TO: HONORABLE MAYOR FROM: Rob Lloyd
AND CITY COUNCIL Jill Bourne
SUBJECT: SEE BELOW DATE: April 6, 2022
Approved Date
04/08/22
SUBJECT: CITY ROADMAP - DIGITAL EQUITY: APPROVAL OF DIGITAL
INCLUSION GRANT AWARDS
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution:
(a) Approving the award of Digital Inclusion Grants to the following organizations in the amounts specified:
(1) Alum Rock School District $262,500
(2) Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County $70,000 (3) Closing the Divide $17,500
(4) Evergreen Valley College $52,500
(5) Goodwill of Silicon Valley $17,500
(6) International Children Assistance Network, Inc. (ICAN) $21,000 (7) International Rescue Committee, Inc. (IRC) $14,000 (8) Prosperity Lab $17,500
(9) Sacred Heart Community Service $61,250
(10) San Jose Community Media Access Corp (CreaTV) $3,500 (11) Silicon Valley Education Foundation (SVCF) $35,000 (12) Sourcewise $35,000
(13) Step Up & Do Something $72,800
(14) Tech Exchange (The Oakland Public Education Fund) $52,500 (15) The Vietnamese Voluntary Foundation, Inc. (VIVO) $19,950
(b) Authorizing a $182,000 payment from the Digital Inclusion Fund (DIF) to California Emerging Technology Fund (CETF) and use of $387,750 in donated funds in the City Fund managed by CETF to distribute the grant awards to the grantees pursuant to the City’s agreement with CETF.
(c) Authorizing the City Manager or designee to negotiate and execute a Second Amendment to the Agreement between the City and CETF to allow a one-time payment of $20,000 in July COUNCIL AGENDA: 4/19/22
FILE: 22-515
ITEM: 3.3
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
April 6, 2022
Subject: City Roadmap - Digital Equity: Approval of Digital Inclusion Grant Awards
2022 to CETF for the separate administration of digital inclusion grants to schools that supported the City’s COVID-19 emergency response and a one-time payment of up to $72,500 in June 2023 to support the City’s digital inclusion program assessment and change management.
OUTCOME
Approval of the recommendation will allow Round 3 grant funding of $752,500 from the DIF to be disbursed to 15 community-based organizations (CBOs) serving San José – $182,000 from small cell lease fees in 2022-2023, $352,750 from donations, and $217,750 from unspent Round 1 and 2 grant funds. An additional $35,000 from donations will be reserved to pay Round 2 grantees for additional “Adoptions” (a resident’s Adoption of the three key components of digital inclusion – a fast internet connection, a computing device, and digital skills) over and above their grant requirement.
Approval of the recommended actions will also allow an amendment to the agreement between the City and CETF to permit one-time payments in 2022-2023 from the DIF for COVID-19 specific grant administration performed in 2020-2021 totaling $20,000 and up to $72,500 to support the City’s Digital Inclusion Program assessment and, if mutually agreed, implement program changes and/or transfer grants management to the City or a successor organization.
Approval of the recommendation supports the Digital Equity initiative of City Roadmap’s COVID-19 Pandemic: Community + Economic Recovery enterprise priority. The work also advances the City of San José's Digital Inclusion and Broadband Strategy1 goal to promote equity and improve educational outcomes, promote job acquisition and advancement, and improve mental and physical health options. An approval action will extend technology's reach and empower residents and communities to participate in the digital economy, especially those who are historically underrepresented or underserved.
1 January 27, 2017, City Council Special Meeting, Innovation Roadmap & Council Committee Workplan Memo.
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
April 6, 2022
Subject: City Roadmap - Digital Equity: Approval of Digital Inclusion Grant Awards
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The application period for the Round 3 grant cycle opened on November 9, 2021 and closed on February 1, 2022. Eligible applications were scored by the review panel comprised of City staff, CETF serving as the City’s fiscal agent, and the Digital Inclusion Advisory Board members (see Attachment A). Sixteen CBOs applied for a Round 3 grant for a total of $847,750. Fifteen CBOs are recommended to receive full or partial funding from the $752,500 Round 3 grant monies (see Attachment B and Table 1 in Analysis section). Each CBO will enter into an agreement with CETF to receive funds, with the City as a third-party beneficiary.
Round 3 grantees will receive $350 per household Adoption. Applicants that participated in previous grant rounds were invited to seek up to $50 per household in Round 3 for Conversions, defined as a CBO converting a past program participant from hotspot connectivity to a monthly internet subscription covered by the federal Affordable Connectivity Program. Five CBOs applied for funding to support 204 conversions. However, due to the limited funding available, staff recommends that Round 3 prioritize full Adoptions over Conversions.
On February 15, 2022, staff recommended, and Council approved three uses for the remaining $333,750 in unspent Round 1 and 2 funds. (1) compensate Round 1 grantees for additional Adoptions, (2) support the program assessment, and (3) support Round 3 Adoptions by purchasing laptops and/or connectivity. As of March 2022, $16,000 has been distributed to Round 1 grantees for Adoptions that CETF confirmed exceeded their grant commitments. If needed, $100,000 has been reserved for program assessment. Staff recommends applying the remaining $217,750 to fund Round 3 grants and full Adoptions.
Of the $752,500 for Round 3 grants, $399,750 will be paid using the DIF small cell revenue (includes $217,750 from unspent funds from Round 1 and 2) and $352,750 will be paid using donated funds from the City’s City Fund account managed by CETF. Combined, the small cell and fundraised revenues will fully fund the $752,500 Round 3 grant awards to 15 grantees and an additional $35,000 to compensate Round 2 CBOs for up to 100 extra Adoptions.
In addition, the recommended Second Amendment to the City’s agreement with CETF would allow two one-time payments from the DIF to CETF in fiscal year (FY) 2022-2023. One payment of $20,000 for additional grant support and a second payment of up to $72,500 to support the major review of the DIF and grant program to determine program direction (up to $92,500 total), at the City Manager’s option. These one-time payments are in addition to the annual $190,000 compensation to CETF in FYs 2021-2022 and 2022-2023. In sum, up to $492,250 ($399,750 + $92,500) will be paid from the DIF to CETF – for the one-time payments to CETF and a portion of Round 3 grants – and will be included in the 2022-2023 Proposed Operating Budget that will be released on May 2, 2022. See Table 1 for a detailed summary.
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
April 6, 2022
Subject: City Roadmap - Digital Equity: Approval of Digital Inclusion Grant Awards
Table 1: Summary of Funding Sources and Use
Fiscal Year 2022-
2023
DIF Small Cell
Revenue -
Unspent Round
1 & 2 award
funds
DIF Small Cell
Revenue - Fiscal
Year 2022-2023
Proposed Operating
Budget
DIF Fundraised
Revenue
(CETF City
Fund)
TOTAL
Round 3 Grant
Awards $217,750 $182,000 $352,750 $752,500
Round 2 Extra
Adoptions $35,000 $35,000
CETF One-Time
COVID-19 Payment
$20,000 $20,000
CETF One-Time
Assessment and
Transition Support
Payment
$72,500 $72,500
TOTAL $217,750 $274,500 $387,750 $880,000
In April 2022, the City will start the process of conducting a performance review of the DIF and grant program. The work will assess the program’s impact, changes in community needs, the capacity and availability of funding for digital inclusion work, and options for continuing the program. Staff’s goal is to complete the assessment and implement the next iteration of the program before the end of the Round 3 grant term on June 30, 2023. The Round 3 grant term may be extended to ensure digital inclusion programs are operational until the assessment is complete.
