you open to having some of these discussions after the committee? Because I think there's so many things here, and it goes back to my original question, where we got a multitude of agencies and bureaucracies that are doing things that this can dovetail into and other stuff that we waiting on the results of or the economic development of or the cradle development of things that I think we could streamline stuff instead of adding another layer in a whole different department. Like my colleague from Denver pointed out, I want to see that we create another stovepipe, and we're back in four years from now asking the same question. So maybe we can have those conversations later on, but if you're open to that, that'd be great. Thanks.
Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't believe that was a question. Always open to more conversations.
We'll go next to someone that hasn't gone yet, and then we will circle back, and then we'll get to our witness testimony. Representative Gilchrist. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be very quick.
So I just want to clarify, you had mentioned before that CDE was involved in and engaged in this process of the drafting of the bill. So just want to clarify that that is the case. And then also, does CDE have any objection to this bill? And then also, did CDHS bring this bill or is this just that they are going to implement? I just think it's important that we make sure that there's not an issue with CDE. and it sounds like there isn't.
Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Representative Kilchrist. Correct. So CDE was involved in the stakeholding. I am unclear as to why President Coleman wanted this to be housed in the Department of Human Services, but like someday maybe we'll get to the witness testimony phase and we can ask them. And in addition to that, there's no one in opposition to this bill. And I understand that there was extensive stakeholding conversations when this was over in the Senate. And my sincerest apologies to the committee that I was not a part of those conversations. Thank you.
Representative Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And I only have two questions this time. My question, do you know by chance why when the title says cradle to our good colleague, why we're saying prenatal then? That seems to send different messages. And if it's going to be holistic across different agencies, HICPF actually says prenatal is with maternity care and abortion efforts. But if it's cradle, looking at when they're born, I'm just curious on that if you have any feedback on why the two different words. Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I believe that, I mean, this is a program that exists in other states, and I think that that's like what it has just become known as is cradle to career. But then also we want to support the people that are – we want to just support families, and that is the intent of this bill that I personally think is a good idea, to support people as they are trying to get out of poverty. Representative Johnson.
And then my other question, when you said there was no opposition, Weld County is in the opposition, and I didn't know if you had a chance to talk with them. He'll follow up with Weld County.
All right. We will now move into our witness testimony phase. We have one witness. We have Dr. Megan Stead from CDHS. Dr. Megan Stead. Dr. Stid, welcome to House Education. Please unmute yourself. You have three minutes.
Good afternoon, committee members. My name is Dr. Megan Stid, and I am the director for the Division of Community Programs at the Colorado Department of Human Services. If enacted, the Cradle to Career Grant Program would be housed within my division, and I'd be responsible for implementation and daily operations. And I am here today to testify in support of Senate Bill 2680. A little background on myself. So my professional career has been focused on youth development and career readiness. I've managed multiple programs designed to support youth as they transition into adulthood in the workforce. And I also oversee the Tony Gramps Youth Services Program, which has a similar structure to the Cradle to Career Grant Program. I really love the idea of this program, find it really exciting and energizing. I strongly believe in the concept of this bill. It clearly outlines that the department would only to be required to implement the program when we have necessary funds through grants, gifts, and donations. And it really provides the department with the flexibility needed to implement the program without the use of general fund. And I am happy to address questions that you all have. I have been taking a little bit of notes and will do my best to answer what you all have. And I did ask Emily to come up with me today as well, one of my colleagues, to help address your questions. So happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you very much.
Ms. Hanson, did you want to add anything or just here for questions only?
It's actually the fun.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I don't have anything prepared. I just, given the volume of questions, thought it would be helpful if I provided a little support to Dr. Sid and can talk through a little bit of how we work at the department and just collaboration, I do want to note that Amara, who is the legislative liaison for the Department of Education, her and I have been texting just to make sure. So if there are any questions, I know she is happy to come chat with any of you outside of it. She wasn't able to come here to answer CDE-specific questions, but I'm happy to relay anything back to her as well.
All right. Thank you very much. We will now go to questions for this panel of witnesses. Representative Garcia-Sander.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. A couple questions. One, it just dawned on me to look, and I'm not seeing it in the bill. Is there a hard cutoff age? Other cradle-to-career programs out there seem to go kind of a range of ages, even as late as 35 years old. I'm just curious, is there a hard cutoff in this bill? Do you know? Dr. Stead.
