FY2011 Discussion

Context

The Department of Early Education and Care (EEC)has received $16M in “9c” cuts and will likely need to maintain those cuts and others in developing the FY2011 budgetwhile balancing the core values of both access and quality and forwarding our agenda for children and families. In light of potential fiscal reductions, our efforts continue to focus ondefining and reporting outcomes on our investments while ensuring the integrity of programmatic models; and aligning all our expenditures to support our strategic plan. Below are key considerations per initiative for discussion.

  1. Coordinated Family and Community Engagement Grants (CFCE)

Primary Shifts in Practice:Link CFCE grant to specific outcomes regarding early literacy and transitions and consider having each grantee develop a comprehensive provider support team.

Background Information:

FY2010 Funding

  • $10.18M; final budget amounts for CFCE grantees forLocal Planning and Coordination (formerly Community Partnerships for Children)
  • Quarterly reports will collect information on grantee progress on the grant’s five objectives as well as the additional data points outlined below; the reports are due to EEC in mid-November.

Work with CCR&Rs to support children with and without disabilities by providing enhanced referrals where necessary and conducting follow-up regarding placement and services provided / # of children provided enhanced referrals
# of children who have received follow-up regarding placement and services provided
Coordinate/administer a locally available set of resources to provide comprehensive services at early education and care programs including but not limited to physical and dental health, early childhood mental health consultation, support health care, occupational or speech therapy, etc. / # of resources coordinated to provide comprehensive services at ECE programs
Support family literacy through research-based home visiting programs and in group settings in order to strengthen the quality of parent-child verbal interactions / # of families receiving family literacy support through research-based home visiting programs
# of families receiving family literacy support through group settings (i.e. child care center, family child care, public school, etc.)
Coordinate community wide activities and resources which maximize families' access to supports which promote successful transitions from home or preschool to Kindergarten / # of activities and resources coordinated that maximize families' access to supports which promote successful transitions from home or preschool to Kindergarten
Partner with public schools to ensure that families receive information about Kindergarten registration and screening. / # of families who received information about Kindergarten registration and screening
Provide family education and support services that build on and enhance family strengths, support parental resilience and encourage social connections / # of families participating in family education and support services that build on and enhance family strengths, support parental resilience and encourage social connections
  • $5M; Family Support and Engagement Line Item (supporting PCHP, MFN, JFSP); representing adecrease of41% in the final FY2010 budget (post 9C); ~600,000 from this line item supports Reach Out and Read (also reduced by 41%)
  • PCHP and JFSP programs have cost estimates per child based on a national model.
  • This year the PCHP program is expected to serve 473 children and 18 FCC providers.PCHP has a prescribed model: it costs approximately $2,750 per child/per year for PCHP(additional costfor programs that serve family child care providers and children experiencing homelessness as there is an expectation for enhanced services).
  • This year the JFSP funding is expected to support 167 children. For JFSP the cost uses the PCHP model and adds $300 of MFN funding per child as they provide additional supports and targeted recruitment.

FY2010 Consolidation - Background

There are currently120 Coordinated Family and Community Engagement (CFCE) grantees (which represent 137 CPC Programs, 34 MFN Programs, 22 PCHP Programs, and 11 JFSP Programs. )

Of the 120 coordinated models:

  • 45 represent true consolidations of more than one program type collaborating,
  • 3 are from CPCs collaborating with another CPC, and
  • 71 were from CPCs that did not apply in collaboration with other programs.

Three eligible CPC grantees (Georgetown PS, Pentucket RSD, and Swampscott North Shore YMCA) serving five towns reported that they were unsuccessful in collaboration efforts and did not apply for the renewal grant.

Grantees That Did Not Consolidate:

Reasons provided for non-consolidation:

  • Lack of partners in their area with whom they could consolidate (PCHP, MFN or JFSP)
  • They did not have enough time to determine the specifics of a new consolidated structure, including identifying a new lead agency.

Those grantees made a commitment to continuing to work with their neighboring grantees to develop a plan for consolidation for FY2011. Further, all grantees have local partners that they are required to collaborate with as demonstrated on their Council sign-off sheets.

The MFN, PCHP and JFSP programs that did not find it feasible to consolidate were provided an opportunity to respond to a separate RFR.

