ATTACHMENT III
Summary of Public Comments and Agency Responses Related to Proposed Revisions to 19 TAC Chapter 89, Adaptations for Special Populations, Subchapter EE, Commissioner's Rules Concerning the Communities In Schools Program
Comment: Concerning proposed new 19 TAC §89.1501(10), the Communities In Schools (CIS) of Texas Network; board members and other representatives of CIS of the Bay Area, CIS of Baytown, CIS of the Big Country, CIS of Brazoria County, CIS of Cameron County, CIS of Central Texas, CIS of the Coastal Bend, CIS of the Dallas Region, CIS East Texas, CIS of El Paso, CIS of Galveston County, CIS of the Golden Crescent, CIS of Greater Tarrant County, CIS of the Greater Wichita Falls Area, CIS of the Heart of Texas, CIS of Hidalgo County, CIS of Houston, CIS of Laredo, CIS of North Texas, CIS of Northeast Texas, CIS of the Permian Basin, CIS of San Antonio, CIS of South Central Texas, and CIS of Southeast Harris County; Chapel Hill Independent School District (ISD); Marlin ISD; and numerous individuals commended the agency for including national Total Quality Systems (TQS) standards in the proposed rules. The commenters noted that CIS is an evidence-based practice that is supported by consistently meeting high standards for business and program operations.
Agency Response: The agency agrees.
Comment: Concerning proposed new 19 TAC §89.1503(c)(6) and (7), the CIS of Texas Network; board members and other representatives of CIS of the Bay Area, CIS of Baytown, CIS of the Big Country, CIS of Brazoria County, CIS of Cameron County, CIS of Central Texas, CIS of the Coastal Bend, CIS of the Dallas Region, CIS East Texas, CIS of El Paso, CIS of Galveston County, CIS of the Golden Crescent, CIS of Greater Tarrant County, CIS of the Greater Wichita Falls Area, CIS of the Heart of Texas, CIS of Hidalgo County, CIS of Houston, CIS of Laredo, CIS of North Texas, CIS of Northeast Texas, CIS of the Permian Basin, CIS of San Antonio, CIS of South Central Texas, and CIS of Southeast Harris County; Chapel Hill ISD; Marlin ISD; and numerous individuals commended the agency for setting policies "to competitively redistribute grant funding" among CIS programs when funding is declined by a CIS program or when funding is not used in the first year of the biennium.
Agency Response: The agency agrees.
Comment: Concerning proposed new 19 TAC §89.1504, the CIS of Texas Network; board members and other representatives of CIS of the Bay Area, CIS of Baytown, CIS of the Big Country, CIS of Brazoria County, CIS of Cameron County, CIS of Central Texas, CIS of the Coastal Bend, CIS of the Dallas Region, CIS East Texas, CIS of El Paso, CIS of Galveston County, CIS of the Golden Crescent, CIS of Greater Tarrant County, CIS of the Greater Wichita Falls Area, CIS of the Heart of Texas, CIS of Hidalgo County, CIS of Houston, CIS of Laredo, CIS of North Texas, CIS of Northeast Texas, CIS of the Permian Basin, CIS of San Antonio, CIS of South Central Texas, and CIS of Southeast Harris County; Chapel Hill ISD; Marlin ISD; and numerous individuals commended the agency for setting the standard that "every CIS program in Texas should leverage at least 25% of the amount of their state grant in donations," either financial or in-kind. The commenters stated that this policy will ensure that all CIS programs have community buy-in and a higher level of potential for stability.
Agency Response: The agency agrees.
Comment: Concerning proposed new 19 TAC §89.1507(d), the CIS of Texas Network; board members and other representatives of CIS of the Bay Area, CIS of Baytown, CIS of the Big Country, CIS of Brazoria County, CIS of Cameron County, CIS of Central Texas, CIS of the Coastal Bend, CIS of the Dallas Region, CIS East Texas, CIS of El Paso, CIS of Galveston County, CIS of the Golden Crescent, CIS of Greater Tarrant County, CIS of the Greater Wichita Falls Area, CIS of the Heart of Texas, CIS of Hidalgo County, CIS of Houston, CIS of Laredo, CIS of North Texas, CIS of Northeast Texas, CIS of the Permian Basin, CIS of San Antonio, CIS of South Central Texas, and CIS of Southeast Harris County; Chapel Hill ISD; Marlin ISD; and numerous individuals commended the agency for allowing each local CIS program to serve a decreased number of case-managed students if the agency receives a decrease in state appropriations for CIS. As part of the commendation, the commenters recommended that if the state appropriation is decreased, the agency should decrease the number of case-managed students to be served proportionally to the amount of funds distributed to each local CIS program.