Yeah, thank you for the question.
I do not believe there's a hard cutoff in the bill. I will say we have other programs where we serve, like our statewide youth development plan, for example, that's housed at CDHS ends at 24. We have other programs that end around 21. And so if you were asking me from a department perspective what our cutoff would be, our cutoff for youth is typically 24 would be the highest. Representative Garcia-Sander.
Thank you. And I guess just from your perspective, I represent some rural areas, and I know some of my colleagues in the panel do. I am just, with a council of five people, I'm concerned that there's not going to be, number one, representation for rural areas, but number two on the grant writing and receiving end that a lot of our smaller entities out in the hinterlands don have the grant writing expertise And I curious whether the department going to lend experience and expertise in that area Dr Stead Yeah thank you for that question I can certainly understand the need for rural representation. I may work in the Denver metro area, but I am also from a rural, I actually live
in eastern El Paso County and grew up on the plains, so I 100% understand the need for rural representation. When we create advisory boards or councils, any type of board in the department, we make sure to create a diverse board that will represent different parts of the state. And so we typically accept applications and try to come up with a group of subject matter experts that also represent all areas of Colorado. We also do a lot of work to ensure that there's youth voice in these processes as well. We often bring in youth advisors from different parts of the state so we can get that varied experience for what the needs are of Denver Metro youth versus the needs of those more rural youth. So this is something that we do quite often. To your question about smaller entities and making sure that they have the grant writing capabilities, we have, with the Tony Gramps Youth Services Program, for example, and other grant programs, we do see this where you can definitely tell which organizations have professional grant writers that are able to put together a really comprehensive application versus maybe some smaller entities that do not have that expertise. So we do some meetings on the front end anytime we have an RFA where we give the background information on what we're looking for. And then on the evaluation side, we bring in external evaluators to look at our grant applications, and we provide them with training to understand that really look at the intent of the grant and to understand that there are going to be some organizations that might not have as polished of an application. and so we do a lot of training with the nonprofit organizations and then also with the evaluators that are looking at that. We are definitely aware of that need.
Representative Garcia-Sander. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And so just to follow up on that, what does that look like when you have grant evaluators comparing somebody that has a professional, polished, expertly paid-for, written grant application versus somebody who's working for a BOCES out on the eastern plains or northwest corner and one person who's trying to write five or ten grants and they did it themselves.
What's the percentage of awards there? I'm just curious like how does that pan out? Dr. Stead. Yeah thank you for that question. I do not have the percentage of the words off the top of my head. I could definitely look at some of our other grant programs and get that information to you But what I would say, what we've done with some of our other grant programs, with the work, I'll use TGYS as an example, with working with the TGYS board, we developed different application types. So we did break it into smaller organizations and larger organizations so that we are comparing more similar organizations to each other to avoid the issue to which you're referring. And we would do something similar with this as well. We would have the advisory council bring those five individuals together, definitely include people with lived experience. We usually have some type of needs assessment or focus groups and work that we do to make sure that their perspectives are brought in as well. Um, and so we would really rely on that advisory council, um, and some needs assessments to determine the best way to craft the request for application so that we could make sure we comparing similar organizations um and providing those small organizations with the best chance to be selected Yeah Representative Hammark Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you so much for being here today. A couple questions.
First, is there a fundraising group within your agency that will continue getting these grants? Dr. Stead.
Thank you for that question.
We do not currently have within the division a fundraising group. we have talked to President Coleman I do believe that there are some organizations interested in this initially and then the one of the reasons we have an FTE in here and an FTE request is that FTE would provide administrative support to this council and help with the grant RFA but that fundraising would also be a part of that as well. Representative Hammerk. And who determines the
designated service area? Dr. Stead. Thank you great question we haven't had conversations about that
at this point, I would say what I would, the vision would be that the advisory council would
help with that. With other programs we currently operate, it's typically the board or the advisory council that we review statute. And then if there's any questions about definitions, we will work through with the advisory council on that. Representative Hamrick.
Thank you. Who determines the geographic boundary when two eligible entities join, jointly apply? Dr. Stidge? That would be something that we would outline in the RFA. So when I talk
about the request for application, any of the eligibility requirements, any definitions
about geographic boundaries, all of that would be outlined in the RFA. And so that would be typically the RFA is worked with the board or the advisory council. And we do provide a list definitions that clearly outlines what that will look like. Representative Hammer.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The bill requires a formal partnership between local government, a school district, and a nonprofit. If one of these three players in a high poverty area is unwilling or unable to participate, does the entire community lose access to the grant?