  • 8MFN programs(serving 13 towns; Melrose, Springfield, Cambridge, Holyoke, Malden, Lunenburg, Lawrence and 6 Martha’s Vineyard towns.)
  • 3 PCHP programs (Clinton, Springfield and Pittsfield)
  • All JFSP programs applied as part of a consolidated grant

Desired / Expected Outcomes:

  • Information on early education and care options, parenting education, and community resources is readily available and accurate; and is available at locations in the community that families frequent and in languages spoken by families in the community.
  • Children experience literacy, language and print rich environments at home, in their early education and care programs and at school
  • Families will be involved in literacy rich activities. For those participating in the Parent Child Home Program, retention will include the full two years of the PCHP strategy
  • Specific strategies and outreach mechanisms are in place to engage hard to reach families including but not limited to those for who English is a second language, families experiencing homelessness, families living in isolation and families experiencing multiple risk factors.
  • Outreach to all families with newborns or newly adopted infants are conducted by a local, knowledgeable resource person, offering information about community resources and access to information about healthy child development.
  • In partnership with special education programs, enhanced transition supports are provided for children in Early Intervention, and those who are eligible, are smoothly transitioned into special education programs and other community resources and programs.
  • In partnership with special education programs, families with preschool children receiving special education services are provided with options about where to receive special education and related services in settings with typically developing peers.
  • Every community supports and maintains at least one free, child safe, accessible public space (e.g., library, community center) where families can take their children to play, find resources on parenting, support literacy, and network with other families.
  • Families and educators have access to comprehensive services to support their children’s healthy development at home, at their early education and care program and in the community.
  • Families have meaningful leadership opportunities in their communities, schools and programs. Training is available to assist in becoming effective advocates for their children.
  • Data, collected locally and aggregated state-wide, is used to measure the need for and effectiveness of local early education and care strategies and programming.
  • Prior to making a transition to a new program, all children and families are contacted by their child’s school and are invited to visit the classroom/program.

FY2010 Objectives:

Objective #1:Increase knowledge of and accessibility to high-quality early education and care programs and services for families with children prenatal through school-age.

Objective #2: Promote family education, engagement and literacy.

Objective # 3: Facilitate collaboration and community planning between local early education and care partners and other community stake holders or partners.

Objective #4: Provide support and information to families with children transitioning between and among early educationand care settings, home and school.

Objective #5: Support early education and care programs across the public and private sectors in delivering high quality services.

Discussion/ Key Considerations:

1.Move out of Quality line item and into Family Engagement line item.

2.All MFN and PCHP should find a Community and Family Engagement Partner for FY11.

3.If funding is limited for CFCE grants, should we refine or reduce objectives for FY2011?

4.Is there a base amount for the grant to communities?

5.Which parts of the system do we want to be accountable for and which parts should we support or hold others accountable for? i.e. Early Literacy and Local Planning for Children and Families v.s. providing support services to providers

6.Which objectives or how do the objectives support “Public Information/Consumer Education/Communication”in the Early Education and Care System? This is required for our strategic plan and the early learning challenge grant.

7.Which goals support the linkages to the K-12 system and transitions which are essential for a system which has continuity? Transitions are more than single activities, rather Target evidence based practice. How do we sustain or maintain PCHP.

8.How do we set expectations for next year that link to children/families served by name? What is a reasonable cost per person?

9.How do we link CFCE grants to specific children and family outcomes?

  1. Early Childhood Mental Health

Primary Shifts in Practice:Combine the funds embedded in supportive with the consultation funds and provide one RFR for a statewide strategy on early childhood mental health.

Background Information:

FY2010 Funding

Early Childhood Mental Health Consultation Grant

Ten grantees received a total of $900,000 in continuation grants for FY10. The RFR required grantees to leverage resources through third party billing and new collaborations, in order to maximize availability and accessibility of these mental health consultation services.

Comprehensive Mental Health in Child Care (CMHCC) Program

  • Initiated in 2001
  • FY 10 contract total - $600,000
  • 13 programs funded include: Associated Early Care and Education, Inc.; Child Care of the Berkshires; Catholic Charities; Community Day Care Center of Lawrence; Gregg House; Montachusett Opportunity Council Child Care and Head Start; Guild of Saint Agnes; Northstar Learning Center; Pathways for Children; South Shore Day Care Services; SPARK Center Boston Medical Center; Square One; Valley Opportunity Council

This long-standing collaboration between MassHealth/Mass. Behavioral Health Partnership and EEC partners early education and care providers with mental health clinics to locate clinicians on-site at programs that have supportive child care contracts with EEC. The mental health clinicians provide support and training to staff at the child care program and link families with needed clinical services through the partnering clinic. Goals include reducing expulsions or suspensions of children due to behavioral issues; preventing repeat psychiatric hospitalizations of children; improving the quality of child, parent, and family relationships; and reducing the risk factors that impact children’s emotional development and their acquisition of knowledge and skills necessary for success in school.

In FY08, approximately 550 children (infants/toddlers, preschool and school-age) received individual therapeutic services through the CMHCC program. EEC funds approximately 2/3 of the clinician’s salary to support non-billable services like home visits, classroom observations, service coordination and collateral contacts, training and travel costs. The remaining 1/3 is funded by billing insurances for the clinical services that are provided.

