1

Income Eligible Re-Procurement

Board of Early Education and CareDecember 9, 2008

2

Procurement DiscussionOverview of Board Discussion & Votes

December

Background Information & Summary of RFI Results Procurement Goals Allocation of Contract Resources Contract Eligibility Criteria Preliminary Evaluation Criteria

January

Final Evaluation Criteria Required Services Contract Duration & Integration with QRIS Vote on RFR

3

Components of Re-Procurement Topics for Board Discussions

Minimum Contract Eligibility Criteria

Allocation of Contract Resources

Quality Evaluation Criteria

Integration of Contracts With Other Policy

Innovations

Streamlining Administrative &

Fiscal Policies

4

Income Eligible Contracts

Background Information

5

Background Information Income Eligible Program

The Income Eligible program provides financial assistance to more than 30,000 children from birth to age 13 (age 16 for children with special needs)

Financial assistance provides families with access to a mixed system of providers through vouchers, grants and contracts

Schools and independent family child care providers do not currently participate in the contract program

Contract portion of the program covers nearly 12,000 children, approximately 40% of Income Eligible caseload

Recent changes made in response to emergency budget will significantly increase slots covered under contracts

6

Background InformationIncome Eligible Contract Spending in Context

Notes:

(1) Includes vouchers for children receiving assistance through the Income Eligible, TANF and Supportive programs.

(2) Includes contracts for supportive care, teen parents and homeless families.

(3) Assumes $24 million in slots funded by the CPC grant program are converted into Income Eligible contracts.

(4) Remaining $22 million in slots funded by the CPC grant program will be converted to vouchers or remain as grants.

Vouchers $265 Million (1)

CPC Grants

$22 Million(4)

Supportive & Targeted Contracts

$76Million (2)

I ncome Eligible Contracts (3)

Current Contracts $99 MillionCPC Conversion $24 Million

Total $123 Million

Financial Assistance$486 Million

Other Programs$33 Million

Access Management$23 Million

Administration$14 Million

7

Background InformationHistorical Spending on Contracts & Vouchers

163 269

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

$400

$450

$500

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

An

nu

al

Sp

en

din

g(I

n M

illio

ns)

Contract Spending Voucher Spending

45%44% 42%44%%

38%45% 40%

56% 55% 55% 56% 58% 60% 62%

Most of the increse in voucher spending betw een 2006 and 2009 is due to an increase in vouchers for children w ith DTA assistance.

8

Income Eligible Contracts

Goals of Re-Procurement

9

Income Eligible Re-Procurement Goals

Comply with state procurement laws

Make policies and practices more equitable

Ensure consistent and stable placements

Support stability of the early education system

Focus on the highest need areas

Strengthen program quality

Continue building a thriving system

10

Income Eligible Contracts

Overview of Request for Information (RFI)

11

Overview of RFIPurpose of RFI

Purpose of the Request for Information (RFI) was to:

Collect basic program information from providers

Test feasibility of using contracts in all parts of the mixed delivery system, including schools and independent family child care providers

Test feasibility of fiscal and operational policy options currently under consideration

The RFI was available to group and school-age child care providers, family child care providers and systems, and public schools

Not intended to be a representative survey of all providers but targeted to providers likely to be interested in EEC contracts

12

Overview of RFISummary of Providers Responding

413 center-based organizations and schools, representing 589 sites across the state

57 family child care systems, representing more than 2,600 family child care homes

68 independent family child care providers

20 Head Start agencies, representing 142 centers and family child care homes across the state

93% response rate among EEC’s existing contracted providers

DescriptionCenters & School Age

Family Child Care

Systems Schools

Independent Family Child

Care Providers

Number of Organizations Responding 313 57 100 68

Percent of Organizations Responding in Each Category 10% 100% 24% 1%

Percent of Respondents That Currently Have EEC Contracts 43% 100% 0% 0%

13

Income Eligible Contracts

Allocation of Contract Resources

14

Allocation of Contract ResourcesDistribution of Resources Compared to Community Need

EEC has analyzed the following data for 351 communities across three age groups:

Children below federal poverty level and children on the EEC’s centralized waiting list

Capacity for 12,000 licensed providers and more than 450 school-based programs

Early education resources provided through contracts, vouchers, CPC, Head Start and school-based preschool

Accountability status of schools in each community

Compared relative need in each community with existing subsidized capacity

15

Allocation of Contract ResourcesEEC Resources Compared to Need Across Regions

EEC resources are distributed proportionately across regions

Contracts are in high-need communities, with 95% of children on the waiting list and 95% of children below federal poverty living in towns with EEC contracts

We know that we need to do more in all communities to serve children seeking financial assistance

Recommendation

Maintain existing distribution of contract resources across communities, and target any future expansion funding in communities

with highest need tied to waiting list and ESE designations.

