A Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis of the Los Angeles County Early Care and Education System PREPARED FOR The Los Angeles County Office of Child Protection By Capito Associates November 2019 Acknowledgements The Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis (CFA) team gratefully acknowledges the participation of nearly 200 stakeholders across the early care and education community in Los Angeles County. The complex work of exploring early care and education funding, its administration and the real impact of quality on cost requires a collaborative commitment. The Early Care and Education (ECE) community in Los Angeles County, with leadership from the Office of Child Protection and First 5 Los Angeles (First 5 LA), supported by the ongoing input of the Prevention Plan Early Care and Education Workgroup, demonstrated its commitment to improving the lives of young children, families and providers through their active engagement in this project. The CFA acknowledges the commitment of Los Angeles County stakeholders to the process, sharing invaluable wisdom, expertise and fiscal data, to inform the report, recommendations and revenue and expense models. Further, and most important, the CFA team would like to highlight continued commitment these stakeholders have demonstrated to the hard work that comes with acting upon recommendations to improve the fiscal landscape of early care and education. Los Angeles County is well positioned to make significant changes in how resources are used and the experience of children, families and providers, with the ongoing commitment of stakeholders to the collaborative process working on systemic changes. Thank you to Jacquelyn McCroskey, Terry Ogawa, and Katie Fallin Kenyon for leading the Prevention Plan ECE Workgroup and providing tireless guidance to the CFA team. Special thanks to Carrie Miller, Office of Child Protection (OCP), and the OCP staff, for being a continual source of input and guidance. The CFA values the insight and participation of all the Prevention Plan ECE Workgroup members. It is through this leadership and participation that the CFA was able to engage with over 100 child care providers and several dozen county offices, local municipalities, and early care and education entities. All of this work would not have been possible without generous funding from the Quality and Productivity Commission, OCP, and First 5 LA. Prevention Plan ECE Workgroup Cristina Alvarado Linda Aragon Sonia Campos-Rivera Ellen Cervantes Fran Chasen Genie Chough Richard Cohen Debra Colman Dorothy Fleisher Wendy Garen Kalene Gilbert Robert Gilchick Stefanie Gluckman Lila Gurguis Genethia Hudley-Hayes Maral Karaccusian Katie Fallin Kenyon Jackie Majors Jacquelyn McCroskey Ofelia Medina Carrie Miller Collins Nweke Terry Ogawa Becca Patton Karla Pleitez Howell Joyce Robinson Jill Rowland Michele Sartell Martine Singer Dean Tagawa Elise Weinberg Cheryl Wold Keesha Woods The Capito Associates team members on the CFA included: Jeanna Capito, Jessica Rodriguez Duggan, Simon Workman, and Karen Yarbrough. 2 A Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis of the Los Angeles County Early Care and Education System Table of Contents Acknowledgements.............................................................................................................................................2 Executive Summary.........................................................................................................................................5 Introduction and Background..........................................................................................................................5 Methodology/Approach.....................................................................................................................................5 Funding Catalogue...........................................................................................................................................5 Community and County Initiative Profiles...............................................................................................5 Revenue and Expense Models......................................................................................................................6 Findings and Recommendations....................................................................................................................6 Section I: Introduction..................................................................................................................................9 What Is a Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis?.................................................................................................9 Los Angeles County’s Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis.........................................................................10 Structure of this Report....................................................................................................................................10 Section II: Approach and Analysis....................................................................................................... 12 Funding Catalogue............................................................................................................................................. 12 Community and County Initiative Profiles................................................................................................. 17 Revenue and Expense Models....................................................................................................................... 18 Model Methodology........................................................................................................................................... 19 Center-Based Model.......................................................................................................................................... 19 Model Assumptions...........................................................................................................................................20 Model Results....................................................................................................................................................... 21 Cost Per Child....................................................................................................................................................... 21 Child Stacked Revenue Charts...................................................................................................................... 22 Family Child Care Home Model.................................................................................................................... 24 Model Results...................................................................................................................................................... 25 Cost Per Child...................................................................................................................................................... 25 Section III: Findings and Recommendations................................................................................ 28 Leverage and Fully Utilize Existing and New Resources.................................................................... 29 RECOMMENDATION 1: Utilize the full potential of the CalWORKs program across each stage of implementation. Action Steps.......................................................................................................................................................... 