1

Child Care Resource and Referral (CCR&R)

FY ‘13 Contract Renewal Background and Proposal for Board Review

January 2012

Presentation Overview:

1. History of CCR&Rs in Massachusetts

2. CCR&Rs today, current services and output data

3. Indicators of the need for CCR&R Reform from:• MA Legislature• CAYL• SAC Family Needs Assessment• NACCRRA• CCR&Rs

4. EEC Recommendations for Reform

2

3

History of CCR&Rs in Massachusetts In the 1970s Massachusetts was one of the first states to

develop information and referral services to support working families needing to find child care for their children. They tracked supply and demand data and worked with both the child care providers and the state to improve quality and access for all families.

Throughout those early years and into the mid-1990s, the core child care resource and referral services were:

Consumer education including information and referral, Training and technical assistance for providers, Resource development, Data collection and analyses, and Policy and advocacy.

Source: The CAYL Institute Child Care Resource and Referral Study Circle Project May 2011

History of CCR&Rs in MassachusettsIn the 1980s, two major changes took place that

impacted the child care resource and referral field in Massachusetts: First: The state merged CCR&Rs with Voucher

Management Agencies (VMAs). Second: Employer-supported resource and

referral services expanded across the country via Work Family Directions.

Both were a mixed blessing for the CCR&Rs. Many benefited from the contract dollars with corporations and served a wide array of working families. Simultaneously, voucher management began to shift the role of the CCR&Rs by expanding their focus to serving primarily the lowest income families and managing vouchers.

4

Source: The CAYL Institute Child Care Resource and Referral Study Circle Project May 2011

In the mid-1990s:With the passing of welfare reform at both at

the state and then federal levels, the CCR&Rs voucher management role expanded, becoming almost their sole focus.

Simultaneously, Work Family Directions pulled back many of the contracts that had once provided private funding to the agencies, making the agencies’ resources very tight for supporting moderate income working families.

In 2009 CCR&RRs lost $ in 9c funding cuts.

5

Source:The CAYL Institute Child Care Resource and Referral Study Circle Project May 2011

History of CCR&Rs in Massachusetts

History of CCR&Rs in Massachusetts:ARRA Funding

In FY ‘11 CCR&Rs received $561K in ARRA funding to support: the transition to their new contracts, Implementation of efficiencies, and enrolling children in ARRA funded initiatives.

CCR&Rs used these funds:To fund 22 FTEs to fill gaps in staffing,Pay for overtime to handle ARRA intake,For the addition of new telephone lines, updated websites

and scheduling software.

With the termination of these funds many CCR&Rs have returned to lower staff levels.

6

CCR&Rs Today: The Current CCR&R Contract:

Totals $5.4 M per year Put out to bid in 2009 for July FY 10 Start

20 bidders responded (14 CCR&Rs and 6 other bidders.)

11 were selected. Contract is for 3 years with 2 one-year options to

renew. Current 11 CCR&Rs offer varying levels of service:

Level One: Voucher Management (9 CCR&Rs)Level Two: Information and Referral (8 CCR&Rs)Level Three: Consumer Education (2 CCR&Rs)

7

CCR&Rs Today: Current CCR&R Contractors, Regions and Contract Levels:

8

CCR&Rs Today:Outputs: FY’12 First Quarter Reports

9

Activity FY 12 Plan

FY12 Actual

Balance

Outpost Locations 29 29 On target

Goal for average wait time 4 days 5 days Over target by average of 1 day

Number of families to receive a referral

10,809 2,360 22% of goal met in first quarter

Ave Caseload per voucher Counselor 795 868 Above target by average of 84 cases

Total new voucher agreements to be signed

458 125 27% of target met in first quarter

Number families to receive in-home/relative orientation

746 192 26% of target met in first quarter

Total number of families to receive a level 2 referral

16,510 2,820 17% of target met in first quarter

CCR&Rs Today: Level One CCR&R Outputs

10

Standard Deviation: DSS: 2 ; DTA: 175; Income Eligible: 216; ARRA: 52 Grand Total: 297Avg. = Average (11/10 – 12/11) *September 2009 New Voucher Placement number was 1,736 *October 2009 New Voucher Placement number was 982 Source: CCIMS

CCR&Rs Today: Level One CCR&R Outputs

11

*These numbers represent the volume of new (blue) and reassessed (red) vouchers written state-wide each month. These numbers do not capture no-show appointments or appointments held for vouchers not written due to insufficient documentation. Source: CCIMS

CCR&Rs Today: Outputs: FY12 First Quarter Report, Level 3

12

Resources Made Available: Number of Items

Number of Individuals Reached

CCR&R website http://machildcareresourcesonline.org/

113,062 visitors

Tweets sent 17Facebook posts 54 6,175Events listed 83 5,570Resources distributed (newsletters & brochures)

9 49,875

Parent resources accessedWebinars 4 2,147Training videos 6Resource links 32Provider resources accessedWebinars 5 2,214Training clips 7Resource links 24

CCR&Rs today: Overlap with other EEC Funding:

Of the 11 CCR&Rs:2 Are the Lead CFCE Grantee• 2 Subcontract with a local CFCE

3 are the lead EPS grantee• 6 are members of the EPS Network

Team in their region (2 have subcontracts.)

