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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ALLOCATING PUBLIC REVENUES EDUCATION COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS FOR CHILDREN (MASSACHUSETTS) DESCRIPTION Community Partnerships for Children (CPC) is a statefunded program of the Massachusetts Department of Education (DOE) designed to provide comprehensive, high-quality programs for preschool-aged children and their families. A Community Partnership Council, composed of agencies and families in a community or group of communities, plans and implements a local system of preschool programs and services. The goal is to increase the availability, affordability and quality of programs that respond to the needs of working parents and that enhance children’s learning and healthy development WHEN ESTABLISHED The original program began in 1986 as part of the Public School Improvement Act of 1985. It was modified and became Community Partnerships for Children when additional funds were appropriated for FY1993. ANNUAL AMOUNT The total amount available for FY1999 was $79.5 million, for FY2000 the amount available was $94.5 million, and the amount available will rise to $99.5 million in FY2001. Each city or town in Massachusetts is eligible for a share of the funding, ranging from a minimum of $11,893 for the smallest towns to the allocation for the City of Boston, which was $2.4 million for FY2000. Statewide, at least $2 million must be contracted to Head Start programs. CPC is funded with general revenue within the DOE budget. SERVICES FUNDED Each city or town must establish a CPC Council, which develops a plan and application for funding based on a community needs assessment. A variety of services may be funded in addition to child care and early education services to preschool children. These services include: training and technical assistance to providers of early care and education (including scholarships and professional development programs); comprehensive programs and services (such as social, health and nutrition services, family education and family literacy), and capital projects to improve existing space or expand capacity to serve preschoolers. Direct preschool services must operate at least 2.5 hours per day for at least three days per week during the school year. There is strong emphasis on serving working families, so many programs operate full-day year-round. Statewide, at least one-third of children served by CPC funds must be in full-day, full-year programs. Parents are required to contribute to the cost of care based on a sliding fee scale. All CPC-funded programs must have or seek accreditation from the National Academy of Early Childhood Programs (i.e. the accreditation arm of the National Association for the Education of Young Children). Family child care providers must have or seek a Child Development Associate credential or accreditation by the National Association for Family Child Care. CPCfunded programs in public schools must meet Massachusetts DOE preschool standards. Head Start, private child care and family child care programs must be licensed. HOW FUNDS DISTRIBUTED CPC funds are allocated to each city and town using a formula based on the number of resident 3– and 4–year–olds and the percentage of working families earning less than 75 percent of the state median income. These factors are used to determine a base amount per child, with an additional amount per low-income child. CPC funds are grants, subject to review by the Department of Education (DOE) and outside reviewers. The DOE may accept, reject or return an application for revisions. To access CPC funding, a community (one city or town) or a group of communities (several geographically connected cities and towns) must establish a CPC Council. The CPC Council selects one lead agency which submits the application to the DOE. The lead agency may be a public school district, a Head Start agency or a licensed child care agency. The lead agency subcontracts for services with local agencies. Head Start programs, private child care programs, public school preschools, community agencies and family child care providers are encouraged to participate, and all may apply to serve children with CPC funds. The community CPC Council is the heart of CPC. The Council represents the community(ies) in the partnership and develops the plan for expanding and improving preschool education and maximizing the use of existing resources. By statute, nine members are required: one public school principal; three providers of early care and education to young children (i.e. teachers or family child care providers); two parents of young children; one representative from the local child care resource and referral agency, one representative from the local Head Start agency and one private provider of child care (e.g., a nursery school, religious preschool program, nonprofit or proprietary child care center or family child care provider). The DOE further requires at least one family child care provider and two additional community members who are not providers. If the Council represents more than one community, it must include at least one parent, one teacher and one administrator from each community. 83
