TITLE 19.EDUCATION

Chapter 89. ADAPTATIONS FOR SPECIAL POPULATIONS

Subchapter EE. COMMISSIONER'S RULES CONCERNING THE COMMUNITIES IN SCHOOLS PROGRAM

The Texas Education Agency (TEA) adopts new §89.1501 and §89.1502, concerning the Communities In Schools (CIS) program. The new sections are adopted without changes to the proposed text as published in the April 22, 2005, issue of the Texas Register (30 TexReg 2348) and will not be republished.

The new sections establish definitions and the equitable funding formula for local CIS programs. The adopted new rules implement the provisions of the Texas Education Code (TEC), Chapter 33, Service Programs and Extracurricular Activities, Subchapter E, Communities In Schools Program, which transfers the CIS program to the TEA from the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS), formerly known as the Department of Protective and Regulatory Services (DPRS).

The CIS program is a statewide youth dropout prevention program that provides effective assistance to Texas public school students who are at risk of dropping out of school or engaging in delinquent conduct, including students who are in family conflict or emotional crisis. In 2003, the 78th Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 1038 which transferred the CIS program from the DFPS, formerly known as the DPRS, to the TEA.

Senate Bill 1038 specified that on September 1, 2003, a reference in law or administrative rule to the DPRS that relates to the CIS program means the TEA and that a reference in law or administrative rule of the executive director of the DPRS that relates to the CIS program means the commissioner of education. The legislation also stated that a rule of the DPRS relating to the CIS program continues in effect as a rule of the commissioner of education until superseded by rule of the commissioner of education. Accordingly, the commissioner of education has proceeded with the rulemaking process to adopt provisions for the CIS program.

The CIS provisions in new 19 TAC Chapter 89, Adaptations for Special Populations, Subchapter EE, Commissioner's Rules Concerning the Communities In Schools Program, supersede those in 40 TAC Chapter 702, General Administration, Subchapter E, Memorandum of Understanding with Other State Agencies, and Chapter 704, Prevention and Early Intervention Services, Subchapter E, Communities In Schools.

Adopted new 19 TAC Chapter 89, Subchapter EE, establishes definitions and the equitable funding formula for local CIS programs. The adoption outlines the funding allocation for developing programs, fully-developed programs, and replication and expansion of the CIS program. Provisions relating to other funding, special initiatives, and funding plans are also outlined.

During the preparation of the proposal, CIS state staff met with the executive directors of the local CIS programs. Their comments and recommendations were considered during the development of the proposed rules. The following is a summary of public comments received on the proposed new 19 TAC Chapter 89, Subchapter EE, and corresponding agency responses.

§89.1502(a)--Equitable funding formula.

Comment. The executive director of the Communities In Schools (CIS) Galveston program commented that the formula finalized by the state office is fair and equitable.

Agency response. The agency agrees.

Comment. The executive director representing both the CIS Southeast Harris County, Inc., and the CIS Brazoria County, Inc., programs; the executive director of the CIS Bay Area program; a CIS Bell Coryell program board member and board chair; and two individuals commented that the proposed formula is not considered "fair" and "equitable," as required in the proposed rule and as authorized in the Texas Education Code (TEC), §33.156.

Agency response. The agency disagrees. The proposed formula was developed in accordance with statutory requirements outlined in the TEC and will allow programs to maintain current level funding (based on CIS receiving the same legislative funding amount as received for the last six years) as long as programs meet their contract requirements.

Comment. The executive directors for the CIS Laredo, El Paso, and Corpus Christi programs expressed agreement with the proposed rule and commented that the formula follows suit with the statutory requirements that the agency fund the local CIS programs in a manner that is equitable. The executive directors supported the provision that a community's financial resources be considered and integrated as an element of the formula. These individuals supported the formula as equitable and stable.

Agency response. The agency agrees.

§89.1502(c)--Fully-developed programs.

Comment. An individual on behalf of the CIS Houston program recommended adjusting the stop loss amounts from the range of 5.0% - 25% to 5.0% - 15%.