0 are affiliated with a parent agency that also receives the EC Mental Health grant.

13

Indicators of the Need for CCR&R Reform:

Over the past year, EEC has received input from a variety of sources that point to a need for reform of our CCR&R System. These sources include:

MA Legislature, via EEC Budget Language, The June 2011 CAYL Study Circle Report The January 2012 Findings of the SAC Family Needs

Assessment The January 2012 National Child Care Resource and

Referral Association (NACCRRA) Plan for Massachusetts Findings and Recommendations.

CCR&Rs themselves

A brief review of the findings of each resource follows:

14

Indicators of the Need for Reform:MA Legislature Budget Language.

Although the Massachusetts legislature fully funded CCR&R services for FY2012, in response to concerns regarding the status and cost effectiveness of the CCR&R agencies in the Commonwealth, the legislature included language in EEC’s FY 2012 Budget requiring the Department to:

“…detail the feasibility of centralizing the following responsibilities … program coordination and support, voucher management, outreach to hard-to-reach populations, intake and eligibility services for families seeking financial assistance to enroll in early education and care programs, resource and referral for families with disabilities in child care programs, and walk-in services for homeless families”

15

Indicators of the Need for Reform: CAYL Study Circle Findings

FINDING 1: CCR&R agencies recognize that change is needed while clearly articulating that there are system and fiscal challenges from the state to help affect change.

FINDING 2: The historic core functions of MA CCR&R services have eroded.

FINDING 3: Restructuring of EEC-Funded professional development services have largely supplanted the CCR&Rs historic role.

FINDING 4: MA CCR&Rs demonstrate inconsistent use of technologies.

FINDING 5: The role of CCR&Rs in the context of expanded state initiatives that support families is unclear.

FINDING 6: Links between MA CCR&Rs and national best practices and trends are not strong.

16The CAYL Institute Child Care Resource and Referral Study Circle Project May 2011

Indicators of the Need for Reform:SAC Family Survey on Access to Information When Selecting a Programo A large majority of families report needing some type of care for

their children, including 73% of families participating in the representative sample and 81% of families that completed the public version of the survey.

o Families rely strongly on informal referrals to find out about early education and school-age care arrangements.

o In 39% of the families surveyed, the family heard about their primary care arrangement through neighbors, friends, relatives or community groups.

o Families reported only modest use of other referral services. For example, only 8% reported using a child care referral service and only 3% reported using the referral of a healthcare provider, welfare/social service caseworker.

17

Indicators of the Need for Reform:NACCRRA Findings

FINDING 1: Massachusetts CCR&Rs do not provide the comprehensive services typically provided by CCR&Rs and therefore do not meet the national definition or standards for CCR&R.

FINDING 2: The core services of CCR&Rs are fragmented and lack coordination at the state level. As a result, the services are inefficient, uneven, confusing to both parents and providers, and expensive to monitor.

FINDING 3: Parent services including consumer education, referrals and subsidy programs are delivered by different agencies depending on the status of the family. As a result, families who qualify for subsides are supposed to receive consumer information from a different agency than other families. This is confusing to the consumer and requires multiple contracts and oversight by the State EEC.

18

NACCRRA Findings (continued):

FINDING 4: Provider Services are inconsistent, lack intentionality and do not provide a smooth pathway for providers to move from entry level (licensing) to higher levels of the States’ QRIS system.

FINDING 5:The voucher management system is antiquated, paper-laden, labor intensive and vulnerable to fraud.

FINDING 6: Because services are fragmented, there is no single

agency responsible for community support activities. For example, no agency is required to do local needs assessments, work with businesses or develop support for ECE programs. In economically disadvantaged communities, there are no plans to increase the supply of higher quality care. The CFCE grants provide opportunities for some of the work, but as currently designed are more engaged with school-based functions than capacity building activities.

19

NACCRRA Findings (continued):

FINDING 7: CCR&R have not used technology to improve the delivery of services or to minimize disruption to families or providers. This has resulted in the inability of the state to have accurate, real-time data to inform decisions and has caused undue hardship on families and providers who are constantly required to update data in-person.