BACKGROUND
Digital Inclusion Strategy
The City’s digital inclusion journey began after the realization in 2016 that San José lagged peer cities in creating an enabling environment for all residents to benefit from the opportunities of the modern digital economy. At least 90,000 San José residents were unconnected with no internet access at home. Even more residents were under connected and struggled to access or afford internet access at a high-speed, on a suitable device, and with the digital literacy skills sufficient to support homework, personal and household needs, career resources, healthcare, or other digital services that improve quality of life.
On November 13, 2017, the City Council approved the City’s Digital Inclusion and Broadband Strategy, which established an intentional focus on digital inclusion and equity supported by a sustainable funding stream and with a path to close the digital divide. In 2018, the City Council
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
April 6, 2022
Subject: City Roadmap - Digital Equity: Approval of Digital Inclusion Grant Awards
approved (1) public-private partnership agreements with AT&T2, Verizon3, and Mobilitie4 (on behalf of Sprint) for small cell deployments on City-owned streetlights and (2) directed the City Manager to allocate small cell usage fee revenue to create a DIF within the General Fund to support efforts to close the digital divide in San José. The DIF is focused on supporting low- income youth and other vulnerable populations, such as the elderly and persons with disabilities.
On February 12, 2019, City Council authorized the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with CETF to implement an external donor-advised fund for the DIF5. Subject to appropriation of funds by the City, allocations of small cell usage fee revenue and matching fundraising revenue are transferred from the City to CETF to administer grants for digital inclusion programs through the DIF.
Digital Inclusion Grants
The Digital Inclusion Grant program is part of the City’s 2019 to 2029 strategy to close the digital divide. Its mission is to empower 50,000 San José unconnected households to achieve Adoption of the three key components of digital inclusion – a fast internet connection, a computing device, and digital skills.
On February 25, 2020, the City Council approved the first $1 million in digital inclusion grant awards to fund 23 grants to 21 CBOs and two City departments serving San José residents.
Round 1 was highly impacted by the COVID-19 public health emergency. The City and CETF worked together to support the grantees. Adjustments were made to the program requirements and timeline for Round 1 to ensure grantees were afforded the opportunity to achieve Adoptions under trying pandemic circumstances.
The Round 1 grant cycle ended on December 31, 2021 and in March 2022, CETF reported the final Round 1 results to the City. Grantees achieved 3,215 Adoptions, or 91% of the total possible 3,530 Adoptions (adjusted for declined and terminated grants). Since the February 15, 2022 update to City Council, the total was adjusted downward by 68 Adoptions – from 3,283 to 3,215 – following CETF’s final review and validation of grantee records. One CBO mistakenly misreported Adoptions, which the adjustment corrected.
During the shelter-in-place orders, grantees worked with CETF to conduct outreach that created a funnel of eligible participants (see Attachment C). Once the economy began to reopen, grantees were able to leverage the funnel of participants to achieve Adoptions quickly and efficiently, as measured by the number of digital access surveys completed. Nearly 18,000 residents completed the survey, which determines eligibility to participate in the DIF program, and eligible residents were contacted by CBO outreach campaigns.
2 May 1, 2018, City Council Meeting, Agreement with AT&T for Permitting Small Cells Memo. 3 June 26, 2018, City Council Meeting, Agreement with Verizon for Permitting Small Cells Memo. 4 June 26, 2018, City Council Meeting, Agreement with Mobilitie for Permitting Small Cells Memo. 5 February 12, 2019, City Council Meeting, Digital Inclusion Fund Memo.
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
April 6, 2022
Subject: City Roadmap - Digital Equity: Approval of Digital Inclusion Grant Awards
On May 19, 2020, the City Council authorized the City Manager to negotiate and execute the first amendment to the City’s agreement with CETF to allow distribution of funds donated to the DIF to relieve the connectivity impacts of COVID-19. CETF assisted the City’s COVID-19 response efforts through separate administration of special grants to schools.
CETF executed and managed 11 grant agreements with the Santa Clara County Office of Education to distribute $1,390,723 in donations made specifically to assist with digital connectivity during the pandemic. These donations were distributed to seven San José school districts to provide approximately 4,000 computing devices to students. CETF’s grant agreements included a requirement for the schools to collect surveys from parents of students receiving devices to enable CETF to produce impact reports for all donors (see Attachment D).
On June 8, 2021, the City Council approved the conditional award of up to $500,000 in additional Round 2 grant funding to existing grantees. Grant funds were disbursed to nine grantees, to implement 962 Adoptions and provide 258 supplemental digital skills trainings. By December 31, 2021, 353 Adoptions had been completed. The current quarter will complete on March 31, 2022 and progress reports from grantees are due to CETF by April 30, 2022. Based on site visits CETF conducted with the CBOs in early March 2022, CETF anticipates all the grantees will meet their third quarter Adoption outcomes.
On February 15, 2022, City Council was provided an update on the final Round 1 outcomes and status update on Round 2 progress. City Council approved the approach for Round 3 and a comprehensive performance review of the DIF and grant program6. The grant funding expectation for Round 3 was $500,000 instead of $1,000,000, contingent upon availability of funds. This was to preserve the financial health of the DIF because of shortfalls in small cell usage fee and fundraising revenues. Future rounds will be paused until staff complete a major assessment to define the City’s next phase for its digital inclusion work.
In April 2022, the City will start the process of conducting the major review of its DIF and grant program to determine program direction, as well as the future capacity of available funding sources. Staff’s goal is to complete the assessment and implement program changes before the end of the Round 3 grant term. The Round 3 grant term may be extended to ensure digital inclusion programs are fully supported until the assessment is complete.
ANALYSIS
Round 3 Grants Recommendation
The Round 3 grant cycle will enable up to $752,500 in grant awards to 15 CBOs to achieve a total of 2,150 proposed Adoptions. See Table 2.
6 February 15, 2022, City Council Meeting, Digital Inclusion Grants Update Memo.
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
April 6, 2022
Subject: City Roadmap - Digital Equity: Approval of Digital Inclusion Grant Awards
Table 2: Round 3 Grant Awards Recommendation and Projected Adoptions
GRANTEE
CBO
REQUESTED
GRANT AWARD
RECOMMENDED
GRANT AWARD
PROJECTED
ADOPTIONS
Alum Rock Union School District $264,400 $262,500 750
Catholic Charities of Santa Clara
County $70,000 $70,000 200
Closing the Divide* $35,000 $17,500 50
Evergreen Community College* $52,500 $52,500 150
Goodwill of Silicon Valley $18,050 $17,500 50
International Children Assistance
Network (ICAN) $21,250 $21,000 60
International Rescue Committee
(IRC) $14,000 $14,000 40
Prosperity Lab* $35,000 $17,500 50
Punjabi American Community
Services Inc.* $35,000 $0 0
Sacred Heart Community Service $61,250 $61,250 175
San Jose Community Media Access
Group (CreaTV) $3,500 $3,500 10
Silicon Valley Education Foundation
(SVEF)* $35,000 $35,000 100
Sourcewise* $35,000 $35,000 100
Step Up and Do Something, Inc. $72,800 $72,800 208
Tech Exchange $55,000 $52,500 150
The Vietnamese Voluntary
Foundation (VIVO) $40,000 $19,950 57
Totals $847,750 $752,500 2,150
* Denotes new applicants that have not previously participated in the grant program.
Recommended Round 3 Digital Inclusion Grant Awards
Sixteen CBOs applied for Round 3 grant funding. Overall, the funding requests exceeded the amount available to be awarded in Round 3 – $847,750 requested versus the publicized funding opportunity for up to $500,000.
