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

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