Description West Central N.E. Metro S.E. Boston State

Distribution of Children

Distribution of Children Below Federal Poverty Level (FPL) 20% 13% 19% 10% 18% 19% 100%

Distribution of EEC Resources

Distribution of All Vouchers, Grants & Contracts 17% 14% 19% 12% 19% 18% 100%

16

Allocation of Contract ResourcesEEC Resources Compared to Need By Age Group

We know that we need to do more in all age groups to serve children seeking financial assistance

Child populations change at program and community level during life of a contract

Options to Consider

Maintain existing distribution of contract resources for each age group, and target future expansion funding to age groups with highest need. Allow

providers to have some flexibility to adapt the age groups served to respond to population changes and ensure continuity of care over time.

OR

Redistribute contract resources based on age groups with higher need.

DescriptionInfant

&Toddler PreschoolSchool

AgeAll Age Groups

Distribution of Children

Distribution of Children Below Federal Poverty Level (FPL) 20% 24% 56% 100%

Distribution of EEC Resources

Distribution of All Vouchers, Grants and Contracts 24% 38% 38% 100%

17

Income Eligible Contracts

Contract Eligibility Criteria

18

Contract Eligibility CriteriaExisting Eligibility Criteria

Income Eligible contracts were last put out to bid in 1998, with eligibility criteria requiring providers to:

Operate on a full-day (10 hours per day) and full-year schedule (260 days per year)

Follow state financial assistance policies

Meet all child care licensing requirements

Contracts were awarded to licensed center-based programs and family child care systems

The 1998 contract required family child care homes to be affiliated with a family child care system in order to have access to state contract slots

19

Contract Eligibility Criteria Schools – Contract Model Tested in RFI

Schools have not used EEC contracts due to full-day/full-year requirements and licensing requirements

RFI explored the feasibility of a contract model that schools could use to:

Expand part-day preschool programs to full-day/full-year*

Create new full-day/full-year* preschool programsCreate new full-year* school-age programs

Under the model explored in the RFI, schools could remain license- exempt but would need to:

• Be accredited or in-process of accreditation (NAEYC or comparable institution)• Implement the Early Childhood Program Standards (Preschool)• Follow the Guidelines for Preschool Learning Experiences (Preschool)• Meet ESE standards for school-age programs (school-age)

RFI also collected data on accreditation, educator degree attainment, screening, assessment practices and other program information

_______

* Schools could meet full-year requirement by extending days of operation or forming partnerships with licensed programs.

20

Contract Eligibility Criteria Schools – Summary of RFI Responses

Of the 100 RFI submitted for schools, 94 were from school districts and six were from private schools

Of the 94 public school districts responding, three are Commissioner Districts

Schools were asked to estimate the number of sites and number of classrooms that would be likely to participate, if the RFR used the same contract model included in the RFI

Description Preschool School-Age

School Districts & Private Schools Expressing Interest in Contracts 62 38

Estimated Sites That Might Participate 27 85 Estimated Classrooms that Might Participate 56 182 Estimated Students in Potential Classrooms 850 4,300

21

Contract Eligibility Criteria Schools – RFI Feedback on Contracts

The RFI asked schools to rate the difficulty of complying with specific elements of the preschool and school-age contract models in the RFI , including:

Expansion of Existing Service Full-Day & Full-Year ScheduleAchieving Accreditation Using EEC Financial Assistance PoliciesPreschool Standards & Guidelines ESE School-Age Quality Standards

With the exception of adherence to the Preschool Standards & Guidelines for Learning, most schools found all of the requirements “somewhat difficult” to implement on average

A limited number of schools indicated that each of contract elements would “not be difficult” to implement, including 10% of those responding to the preschool model and 20% of those responding to the school-age model

A small number of schools indicated that each of the contract elements would be “too difficult” to implement, including 5% of those responding to the preschool model and 10% of those responding to the school-age model

Concerns expressed in the narrative section related to compliance with state financial assistance policies, finding space for expansion, adhering to EEC’s holiday closure policies, and operating on a full-day schedule throughout the entire year