Agency response. The agency disagrees. The provision in subsection (c) allows the agency to apply a stop loss in the range of 5.0% - 25% allowing the agency the flexibility in applying a loss or gain in funding allocations.

§89.1502(c)(2)--Funding formula based on students contracted.

Comment. The executive director representing both the CIS Southeast Harris County, Inc., and the CIS Brazoria County, Inc., programs and an individual on behalf of the CIS Houston program disagreed with the proposal to change the funding formula from case-managed students to students contracted because it could potentially decrease the statewide number of case-managed students served. The commenters expressed a preference for the state to "respect, recognize and fund the FY 2004 contracted numbers and not dictate or fund a state imposed maintenance level contracted number."

Agency response. The agency disagrees. CIS programs currently contract for a specific number of students to be served; however, they are paid on the number actually served. The increase in student numbers is supported by using state funds to leverage local funds. Legislative funding has remained static for the past six years, yet the total number of case-managed students served has increased. Funding programs based on the number of students served places an unfair disadvantage on some programs because some are able to leverage more local dollars, thus increasing number of students served while maintaining or exceeding the contracted number. The proposed formula will fund each program based on the number of students contracted to serve and will not decrease any program's current state allocation as long as the program continues to meet its contract requirements. Based on history, it is expected that programs will continue to exceed the contract numbers of students.

Comment. The executive director of the CIS Galveston program commented that this formula should not decrease the numbers substantially, and this should not be problematic since local programs receive shared funds from school districts as well as local resources.

Agency response. The agency agrees.

Comment. The executive directors of the CIS Laredo, El Paso, and Corpus Christi programs supported the proposed formula to fund programs based on students contracted. These executive directors commented that if state funds are increased, programs could receive additional funding. In addition, programs should be able to achieve satisfaction by serving as many students as possible without sole dependence on state funding.

Agency response. The agency agrees.

§89.1502(c)(3)(A)--Weighted financial resources.

Comment. The executive directors of the CIS Laredo, El Paso, and Corpus Christi programs supported the inclusion of using taxable property values as a means to measure the financial resources available to communities across the state.

Agency response. The agency agrees.

Comment. The executive director representing both the CIS Southeast Harris County, Inc., and the CIS Brazoria County, Inc., programs expressed opposition to the proposed distribution of weighted financial resources because he believes that most of the organizations that benefit from this are not necessarily economically disadvantaged. He commented that the school districts that are eligible for weighted financial resources are also the most eligible to receive other types of state and federal funding. He noted that his interpretation of the intent of the TEC, §33.156, which requires the agency to develop and implement an equitable formula for funding the CIS program, is not to distribute funds to any organization based on the "financial resources" factor. He stated that the language was included to not harm these organizations if the state reduced funding in order to use that funding to replicate or expand the program with the savings after reduction. He presented his analysis of the proposed funding formula and pointed out scenarios that he felt would be equitable. Finally, he expressed his belief that allocating money based on a district's financial resources is "welfare."

Agency response. The agency disagrees. The TEC, §33.156, states that the formula for CIS "must consider the financial resources of individual communities and school districts." The data elements used take into consideration school districts' taxable property values, student membership, and the percentage of economically disadvantaged students listed in each program's contract.

Comment. An individual on behalf of the CIS Houston program expressed concern for the data elements chosen to calculate the weight in the weighted financial resource provision. The individual noted that although they are not against the inclusion of weighted financial resources in the funding formula, the concern is regarding the meaning of the data elements in relation to true resources.

§89.1502(d)(2)--CIS expansion and replication based on at-risk percentages.

Comment. The executive directors of the CIS Laredo, El Paso, and Corpus Christi programs supported the inclusion of one option for expansion, using a district's at-risk percentage as a weight in the funding formula. They expressed their belief that this option should be included because of the disparity in the at-risk populations from school district to school district.

Agency response. The agency agrees.