FINDING 8: Databases are not current, are not used to provide statewide reports on ECE and do not have the capacity to share data with other state databases such as licensing and subsidy administration.

20

Indicators of the Need for Reform: CCR&Rs

CCR&Rs acknowledge the need to improve services within their current contract and have begun the following changes within their current contract: Becoming NACCRA Quality Assured. All Level 2 CCR&Rs are

currently in the Self-Study process. Supporting role-out of the voucher management pilot and

subsequent expansion. Developing plans to increase their role in informing families and

programs about the value of the QRIS. Increasing Level 3 outputs. Updating and streamlining the process for monitoring of

voucher providers. Enhancing the use of technology as possible with current

funding. Collaborating with MASS211 in delivery of information and

referral services. Development of a state-wide Advisory with broad

representation. 21

Indicators of the Need for Reform: A Summary

These findings, taken together, point to a need for the following reforms in CCR&R services in MA:

Standardization of CCR&R services across all contracts,

Increased use of technology and unified data systems,

Streamlined and/or centralized voucher management, Increased access to information for all families,

subsidized or not, on early education options and quality - including the QRIS,

Clarification around the training and technical assistance role of the CCR&Rs,

Alignment with national best practice and CCR&R quality assurance.

22

EEC Recommendations:

In order to continue to develop CCR&R services as an integrated part of EEC’s service delivery system as outlined in the Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge Grant and to respond to the findings summarized above, EEC offers the following course of action for CCR&R contracts in FY ’13….

23

EEC Proposal for FY’13 CCR&R Contracts:

1. Current Level One and Two contracts will be renewed for 6 months in FY ’13 (July 1 – December 31, 2012.)

2. Level Three contracts will not be continued into FY ‘13. These funds will be transitioned to support the Brain Building in Progress Campaign.

3. A RFR will be developed for contracting for a newly designed and standardized set of CCR&R services that will start in January 2013.

4. To design this new role, EEC will hire a management consultant in FY 12. The management consultant will incorporate input from families and current CCR&Rs as they develop a standard set of policies, procedures and protocols to be used by all CCR&Rs. Once the development of the standard protocols is complete, the management consultant could remain in an oversight capacity to ensure that CCR&Rs perform as required/defined.

24

EEC Proposal for FY’13 CCR&R Contracts:

The standard protocols developed by the Management Consultant will include specific expectations regarding the following: Use of technology: required systems for all CCR&Rs. Voucher Management: requirements related to outpost

locations, response times, monitoring and alignment with contracted providers, DTA and MASS211.

Information and Referral: requirements for effectively serving all families in the Commonwealth.

Provider Training: requirements related to workshop offerings, focus on health and safety, support of new applicants for licensure and alignment with EPS grantee offerings.

Customer Service: Requirements related to NACCRRA Quality Assurance and customer satisfaction.

Consumer Education: requirements related to specific avenues for information distribution, topics and alignment with Brain Building in Progress and MASS211.

25

Proposed Timeline in 4 Phases:Phase One: Information Gathering/VisioningDecember ‘11 - February 2012 Board to review plans with CCR&R input. Letter to all CCR&Rs outlining the plans for FY ‘13

contracts. RFR Posted for hiring of management consultant.

Phase Two: Planning March – June 2012 Management Consultant will develop standard policies,

procedures and protocols by June 30.

Phase Three: Re-contracting July - September EEC will develop an RFR that reflects the protocols and post

as an open bid for CCR&R Services. Contract awards will be announced by Sept. 15, 2012

Phase Four: Transition to new CCR&R model. Oct. – Dec.

New CCR&R contracts start: January 1, 2013. 26

Implications/ Issues For Consideration:

Role of the CCR&Rs: The goal of this process is not to eliminate CCR&Rs but to instead to redefine their role and to align their work with that of other EEC initiatives and Race to the Top Plans. It is expected that the role of CCR&Rs will move away from service delivery and more toward sharing of information.

Information Technology: this timeline assumes smooth roll-out of the

integrated voucher reassessment system in February that will allow for contracted programs to renew vouchers themselves. Delays in implementation of this system may result in delays in the implementation of the CCR&R re-bid as plans will assume this system to be in place. The significant decrease in voucher reassessment workload by CCR&Rs will allow for reallocation of CCR&R staff time to other initiatives.

Funding: For planning purposes, EEC anticipates maintenance level of $5.4M in FY’13 for all child care resource and referral related activities.

Timing: January start date for new contracts is planned to minimize impact of any changes on families.

27