22

Contract Eligibility Criteria Schools - Considerations

Within existing resources, adding new providers will require reallocation of resources among providers and from the private to the public sector

Some school systems affiliated with CPC programs are familiar with EEC’s financial assistance system, but not all

EEC may not have adequate staff and oversight capacity, if significant numbers of schools need training and support in EEC policies upon entering the contract system

23

Contract Eligibility CriteriaIndependent Family Child Care Providers

EEC does not currently contract with independent family child care providers

RFI explored interest of family child care providers in EEC contracts

Collected data on accreditation, educator degree attainment, screening, assessment practices and other program information

Also collected information on the interest that providers might have in specific services offered by family child care systems

RFI feedback allows EEC to assess the fiscal and operational feasibility of developing a contract model for independent family child care

24

Contract Eligibility Criteria Independent Family Child Care Providers – RFI Results

Providers most frequently cited the following as “very important” reasons for being interested in EEC contracts:

Easier to serve families with financial assistance More consistent and stable cash flow

Many providers also highlighted the need for higher reimbursement rates, with some under the impression that higher rates could be realized through contracts (rates would actually remain the same through contracts)

Some providers were also under the impression that contracts would provide access to additional support services, such as transportation and professional development

Providers also commented that contracts might improve collaboration with EEC and provide greater access to information, trainings and transportation

The following family child care systems services were perceived to have the highest benefit to the providers completing the RFI:

Eligibility & Enrollment Professional DevelopmentSubstitute Child Care Referrals to Community Services

25

Contract Eligibility Criteria Independent Family Child Care Providers - Considerations

~ 8,600 licensed family child care providers in Massachusetts

Expanding the number of contracts – regardless of the size of the contracts - places additional demands on EEC’s contract staff and contract monitors

Nearly all of the respondents indicated no experience with EEC’s contract billing system and more than 1/3 indicated need for training in EEC software systems

Many of the perceived benefits of direct contracts might also be achieved by improvements to voucher policies and strengthening of services offered by family child care systems

EEC may not have adequate staff and oversight capacity, if significant numbers of family child care providers entered the contract system

Future development of the Unified IT Systems could facilitate direct contracts

26

Contract Eligibility CriteriaOptions for Board Discussion

Eligibility Category

Minimum Eligibility Criteria to Discuss for 2009 RFR

Option or Recommendation

LicensingEEC Licensed in good standing (compliance with all fiscal and

regulatory requirements) OR

EEC licensed or legally license-exempt and meet additional requirements (e.g., adhere to licensing requirements, be

accredited, etc.)*

OPTION

Schedule of Operations

Provide care on a full-day (10 hours) & full-year schedule (260 days)

ORProvide care or access to care on a full-day &

full-year schedule

OPTION

State Financial Assistance

Policies

Must follow all EEC financial assistance policies – e.g., waiting list & sliding-fee scale

RECOMMENDATION

Family Child Care Homes

Family child care homes must be affiliated with a family child care system to be eligible for access to contract slots

RECOMMENDATION

* Would only be implemented on a pilot basis, at a limited number of sites.

27

Income Eligible Contracts

Quality Evaluation Framework for Reviewing Contract Bids

28

Quality Evaluation FrameworkFramework for Evaluating Quality of Contract Bids

To assure best quality, each bidder will respond to a series of narrative and data questions covering the following areas:

Program Quality – Accreditation, teacher education levels, staff turnover, screening and assessment practices, curriculum practices, and other structural measures of quality

Provider Experience – Experience with EEC systems, policies and programs

Collaborations & Partnerships – Current or planned collaborations/partnerships designed to improve the quality of care and access to services

Age Groups Served – Planned age groups to be included in contract in comparison with community needs

Evaluation teams will review each bid and award points based on the content and quality of the responses in each area, with priority points provided if certain criteria are met – e.g., accreditation

Will discuss in more detail at the January Board meeting

29

Summary of RFR Framework

Board will need to approve the following components of the RFR framework at the January meeting:

Goals of Procurement Allocation of Contract Resources Contract Eligibility Criteria Evaluation Criteria Required Services Contract Duration & Integration with QRIS

With Board approval in January, the RFR can be posted in late January with RFR responses due to EEC by early March

30

Procurement Timeline

2008 2009Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Marc April May June July Aug Sept

Contracts Prepared & Signed

Research & Option

Development

Board Discussions & RFR Development

RFR Posted & Providers Respond

Responses Analyzed & Contracts Awarded