Agency Response: The agency disagrees with the recommendation to decrease proportionally the number of case-managed students to be served if the state appropriation is decreased. Other administrative factors may impact the statewide distribution of case-managed students when funding is reduced; therefore, the agency will not implement this recommendation in order to retain administrative flexibility to meet statewide performance measures set by the legislature.
Comment: Concerning proposed changes to 19 TAC §89.1509(b), the CIS of Texas Network; board members and other representatives of CIS of the Bay Area, CIS of Baytown, CIS of the Big Country, CIS of Brazoria County, CIS of Cameron County, CIS of Central Texas, CIS of the Coastal Bend, CIS of the Dallas Region, CIS East Texas, CIS of El Paso, CIS of Galveston County, CIS of the Golden Crescent, CIS of Greater Tarrant County, CIS of the Greater Wichita Falls Area, CIS of the Heart of Texas, CIS of Hidalgo County, CIS of Houston, CIS of Laredo, CIS of North Texas, CIS of Northeast Texas, CIS of the Permian Basin, CIS of San Antonio, CIS of South Central Texas, and CIS of Southeast Harris County; Chapel Hill ISD; Marlin ISD; and numerous individuals commended the agency for updating and aligning language in this section regarding parental consent forms.
Agency Response: The agency agrees.
Comment: Concerning proposed new 19 TAC §89.1511(d), the CIS of Texas Network; board members and other representatives of CIS of the Bay Area, CIS of Baytown, CIS of the Big Country, CIS of Brazoria County, CIS of Cameron County, CIS of Central Texas, CIS of the Coastal Bend, CIS of the Dallas Region, CIS East Texas, CIS of El Paso, CIS of Galveston County, CIS of the Golden Crescent, CIS of Greater Tarrant County, CIS of the Greater Wichita Falls Area, CIS of the Heart of Texas, CIS of Hidalgo County, CIS of Houston, CIS of Laredo, CIS of North Texas, CIS of Northeast Texas, CIS of the Permian Basin, CIS of San Antonio, CIS of South Central Texas, and CIS of Southeast Harris County; Chapel Hill ISD; Marlin ISD; and numerous individuals commended the agency for requiring CIS programs to earn national TQS accreditation to ensure high quality programming and organizational functioning across the CIS programs in Texas.
Agency Response: The agency agrees.
Comment: Concerning proposed new 19 TAC §89.1503(c)(1), relating to funding allocation, the CIS of Texas Network; board members and other representatives of CIS of the Bay Area, CIS of Baytown, CIS of the Big Country, CIS of Brazoria County, CIS of Cameron County, CIS of Central Texas, CIS of the Coastal Bend, CIS of the Dallas Region, CIS East Texas, CIS of El Paso, CIS of Galveston County, CIS of the Golden Crescent, CIS of Greater Tarrant County, CIS of the Greater Wichita Falls Area, CIS of the Heart of Texas, CIS of Hidalgo County, CIS of Houston, CIS of Laredo, CIS of North Texas, CIS of Northeast Texas, CIS of the Permian Basin, CIS of San Antonio, CIS of South Central Texas, and CIS of Southeast Harris County; Chapel Hill ISD; Marlin ISD; and numerous individuals expressed support for reserving funds needed for the CIS database development and maintenance, but opposed reserving 10% for competitive grant applications, state leadership activities, or special statewide CIS initiatives because of concern that it will destabilize programs in light of a reduction in appropriations from the 82nd Texas Legislature for CIS programs.
