1 / 27

Report for Early Learning Council Presentation to WERA December 5, 2008

Report for Early Learning Council Presentation to WERA December 5, 2008. Access to High Quality Early Learning for Washington’s Young Children. Richard N. Brandon, Ph.D. Human Services Policy Center University of Washington. “Forging a Brighter Future for Children and Families”

katima
Download Presentation

Report for Early Learning Council Presentation to WERA December 5, 2008

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Report for Early Learning Council Presentation to WERA December 5, 2008 Access to High Quality Early Learning for Washington’s Young Children Richard N. Brandon, Ph.D. Human Services Policy Center University of Washington “Forging a Brighter Future for Children and Families” AT THE EVANS SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS | UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON 1

  2. Outline Purpose of Study Guiding Principles Policy Specifications from ELC Financial Analysis of Policies Specified Full study: www.HSPC.org 2

  3. Purpose of Study Assist the ELC to consider alternative policies that provide all young children in Washington access to high quality early learning Simulation process; guidance from research Analyze costs, impact on family affordability, and targeting of funds, for alternative policy packages Design and implementation issues will remain 3

  4. Guiding Principles High quality early learning (B-5) -- essential to children’s healthy development and school success A market-based approach– financial access and choice for families with incentives and requirements for quality All settings, including parents, FFN’s Specialized professional training and education Adequate compensation Cost-effective solutions 4

  5. Percent Total Non-Parental Hours, US NHES - 1999 Children B-2 Children 3-5

  6. The Relationship Among QRIS, Reimbursements Based on Quality, & Financial Access Quality-based rates determined for providers; reflect actual cost of each QRIS level (various payment mechanisms possible) • Total Assistance Cost • Sum of Quality- based payments for eligible children • Varies by quality, salary & eligibility specifications • Distributed by age, income, setting • ELC Specifies Criteria for: • Each QRIS Level & • Family Affordability Eligibility determined by affordability criteria & work/training requirements Payments made for children/families based on income, cost-quality of setting (scholarships) 6

  7. Comprehensive Approach: A Funding Package to Implement Many ELC Recommendations • Parenting information & support • QRIS: costs to implement & help providers improve early learning services • Financing that links funding levels to program quality (tiered reimbursement) • Professional development & compensation • Affordability: populations to be served • Continuity of care for children

  8. Scope of Specifications Quality Financial Access Scope of Services Governance and Implementation Phase-In Approach 8

  9. Quality Specifications • Moderate salary schedule – BA at annualized elementary teacher; AA, HS lower; MA higher • Professional Development: paid release time; allotments for higher ed tuition or community-based training, plus expenses. • Ratios at each QRIS level, for each age group: Infants 1:4, toddlers 1:5/7; preschoolers 1:9/10) • Staff Mix: Percent college degrees increases with QRIS level

  10. Financial Access Specifications Eligibility: Work/school/training requirement for all families; Expanded eligibility for families in work/school transition Affordability: H.Q. costs ~25% average net income if no assistance Family portion of child care costs increases as income increases Families pay no more or less than current payments Income cut-off for assistance: Just over 3x Federal Poverty Line (~$62,000 for family of four) 10

  11. Scope of Services FFN Support Infrastructure, resources and information, play & learn, facilitated workshops, evaluation Parent Support Needs assessment and evaluation, infrastructure, home-visiting, parent education ECEAP Child Care Partnerships Provide access regardless of work requirement Expand to B-3 11

  12. Hourly Costs to Providers of Meeting Quality Standards - Centers • Infant costs lower due to low ratios; not assume cross-subsidies 12

  13. Moderate salary option yields costs close to 50th percentile prices (+5%) • 33% higher than current state reimbursement rate 13

  14. Quality promotion, regulation and professional development = 8% • Hourly cost components vary slightly by age group and between moderate and higher cost options. 14

  15. HQ equal 50th percentile if moderate compensation; 75th if higher 15

  16. FCC vs. Center Hourly CostsWeighted Average of Ages 16 • FCC 75-80% of Center costs; currently 87%

  17. Affordability to Families Market effects, tenable price required Criterion – 10-15% Net income ~ current price Findings => partial assistance required for middle income families 17

  18. Affordability: Cost of ECE as Percent Net Family Income 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% < 1 FPL 1- 2 FPL 2- 3 FPL 3- 4 FPL 4 - 5 FPL 75% 27% 17% 14% 11% QRIS Level 1 80% 29% 18% 15% 12% QRIS Level 3 86% 31% 19% 17% 13% QRIS Level 5 QRIS Level 1 QRIS Level 3 QRIS Level 5

  19. Eligibility Increases Targeted to Moderate-Middle Income

  20. Phase-In Approach Phase-In approach for QRIS, Family Support and FFN 15% of state in 2007-2008 25% of state in 2008-2009 Raise floor of current subsidies to 50th percentile market rate for remainder of state Invest in statewide infrastructure 20

  21. Increased State Costs for Access Study Option 21

  22. Conclusions: • ELC Preferred Option would provide access to high quality ECE for all children at modest cost, relative to public education spending in Washington • QRIS/TR would provide accountability, incentives • Providers would need stable funding source to make significant chances in staff qualifications, compensation • Middle income families would require partial assistance to afford high quality ECE - otherwise market would collapse

  23. Extra Slides 23

  24. Full Study Available online: www.hspc.org http://hspc.org/publications/pdf/ELC_report_FINAL.pdf

  25. Example of Income-Related Scholarship QRIS Level 3 - Moderate Compensation; for higher compensation, scholarship would increase, family payment would not increase. Toddler at a Center Hourly cost = $4.04; Monthly Cost (40 hrs/wk) = $695 25

  26. Example of Affordability for Family Child Care Home QRIS Level 3 - Moderate Compensation; for higher compensation, scholarship would increase, family payment would not increase. Hourly cost = $3.47; Monthly Cost (40 hrs/wk) = $597 26

  27. Governance & Implementation State infrastructure (statewide) State advisory group, CCR&R, MIS QRIS implementation costs (phase-in) QRIS grants, accreditation fees, external assessment, training infrastructure Evaluation and Baseline Assessment of Child Care Quality and School Readiness (phase-in) Costs of administering benefits 27

More Related