Financing Child Care in the United States - Ewing Marion Kauffman ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ALLOCATING PUBLIC REVENUES LOCAL GOVERNMENT the program’s future. It is now a part of the county infrastructure and continues to grow. In FY2000, SACC centers were open at three elementary schools and three existing centers were scheduled to be renovated. • The capital strategy made a dedicated space a reality. In the past, SACC programs were dependent upon space that was provided by the schools if it was available. Often the space was inappropriate or had to be shared. Now each SACC center has specially designed and designated space. OTHER SITES WITH SIMILAR STRATEGIES No other programs demonstrating this strategy are known. CONTACT Judith Rosen Director Fairfax County Office for Children Room 910 12011 Government Center Parkway Fairfax, VA 22035 Phone (703) 324 8103 Fax (703) 803 0116 E–mail jrose1@co.fairfax.va.us SAN FRANCISCO COMPENSATION AND RETENTION ENCOURAGES STABILITY (CARES) (SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA) DESCRIPTION San Francisco CARES is a program designed to: 1) reward child care professionals for pursuing education to increase their skills, knowledge and qualifications, and 2) promote retention of skilled staff in regulated child care settings (both centers and family child care). The program has two parts: the Child Development Corps for individuals and Resources for Retention grants for child care programs. WHEN ESTABLISHED The program was introduced by Supervisor Mabel Teng (D) and established by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in July 1999 in budget language appropriating general funds for this purpose. The program was modeled after legislation introduced in January 1999 in the California Legislature, which passed in both houses but was vetoed by Governor Gray Davis (D). ANNUAL AMOUNT The FY2000 appropriation was $1.15 million. The allocation was: $750,000 for Child Development Corps stipends (15 percent for Level One stipends and 85 percent for Level Two stipends); $75,000 for retention grants and a maximum of $200,000 for contracted administration of the program. The remaining $125,000 was for evaluation and the city’s administrative costs. SERVICES FUNDED Child Development Corps stipends are available for individuals and are offered at two levels. Level One stipends of $500 per year are available for any child care worker who has at least six units of early childhood education and/or child development training and continues to work in a single program for at least one year. Family child care providers must remain operational for one year, with children’s enrollment verified by contracts and sign–in sheets. To receive the stipend for a second year, the worker must complete three more units of training. To continue for a third year, the worker must complete enough training to qualify as an Associate Teacher within the state’s Child Development Permit Matrix and complete a three–unit practicum or supervised fieldwork. Level Two stipends are available to any child care worker who has training equivalent to the Child Development Permit Matrix requirements for either teacher, master teacher, site supervisor or program director and remains working in one child care program for at least one year and participates in at least 21 hours of approved 107
professional growth activities per year, as defined by the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. Level Two annual stipends begin at $1,500 for teachers and $2,500 for those holding higher credentials. For those qualified at the level of master teacher and above and who hold a bachelor’s degree in child development or a related field, the annual stipend is $5,000. Those with a graduate degree in child development or a related field are eligible for an additional $500 annual stipend. Similarly, a teacher who is fluent in English and another language (including sign language) is eligible for an additional $500 annual stipend. The maximum stipend would be $6,000. Priority is given to teachers earning less than $15 per hour, master teachers earning less than $18 per hour, site supervisors earning less than $21 per hour and directors earning less than $24 per hour. Part–time staff receive pro–rated stipends. The Child Development Corps is open to all individuals working in licensed programs in San Francisco, including child care centers, Head Start and family child care. Individuals working in programs sponsored by the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) are eligible, but as a practical matter, few SFUSD employees will receive stipends because their salary levels exceed the priorities set. The Corps meets at least twice a year for professional development and support for participants and to facilitate mentoring relationships among stipend recipients. Financial assistance is available to those who need it for expenses of substitutes, child care and transportation to attend Corps meeting. Resources for Retention offers quality improvement grants to public and private programs to improve staff retention. Grantee programs develop and implement a staff retention plan that may include benefits such as retirement programs and other compensation improvements. Grantees must agree to participate in Corps meetings and either participate in management training or director mentoring. The maximum amount available for a Resources for Retention grant is $15,000. The San Francisco Mayor’s Office of Children, Youth and their Families (MOCYF) coordinates the CARES program and convenes the Citywide CARES Advisory Committee. The advisory committee makes recommendations about the CARES program. HOW FUNDS DISTRIBUTED Child Development Corps Level One stipends are paid upon enrollment in the CARES program if the applicant has been working in a program for one year. Level Two stipends are paid in two parts: $500 on enrollment