Dr. Stead.
That's a really great question. We'd have to look through statute. I do know there are other programs, like our collaborative management program, for example, where if one of the 10 mandated partners is unwilling or unable to participate, then they're unable to have a CMP in that county. And so that could be a possibility. We'd have to talk about that and really look at the statute with the advisory council and see what we're allowed to do or unable to do. But, yeah, that might be something to consider.
Representative Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have three questions. My first initial thought, and this is also coordinating with Weld County right now as well, which is kind of the sister county to my six other counties, since it's the bigger of the littles, is why this is living in CDHS instead of CDLE or education, since that seems to be the main proponent of kind of this aspect.
Dr. Stead.
Yep, great question. Happy to answer that. So we, within CDHS and the Division of Community Programs, which is the program I oversee, We have several programs that serve children and youth in a wide variety of areas that are similar to how this program is established, where we're giving grants to community-based organizations across the state. So we have the infrastructure and the knowledge to be able to do that. We are also the lead state agency for the statewide youth development plan, and we coordinate with CDE, CDLE, higher ed, all the different state agencies on that plan. and we also were part, Colorado was selected to be part of what's known as the BEST initiative from the Forum for Youth Investment and that work was cross state agency work as well where we were working to break down silos and helping to serve youth and children across the state So CDHS has been the lead state agency in this work in coordinating with all of our other agencies as well. So it fits very nicely within the Division of Community Programs and some of the work that's been done so far to lay this foundation.
Representative Johnson. Thank you. Second to my third question. this seems to do a lot of duplicate work of House Bill 1317, which is the post-secondary. So I'm just curious, since you are the lead without the higher Department of Education, have you been coordinating with them? Is this double dipping if we're already putting aside this one thing? Kind of curious, one's during the Senate, one's during the House.
They just passed each other.
It just seems like at the same time if they're going and it's doing a lot of duplicate, how is that going to play? Dr. Stead? Yeah, thank you for that question. I haven't looked at House Bill 1317, to be very honest with you. I have not read through that bill. I would be happy to take a look at it and continue to work with our other agencies in higher ed and ensure that there isn't any duplication. I will say within the Department of Human Services, we do not have a grant program focused specifically on economic mobility and career development.
Representative Johnson. Okay. And it's just concerning that you're not all on the same page or everything because it sounds like you want the cradle to succeed. And then this does a lot of that on the post high school section. My third, though, and last question is kind of twofold. One, why the prenatal language instead of cradle or birth language? And then if people apply, will abortion funds be used with this because we're using the prenatal in conjunction with what's already in state statute per HICPF?
Dr. Stitt. Yeah, thank you for that question. For the prenatal piece, the intent really, I understand the question about why, you know, because cradle to career, it is a common phrase that is used for this type of programming. And there is a lot of development that obviously happens in the prenatal timeframe that has impacts later on. And so we wanted to make sure to provide support within those areas. We'd have to go back and look again at the work that was done on the Senate side regarding the abortion funds, but it would not be my intent to utilize it for those purposes.
Representative Bradfield. Thank you. I'm kind of forgetting my question. There are seven areas for this grant writing, and I'm wondering, would you expect an applicant to apply to get money for all seven, or would they – let me just leave it there.
Dr. Stead. So what we do with other programs that have multiple focus areas, you would say, is we have the applicants select which areas for what they're applying the funding to. So they're not required to do all areas typically. It would be selecting one of those seven areas on a grant application to let us know what the focus is. But that would also be something that we would talk to the advisory council on. And again, when we publish an RFA for these, it'd be very clearly outlined what the expectation is in terms of how many areas they're required to meet.
Representative Bradfield. Representative Bradfield. Last question. You have anticipated a dollar amount that is the max dollar amount per applicant or per area. How is that being budgeted?
Dr. Stead. Yeah, thank you for that question. So that also is something that we would work with the advisory council on and we do with other program areas as well. So for the Tony Gramps Youth Services Program, we work with the board to determine how much we have to distribute. So what award dollars are we able to give that year? And then we will, the board makes those funding decisions in terms of the maximum amount that an organization can ask. Also the maximum amount for certain application areas. That's all determined by the advisory council based on the amount of funds that we have available and the needs across the state at that time. So we do have a process for that. And like I said, it would just be based on the amount of money and the focus area that the areas that the advisory council would want to focus on.
