Building Early Links for Learning (Philadelphia)

1. For twitter: #BELLPhl Building Early Links for Learning(Philadelphia) Joe Willard VP for Policy, People’s Emergency Center NAEH Conference, July 18, 2017

2. People’s Emergency Center (PEC)

3. How We Got Here: Build Will • FY 2008: • No data • Focus on adults • Reluctance of school district to engage • Definitional problems • Watching early childhood education system succeed and asking ‘Why not our children?

4. Building Public Will • Children’s Work Group • Linkage with Academics for Reporting • Demanding Data … • … Leading to leadership groups • … Leading to Partnerships • … Leading to Funders • Leading to local foundation supporting BELL

5. BELL Environmental Scan Assessing linkage with ECE Informing ECE Networks & Landscape Analysis Focus Group Data

6. Collaborative Effort National: • Cloudburst • Administration for Children and Families • CT Head Start Collaboration Office Philadelphia: • The Children’s Workgroup • People’s Emergency Center • Office of Supportive Housing (Philadelphia CoC) • Public Health Management Corporation • Universities • Villanova • Rutgers – Camden • University of Delaware

7. BELL Goals Increase developmental friendliness of emergency and transitional housing environments Increase ECE enrollment by 20%

8. ECE Enrollment Baseline Data Federal Head Start Data OHS Preschool Attendance Census BELL ECE Survey

9. Federal Head Start Data Evaluate how many children enrolled in Head Start programs are experiencing homelessness

10. Percentage of Children Experiencing Homelessness Attending EHS/HS

11. ECE Enrollment Federal Head Start Data • OHS Preschool Attendance Census: • Evaluated the percent of children ages 3 – 5 attending preschool in all Philadelphia EH/TH programs

12. OHS Preschool Attendance Data

13. ECE Enrollment Federal Head Start Data OHS Preschool Attendance Data • BELL ECE Survey: • Focused on ECE enrollment in any program, including unlicensed • Surveyed for 0 – 5 year olds • Conducted at Time 1 Self-Assessment • Asked how enrollment tracked at each site

14. BELL Survey Data: ECE Use of Young Children Experiencing Homelessness

15. BELL Survey Data: ECE Use of Young Children Experiencing Homelessness

16. ECE Enrollment Recommendations • Enhance data collection precision in terms of ECE program location and qualityrating • Ask specific attendance rates Track Longitudinally – Monthly Basis

17. EH and TH providers and High Quality Early Learning Programs

18. The Early Childhood Self-Assessment

20. What is Philadelphia doing well? Space for Families: ● Dining Supporting family connections: ● Public benefits ● Accommodate ECE schedules Safety: ● Immunizations ● Visitation ● CPR training ● Food safety

21. Where does Philadelphia need support?

22. Greatest variability

23. What types of improvements were requested? • Infants: • Tummy time • Breastfeeding • Toddlers/Preschool • Furniture • Toys • Safety • Outlet covers • Cabinet Locks • Toilet Locks • Mirrors • Building maintenance • Admin./Building • Bulletin boards • Lamination

24. Trainings Requested • Effects of homelessness on child development • Adverse drug and allergic reactions • Ongoing needs: • CPR • Trauma informed care

25. Before

26. After

27. Before

28. After

29. Implications • More consistency in tracking/documenting ECE • Variability across housing programs • Support for infants and toddlers in housing programs • Trainings for staff to support families with 0-5 year olds • Dissemination of information to families • IDEAS TO SHARE WITH FUNDERS

30. Other Learnings … • Informing the ECE Networks • Focus Groups of parents, providers

31. Landscape analysis of successful approaches; funding, service delivery model & program components • Identify replicable components and design a model to implement in Philadelphia • Identify and request waivers needed from the Administration for Children and Families for custom local Head Start models for families experiencing homelessness, if necessary • Implement Philadelphia pilot

32. Landscape Analysis PHMC performed a national, state and local landscape analysis to identify applicable: • Policy and Funding Landscape • Intervention Models • Practice Recommendations The process included an analysis of available data, a review of literature, and targeted interviews

33. Federal, State, and Local Policies and Agencies

34. Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge (RTT – ELC) Example—Massachusetts: • Data sharing between state agencies • TA to homeless-serving organizations to build early childhood competencies (e.g., child development, developmental screening practices) • Linking homeless-serving organizations with early care and education organizations that can serve homeless students to promote bi-directional referrals Example—Oregon: • Establish regional hubs that coordinate cross-systems resources and services for families with at-risk children (including homeless) to help families access health, housing, education, and workforce training systems, etc.

