HOUSE BILL NO. 165 "An Act relating to community schools; and providing for an effective date." KEVIN SWEENEY, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT spoke in support of the legislation. He noted that the statute was adopted in 1975 to establish a grant program. He explained that that purpose of the grant program was to provide financial support to assist local school districts in establishing community school programs. He pointed out that every school district currently provides community school services. He maintained that the amount of grant funding represents a small percentage of the program expenditures. He expressed the Administration's belief that the statute had fulfilled its objective of beginning community schools programs in each district and stated its desire to end the grant program. Mr. Sweeny provided members with a chart illustrating the current prorated funding formula (copy on file). He also provided a chart reflecting the percentage of state grants compared to total expenditures for each district. He pointed out the example of Valdez, where the State's grant comprised only .5 percent of program expenditures. Mr. Sweeny noted that the House Health Education and Social Services Committee amended the legislation to retain a statutory reference to a community schools program and encouraged the continued community use of schools. Co-Chair Harris observed that the Fairbanks school district received a $50 thousand grant and expended $180 thousand, which represented 27 percent as compared to other school districts who further exceeded their grant amounts. He asked what accounted for this difference. Mr. Sweeney speculated that the Fairbanks district did not account for costs of utilities or collected a different amount in community fees or other local support. He maintained the potential to fund larger portions of program expenditures from sources within the community. Co-Chair Harris pointed out that the current state budget did not contain funding for the program and questioned what would happen if the legislation were not enacted. Mr. Sweeney estimated that in that case there would be a pro ration of zero. He reiterated that the Governor feels that the statute has served its purpose. Representative Joule noted that some districts indicated a ratio of 100 percent grant to expenditures. He asked if this indicated that they received no other funding for the program. Mr. Sweeney explained that these were the amounts reported as being spent on community schools. He again speculated that some districts did not account for all of their expenses. Vice-Chair Meyer questioned if there are villages that are receiving funding that would not be able to make up the loss. Mr. Sweeney noted that within those districts utilizing 100 percent of their grant amounts, the grants ranged from $1,500 to $15,000, with an average of $2 to $3 thousand. He speculated that it would be difficult to provide a service for this amount of money. Vice-Chair Meyer pointed out that the appropriation ($500,000) represents a small amount in the State budget, whereas it creates a greater impact on school districts' or local government budgets. He asked why the State could not simply continue the grant program since it seemed to be working well. Mr. Sweeney acknowledged that the program funding was a small amount and pointed out that it was not currently fully funded. He estimated that the full amount would be closer to $3 million. He reiterated that the purpose of the grants was to generate programs, and stressed that communities must now begin to maintain these programs on their own. JOYCE KITKA, VOLUNTEER, ALASKA ASSOCIATION FOR COMMUNITY EDUCATION spoke against the legislation. She distributed program information to members (copy on file). She maintained that the funding level estimates provided by the Department of Education and Early Development were not accurate and included funding for other programs. She gave the example that the amount listed for Juneau's Community Schools' budget also included funding for a before and after school daycare program, which was not run by Community Schools. She noted other errors of up to $600 thousand in budget numbers reflected for various school districts. Ms. Kitka stressed that Community Schools was the one State program with the potential to reach every Alaskan. She maintained that the program had been fiscally responsible and had developed partnerships to facilitate funding. She stressed that the State monies were used to leverage such partnerships. She explained that adult programs often subsidize youth programs. She emphasized that the program has resulted in 342,000 activity hours logged, 464,300 youth served, 400,000 adults served. She stressed that the 212,000 hours in volunteer time was valued at $3 million. She concluded that this was an excellent return on a State investment of $500 thousand. In response to a question by Co-Chair Harris, Ms. Kitka explained that not all school districts are able to fund community education. She noted that the program provided a wide array of education such as childbirth classes, summer school classes, and tutoring. She noted that the classes were offered to meet community needs such as drivers' education, preschool and before and after school childcare st programs. She noted that federal funding (21 Century Program) was close to elimination. In response to another question by Co-Chair Harris, Ms. Kitka explained that fees support larger programs, such as adult education and gym rentals. She also noted that, as a result of the paid programs, other classes could be offered at a reduced rate, with the intention to provide free youth services. Representative Hawker observed that Anchorage has extensive community school utilization. He estimated that with approximately 90,000 participants in the Anchorage school program, and a grant of $151 thousand, if each of the participants paid $2 dollars it would more than equal the grant. He asked if that was a reasonable amount to ask from program participants. Ms. Kitka deferred to the Anchorage school district on the question. She expressed that her own district advisory committee struggled with how much if anything to charge youth for programs. She suggested that the amount was relative to the needs of a community. Representative Croft asked if the numbers represented any duplication. Ms. Kitka noted that people are counted every time they register. Representative Croft pointed out that Anchorage reflected only 30 thousand contact hours and suggested that the fees would have to be more like $5 