Representative Story. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks for being here. And I stepped out for a few minutes. So I missed the front end of your questioning. So sorry about that. So help me understand, like, I know there was discussion earlier on the floor, and I think you were in the audience, but, you know, about the grant process. I mean, it sounds like a somewhat comprehensive grant process, and not everyone knows how to sit down and put together or pull together a grant and be responsive appropriately. So for those areas of the state that may qualify for some of the grant process, I mean, even school districts don't always have grant writers. And so how is that going to be overcome? Because otherwise, it seems that the ones that would be able to submit the grants are not going to be necessarily overwhelmed with the population that this is trying to serve, I guess.
Dr. Stead. Yeah, thank you for that question. And we did talk about it briefly. or I'll try to kind of briefly go over what we talked about a little earlier, but that's definitely something we see in other grant programs that we run where there are some organizations that have grant writers on staff and are able to produce applications versus smaller organizations that maybe do not have those resources. And so there's a couple of things that we do. We definitely provide training and technical assistance and make sure when we publish the request for application. We host a public meeting to talk about what the requirements look like and what the expectations are for that grant. When we bring in third party evaluators to evaluate the grants, we train those evaluators as well on the different types of applications that they may see and make sure they have an understanding that that dichotomy can exist and have them focus really on the merits of the application, not necessarily on how well polished it is so we have those conversations with the evaluators and and then we also provide information on you know training opportunities in places
where folks can get support for grant writing Representative Story Thank you Mr Chair What kind of outreach would there be to the various communities I know there was discussion about how communities might be identified and that there are certain entities already that identify communities that are of need, school districts for free and reduced lunch, et cetera. AML Bacon talked about that. But what's the initial outreach going to look like to the communities that are deemed to be the focus of this program? Just because it gets published in a paper or something, it gets noticed in some kind of media thing, doesn't mean the people that need to see it are going to see it. So how is that going to work?
Dr. Stinn? Yep, great question. And so whenever we have a grant opportunity, a new opportunity available, there's a couple things that we typically do. We definitely promote it through all the state avenues. So we have our vendor self-service portal where we put all of our grant applications. So it'll go there. Nonprofit organizations throughout the state know that that's a place that they can go to find information. But we also spread the information far and wide. One of the great things about having a division of community programs is we have six different programs right now operating under the division, all that reach different audiences throughout the state. And we make sure to promote these type of opportunities within all of the newsletters and the different communities that those individuals or that those programs touch. And so we do plenty of wide-scale outreach across the state through connections that we already have. I will also say that anytime we're kind of looking at a new program, we will definitely do some targeted outreach to those communities, make sure that we're bringing in people with lived experience to provide us with feedback on how we define certain areas, and then working with that advisory council to make sure that we're reaching the communities that we intend to reach.
Representative Story. That seems like a significant use of FTE, you know, to make all that happen. And I am concerned, and I voiced that earlier, about the FTE is based on gifts, grants, and donations, the payment of the FTE. And that just seems highly unusual to fund FTEs that way. That's not typically the way that we fund state FTEs. Like there is a reliable source of funding, you know, the budget, a line item in the budget. And gifts, grants, and donations just isn't, you know, guaranteed. And so you're talking about, you know, a single FTE, a person who can't be like a full-time, you know, regular employee because they don't necessarily know how long the funding is going to last or if there will be enough at any given time. So I definitely am concerned about that piece of it. Does that, you know, is there a concern with CDHS in that regard?
Dr Stead Thank you for that question So we do have other positions within the department and within the division that are grant funded or funded outside of general funds And you are correct that there are definitely times when there uncertainty in the funding source And so what we typically do to address it is develop a term limited position And we very upfront with the amount of time that we have funding for that given position. So when we post for it, we'll say it's term limited one year based on the availability of funds. So we do have a mechanism to do that. And we have been able to hire quality staff members in those term limited positions while we work to ensure that we continue to receive grants, get some donations for those. So we do have some positions that are fully grant funded.
Representative story. But it's more unusual than it is usual, right, for employees, for people who work for CDHS.