35. Co-location of Services Early care and education services are provided within or adjacent to a supportive housing facility. Proximity eliminates the largest barrier to enrollment and attendance (transportation), and facilitates cross-systems collaboration between staffs to support children’s and families’ needs holistically Example- UMOM, Phoenix, AZ • UMOM provides families facing homelessness with safe shelter, housing and support services so they can reach their greatest potential. • High quality childcare is provided onsite and facilitated during housing transition.

36. Cross-systems Collaborations Both supportive housing providers and early care and education providers stand to gain from coordinating activities and referring between organizations; both systems can increase referrals and improve their clients’ outcomes Example—Thames Valley Council for Community Action, CT: • Early care and education advocate works with supportive housing providers to identify appropriately aged children and enroll them in high quality programs (often Head Start) • Advocate also assists partners with building developmentally appropriate and responsive practices and physical environments • The advocate builds long-term relationships with staff at partner housing providers that strengthen inter-organizational referral practices

37. Integration of Comprehensive Services Early care and education providers and homeless serving organizations can serve as hubs that collaborate to provide children to comprehensive supports beyond their traditional domains Example—Vogel Alcove: Dual-generation approach to serving young children experiencing homelessness and their families. Provide early care and education, as well as: • Case management services • Speech, physical, and occupational therapy • Parental education around child development • Employment/career counseling • Free basic medical and dental services, via partnerships with local universities

38. Opportunities identified:e.g., PA Child Care Development Fund Plan Pennsylvania could work to include these practices in the CCDF plan: • Homeless status automatically confers eligibility for child care subsidy • Homeless families without countable income are not required to make copayments • Providers are reimbursed at higher rates for offering care during non-traditional hours • Housing search activities are allowable for purposes of program eligibility Institute for Children, Poverty, and Homelessness. Meeting the Child Care Needs of Homeless Families: How Do States Stack Up? 2014

39. Next Steps … • Identify and utilize a family partnership model specifically designed for families in emergency housing • Secure funding to deliver services that do not meet the qualifications for application of housing supports or Head Start funding • Explore how best to apply the new HS Performance Standard allowance of 3% of funded seats (18) to keep seats available for homeless children • Continue to cultivate relationships between OHS and ECE providers • IDEAS TO SHARE WITH FUNDERS

40. Summary Overview of Key Learnings from Parent and Provider Focus Groups

41. Objectives and Recruitment

42. Summary of Participant Data • 33 Parents/Guardians participating in 4 focus groups • 88% female • 82% African American • 67% 20-29 years old • 97% single/never married • 19 staff members from Homeless Services or Early Childhood Education Programs participating in 3 focus groups

43. Key Findings Emerging from PARENTAL Reflections and Dialogue

44. Key Findings Emerging from PROVIDER Reflections and Dialogue

45. Practice Recommendations – Housing Crisis Services Providers Address needs of families for useful, comprehensive, and up-to-date information about quality ECE options Address needs of families for access to quality ECE options “close to home” (both temporary and permanent) Provide active/ongoing training for housing crisis staff/case managers

46. Practice Recommendations – Early Childhood Education Providers Recognize and respond to the centrality of trauma in homeless families’ and children’s lives Ensure active and ongoing communication with homeless families participating in ECE programs Provide community outreach and shelter in-reach activities to inform homeless parents of ECE resources – particularly those that address challenges in dealing with enrollment/participation

47. Practice Recommendations – CoC and Community Homeless Response Systems Increase access to financial supports/subsidies supporting consumer enrollment in quality ECE Increase numbers of and/or access to safe, secure, affordable slots for children 0-3 -- especially infant care Enhance cross-systems documentation of both parental needs and systems challenges associated with increasing access to affordable / sustainable/quality ECE

48. Contact Information Joe Willard • 215.840.5104 • jwillard@pec-cares.org • All Reports: http://bit.ly/29SPkPP