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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

When businesses in the private sector became involved in financing child care, the focus was on short–term grants and initiatives that targeted their own employees. As employers’ experience with the child care industry grew, they began to realize that these investments were more effective if they were made in partnership with community–based child care programs. Still, the private sector primarily focused on short–term grant programs. And these grants were predominately made by large employers with stable, well–paid staffs. This trend is changing. Public–private partnerships are no longer limited to large employers and one–time grants. Initiatives such as Florida’s Child Care Partnership Act have helped businesses that employ hourly workers to become involved in meaningful ways. Many states have established business commissions on child care finance, which have helped a wide range of private–sector partners learn more about the child care industry and how they can become involved. Additionally, capital investment strategies are looking at long–term financing and the need for ongoing subsidy. Public–private partnerships also have become much more sophisticated. Initiatives such as Educare in Colorado, Smart Start in North Carolina, and a host of other state/community partnerships have made systemic change a key goal. Capital investment partnerships are leveraging and blending funds from many sources. These partnerships are drawing investments from private lenders, school boards, Head Start, community development funds, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families money, the Child Care and Development Fund, state and local general funds and other sources to finance or renovate facilities for early childhood programs. In many cases capital investments are leveraging commitments for ongoing subsidy to help underwrite the cost of debt. Even initiatives that focus exclusively on promoting early childhood program accreditation are taking a broader approach and thinking carefully about systemic change. New Jersey’s Accreditation Facilitation Project is designed to work in tandem with the state’s tiered reimbursement system and to leverage local and private sector funding. The Chicago Accreditation Project requires active participation and support from a wide range of funders and stakeholders who recognized that they could not improve the quality of child care unless they worked together. This project has built linkages with local colleges to improve staff development opportunities and has negotiated agreements with faith–based organizations and with the city agencies that contract for subsidized child care to ensure that programs receive the support and financing they need to achieve accreditation. Although some things have changed, others have remained the same. Effective public–private partnerships have always been — and continue to be — rooted in communities. The need for child care services and subsidies, the types of child care selected by parents, and the prices paid for care vary widely from community to community. So do financial partners. In some communities schools take leadership; in other areas the city, town or county government is a major player. Businesses typically prefer that the contributions they make should be spent in the communities where their employees live and work; philanthropic dollars are generally targeted to specific neighborhoods or programs. In short, efforts to finance child care via public–private partnerships need to be flexible enough to leverage funds from a variety of local partners. 139
EMPLOYER AND PUBLIC SECTOR PARTNERSHIP AUSTIN AREA EMPLOYER’S COLLABORATIVE ON DEPENDENT CARE INITIATIVES DESCRIPTION The Austin Area Employer’s Collaborative (AAEC) is a coalition of small, medium, and large employers promoting the availability, accessibility and affordability of dependent care to benefit the current and future work force. WHEN ESTABLISHED A small group of employers and child care providers began meeting in1995 to discuss Austin’s dependent care challenges and the resulting impact on local businesses. Austin Families, Inc. (a nonprofit organization offering child care resource and referral services) began managing the Collaborative in 1998. Later that same year, five companies (AT&T, Dell Computers Corporation, IBM, Harte–Hanks Direct Marketing and Motorola) began pooling financial resources to accomplish common goals with respect to dependent care. Three additional companies have since become partners. ANNUAL AMOUNT In 2000, the budget was approximately $260,000, which included some federal matching funds. The five companies pooled an initial investment of $125,000, and have continued to provide financial support. The Texas Workforce Commission Work and Family Clearinghouse also has provided some grant funds. SERVICES FUNDED Through the Quality Initiative Training Projects the eight partner companies provide specific funding to enhance child care for children of their employees. The AAEC conducts an annual survey that collects information about the partners’ priorities, and funding is based on those priorities. The 2000 Quality Initiative Training Projects, called “Expanding Children’s Horizons through Science,” emphasize children’s experience with science in preschool, before and after school and summer camp programs. Funds are being used for teacher training, mini–grants, resource kits and other materials and equipment. The 1999 Quality Initiative Training Projects included advanced family child care training (28 providers participated) and quality enhancement for infant and toddler programs (73 providers participated). Information, resources and activities that promote employer awareness of dependent care options are provided to all interested employers either free or for a nominal cost. The collaborative currently has a mailing list of approximately 370 small, medium and large employers. Presentations, technical assistance, networking, a resource manual and a yearly employer conference are all available. Issues addressed range from those that affect the youngest dependents, such as how an employer can set up a lactation room, to those that focus on the oldest dependents, such as elder care options for employees. HOW FUNDS DISTRIBUTED The funds pooled by the partner companies benefit child care facilities that enroll children of parents employed by the companies. On an annual basis, the AAEC surveys the partner companies. Results of the survey determine the Quality Initiative Training Project funding priorities for that year. Other services provided, such as the resource manual, are available to any employer in the Austin area. POPULATION SERVED Austin area employers, employees and their dependents are served. STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS • The locations of corporate headquarters make a difference when negotiating. Only one of the partner companies has corporate headquarters in Austin. Negotiating successfully with multiple corporate headquarters (the locations at which resource allocation decisions are made) located in various far–away places brought many challenges, but proved successful. • Having a corporate leader who can place phone calls and represent the initiative in the media is key. The collaborative benefited from having a very strong advocate in IBM, which had a long history of a corporate culture that advocated for children and families. • It is important to understand roles. Decisions are not made by the coordinators (in this case, the staff of Austin Families). The coordinating role involves being a resource, providing information and doing the administrative and organizational work necessary to carry out decisions made by the businesses involved. • In a recent survey of child–participants of the Quality Initiative Training Projects, it was noted that only 24 percent of the children participating had parents who were employed by one of the collaborative’s partners. As such, children in general had enriched opportunities. 140
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 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
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 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99: 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 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 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 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 ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?