The Digital Inclusion Advisory Board (Advisory Board) met on March 17, 2022, to vote on and recommend the awards for Round 3 to the City Manager’s Office. The Advisory Board reviewed the CETF recommendation to award Round 3 funding to 15 of the 16 applicants and discussed the overall average scores for all 16 applications. Punjabi American Community Services Inc. was not recommended for Round 3 due to insufficient demonstration of capacity and services to digitally unconnected San José residents. Punjabi American Community Services Inc. will receive assistance from CETF to assess their program design and offer advice for future rounds.
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
April 6, 2022
Subject: City Roadmap - Digital Equity: Approval of Digital Inclusion Grant Awards
The Advisory Board approved CETF’s recommendation and advised the City Manager’s Office of the recommended grant awards. The City Manager’s Office recommends that 15 grant applicants receive Round 3 funding consistent with the CETF and Advisory Board recommendations. To ensure continued impact and accountability, Round 2 CBOs must complete all Adoptions by the end of the Round 2 term to receive Round 3 award funding.
Review and Scoring for Round 3 Digital Inclusion Grants
The grant applications were evaluated and scored using the same impact metrics-driven methodology as applied in the previous rounds. The scores for each application were calculated using both quantitative and qualitative methodologies (see Attachment F). Each grant application was evaluated and scored by five separate reviewers: one from the City, one from CETF, and three members of the Advisory Board. Each reviewer evaluated and scored a subset of the 16 total applications and were assigned CBOs with which they had little to no familiarity.
The grant application and evaluation process remained much the same as the Round 1 and 2 grant cycles. Two changes were implemented to incorporate City Council direction for grantee CBOs programs to include coordination with City programs and meet the City’s Digital Literacy Quality Standards:
(1) The grant scoring criteria was modified to add evaluation of the grant applicant’s integration of coordination with City programs to reach unconnected households.
(2) The grant scoring criteria was modified to add evaluation of the grant applicant’s incorporation of the City’s Digital Literacy Quality Standards into the proposed digital literacy instruction.
This information was used to determine scores for the five criteria areas and qualitative assessment for each grant applicant. The Round 3 grant scoring criteria table is provided in Attachment E. The overall scores were calculated by CETF using three methodologies: (1) average of all scores; (2) average minus outlier scores; and (3) average minus the highest and lowest scores (see Attachment F).
CETF conducted outreach to inform CBOs that operate in and serve San José residents of the opportunity to apply for Round 3 funds. CETF also notified previous and existing grantees. Two virtual grant application forums (forums) were hosted online on December 9, 2021, and January 13, 2022, to review the grant invitation and application with interested Round 3 CBO applicants.
During the forums, CETF answered general questions about the process. The forums were attended by 13 CBOs, three of whom were previous or existing Round 1 or 2 grantees. CETF also offered individual consultations to accommodate the schedules of all interested organizations. Seventeen CBOs participated in the one-on-one consultations with CETF.
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
April 6, 2022
Subject: City Roadmap - Digital Equity: Approval of Digital Inclusion Grant Awards
The City and CETF ensured that the grant design and application process was fair, consistent, accessible, and designed to maximize impact with an open round that encouraged new CBO applicants in addition to past and current grantees.
Round 3 grantees will receive $350 per household Adoption. Applicants that participated in previous grant rounds were invited to seek up to $50 per household in Round 3 for Conversions – assisting past Adoptee households to convert from a hotspot to an internet plan covered by the federal Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP). Five CBOs applied for funding to support conversions. However, the City Manager’s Office does not recommend funding Conversions in Round 3 due to the limited funding available. Increasing full Adoptions is the priority.
CETF will coordinate with the City and the CBO grantees to connect with City programs and ensure CBO digital literacy training meets the City’s Digital Inclusion Quality Standards. This will ensure CBO digital inclusion programs provide rigorous training and outreach to and support historically marginalized and disadvantaged communities, with a focus on students, seniors, and disabled individuals.
Grantee CBOs will provide outreach about the federal Affordable Connectivity Program – the successor to the Emergency Broadband Benefit (EBB). Grantees are to assist eligible households in applying for the benefit. The Affordable Connectivity Program provides a $30 per month discount on broadband service for low-income households and student households that qualify for Lifeline, free and reduced lunch, and other programs. The Affordable Connectivity Program is expected to be available through 2027.
Round 3 Funding
The DIF is supported by revenue from small cell usage fees and fundraising efforts co-led by the City and CETF. The DIF funds the City’s Broadband operations and, based on funds available, the Digital Inclusion grants program including CETF as the grant fiscal agent.
Small cell revenue has been declining each year since 2020. The current 10-year revenue projection (2019-2029) for small cell revenue is approximately $15.5 million, which is a 30% reduction from the 2019 projection of $22 million.
As of March 11, 2022, a total of $2,143,795 has been fundraised for the DIF. CETF distributed the $1,390,723 in COVID-19 specific donations as described in the Background section above.
The remaining $753,072 is comprised of $453,072 currently available funds and $300,000 that will be received from Zoom Corporation’s 5-year commitment to invest $100,000 in the DIF each November – from 2020 to 2024.
CETF separately administered digital inclusion grants to schools to support the City’s COVID- 19 emergency response between 2020 and 2021. In 2022, CETF managed the final reporting from the school grantees to enable the sharing of final outcomes with the donors and the City.
CETF managed these grants while also administering Round 1 digital inclusion grants. In
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
April 6, 2022
Subject: City Roadmap - Digital Equity: Approval of Digital Inclusion Grant Awards
recognition of the additional grant administration, staff recommends a Second Amendment to the City’s agreement with CETF to allow a one-time $20,000 from the DIF in 2022.
Staff also recommends including in the amendment the option for the City to pay CETF up to $72,500 from the DIF as a one-time payment in FY 2022-2023; $25,000 to support the City’s digital inclusion program assessment and, if applicable, $47,500 to implement program changes and/or transfer grants management to the City or a successor organization. The one-time payments are in addition to the $190,000 annual fixed compensation to CETF for FY 2022-2023.
A major program assessment will be completed before the end of the Round 3 grant term, June 30, 2023. The goal is to ensure that program changes and transitions can be implemented without interrupting the annual grant cycle or burdening grantees without benefit. If necessary, the Round 3 term may be extended to allow grantees to continue providing digital inclusion programs while changes to the program are completed. Staff may also return to City Council with a recommendation for additional funding for Round 3 grantees if the grant term is extended.
The Knight Foundation has indicated interest in supporting the program evaluation, including conducting community surveys to understand the current digital inclusion gaps and needs in San José. Staff and the Mayor’s Office of Technology and Innovation are in discussions with the Knight Foundation to explore the opportunity and to form next steps. Should this support not materialize or cover only a portion of the assessment, $100,000 of the $333,750 unspent Round 1 and 2 grant funds may be used for consultant to support staff with the program evaluation.
On February 15, 2022, staff recommended and Council approved using the remaining $233,750 unspent Round 1 and 2 funds to compensate Round 1 grantees for additional Adoptions and to purchase laptops and/or connectivity to support Round 3 Adoptions. As of March 2022, $16,000 has been distributed to Round 1 grantees that CETF confirmed completed Adoptions in excess of their grant commitments. Staff now recommends applying the remaining $217,750 to fund Round 3 grants rather than to purchase laptops/connectivity.
CONCLUSION
Based on the recommendation of CETF and Digital Inclusion Advisory Board, staff recommends approving 15 of the 16 grant applications for Round 3 digital inclusion funding. To preserve the financial health of the DIF in recognition of the shortfall in small cell usage fee and matching fundraising revenues, future grant rounds will be paused while staff completes an assessment to define the next phase of the City’s digital inclusion efforts.
In April 2022, the City will start the process of conducting the performance review of the DIF and grant program to determine whether to continue the program as well as capacity and available funding sources. Staff’s goal is to complete the assessment and implement the next iteration of the program before the end of the Round 3 grant term in June 2023. The Round 3
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
April 6, 2022
Subject: City Roadmap - Digital Equity: Approval of Digital Inclusion Grant Awards
grant term may be extended to ensure digital inclusion programs are continued until the assessment is complete.