Desired / Expected Outcomes:

  • Promote the healthy social and emotional development of all children
  • Build the capacity of early education and care program staff to enhance children’s learning through positive, nurturing interactions with children and with their families
  • Reduce the number of children who are suspended or expelled from EEC-funded programs
  • Promote collaboration for better access to services for children and their families

Discussion/ Key Considerations:

  • Are there strategies that would allow this program to expand into a statewide effort in the future (without expanded funds)?Could FY2011 be a planning year on how to move initiative statewide?
  • Change in model to realize efficiencies and go statewide (e.g. limited on-site consultation with access to a consultant over the phone/web).
  • How long do we consider a program a pilot before we move to scale?
  • How do we ensure we are providing a support service to early education and care and not services which should be covered by Mental Health?
  1. CCR&R Re-Procurement

Primary Shifts in Practice:Realize efficiencies while maintaining access for children and their families.

Desired / Expected Outcomes:

  • Identify key business practices and realize efficiencies while maintaining access for children and their families

Discussion/Key Considerations:

  • Additional information needed before November 10th Board vote
  • Purchase voucher management only? Purchase information and referral as a separate service and support families by other systems (e.g. telephone/web)?

______

  1. Universal Preschool

Primary Shifts in Practice:Provide access for preschoolers while holding programs accountable to increased quality criteria; shift resources to support the QRIS system.

  1. Moving Funds From Access Account to the Universal Pre-Kindergarten Account to Support Access to Universal Pre-Kindergarten

Discussion/Key Considerations:

Move funds that serve preschoolers (3 and 4 year olds) from the access account into the Universal Pre-Kindergarten account; serving up to 20,000 subsidized preschool children would cost$156,422,400*

(*based on September numbers: actual preschooler count 17,258; monthly cost: $11,248,158; avg. monthly cost per child: $651.76; yearly cost: $134,977,893 -- added funding for 2,742 more kids).

Recognizing the importance of continuity for children in early education and care programs, EEC is looking into the cost of maintaining preschoolers in care if their parent eligibility status changes, due to unemployment (and other criteria?),and deems them ineligible for continuation of their child care voucher for financial assistance (per federal funding constraints). EEC is collecting data on the number of preschoolers in this situation for FY2010 in order to cost out potential options for consideration in FY 2011.

Providers that receive these subsidized preschool children will be held accountable for providing a developmentally appropriate program as evidenced by use of Early Childhood Program Standards for Three and Four Year Olds (does not apply to family child care providers) and Guidelines for Preschool Learning Experiences; using one of four EEC approved assessment tools to improve instructional practice, and having a career plan for each staff member that includes a compensation trajectory.

Connecting this funding to assessment, as one quality criteria, is key as EEC continues to establish a comprehensive system for measuring the performance and effectiveness of programs providing early education and care and services. EEC also continues to recognize the unique challenges of assessing preschool-aged children.

The future system will measure the performance and effectiveness of programs and the extent to which every preschool-aged child receiving early education and care in the Commonwealth through the Massachusetts Universal Pre-Kindergarten program has a fair and full opportunity to reach such child’s full developmental potential and shall maximize every child’s capacity and opportunity to enter kindergarten ready to learn.

Funding Proposal:

Use ARRA quality funds to provide targeted training to this cohort of preschool programs; the initial cohort would be required to be serving 50% or more subsidized children (preschool children or any age?). Future cohorts serving subsidized 3 and 4 year old preschool children would also be held to the requirements listed above.

  1. Use of UPK and Head Start Funds to Provide Fiscal and Other Incentives for Programs that Improve Quality and Move Up on the QRIS

Background Information

  • In order to fully implement QRIS or to test the model, we need to have resources available to both support quality programs and help programs move to the next level.
  • Implementation of QRIS, which allows us to measure the quality of programs and show improvement over time, is essential to apply for the Early Learning Challenge Grant.

Desired / Expected Outcomes:

  • EEC will support programs moving up the QRIS

Programs are incentivized (fiscally or otherwise) to continue to improve quality

  • EEC will be able to measure the quality of programs and improvement over time: position EEC for eligibility for the Early Challenge Grant
  • Families will be aware of quality indicators

Discussion/ Key Considerations:

  • Use of a portion of UPK and Head Start Supplemental Grants, as they are designed to support quality, in FY2011 for supporting incentives for programs reaching a certain level on the QRIS:
  • Incentives could:
  • be tied to program numbers of subsidized children (e.g. 50% or more)
  • come in the form of differentiated rates (other states have implemented ~$.25-$1.00) or prioritization for program resources etc.
  • Ensure a portion of incentives go toward staff compensation
  • Rethink funding formula that UPK uses ($500 classroom enrollment/$1500 subsidized children for full day/full year programs)
  • Recommend existing UPK/HS grantees would maintain 50% of their funding level in FY2010 and the other 50% would be dependent on their placement of the QRIS.
  • What type of fiscal reward would we want to give a program for being at a certain level?
    Options include:
    a.Quality Grants, Bonuses and Awards (recommendation: based on a tiered subsidy and it

requirement that program commits to enhanced compensation for staff)
b.Tiered Subsidy Reimbursement
c.Loans linked to QRIS
d.Scholarships
e.Wage Supplements