Comment. The executive director representing both the CIS Southeast Harris County, Inc., and the CIS Brazoria County, Inc. programs; the executive director of the CIS Bay Area program; a CIS Bell Coryell program board member; and two individuals expressed opposition to the inclusion of a district's at-risk percentage in the funding formula. They expressed their belief that a program contracting with one school in the district would result in the inclusion of the entire district in the calculation and would result in an inequitable allocation of funds.

Agency response. The agency disagrees. This component is very important to the program because the purpose of the CIS program and the required use of these funds are to serve at-risk students by providing services that will help them stay in school and improve in academics, attendance, and behavior. Including a district's at-risk percentage in the funding formula is one of four options the agency may use for allocating funds for expansion.

§89.1502(d)(3)--CIS expansion and replication; students contracted.

Comment. The executive director representing both the CIS Southeast Harris County, Inc., and the CIS Brazoria County, Inc., programs; the executive director of the CIS Bay Area program; a CIS Bell Coryell program board member; and two individuals suggested that the agency use the previous method of funding the expansion of programs, using the number of students served rather than contracted. They expressed their belief that the contracted number has the potential of decreasing the total number of students served by organizations that actually case managed more students than are contracted.

Agency response. The agency disagrees. CIS programs currently contract for a specific number of students to be served; however, they are paid on the number actually served. The increase in student numbers is supported by using state funds to leverage local funds. Legislative funding has remained static for the past six years, yet the total number of case-managed students served has increased. Funding programs based on the number of students served places an unfair disadvantage to some programs because some are able to leverage more local dollars, thus increasing the number of students served while maintaining or exceeding the contracted number. The proposed formula will fund each program based on the number of students contracted to serve and will not decrease any program's current state allocation as long as the program continues to meet its contract requirements. Based on history, it is expected that the programs will continue to exceed the contract numbers of students.

Comment. The executive directors for the CIS Laredo, El Paso, and Corpus Christi programs noted that a formula for expansion based on students contracted rather than actually served has not yet been implemented because the funding allocation for the CIS has been stable for the past six years. The executive directors commented that putting this formula in place without increased funding would have resulted in taking funding away from smaller programs. The executive directors expressed their belief that it is "imperative" that the state office be allowed to determine the contracted numbers for local CIS programs.

Agency response. The agency agrees. The agency will continue to determine the state target of case-managed students.

§89.1502(d)(4)--Replication and expansion; program allocation.

Comment. The executive director representing both the CIS Southeast Harris County, Inc., and the CIS Brazoria County, Inc., programs; the executive director of the CIS Bay Area program; a CIS Bell Coryell program board member; and two individuals expressed concern that it is unclear how the formula will be calculated. They commented that using the fiscal year 2004 amount, which is unchanged for the last five years and uses six-year-old data, will continue the "unfair and inequitable" distribution of funding. They further commented that this will result in an even more disproportionate allocation of funding.

Agency response. The agency disagrees. This proposed provision would provide the agency the ability to allocate funds to each individual local CIS program based on a ratio of the respective local CIS program's total allocation relative to the amount allocated to all fully-developed CIS programs. The inclusion of subsection (d)(4) in the proposed rule was designed to give the agency an additional method to distribute funds available for expansion and replication of the CIS program.

§89.1502(d)(5)--Replication and expansion; competitive process.

Comment. The executive director of the CIS Galveston program expressed a sense of understanding for the necessity of providing another means of allocating money in addition to the current funding formula.

Agency response. The agency agrees.

Comment. An individual on behalf of the CIS Houston program and the executive directors of the CIS Dallas, Greater Tarrant County, and Bay Area programs expressed opposition to any funds, state or other, being distributed through a competitive Request For Proposal (RFP) process. The commenters stated that they would prefer that all funds be distributed as outlined in §89.1502(d)(4).