The City Manager’s Office will negotiate and execute a Second Amendment to the City’s agreement with CETF to allow a $20,000 one-time payment in 2022 for COVID-19 emergency grant management. The amendment will also include an up to $72,500 one-time payment in FY 2022-2023 to support the program assessment and related change management. These one-time payments are in addition to the annual $190,000 compensation to CETF for FY 2021-2022 and FY 2022-2023 stipulated in the agreement.
EVALUATION AND FOLLOW-UP
CETF monitors grantee compliance and progress through Quarterly Progress Reports submitted to CETF by grantees. CETF, in turn, provides the City regular summary progress reports. CETF and the grantee CBOs are directly accountable for metrics and will measure, track, and report progress. CETF will administer the awarded funds to the grantees, monitor their progress, and report back to the City on a regular basis.
In April 2022, the City will start the process of conducting a DIF program evaluation, including:
1. DIF management review to determine if there should be a continuation or modification of the City’s agreement with CETF for management of the DIF, including review of compensation; and
2. Major performance review of the DIF grant program to determine the desire to continue the program as well as evaluating capacity and funding sources.
Staff will report back to City Council in future meetings with data associated with the status of Round 2 and Round 3 implementation. The Information Technology Department, the Library Department, and CETF will coordinate to conduct the comprehensive program assessment and present status updates to the City Council in fall 2022/winter 2023 and final results and recommendations by June 30, 2023.
CLIMATE SMART SAN JOSE
The recommendation in this memorandum has no effect on Climate Smart San José energy, water, or mobility goals.
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
April 6, 2022
Subject: City Roadmap - Digital Equity: Approval of Digital Inclusion Grant Awards
PUBLIC OUTREACH
This memorandum will be posted on the City's Council Agenda website for the April 19, 2022, meeting.
COORDINATION
This memorandum was coordinated with the City Attorney’s Office, the City Manager’s Budget Office, and the Office of Civic Innovation.
COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION/INPUT
This report has not been reviewed by a City commission.
FISCAL/POLICY ALIGNMENT
This recommendation specifically supports the Digital Equity initiative of City Roadmap’s COVID-19 Pandemic: Community + Economic Recovery enterprise priority. Further, it aligns with City Council’s approvals of the City’s Broadband and Digital Inclusion Strategy in November 2017 and creation of the Digital Inclusion Fund in May 2018.
COST SUMMARY/IMPLICATIONS
The Digital Inclusion Program, which is commonly referred to as the Digital Inclusion Fund, is separate from the Digital Inclusion appropriation that was originally funded in the Coronavirus Relief Fund to support connectivity for student households in San Jose.
Small cell usage fee and fundraising revenues are not guaranteed and will be recognized as the revenue is received and appropriated to the Digital Inclusion Program appropriation. Fundraised revenue will be held by the City’s fiscal agent – CETF – in the City Fund account consistent with the City’s agreement with CETF. The City has the sole right and authority to control and direct the use of these funds. There is currently $453,072 remaining in the City Fund, with $387,750 recommended to be used for Round 3 and to pay Round 2 CBOs for up to 100 extra Adoptions.
Revenue from 5G small cell site usage fees and fundraising have not kept pace with projections set in 2019. The current 10-year revenue projection for small cell usage fees and fundraising combined (2019-2029) is $17,700,000. This is a 45% reduction from the 2019 projection of $32,000,000. These revenues go into the City’s Digital Inclusion Fund (DIF), which fund the City’s Broadband operations and the Digital Inclusion grant program.
Small cell usage fee revenues are anticipated to generate approximately $15.5 million over a ten- year period (2019-2029). The fundraising goal of $10 million is not guaranteed and will be
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
April 6, 2022
Subject: City Roadmap - Digital Equity: Approval of Digital Inclusion Grant Awards
recognized as funds are received. To date, approximately $2.2 million has been fundraised. The $15.5 million from small cell usage fee revenue is made up of contributions from AT&T, Verizon, and Mobilitie. Small cell usage fee revenue may vary based on changes to the number of sites, timing of permitting of each site, and number of carriers. Small cell usage fee revenue may also be impacted by a federal court review of the Federal Communications Commission’s ruling on small cell infrastructure.
The combined total of $492,250 in DIF small cell revenue, covering Round 3 and Second Amendment payments to CETF will be included in the 2022-2023 Proposed Operating Budget which will be released on May 2, 2022. The grants will be disbursed by CETF to the grantees in phases between July 1, 2022, and June 30, 2023, with the first phase totaling $125,000.
Subsequent phases will not exceed the total allocation of $752,500, including any extensions to the Round 3 term, unless staff returns to City Council for approval. Donation funds will be disbursed first and DIF small cell revenue disbursed last. The first phase of Round 3 funds will be paid in July 2022, pending City Council approval of the recommendations in this memorandum and approval of the 2022-2023 Operating Budget.
The City Manager’s Office may determine in FY 2022-2023, or future fiscal years, that an outside auditor is necessary to monitor CETF’s performance and utilization of City funds for grants and administration. Approximately $210,000 from the DIF would be needed to fund an auditor. Staff will return to City Council with an update and recommendation if and when an auditor is necessary. This would not impact the Round 3 funding. However, it would reduce the funds available to award to future grantees.
BUDGET REFERENCE
The table below identifies the fund and appropriations associated with the recommended grant actions.
Fund
#
Appn
# Appn. Name
Total
Appn
Amt. for
Contract
2021-2022
Adopted
Operating
Budget Page
Last Budget
Action (Date,
Ord. No.)
001 204M Digital Inclusion
Program
$1,751,088* $274,500 Page 891 10/19/2021,
30682
*The 2022-2023 Proposed Operating Budget will be released on May 2, 2022, and is scheduled to be reviewed and approved by City Council on June 14, 2022, and adopted on June 21, 2022. Any remaining funds from 2021-2022 will be recommended to be rebudgeted to ensure sufficient funding levels for 2022-2023.
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
April 6, 2022
Subject: City Roadmap - Digital Equity: Approval of Digital Inclusion Grant Awards
CEQA
Not a Project, PP17-003, Agreements/Contracts (New or Amended) resulting in no physical changes to the environment, and PP 17-004, Government Funding Mechanism or Fiscal Activity with no commitment to a specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment.
/s/ /s/
ROB LLOYD JILL BOURNE
Deputy City Manager Director, Library Department
For questions, please contact Abigail Shull, Assistant to the City Manager, at [email protected] or (408) 535-8187.