The commenters strongly recommended that the agency reserve a minimal portion of state funding for state level functions to maximize the funding that reaches local communities for providing direct services to students. The commenters recommended that no funding be reserved for statewide initiatives or competitive grants, other than funding for the state database and the agency's administrative purposes, until state funding for CIS programs is increased. The commenters suggested that reserving 10% would create a hardship on programs that have already sustained state budget reductions and would negatively affect their CIS programs.
Numerous individuals recommended that due to state budget cuts, the agency should postpone implementing incentive programs, special initiatives, or state leadership activities during this biennium. Another individual added that all plans for replication and expansion should be suspended until the state and local funding resources enjoy better economic conditions. CIS of East Texas added that the agency already holds back 10% of the state funds in escrow until the program's data entry is completed to close out the fiscal year.
Agency Response: The agency disagrees with the recommendation that the provisions in 19 TAC §89.1503(c)(1) should be removed from the rule because of the concern that they will negatively impact CIS services. The rule provides clarification of CIS statewide program initiatives and the flexibility the agency needs to maximize the effectiveness of the CIS program pursuant to the TEC, §§33.154-33.159. The rule clarifies that the CIS database is an authorized program activity necessary to support the CIS service delivery system. The rule also provides transparency and assurance to CIS stakeholders that the agency will not competitively distribute more than 10% of the program funding among CIS providers or reserve more than 10% of the funding for state level program-related activities to benefit CIS students and schools served. The rule does not require the agency to reserve 10% for state leadership activities during this biennium when state funding has been reduced to CIS programs, but rather allows the agency to retain the option to do so when it determines that such activities will maximize the effectiveness of the CIS program. Currently, the agency holds back 10% of each grantee's allocation and releases the hold of each grantee's final 10% of its allocation held in escrow as soon as the CIS grantee submits its final yearly data to the agency.
Comment: Concerning proposed new 19 TAC §89.1503(c)(2)(C), relating to funding allocation, the CIS of Texas Network; board members and other representatives of CIS of the Bay Area, CIS of Baytown, CIS of the Big Country, CIS of Brazoria County, CIS of Cameron County, CIS of Central Texas, CIS of the Coastal Bend, CIS of the Dallas Region, CIS East Texas, CIS of El Paso, CIS of Galveston County, CIS of the Golden Crescent, CIS of Greater Tarrant County, CIS of the Greater Wichita Falls Area, CIS of the Heart of Texas, CIS of Hidalgo County, CIS of Houston, CIS of Laredo, CIS of North Texas, CIS of Northeast Texas, CIS of the Permian Basin, CIS of San Antonio, CIS of South Central Texas, and CIS of Southeast Harris County; Chapel Hill ISD; Marlin ISD; and numerous individuals strongly opposed the provision that up to 25% of the funding formula be based on performance benchmarks. The commenters noted that there are already sanctions for programs not meeting requirements and that CIS consistently earns high marks on quality and quantity of services to youth as required by CIS standards. The commenters asserted that if performance payments are to be included, it would be preferable to change the rule from 25% to 10%, but even that modification would create a hardship on CIS programs this biennium. The commenters recommended that any incentive program should not duplicate penalties that are in place for failure to meet performance standards.
Agency Response: The agency disagrees with the premise that the benchmark payments proposed in rule will duplicate sanctions already in place for CIS providers under 19 TAC §89.1511. Sanctions are in place for achieving performance measures, including graduation and promotion rates, as well as for reaching annual case management targets. The new language in 19 TAC §89.1503(c)(2)(C) provides the agency with the flexibility it needs to incent programs to increase performance on other program goals and measures such as meeting TQS standards and maintaining fidelity to the CIS model to maximize effectiveness, pursuant to the TEC, §33.154. The provision does not require the agency to implement benchmarks in the funding formula during this biennium. Nor does the rule require the agency to reserve a full 25% of the funding formula for performance. The agency may elect to implement this provision from 0.0% to 25% as determined by the agency to be in the best interest of students and communities served by the program. This provides the agency with the flexibility it needs to maximize program effectiveness.