Agency response. The agency disagrees. The inclusion of a provision to address a competitive process for allocating funds is necessary to address any additional funds (state, federal, or other) which may become available in the future. Not including this provision could limit the agency's ability to accept grant monies for the CIS program to be allocated specifically for certain projects or endeavors which may require an RFP process. In addition, the RFP process is consistent with the agency's grant initiatives for local school districts and other special initiatives. Finally, any CIS funds allocated in a competitive application process will only be used for CIS programs.

Comment. The executive director representing both the CIS Southeast Harris County, Inc., and the CIS Brazoria County, Inc., programs; a CIS Bell Coryell program board member; numerous individuals representing CIS programs, including the McLennan County Challenges Academy, McLennan County Youth Collaboration, Kid's Health Campaign, and One Bear Place; and the program manager of the P.A.C.E.S. program expressed opposition to any type of competitive application because it is their opinion that it is unfair and inequitable. These individuals proposed that this factor not be considered for expansion or the funding formula.

Agency response. The agency disagrees. The inclusion of a provision to address a competitive process for allocating funds is necessary to address any additional funds (state, federal, or other) which may become available in the future. Not including this provision could limit the agency's ability to accept grant monies for the CIS program to be allocated specifically for certain projects or endeavors. In addition, the RFP process is consistent with the agency's grant initiatives for local school districts and other special initiatives. Finally, any CIS funds allocated in a competitive application process will only be used for CIS programs.

§89.1502(e)--Other funding.

Comment. The executive director of the CIS Greater Tarrant County program expressed concern about funding in any other manner than as specifically outlined in subsection (d). The executive director stated that this could "open the door" to options not specifically addressed in the rule which has allowed for public comment.

Agency response. The agency disagrees. The inclusion of subsection (e) is necessary to address any additional funds (state, federal, or other) which may become available in the future. Not including this provision could limit the agency's ability to accept grant monies for the CIS program to be allocated specifically for certain projects or endeavors.

Comment. The executive director for the CIS Dallas program expressed support for funding "through such process as the TEA deems appropriate to include the guidelines and determinations" delineated in subsection (d). The executive director specifically supported using any one or combination of the following guidelines: 1) Replication, 2) Proportion of at-risk students served, and 3) Proportion of total students contracted. The executive director noted that these funding guidelines would be reasonable.

Agency response. The agency agrees.

Comment. The executive director of and six individuals from the CIS McLennan County Youth Collaboration program; the program manager of the P.A.C.E.S. program; and individuals representing the McLennan County Challenges Academy, Kid's Health Campaign, and One Bear Place recommended deletion of subsection (e).

Agency response. The agency disagrees. As stated previously, the inclusion of subsection (e) is necessary to address any additional funds (state, federal, or other) which may become available in the future. Not including this provision could limit the agency's ability to accept grant monies for the CIS program to be allocated specifically for certain projects or endeavors.

§89.1502(g)--Funding plan.

Comment. An individual on behalf of the CIS Houston program expressed the belief that the proposed provision requiring that each program develop a funding plan to ensure that the level of service is maintained if state funding is reduced is based on an unreal expectation. In addition, the individual commented that funding plans should reflect current and expected funding conditions as applicable to each individual program, which may include a reduction in service levels.

Agency response. The agency disagrees. Local CIS programs are required to develop strategic plans which include a plan for maintaining funding and expanding to meet growth. These plans are subject to changes but ensure that local programs are striving to meet the needs of their communities. In addition, given the same funding allocation, programs are expected to maintain the same level of service. As always, local CIS programs are expected to leverage local resources to ensure that the service level is above and beyond what is contracted with the agency.

The new sections are adopted under the Texas Education Code, §33.156, which authorizes the agency to develop and implement an equitable formula for the funding of local Communities In Schools programs.

The new sections implement the Texas Education Code, §§33.152, 33.156, 33.157, and 33.158.

This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.

Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on June 14, 2005.

TRD-200502438

Cristina De La Fuente-Valadez

Director, Policy Coordination

Texas Education Agency

Effective date: July 4, 2005

Proposal publication date: April 22, 2005

For further information, please call: (512) 475-1497