Attachments:
A - Digital Inclusion Advisory Board Member Roster
B - CETF Recommended Round 3 Grant Awards
C - CETF Outreach Funnels Graphics
D - SCCOE Impact Report – COVID-19 Digital Inclusion Fund Grants E - Grant Scoring Criteria Table
F - Grant Scoring Quantitative and Qualitative Methodologies Attachment A: Digital Inclusion Advisory Board Member Roster
** As of August 12, 2021
DIGITAL INCLUSION PARTNERSHIP
ADVISORY BOARD ROSTER
1. Allen S. Hammond
Phil and Bobbie Sanfilippo Chair and Professor of Law, and Director of the Broadband Institute of California, Santa Clara University
2. Angel Rios
Deputy City Manager
3. Christine Fitzgerald
Community Advocate, Silicon Valley Independent Living Center
4. Dolores Alvarado
CEO, Community Health Partnership
5. Glenn Vander Zee
Superintendent, East Side Union High School District
6. Jill Bourne
Library Director, San Jose Public Library
7. Karla Rodriguez-Lomax
Public Affairs Director, Kaiser Permanente
8. Lennies Gutierrez
Director of Government Affairs, Comcast
9. Dr. Lisa Andrew
CEO, Silicon Valley Education Foundation
10. Dr. Mary Ann Dewan
County Superintendent of Schools, Santa Clara County Office of Education
11. Maureen Damrel
Senior Initiatives Officer, Destination Home SV
12. Nicole Taylor
President and CEO, Silicon Valley Community Foundation
Attachment A: Digital Inclusion Advisory Board Member Roster
** As of August 12, 2021
13. Sam Liccardo
Mayor, City of San José and Co-Chair
14. Sophie Horiuchi-Forrester
San Jose Regional Manager, AARP
15. Steve Preminger
Director Office of Strategic and Intergovernmental Affairs, Santa Clara County
16. Theodora (Tedi) Vriheas
Director of External Affairs, AT&T
17. Janine Polosi
Chief Marketing Officer, ZOOM
Attachment B: CETF’s Recommended Round 3 Grant Awards
Alum Rock
Unified
School
District
Catholic
Charities
of Santa
Clara
County
Closing
Divide
CreaTV Evergreen
Valley
College
Goodwill ICAN IRC Prosperity
Lab
Punjabi
Community
Services
Sacred
Heart
Community
Services
Silicon
Valley
Education
Foundation
Source-
wise
Step Up
and Do
Something
Tech
Exchange
VIVO TOTAL
Applicant
Requested
Funding $264,400 $70,000 $35,000 $3,500 $52,500 $18,050 $21,250 $14,000 $35,000 $35,000 $61,250 $35,000 $35,000 $72,800 $55,000 $40,000 $847,750* CETF's
Recommendation $264,400 $70,000 $17,500 $3,500 $52,500 $18,050 $21,250 $14,000 $17,500 $0 $61,250 $35,000 $35,000 $72,800 $55,000 $20,000 $757,750*
* Totals include applicant requests for $50 per household in Round 3 for “Conversions”, defined as a CBO converting a past program participant from hotspot connectivity to a monthly internet subscription covered by the federal Affordable Connectivity Program. Five CBOs applied for funding to support 204 conversions and CETF recommended funding 105 conversions. However, due to limited available funding, City Manager’s Office staff does not recommend funding Conversions. Removal reduces the total to the staff recommended $752,500.
Attachment C: CETF Outreach Funnels Graphics
Round 1:
Round 1:
Round 2:
1 SAN JOSÉ DIGITAL INCLUSION
PARTNERSHIP FUND
FAMILY SURVEYS REPORT
Santa Clara County Office of Education, City of San José, and California Emerging Technology Fund
May 1, 2020 – April 30, 2021
Attachment D: SCCOE Impact Report – COVID-19 Digital Inclusion Fund Grants
2 Table of Contents Overview ........................................................................................................................................................... 3 San José Ditial Inclusion Partnership Donors ................................................................................................... 3 Student Impact Update from the LEAs and the CBOs ...................................................................................... 4 Funds Allocated to the Local Education Agencies (LEAs) and Community Based Organizations (CBOs) .... 5 Computing Devices Survey Responses ............................................................................................................. 6 Internet Connectivity Survey Responses ......................................................................................................... 10 Child Success Survey Responses .................................................................................................................... 14 Support for Parents Survey Responses ............................................................................................................ 24 Support for Family Survey Responses ............................................................................................................ 34 Parent Training Survey Responses .................................................................................................................. 44 Impact Statements ............................................................................................................................................ 46 Continued Digital Inclusion ............................................................................................................................. 48
3 Overview As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, Santa Clara County schools shifted to distance learning in March, 2020. Schools and districts worked vigorously to ensure all students had appropriate devices to continue learning at home. In response, the San José Digital Inclusion Partnership allocated grants for the purchase of devices to support these efforts. The grant funds in total went to purchase computing devices, which allowed for 4,645 families to engage in distance learning and maintain connected to their school communities. Central office teams from the Local Education Agencies (LEAs) distributed surveys to families that received the devices purchased through these grants. The purpose of the surveys is to understand the digital inclusion needs of families in Santa Clara County, including further need for devices, connectivity, and digital literacy training. The survey also gathered data on how impactful the devices they received from their schools were in supporting their child and family. San José Ditial Inclusion Partnership Donors The table below provides donors and donation amounts that supported the grants within this report. Donor Donation Amount Bank of America $85,000 Councilmember Diep $10,000 Ernst & Young $20,000 Facebook $500,000 Kaiser Permanente $25,000 KLA $20,000 Lumentum $20,000 Luminix $3,000 Micron $50,000 Revivn $17,000 Silicon Labs $2,600 Zoom $100,000 Zoom CEO Eric Yuan $500,000 Other Donations $22,400 Grand Total $1,375,000
4 Student Impact Update from the LEAs The table below provides information on the number of students impacted by the grant funds in each agency. The number of devices purchased also indicates the number of students impacted. LEA Number of Students Impacted Alum Rock Union School District 432 Berryessa Union School District 493 Cambrian School District 204 Evergreen School District 852 Franklin-McKinley School District 813 Mount Pleasant Elementary School District 1,108 Oak Grove School District 210 Rocketship Public Schools 333 Grand Total 4,645 The graphs on the following pages include information from a total of 1,432 respondents, from 62 schools, in 6 LEAs. Each LEA made multiple attempts to connect with families to participate in this survey. Below lists the break down of respondents. LEA* Number of Respondents Alum Rock Union School District 248 Cambrian School District 94 Evergreen School District 432 Franklin-McKinley School District 242 Mount Pleasant Elementary School District 325 Rocketship Public Schools 32 Total 1,432 *Parent survey responses are pending from Berryessa Union School District. This LEA was delayed in implementation because of supply chain issues. This report will be updated on or near May 5, 2022 to reflect the additional data from Berryessa.
5 Funds Allocated to the Local Education Agencies (LEAs) and Community Based Organizations (CBOs) Below lists all LEAs and CBOs that received grant funds and the devices purchased. LEA/CBO Funds Allocated Devices Purchased Alum Rock Union School District $194,000.00 432 iPads Berryessa Union School District $240,500.00 493 iPads Cambrian School Distrct $87,000 204 iPads Evergreen School District $222,500 650 iPads Franklin-McKinley School District $230,000.00 813 Chromebooks Mount Pleasant Elementary School District $100,000.00 340 iPads Oak Grove School District $74,000 210 Chromebooks Rocketship Public Schools $100,000 333 Chromebooks Tech Exchange (CBO) $25,427.50 200 Refurbished Chromebooks* Grand Total $1,273,427.50 3,475 devices *An allocation of $25,427.50 was granted to the community based organization Tech Exchange. These funds were use to provide 200 refurbished devices to San Jose Digital Inclusion Grantees to assist households referred by San José School districts during the pandemic. Below lists all LEAs that received grant devices and the amount of funds used. LEA/CBO Devices Allocated Funds Used Evergreen School District 202 Chromebooks $57,268.04 Mount Pleasant Elementary School District 768 Chromebooks $217,731.96 Grand Total 970 Chromebooks $275,000.00
6 Computing Devices Survey Responses Which of the following computing devices were in working condition and accessible to you in your home prior to receiving a new computing device* (Respondents could choose as many as is applicable.)