31 3 A Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis of the Los Angeles County Early Care and Education System Table of Contents continued RECOMMENDATION 2: Support and encourage school districts to use funding for early care and education and develop partnerships to increase access to services. Action Steps......................................................................................................................................................... 33 RECOMMENDATION 3: Address the local monitoring burden on programs administering funding to providers, lessening the time and resources directed to monitoring. Action Steps......................................................................................................................................................... 34 RECOMMENDATION 4: Expand programs that develop the early childhood educator pipeline and access additional funding streams to support the development and professionalization of the workforce. Action Steps......................................................................................................................................................... 36 Maximize the Potential and Efficiency of Current Structures........................................................... 36 RECOMMENDATION 5: Empower the County’s Office for the Advancement of Early Care and Education (OAECE) as a central organizer for the early care and education system in Los Angeles County. Action Steps......................................................................................................................................................... 38 Increase Equitable Access to High-Quality ECE for Targeted Populations and Communities............................................................................................................................................... 39 RECOMMENDATION 6: Address the insufficient supply of infant and toddler care. Action Steps.......................................................................................................................................................... 41 RECOMMENDATION 7: Implement strategies to support those delivering family, friend, and neighbor care in Los Angeles County and provide a pathway toward licensed child care for those interested in growing into the profession. Action Steps......................................................................................................................................................... 43 APPENDICES....................................................................................................................................................... 44 List of Tables List of Figures Table 1. Summary of Findings with Associated Recommendations.................................. 7 Figure 1. Cost for Full-Day, Full-Year Center-Based Care.......................................................22 Table 2. Direct Service Funding by Source..........13 Figure 2. Per-Child Revenue Charts Child Care Center Infant..........................................23 Table 3. System Supports Funding by Source....14 Figure 3. Per-Child Revenue Charts Child Care Center Toddler.......................................23 Table 4. Number of Children Funded by Direct Services Initiatives............................................ 15 Figure 4. Per-Child Revenue Charts Child Care Center Preschooler............................. 24 Table 5. Programs by Funding Entity.....................16 Table 6. Profile Themes and Examples.................. 17 Figure 5. Family Child Care Home Model Cost Comparison............................................ 26 Table 7. Staff-to-Child Ratios and Group Sizes Used in Center-Based Model.........................19 Table 8. Salary Adjustments for Quality...............20 Figure 6. Per-Child Revenue/Expense Rates Small Family Child Care Home Infant................ 26 Table 9. Default Salaries Used in Center-Based Model..................................................... 21 Figure 7. Per-Child Revenue/Expense Rates Small Family Child Care Home Toddler.............27 Table 10. Recommendations.....................................28 Figure 8. Per-Child Revenue/Expense Rates Small Family Child Care Home Preschooler.....27 4 A Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis of the Los Angeles County Early Care and Education System Executive Summary The research and investigation phase involved collecting and analyzing data at the system, community, and individual-provider level. We synthesized this information and used it to develop three primary products: a funding catalogue, community and county initiative profiles, and revenue and expense models. From the analysis of these products, and in consultation with key stakeholders throughout the county, we developed recommendations for Los Angeles County’s ECE system. Introduction and Background Improving access to early care and education (ECE) programs is one of the seven strategies outlined in Los Angeles County’s 2017 Paving the Road to Safety for our Children: A Prevention Plan for Los Angeles County. With funding from the Los Angeles County Quality and Productivity Commission, First 5 LA, and the Office of Child Protection (OCP), OCP engaged a team of national experts in early childhood systems and financing to conduct a comprehensive fiscal analysis (CFA) of the ECE system in Los Angeles County. FUNDING CATALOGUE The CFA team reviewed extant data on federal, state, and local public funding streams and conducted 45 key informant interviews with fund and system-level administrators to gather and synthesize information for this process. This resulted in a Funding Catalogue that details the key characteristics of all the funding initiatives. The catalogue is included in this report as Appendix A and includes a summary of total funding and total children served across all initiatives. To build an infrastructure that supports and sustains comprehensive cross-sector early childhood systems work, an understanding of fiscal context is imperative. The CFA presents a multi-level analysis threading fiscal and programmatic information together in a way that can aid Los Angeles County stakeholders in answering questions related to the policies and regulations of funding streams, levels of investment, and opportunities for varied investments in early care and education. COMMUNITY AND COUNTY INITIATIVE PROFILES The comprehensive fiscal analysis used a profiling approach to provide more qualitative data and information on the myriad strategies that communities and agencies use (we conducted 70 interviews with stakeholders throughout the county) to supplement and leverage additional funding for early childhood care and education. The profiles in Appendix B showcase the many County and localgovernment entities involved in funding and supporting ECE services beyond the “usual suspects”—examples from across the county that recognize the tremendous diversity in geography, race, ethnicity, and economic wellbeing that exists in this vast area. The profiles additionally support the recommendations resulting from this project and raise awareness of strategies that could potentially be replicated across Los Angeles. The guiding questions the CFA addressed are: • • • What funding currently supports early care and education services in Los Angeles County? How are these funds being used and are they being fully leveraged? What opportunities exist to better coordinate, streamline, and maximize existing funds? Methodology/Approach The key activities of the CFA were split into three broad categories: • • • Research and investigation of funding streams and County and community approaches. Creating revenue and expense models for center-based child care and family child care. Analyzing the information gathered and developing recommendations. 