Dr. Stead. I can only, I mean, probably outside of the division of community programs, it may be less common. But I will say when we're doing the work that my division does, we rely some on general fund but then we also rely on federal grant dollars and we rely on fines fees personal donations there's all kinds of funding streams coming in so it's very common in my division to have an FTE that is funded with with those soft funds
representative story Thank You mr. chair and your division represents what percentage of the employees in CDHS.
Yeah, so that's so sorry. Thank you. I don't know the exact it's a small division. We have about 30 FT within our division, so it would be a small percentage.
Representative story. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Actually, hold on. We have one.
Do you have a response for that, Ms. Hanson?
I just wanted to touch because I know representative story is pretty familiar with the expansiveness of CDHS. And just for folks that might not be aware, we have about 5,000 employees. I think 60% to 70% of them are direct care workers, which are not funded through grants or anything. They are state-funded, FTE. So in the context of how large our department is, I know Dr. Stid's division within her office is comparatively small to the totality of CDHS.
Thank you for that. Representative Story. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that response. And so it's, well, that's not your issue. So what types of measures, you know, do you think will be in place to ensure that a program like this is functioning and meeting the needs that are specified and, you know, the return on investment is there?
Dr. Stead. Thank you for that question. So similar to other programs that we run, when we're looking about the return on investment, there's a couple things we do. So we have staff that are responsible for contract monitoring, conducting site visits, and making sure that the funds are being used appropriately. And then we also conduct external evaluations where we do bring evaluators in to do pre and post tests for programming that we have. or we look at outcome data from our own agency. And also we do have data sharing agreements for some of our programs with CDE and other agencies that we use to measure these outcomes. And so typically we would work with the advisory council on developing that type of an evaluation and then bringing in a third party evaluator if we needed to.
Representative, we still have one more or we have other committee members. This will, we'll have this last question and then we'll move on to our next one. Thank you for that When the bill is specifying that the program will connect with children and youth with high educational and extracurricular programming I mean that is a very significant portion of you know what being discussed in here like how who's going to make the determination about whether what's being offered is high quality educational and extracurricular programming like who's going to determine how that aligns with whatever is already being um you know um shared and delivered by educational systems dr sted
um so that is where again we would work with the advisory council on any type of definition so if we were going to develop a definition of high-quality extracurricular programming, that would be something we'd work with the council on. And then in these types of situations, we also bring in people with lived experience and work with our community partners to conduct some focus groups and really help us flesh out what that's going to look like, and then build measures to help evaluate on those specific things. So this would be something that we could define with subject matter experts and our advisory council.
One more question, please. We're 15 minutes over on this panel already, Representative Story, and we still have other members that have questions too. If we have time, we'll circle back to you.
It just seems important to have CDE involved in the Department of Higher Ed. They are the experts across the state.
Representative Hamrick. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you so much for coming. So my concern is small communities. Some of the data reporting could be identified to the recipients of services, like the demographics of the school performance framework. Is there a way not to infringe on privacy the guardrails put in?
Dr. Stead. Yeah, thank you. I appreciate that question. We definitely do not report on, I mean, if it is going to cause a privacy issue or if there's data, if we report the data in a way that is going to be able to identify individuals, we make sure to aggregate the data and do so in a way that does protect privacy. So that is something that we look at in other programs that we have where we're not infringing upon any of those privacy rights.
Representative Hamrick. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And when you refer to the council, you're referring to that five-person group, correct?
Correct.
Thanks.
All right. Since we are 16 minutes over our timeline on this and we have gone through this, we will close this panel. Witnesses, thank you for your patience through this. Is there anybody else in the room that would like to testify on or against Senate Bill 2680 in the room that has not signed up yet? Seeing none, the witness testimony page is closed. Bill sponsors. Do you have any amendments?
Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair. When I signed up for this bill, I thought that it was a pretty straightforward opportunity to provide poverty reduction grant programs across the state of Colorado. It has come to my understanding that members of this committee have many more questions. And I did list out a number of amendment opportunities for specificity in regards to this bill, in regards to feedback that I heard from this committee. So at this time, I would respectfully ask that we lay the bill over with the amendment phase open so that I can continue working, so that we can continue working on amendments. I respectfully request the committee lay this bill over until a later date with the amendment phase open.
At the request of the sponsor, one, we are still in the amendment phase and that is still open. At the request of the sponsor, we will lay over Senate Bill 2680 until a later date. And seeing no further business before House Education Committee, the committee is adjourned.