23 507
627
446
208
315
0100200300400500600700None
Tablet
Smartphone
Laptop
Desktop
Chromebook
All Respondents
7 * Although families indicated having devices prior to school distributions, students continued to experience disruptions in learning as those devices were varied and insufficient in accessing online programs and video conferencing. Additonally, district-issued devices included school-appropriate filtering for student and data safety. 11 97134703044
050100150NoneTabletSmartphoneLaptopDesktopChromebookAlum Rock 00 386145174
020406080NoneHotspotTabletSmartphoneLaptopDesktopChromebookCambrian 40 1581831767684
050100150200NoneHotspotTabletSmartphoneLaptopDesktopChromebookEvergreen 40 11176503576
020406080100120NoneHotspotTabletSmartphoneLaptopDesktopChromebookFranklin McKinley 00 92143833784
050100150200NoneHotspotTabletSmartphoneLaptopDesktopChromebookMount Pleasant 30 8904 12
051015NoneHotspotTabletSmartphoneLaptopDesktopChromebookRocketship
8 Did receiving the device from your school ensure that each student in your household has a device to access distance learning?
98%
1%All Respondents
YesNo
9 100%
0Alum Rock
YesNo
100%
0%Cambrian
YesNo
96%
4%Evergreen
YesNo
98%
2%Franklin McKinley
YesNo
99.40%
0.60%Mount Pleasant
YesNo
93.75%
6.25%Rocketship
YesNo
10 Internet Connectivity Survey Responses Which of the following options best describes internet access in your home prior to receiving a new computing device? * Values of 0% indicate number of responses in that field = <1%
0%0%1%9%5%
78%
6%
All Respondents
I accessed a shared connectionI connected through a library-provided hotspotI connected through a school-provided hotspotI used a smartphone data planI used community WiFiI subscribed for serviceI did not have access to the internet in my home 3%13%6%
71%
7%
Alum Rock
I connect through a school-provided hotspotI used a smartphone data planI used community WiFiI was subscribed for serviceI did not have access to the internet in my home 1%1%1%
94%
2%1%Cambrian
I connected through a library-provided hotspotI used a smartphone data planI used community WiFiI subscribed for serviceI did not have access to the internet in my homeInvalid Responses
11 1%4%3%
88%
5%
Evergreen
I connected through a school-provided hotspotI used a smartphone data planI used community WiFiI subscribed for serviceI did not have access to the internet in my home 1%1%5%
74%
8%
Franklin McKinley
I connected through a school-provided hotspotI used a smartphone data planI used community WiFiI subscribed for serviceI did not have access to the internet in my home 1%2%13%6%
69%
8%1%Mount Pleasant
I accessed a shared connectionI connected through a school-provided hotspotI used a smartphone data planI used community WiFiI subscribed for serviceI did not have access to the internet in my homeInvalid Responses 3%13%6%
69%
6%
Rocketship
I connected through a library-provided hotspotI used a smartphone data planI used community WiFiI subscribed for serviceI did not have access to the internet in my home
12 Which of the following options best describes how you currently access the internet in your home?
0%0%2%
7%5%
80%
6%
All Respondents
I access a shared connectionI connect through a library-provided hotspotI connect through a school-provided hotspotI use a smartphone data planI use community WiFiI subscribe for serviceI do not have access to the internet in my home 11%4%
75%
4%
Alum Rock
I use a smartphone data planI use community WiFiI subscribe for serviceI do not have access to the internet in my home 2%2%
96%
Cambrian
I connect through a school-provided hotspotI use a smartphone data planI subscribe for service
13 Responses of “Other (Please explain)” were coded using the following criteria: • Those indicating an internet service provider or use of WiFi at home were counted as “I was subscribed for service” • “I accessed a shared connection,” “ I connect through a library-provided hotspot,” and “I connect through a school-provided hotspot” were added to represent answers given who responded “Other (Please explain)” 3%3%3%
89%
1%Evergreen
I access a shared connectionI connect through a library-provided hotspotI connect through a school-provided hotspotI use a smartphone data planI use community WiFiI subscribe for serviceI do not have access to the internet in my home 4%6%5%
65%
19%1%Franklin McKinley
I connect through a school-provided hotspotI use a smartphone data planI use community WiFiI subscribe for serviceI do not have access to the internet in my homeInvalid Response 3%9%7%
77%
4%Mount Pleasant
I connect through a school-provided hotspotI use a smartphone data planI use community WiFiI subscribe for serviceI do not have access to the internet in my home 3%6%3%
81%
3%Rocketship
I connect through a library-provided hotspotI use a smartphone data planI use community WiFiI subscribe for serviceI do not have access to the internet in my home
14 Child Success Survey Responses Below indicates responses to questions about how the devices distributed impacted the child’s success. Respondents answered on a Likert scale of 1 (not helpful) to 5 (extremely helpful). In the instance that a respondent chose more than one answer, the response was counted as “Invalid.” a. Helped complete school assignments
2%3%12%
23%59%
1%All Respondents
12345Invalid Response
1%3%
13%
22%57%
4%
Alum Rock
12345Invalid Response
0%0%5%16%
78%
1%Cambrian
12345Invalid Response
15 4%1%9%
16%
68%
1%Evergreen
12345Invalid Response
2%3%15%
26%53%
1%Franklin McKinley
12345Invalid Response
2%4%15%
33%
47%
Mount Pleasant
12345
0%0%3%13%
84%
Rocketship
12345
16 b. Helped participate in online classes
2%3%12%
21%61%
1%All Respondents
12345Invalid Response
2%3%12%
22%61%
3%Alum Rock
12345Invalid Response
1%1%5%15%
77%
1%Cambrian
12345Invalid Response
17 3%2%
10%
15%
70%
1%Evergreen
12345Invalid Response
2%2%
15%
21%59%
0%Franklin McKinley
12345Invalid Response
2%3%
15%
32%
48%
0Mount Pleasant
12345Invalid Response
0%0%3%13%
84%
Rocketship
12345
18 c. Helped communicate with teacher(s) or other students
2%3%13%
23%59%
1%All Respondents
12345Invalid Response
1%2%
12%
25%60%
1%Alum Rock
12345Invalid Response
0%1%6%
21%
69%
2%Cambrian
12345Invalid Response
19 3%2%
11%
18%
66%
1%Evergreen
12345Invalid Response
2%4%14%
23%57%
1%Franklin McKinley
12345Invalid Response
2%2%
16%
32%
48%
Mount Pleasant
12345
0%3%3%
16%
78%
Rocketship
12345
20 d. Helped communicate with other students.
11%4%
15%
22%
47%
1%All Respondents
12345Invalid Response
5%7%
16%
23%
52%
Alum Rock
12345
21%
1%
18%
11%
47%
2%Cambrian
12345Invalid Response
21 16%2%
15%
16%
49%
2%Evergreen
12345Invalid Response
14%5%
15%
21%
51%
2%Franklin McKinley
12345Invalid Response
5%4%14%
34%
43%
Mount Pleasant
12345
3%0%13%
16%
69%
Rocketship
12345
22 e. Helped find new information online for learning.