per hour, which may prevent some youth from participating regularly in a service such as an open gym. SUSAN BURKE, JUNEAU, spoke in opposition to the legislation. She maintained that there is no reason to repeal authorizing statutes. She suggested that the funding level was not the central issue in regards to the legislation. She observed that the funding decision had already been made in the House Finance Committee. Ms. Burke stressed that the true issue at hand was whether the Committee could honestly predict that other legislatures would never deem it appropriate for the state of Alaska to provide financial support to community school programs. She pointed out that appropriations could not go forward without statutory authorization. Ms. Burke responded to the argument that the level of funding has not been sufficient to be meaningful to any school district. She suggested that this argument should support additional funding. She also spoke to the idea that the statutes have fulfilled their purpose to establish the programs. She pointed out that while the statue does address the initial program development, it also suggests the intention to support the operation of community schools. She noted language that suggests that operational plans for each program should be evaluated by the Department of Education and Early Development every four years. She concluded that there is not enough reason to repeal the statues. Ms. Burke acknowledged that funding levels change from year to year and that this year's budget was unusually difficult. She observed however that no one had stated that it was not proper for the state to support community schools. She emphasized that financial times and political leaders change and pointed out the greater difficulty of reinitiating the program, as compared to the lack of harm by maintaining the statute. She noted that the existence of the statue did not obligate the legislature to appropriate funds. She urged the Committee not to take action on HB 165. JULIE JONAS, FOUR VALLEYS COMMUNITY SCHOOL PROGRAM, ANCHORAGE, testified via teleconference in opposition to the legislation. She pointed out that education funding is being significantly reduced and emphasized the far-reaching community benefits of the community schools program. She noted that the Girdwood program sponsors soccer and service learning programs. She stated that there is not a community center in Girdwood, so the community school staff provided that service. She urged the Committee not to repeal authorizing statues for the program, even if funding was reduced. She stressed that the community school program is not just an afternoon school program. She maintained that community schools hold a community together. REBECCA REICHLIN, GIRDWOOD, spoke via teleconference in opposition to the legislation. She stressed that funding goes a long way and is well used. She noted that state funding is used to leverage other local support. She listed a number of programs supported by their community school program, including: childcare, adult education, student activities, tutoring, volunteer opportunities, and youth services. She stressed that the program was increasingly important at this time to support youth, educational standards, and emergency preparedness. She encouraged the legislature to identify sources of income as well as reduce spending in order to balance the budget. She urged the Committee not to repeal the statute. JODY LIDDICOUT, ANCHORAGE, testified via teleconference in opposition to the legislation. She noted that community schools are behind many of the events that serve her children. She stressed the number of volunteers associated with the program and emphasized the huge value for a small amount of funding. DEBBIE BOGART, DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, ANCHORAGE, testified via teleconference in opposition to the legislation. She responded to questions raised during earlier testimony. She stated that the Anchorage School District supports Community Schools remaining in statute, with modified intent language that includes ongoing operation. Ms. Bogart pointed out that for 80 schools in the district, there were only thirteen community school sites. She noted that these sites averaged one thousand classes per quarter offered, as well as children's enrichment programs. She clarified that of the $1.3 million in expenditures listed by DEED for her district, only $694 thousand was actually attributable to Community Schools. She also noted that the district does charge a user fee ranging from $1 to $6 [per class] dollars. She explained that the fees are used to repay the school district grant match, as well as for operations and supplies. She also noted that classes pay a minimal wage to instructors. Ms. Bogart discussed the level of community involvement in [Anchorage] programs: over 30,000 youth and over 28,000 adults participated, supported by 27,000 volunteer hours. She calculated that if volunteer hours were compensated at $15 an hour, the in-kind value would be $400,000. She pointed out that communities were growing and becoming more diverse. She maintained that Community Schools meets the DEED goal of providing life-long learning and provides needed community outreach. She also noted that programs drew support from individuals without children, which in turn helped to provide funding for the school system. She urged the Committee to keep Community Schools in statute. DARYL FARRENS, HOMER COMMUNITY SCHOOL COORDINATOR, HOMER, testified via teleconference in opposition to the legislation. He explained that the philosophy of their community schools program is to make programs available to anyone that wants to participate and therefore fees are kept to a minimum. He stated that with the $32 thousand received from the State, their program operated nearly seven days per week. He noted that Homer raised 33 percent of their total expenditures. He stressed that a cut in funding would dramatically affect the amount and quality of community programs offered. CURT LEDFORD, DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, SITKA, testified via teleconference in opposition to the legislation. He noted that his district's community schools program offered before and after school activities, which served half of the community's children. He stated that Sitka's program does not receive district funding. He pointed out that the program gave over $15,000 in scholarships to children for summer classes.   HB 165 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further consideration. TAPE HFC 03 - 56, Side B