Comment: Concerning proposed changes to 19 TAC §89.1503(e), relating to availability of additional funding opportunities, the CIS of Texas Network; board members and other representatives of CIS of the Bay Area, CIS of Baytown, CIS of the Big Country, CIS of Brazoria County, CIS of Cameron County, CIS of Central Texas, CIS of the Coastal Bend, CIS of the Dallas Region, CIS East Texas, CIS of El Paso, CIS of Galveston County, CIS of the Golden Crescent, CIS of Greater Tarrant County, CIS of the Greater Wichita Falls Area, CIS of the Heart of Texas, CIS of Hidalgo County, CIS of Houston, CIS of Laredo, CIS of North Texas, CIS of Northeast Texas, CIS of the Permian Basin, CIS of San Antonio, CIS of South Central Texas, and CIS of Southeast Harris County; Chapel Hill ISD; Marlin ISD; and numerous individuals commented that this section is not clear. The commenters stated that if the rule means the agency may designate no more than 10% of "additional" funds to competitive grant opportunities, that plan could be acceptable. However, if the rule means that the agency could designate 10% of existing appropriated funds for CIS, this would not be acceptable. The commenters noted that nearly all CIS affiliates have sustained recent funding reductions from local school districts at the same time they are experiencing a reduction in state appropriations. The commenters stated that if implemented, the proposed rule changes would have an adverse economic impact to their organizations this biennium. The commenters described how reduced funding to local affiliates translates to a reduced ability to prevent students from dropping out of school. The commenters recommended that the agency not implement competitive grant funding during this biennium.
Agency Response: The agency disagrees that reserving 10% of the state funding to implement a competitive grant initiative among CIS providers would reduce the ability of local affiliates to prevent students from dropping out of school. The rule language is not based on the variance of funding levels from biennium to biennium. The rule is based on the actual biennial legislative appropriation for CIS. These CIS funds would go directly to local affiliates for student services to prevent students from dropping out of school. The only difference would be that the 10% of the biennial appropriation would be distributed competitively based on performance among existing CIS providers, which would not reduce the number of students to be served statewide, in order to keep the same number of students from dropping out of schools. A competitive grant program is aligned with the TEC, §§33.154-33.156, which requires the commissioner to set performance standards and provides for a reduction in the formula annually contributed by the state to local CIS programs. The rule does not require the agency to implement a competitive grant program during this biennium, but does provide the agency with needed flexibility to promote continuous program improvement. The rule limits the agency to distribute a maximum of 10% of appropriated funds through competitive grants if the agency elects to reserve a portion of funding for statewide program initiatives, which may include competitive grants to CIS affiliates.
Comment: Concerning proposed changes to 19 TAC §89.1503, relating to funding, CIS of East Texas cited examples of services that are available in metropolitan areas that are not available to students in rural areas and suggested these equate to financial inequalities that do not fairly meet the needs of rural youth. The commenter suggested that funding rural areas should be a priority in the funding formula.
Agency Response: The agency disagrees. The amendment to 19 TAC §89.1503 will allow the agency the flexibility it needs to promote continuous program improvement for both urban and rural CIS programs, which each have unique challenges related to maximizing local and state resources to ensure effective CIS service delivery for youth statewide.
Comment: Concerning proposed changes to 19 TAC §89.1503, relating to funding, CIS of East Texas commented that the weighted average daily attendance (WADA) and corresponding WADA financial value calculations may be a good measure in comparing a community's tax base wealth for school districts since they can tax according to these ratios. The commenter suggested that using WADA as an element in the CIS funding formula, however, is an unrealistic measure for nonprofit organizations that have to solicit funds from area businesses and individuals. The commenter explained that there could be instances when in reality the community may be considered property rich for WADA purposes, but there are few actual cash resources in the community. The commenter provided a suggestion on how to apply WADA to evaluate the outside funding resource potential in an area and also provided a sample of a funding formula. The commenter also suggested that WADA should be removed for the next two years and that larger programs with larger allocations should receive a larger proportion of funding reductions when reductions are made.
Agency Response: The comment addresses an issue outside of the scope of the current rule proposal. No changes were proposed relating to the use of WADA in the funding calculation.
For additional information, email
rules@tea.state.tx.us.