3%4%
14%
26%
51%
1%All Respondents
12345Invalid Response
3%6%15%
24%52%
2%Alum Rock
12345Invalid Response
0%2%11%
27%60%
Cambrian
12345
23 4%5%12%
21%57%
1%Evergreen
12345Invalid Response
5%4%16%
28%
47%
1%Franklin McKinley
12345Invalid Response
3%4%14%
29%
46%
Mount Pleasant
12345
0%3%9%
16%
69%
Rocketship
12345
24 Support for Parents Survey Responses Below indicates responses to questions about how the devices distributed impacted the parent’s ability to provide support to their child. Respondents answered on a Likert scale of 1 (not helpful) to 5 (extremely helpful). In the instance that a respondent chose more than one answer, the response was counted as “Invalid.” a. Helped complete school assignments
12%6%
16%
22%
42%
1%All Respondents
12345Invalid Response
3%6%
16%
23%53%
1%Alum Rock
12345Invalid Response
14%4%
19%
23%
36%
3%
Cambrian
12345Invalid Response
25 15%
7%
17%
19%
41%
1%Evergreen
12345Invalid Response
13%6%
17%
18%
45%
1%Franklin McKinley
12345Invalid Response
16%4%
14%
30%
36%
Mount Pleasant
12345
0%3%6%
19%
72%
Rocketship
12345
26 b. Helped me check on my child’s school assignments
10%4%
15%
23%
46%
1%All Respondents
12345Invalid Response
3%2%
14%
23%57%
2%Alum Rock
12345Invalid Response
4%3%
16%
17%57%
2%Cambrian
12345Invalid Response
27 14%5%
13%
20%
47%
1%Evergreen
12345Invalid Response
10%5%
17%
24%
39%
1%Franklin McKinley
12345Invalid Response
14%3%
15%
31%
37%
Mount Pleasant
12345
0%0%3%16%
81%
Rocketship
12345
28 c. Helped me get reports on my child’s grades
14%
5%
17%
23%
40%
1%All Respondents
12345Invalid Response
7%4%
18%
24%
48%
2%Alum Rock
12345Invalid Response
16%4%
19%
21%
37%
0%Cambrian
12345Invalid Response
29 19%
6%
15%
19%
39%
1%Evergreen
12345Invalid Response
12%4%
16%
22%
40%
1%Franklin McKinley
12345Invalid Response
15%3%
16%
29%
37%
Mount Pleasant
12345
3%3%3%
16%
75%
Rocketship
12345
30 d. Helped me get information about school activities
14%
5%
18%
23%
39%
1%All Respondents
12345Invalid Response
6%4%
17%
26%
48%
2%Alum Rock
12345Invalid Response
18%
5%
22%22%
29%
3%
Cambrian
12345Invalid Response
31 20%
7%
17%17%
38%
1%Evergreen
12345Invalid Response
12%5%
20%
21%
40%
2%Franklin McKinley
12345Invalid Response
15%4%
16%
29%
36%
Mount Pleasant
12345
0%3%9%
16%
72%
Rocketship
12345
32 e. Helped me connect with other parents
25%
10%
17%17%
30%
2%All Respondents
12345Invalid Response
14%9%
22%
19%
34%
5%
Alum Rock
12345Invalid Response
32%
9%21%
18%
19%
1%Cambrian
12345Invalid Response
33 33%
10%17%10%
28%
2%Evergreen
12345Invalid Response
13%
7%
9%9%
18%
1%Franklin McKinley
12345Invalid Response
21%
11%
15%26%
27%
Mount Pleasant
12345
9%6%
16%
9%59%
Rocketship
12345
34 Support for Family Survey Responses Below indicates responses to questions about how the devices distributed supported the family. Respondents answered on a Likert scale of 1 (not helpful) to 5 (extremely helpful). In the instance that a respondent chose more than one answer, the response was counted as “Invalid.” a. Helped me communicate with family and friends
44%
7%14%
13%
20%
2%All Respondents
12345Invalid Response
41%
7%14%
14%
23%
2%Alum Rock
12345Invalid Response
69%7%10%4%10%
Cambrian
12345
35 52%
6%13%
8%
19%3%
Evergreen
12345Invalid Response
34%
6%19%
14%
26%
2%Franklin McKinley
12345Invalid Response
40%
8%15%
17%
20%
Mount Pleasant
12345
16%
13%
16%25%
28%
3%
Rocketship
12345Invalid Response
36 b. Helped me find information about jobs
47%
7%12%
11%
20%
2%All Respondents
12345Invalid Response
43%
9%13%
14%
21%
2%Alum Rock
12345Invalid Response
74%
6%9%
2%6%2%Cambrian
12345Invalid Response
37 56%
7%10%6%
19%
2%Evergreen
12345Invalid Response
38%
7%14%12%
26%
2%Franklin McKinley
12345Invalid Response
40%
8%15%
17%
20%
Mount Pleasant
12345
31%
6%9%16%
31%
6%
Rocketship
12345Invalid Response
38 c. Helped me find information about healthcare
48%
7%12%
11%
20%
1%All Respondents
12345Invalid Response
42%
7%11%12%
26%
2%Alum Rock
12345Invalid Response
79%
5%9%2%5%
Cambrian
12345
39 56%
7%9%
7%
19%
2%Evergreen
12345Invalid Response
38%
8%14%11%
36%
1%Franklin McKinley
12345Invalid Response
41%
8%15%
17%
20%
Mount Pleasant
12345
28%
3%16%19%
31%
3%
Rocketship
12345Invalid Response
40 d. Helped me find information about the DMV
50%
7%11%
11%
20%
1%All Respondents
12345Invalid Response
46%
7%10%11%
25%
2%Alum Rock
12345Invalid Response
79%
4%9%
3%5%
Cambrian
12345
41 57%
7%9%
8%
18%
1%Evergreen
12345Invalid Response
40%
6%14%12%
27%
1%Franklin McKinley
12345Invalid Response
43%
9%14%
15%
18%
Mount Pleasant
12345
28%
6%9%22%
31%
3%
Rocketship
12345Invalid Response
42 e. Helped me pay bills online
51%
6%12%
10%
20%
0%All Respondents
12345Invalid Response
52%
6%12%
12%
21%
Alum Rock
12345
80%
4%9%2%5%
Cambrian
12345
43 59%6%9%7%
18%
1%Evergreen
12345Invalid Response
40%
5%16%
11%
27%
1%Franklin McKinley
12345Invalid Response
43%
8%14%
16%
19%
Mount Pleasant
12345
28%
9%
16%9%
38%
Rocketship
12345
44 Parent Training Survey Responses Below indicates responses to a question about parent training.
38%
16%11%
35%
All Respondents
No, I was not offered trainingNo, I was offered training but declinedYes, but I would like more trainingYes and the training was adequate/sufficient 24%
24%11%
41%
Alum Rock
No, I was not offered trainingNo, I was offered training but declinedYes, but I would like more trainingYes and the training was adequate/sufficient 28%
35%14%
23%
Cambrian
No, I was not offered trainingNo, I was offered training but declinedYes, but I would like more trainingYes and the training was adequate/sufficient
45 Respondents indicated if they would like further information on how to access affordable internet options and/or digital literacy training. Names and contact information will be shared with CETF. 54%11%5%
29%
Evergreen
No, I was not offered trainingNo, I was offered training but declinedYes, but I would like more trainingYes and the training was adequate/sufficient 40%
11%9%
41%
Franklin McKinley
No, I was not offered trainingNo, I was offered training but declinedYes, but I would like more trainingYes and the training was adequate/sufficient 30%
17%20%
34%
Mount Pleasant
No, I was not offered trainingNo, I was offered training but declinedYes, but I would like more trainingYes and the training was adequate/sufficient 59%
Rocketship
No, I was not offered trainingNo, I was offered training but declinedYes, but I would like more trainingYes and the training was adequate/sufficient
46 Impact Statements Students The devices directly supported students in continuing to access learning which was particularly crucial during the earlier parts of the pandemic at the end of the 2019-2020 school year. As schools prepared for distance learning the following fall, they were reliant on providing a 1-to-1 student-to-device ratio so that all of their students could continue learning from home. The grant funds allocated supported LEAs to more seamlessly teach to and communicate with their students. Armed with more strategies and fresh off learning with technology at home, students were able to engage in regular learning practice and keep track of their learning in digital portfolios. I’m thankful for the support that the school gave me and other students who did not have access to a learning device. It gave me motivation to do my work knowing that I had the privilege to have these resources. Elizabeth Aragon, student Franklin McKinley School District I like the iPad drawing app because it’s fun and it’s fun to do my homework on a tablet. Isabela Solis, kindergarten student Alum Rock Union School District I am thankful that I got a computer to learn knowing that I didn’t have access to one at home. It helped me improve my work and expand my knowledge. Jazmine Macias, student Franklin McKinley School District A Franklin McKinley student receives her certificate for promotion at last year’s drive-through ceremony.