and the balance at the end of the year. MOCYF contracts with a nonprofit agency, Wu Yee Children's Services, to administer the funds. Information is available in three languages: English, Chinese and Spanish. POPULATION SERVED Any person working in a licensed child care program in San Francisco who meets minimum qualifications and pursues additional professional training is eligible for the Corps and stipends. Any licensed program is eligible for Resources for Retention grants. STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS • The CARES approach addresses compensation directly and links compensation to retention. Retaining skilled staff in child care and early education programs requires strategies and investment in two areas: training and education to develop the skilled staff and compensation sufficient to retain the skilled staff. Investment in training and education is made to some degree in every state, but investment in compensation is not nearly as common. Both are needed. • The CARES approach addresses program quality in two ways: stipends reward continuing education (to improve skills), and at least one year of service is required (to reduce turnover). • An approach that rewards only individuals may not provide sufficient incentive for programs (employers) to improve compensation. CARES addresses this concern in two ways: grants offer a direct incentive to programs to address compensation, and programs must agree not to reduce wages for any individuals who receive stipends. • Outreach about the program that directly reaches line staff—teachers and aides—will be critical to maximizing the use of these funds and securing them in future. Contacting staff directly, not solely through program directors, is essential. • Legislated initiatives with specific funding requirements may be more durable than annual appropriations. A coalition of San Francisco child care advocates worked together to educate the Board of Supervisors and advocated successfully for the CARES program. CARES is an annual budget appropriation and will require advocacy each year. • Successful administration of a program like CARES requires knowledge of early care and the education field, the capacity to manage funds and conduct outreach, the absence of conflicts of interest with beneficiaries and strong administrative capability. • Tracking and evaluation must be built into the initiative to determine whether the approach works, especially regarding retention. An evaluation that directly measures the effects of CARES on program quality would be ideal, but it would be expensive. 108
Page 1 and 2:
FINANCING CHILD CARE IN THE UNITED
Page 3 and 4:
FINANCING CHILD CARE IN THE UNITED
Page 5 and 6:
ABOUT THE GRANTEE PHILADELPHIA CITI
Page 7 and 8:
:02 ALLOCATING PUBLIC REVENUES 54 O
Page 9 and 10:
HOW TO USE THIS CATALOG This catalo
Page 11 and 12:
This revised, expanded edition of F
Page 13 and 14:
DIFFERENT EXPECTATIONS The expectat
Page 15 and 16:
03 LONG-TERM THINKING Successful st
Page 17:
LEVERAGING Matching and leveraging
Page 20 and 21:
TAXES Income taxes are the major so
Page 22 and 23:
EMPLOYER INCOME TAXES Twenty-five s
Page 24 and 25:
LOCAL PROPERTY TAXES CHILDREN’S S
Page 26 and 27:
GENERATING PUBLIC REVENUE LOCAL PRO
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
GENERATING PUBLIC REVENUE SALES AND
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
TAX CREDITS, DEDUCTIONS AND EXEMPTI
Page 40 and 41:
GENERATING PUBLIC REVENUE TAX CREDI
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
GENERATING PUBLIC REVENUE FEES OTHE
Page 56 and 57:
GENERATING PUBLIC REVENUE FEES •
Page 58 and 59:
GENERATING PUBLIC REVENUE LOTTERIES
Page 60:
GENERATING PUBLIC REVENUE LOTTERIES
Page 64 and 65:
SOCIAL AND HUMAN SERVICES A number
Page 66 and 67: EDUCATION Education is a powerful r
Page 68 and 69: SOCIAL AND HUMAN SERVICES RHODE ISL
Page 70 and 71: ALLOCATING PUBLIC REVENUES SOCIAL A
Page 84 and 85: HEALTH EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION LI
Page 86 and 87: ALLOCATING PUBLIC REVENUES HEALTH P
Page 88 and 89: ALLOCATING PUBLIC REVENUES HEALTH H
Page 90 and 91: EDUCATION STATE INVESTMENTS IN PREK
Page 92 and 93: ALLOCATING PUBLIC REVENUES EDUCATIO
Page 106 and 107: ALLOCATING PUBLIC REVENUES HIGHER E
Page 108 and 109: ALLOCATING PUBLIC REVENUES HIGHER E
Page 110 and 111: ALLOCATING PUBLIC REVENUES CRIME PR
Page 112 and 113: LOCAL GOVERNMENT BEACONS (NEW YORK,
Page 114 and 115: ALLOCATING PUBLIC REVENUES LOCAL GO
Page 118 and 119: ALLOCATING PUBLIC REVENUES LOCAL GO
Page 120 and 121: 111
Page 122 and 123: EMPLOYERS Employers increasingly re
Page 124 and 125: EMPLOYERS AT&T FAMILY CARE DEVELOPM
Page 126 and 127: FINANCING CHILD CARE IN THE PRIVATE
Page 130 and 131: PHILANTHROPY ALLEGHENY COUNTY EARLY
Page 146 and 147: 137
Page 148 and 149: When businesses in the private sect
Page 150 and 151: PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS EMPLOYE
Page 152 and 153: PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS EMPLOYE
Page 154 and 155: PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS COMMUNI
Page 164 and 165: CAPITAL INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS CHI
Page 166 and 167:
PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS CAPITAL
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
165
Page 176 and 177:
LOOKING TO THE FUTURE TAX POLICY Th
Page 178 and 179:
LOOKING TO THE FUTURE THE HOME MORT
Page 180 and 181:
LOOKING TO THE FUTURE HIGHER EDUCAT
Page 183 and 184:
APPENDIX 174
Page 185 and 186:
WHAT YOU OWN Property taxes on real
Page 187 and 188:
INDEX 178
Page 189 and 190:
Child Care Scholarship Fund of the
Page 191 and 192:
lotteries and gaming, 14 Neighborho
Page 193 and 194:
Area, Kansas and Missouri), 133—1
Page 195:
income tax provisions for child car
show all

Financing Child Care in the United States - Ewing Marion Kauffman ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?