POPULATION SERVED Every city and town is eligible to receive funds. Eligible children are preschoolers, between 2.9 years and the age of kindergarten eligibility in the school district. In FY1999–2000, CPC served 19,100 preschool-aged children in 325 out of the 351 Massachusetts cities and towns. In past years, eligibility criteria limited CPC to serving children who had working parents (employed either fullor part-time) earning less than 100 percent of the state median income. 1 All CPC-funded programs must serve, or be willing to serve, children with disabilities (regardless of whether the parent is employed). A disabled parent is not required to be working. Beginning in FY2000–01, the income limit was increased to 125 percent of the state median income and first priority was given to serving families who are on waiting lists for state child care subsidies (who may be either working or in school). Within these state criteria, local CPC Councils may set additional eligibility priorities. STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS • CPC produces results and is cost-effective. An evaluation of Community Partnerships for Children by Tufts University (1996) found that the program had enhanced collaboration, improved quality (as demonstrated by seeking or achieving accreditation) and served many children who would not otherwise have attended preschool. The evaluation estimated that for every state dollar invested, an additional 45 cents of in-kind contributions were provided by community programs and organizations. • CPC is able to deliver significant amounts of flexible funding to communities for the broad purposes of improving quality, access and affordability of early care and education. It is much less prescriptive than most public child care funding streams. • The commitment to collaboration in the planning and implementation of CPC is viewed by those involved as key to its success. Requiring one representative body to assess community needs, develop a consolidated plan in response and be accountable for the funds and their results makes sense. Understanding that collaboration is both sensible and difficult to practice, the DOE offers ample technical assistance and support for communities in the form of liaisons (staff from Early Learning Services assigned to communities) and materials such as manuals and guides. • Some members of local CPC Councils express concern about the power differential among members. Because of their higher status and direct relationships to the DOE, public school officials are perceived to have much greater influence on decision–making than a parent or the director of a small center or family child care provider. Leadership training might be a way to address this concern. • Flexibility and responsiveness are central to CPC’s success to date. For example, while a CPC Council is required and defined in statute, the DOE strongly encourages communities to adapt or merge existing councils or coalitions to meet the intent and requirements of CPC, rather than create yet another local council. When several CPC Councils identified the need for capital improvements and asked for CPC funds, the DOE conducted a pilot project in a few communities to determine the most effective methods, and then allowed all communities to apply to spend CPC funds on capital projects. • Some have raised concerns about the capacity of local CPC Councils on issues of accountability and fiscal management. For example, a local Council intent on improving programs for children though financial support voted to raise reimbursement rates for all providers without calculating the full fiscal impact. Funds ran out before the year ended. • Requiring that participating programs either seek or have accreditation is an admirable strategy for improving quality. However, there is no time limit within which accreditation must be achieved, effectively allowing programs to remain in the “seeking” phase indefinitely. • CPC is one of only a few state-funded preschool programs that allow capital expenditures. CPC developed an application process that distinguishes between small and large projects, ensures that CPCfunded projects will serve CPC-eligible children over a reasonably long period of time, and provides technical assistance and oversight on capital projects. Oversight and technical assistance are delivered through a statewide contract that is funded by charging a 5 percent fee on all capital projects over $25,000. • CPC grants cannot pay for direct salary enhancements. However, cost–of–living increases and incentives such as scholarships for college courses, paid training days and bonuses for achieving accreditation are allowed. • All CPC programs, including those in public schools, charge fees to parents. Massachusetts is one of only a few states that require parents to pay a fee for preschool programs. CPC is based on the philosophy that parents have a role to play in paying for early care and education and that a public-private system should promote choice and fair competition among the public and private sectors. To promote the concept of “one system for all children,” CPC uses the state child care subsidy sliding fee scale (i.e. parent co-payments) developed by the state agency that administers public child care funds. • CPC has not adopted other eligibility rules characteristic of subsidy policy that often disrupt services. For example, one child-friendly CPC policy 84
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: GENERATING PUBLIC REVENUE TAX CREDI
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 94 and 95: 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 142 and 143:
FINANCING CHILD CARE IN THE PRIVATE
Page 144 and 145:
FINANCING CHILD CARE IN THE PRIVATE
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 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
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 ...

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

Delete template?

Save as template?