A kindergarten student in a dual immersion school uses the iPad she received as a result of the grant to complete Spanish language practice.
47 Families The Chromebooks and iPads purchased with these grant funds proved to be critical in ensuring families were able to stay connected to their school communities during distance learning. Families were able to more closely communicate with teachers, and access community resources and information on COVID-19 testing and vaccination opportunities. I am thankful to have been provided with an iPad for my child to use for TK and Kindergarten. It is very useful that it is already preloaded with all the applications she will use for classwork and homework. Maria Solis, parent Alum Rock Union School District My kids and I [were] so excited for the first day of school. Thank you so much for the Chromebook. I can tell how much you love and care for the Rocketeers. We appreciate it. My Ni Cao, parent Rocketship Public Schools Having my daughter use a Chromebook was amazing. I was able to check that her work was done and her grades were better. parent, Mount Pleasant Elementary School District Learning Community The Digital Inclusion grant allowed us to close the device gap for all Rocketship students in San Jose. In a recent parent survey, 93% of families responded that they agreed that Rocketship has provided all the materials needed (including tech) for distance learning. Without this donation, over 300 Rocketeers would not have had the tech to fully participate in our distance learning curriculum. Rocketship would like to thank SCCOE and the grantor for the additional funds towards Chromebooks for our Rocketeers! Emilie Letourneau, Manager of Personalized Learning and Enrichment Rocketship Public Schools I am grateful that the school gave students learning devices during the pandemic. Not every student had the resources at home. It felt good knowing that the school was supporting the students’ education. Alondra De La Cruz, staff Franklin-McKinley School District This donation was impactful to our community. Our students and families were able to stay engaged with and connected to their classrooms. Thank you for the support you’ve provided in helping us navigate this very unique and challenging time. Juan Cruz, Superintendent As Alum Rock worked to serve our students in the midst of a pandemic, the SJ Digital Inclusion Grant significantly supported our work to immediately provide devices, with reliable internet access, for our very youngest students. Rene Sanchez, Assistant Superintendent of Academic Services Alum Rock Union School District Students, like Andrew above, had to quickly transition to distance learning during the pandemic. All Santa Clara County schools started the 2020-21 school year in distance learning.
School staffs distributed devices to students in need of connectivity as a result of shelter-in-place mandates.
48 Continued Digital Inclusion The recipient LEA communities have successfully transitioned back to in-person learning during the 2021-2022 school year. The success of the device distribution and distance learning implementation of the previous year has led these LEAs to continue their investment of a 1:1 ratio of students to devices. This, in addition to their continued partnership with community based organizations to provide digital literacy support to families, is helping the these communities strive toward digital inclusion for all its families.
San José Digital Inclusion GrantsContent Guide for Scoring CriteriaCriteria Value Guide to Content Clarity in the description ofrelevant experience and capacityto reach low income householdsand vulnerable populationsin-language and in-culture toachieve Adoptions.
Veteran Grantees: Clarity in thedescription of Relevant experiencefrom previous Grant Round/s andcapacity developed to reachqualified Households. 20 •Does the description clearly describe specificexperience working with low-income households?•Does the description clearly explain how outreachhasbeen done in-language and in-culture?•Is there an articulated relationship between theexperience andthe 3 barriers to Adoption by low-income households? •Does the description clearly describe specific experienceinprevious Grant Round/s that built capacity to reachlow-income households that qualified for an Adoption? Demonstrated track record ofperformance in achievingtangible results and quantifiedAdoptions in low-incomeneighborhoods and vulnerablepopulations.
Veteran Grantees: Experiencemeeting performance requirementsand a count of proposed/completedAdoptions from previous GrantRound/s. 15 •Are there specific examples of achieving tangibleresults andquantified outcomes that indicate a reliable track record?•Arethe track record examples in low-income neighborhoods or withvulnerable populations (likely to be unconnected)?•Are thecited outcomes likely to be predictive for Adoptions? •Is there evidence that performance requirementswere met;and cited a count of proposed and completed Adoptionsfrom previous Grant Round/s? Experience and establishedworking relationships with keystakeholders that serve andinteract with low incomehouseholds to achieveAdoptions. 15 •Is there a clear description of established workingrelationships?•Are there specific examples of working relationshipswith keystakeholders that interact with low-income households?•Isthere evidence of working relationships with governmentagencies (in particular City programs) or public serviceprograms (for distribution channels)? Focus and quality of delineatedObjectives, Activities, andDeliverables to achieve Adoptionsor otherOutcomes among low-incomehouseholds and incorporation ofDigital Literacy Quality Standards indigital literacy training.
Veteran Grantees: ExperienceIntegrating the 3 components ofDigital Inclusion into currentservices and description forleveraging existing resources. 25 •Are there clear Project Goals, Objectives and Deliverablesthatalign logically in support of outcomes and Adoptions?•Do theActivities delineate a critical path to or experience addressingthe 3 components of Digital Inclusion and achieving the ProjectGoals and Objectives?•Is there a clear description of how to incorporateDigital literacyQuality Standards in digital literacy instruction?•Is there a logical sequence and relationship forDeliverables?•Does the number of outcomes and Adoptions seemfeasible? Reasonableness of Work Plan andBudget to incorporate the process ofan Adoption within an existingservice and achieve the proposednumber of Adoptions and otherOutcomes. Including incorporation ofthe Digital Literacy Quality Standardsinto the proposed digital literacyinstruction and innovation inleveraging existing resources.
Veteran Grantees: Conciseitemization of key lessons learnedfrom previous Grant Round/s andhow to apply the lessons in Round 3to reach households and achieveAdoptions. 25 •Do the delineated Activities align with the Deliverablesin alogical sequence for steady progress towards the outcome?•Isthe build up to the rate of Adoptions sufficient to achieve thestated number (should be at a steady pace by the 3 rd
quarter,hitting and sustaining a peak by at least the 4 th
quarter). •Doesthe Budget align with the Work Plan Activities?•Does theBudget align with the Personnel FTEs to demonstrateresponsibility for implementation?•Is there a grantee match from other resources in-kindor cash? •Is the application of lessons learned in previousGrant Round/sclearly delineated and demonstrated in the Work Plan andreflected in the Budget? TOTAL POSSIBLE POINTS 100
Attachment F: Grant Scoring Quantitative and Qualitative Methodologies 1) Average of All Scores;
2) Average Minus Outlier Scores; and
3) Average Minus the Highest and Lowest Scores.
Average of All Scores and Average Minus Outlier Scores
CETF staff computed the total scores of all applications and mathematically calculated the average of scores across all categories. The outlier categories were removed, and scores were computed to yield an average. The final analysis determined that both evaluation criteria resulted in a similarly narrow scoring range.
Average Minus the Highest and Lowest Scores
A third methodology was used to verify the results of the “Average of All Scores” and “Average Minus Outlier” methodologies. CETF staff removed the highest and lowest scores and computed the resulting average scoring range. This third method and yielded similar results, confirming the accuracy of the first two scoring methodologies.
Qualitative Review
Applications receiving an Average Score of 85 or greater from one or more of the three methodologies were placed into a pool for deeper assessment of project design, especially for clarity regarding outcomes and achieving adoptions. Additional consideration was given to applications that received the highest score from each reviewer and/or received a qualitative assessment of "Definitely Consider" by two or more reviewers. CETF performed further analysis on the distribution of scores across the five scoring criteria to determine if variations in weighting may have skewed the scores.