5 A Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis of the Los Angeles County Early Care and Education System an early care and education program in Los Angeles County and the sufficiency of current revenue, showing the impact that higher service quality and its associated increased salaries and benefits have on the cost of care. Stacked bar charts compare the revenue available to fund ECE services to the actual cost of those services, demonstrating gaps between revenue and expenses for particular funding combinations and highlighting how these gaps vary by child age. Appendix C includes charts across all quality levels with cost-per-child levels and revenue stacking. These effectively demonstrate a gap between revenue and expense for all age groups, with no funding scenario covering the estimated expenses for either centers or family child care homes. For instance, a center under state contracts loses nearly $8,000 per year for an infant and over $4,000 for a toddler and a preschooler. The data in these charts show that, using currently available revenue streams, providers in Los Angeles County cannot provide quality early care and education services where teachers are adequately compensated and best-practice staff-to-child ratios and group sizes are maintained. REVENUE AND EXPENSE MODELS Revenue and expense models are tools used to understand the relationship between the expense of delivering early care and education services and the available revenues. The CFA team developed two models—one for centerbased settings and one for family child care settings—to aid stakeholders in understanding: • • The cost to provide early care and education services in Los Angeles County and how this varies by program type, size, location, and quality level. The extent to which current revenues available to providers are able to cover costs. Findings and Recommendations The team met regularly with the OCP-led Prevention Plan ECE Workgroup to discuss efforts and shape recommendations. The latter fall into three major categories of guidance for Los Angeles County stakeholders: The revenue and expense models are informed by data collected from more than 100 providers across the county. The CFA team reviewed financial records and conducted interviews, collecting revenue and expense data from a mix of providers to inform the models’ assumptions related to salary and non-personnel expenses. The models include data on all available funding streams and allow users to manipulate revenue and expense data based on different quality levels and/or funding streams accessed. • • • Leverage and fully utilize existing and new resources. Maximize the potential and efficiency of current structures. Increase equitable access to high-quality ECE for targeted populations and communities. A snapshot of the primary findings for each of the seven recommendations appears in Table 1. The CFA team used the models to run several scenarios estimating the cost of operating 6 A Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis of the Los Angeles County Early Care and Education System TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS WITH ASSOCIATED RECOMMENDATIONS PRIMARY FINDING RECOMMENDATION In Los Angeles County, CalWORKs (California Work Opportunities and Responsibility to Kids) families are moved off Stage 1 and into Stage 2 according to the local definition of stability, which is typically a six month term. This transition may place additional burdens on other CDE funding streams that are already at capacity. Fortunately, a new state regulation authorizes immediate and continuous eligibility for child care for Stage 1 families. This program change is an exciting new opportunity for Los Angeles County to maximize Stage 1 child care for eligible families. Utilize the full potential of the CalWORKs program across each stage of implementation. Those school districts using their Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) dollars to fund early care and education have been able to significantly expand and strengthen their ECE offerings. While a review of the Local Control and Accountability Plans (LCAPs) for all 80 school districts in the county was not within the scope of the CFA, stakeholder interviews made it clear that most districts do not leverage LCFF funding for ECE services, which is a missed opportunity. Support and encourage school districts to use funding for early care and education and develop partnerships to increase access to services. CalWORKs Stage 1 monitoring is more frequent (monthly vs. annually) and less efficient (paper forms vs. electronic) than Stages 2 and 3, and the necessary operating systems and staffing differ, placing additional burdens on administrators and providers. Address the local monitoring burden on the programs administering funding to providers to lessen the time and resources directed to monitoring. The ECE workforce in Los Angeles County (as in other jurisdictions) is facing a crisis: providers leaving the workforce because of low compensation and better job options in other sectors, an aging population of early educators, and an insufficient supply of new recruits into the field. Expand programs that develop the early childhood educator pipeline and access additional funding streams to support the development and professionalization of the workforce. There appears to be wide variability in the requirements of County ECE initiatives, as well as a lack of coordination across departments that oversee them, including County employee child care centers. Unlike other jurisdictions, no central entity exists in County government with oversight over these ECE programs and the ability to provide content expertise, support, connections across programs, and accountability to a common set of quality standards. Empower the County’s Office for the Advancement of Early Care and Education (OAECE) as a central organizer for the early care and education system in Los Angeles County. Provide adequate funding and staffing for OAECE to: Administrative systems such as licensing (child care and business licenses), land use and zoning approval processes, and fire and health codes pose barriers for ECE providers wanting to open new programs or expand existing ones. A significant need exists for support and technical assistance both for these providers and for city and County planners to understand the ECE industry. • • Address inconsistencies and inefficiencies in current systems and processes. Advance and coordinate additional investments to expand access and support program quality for all providers. In the area of high-quality supports for providers, Los Angeles County has over $76 million invested across more than 20 separate system support initiatives, yet it is unclear if these programs are reaching the providers who need it the most. 7 A Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis of the Los Angeles County Early Care and Education System PRIMARY FINDING RECOMMENDATION Many areas in the region are saturated with programming for children three to five years old, resulting in an underutilization of California State Preschool Program (CSPP) contracts. Conversely, Los Angeles County has a significant infant and toddler child care supply issue. Because of multiple barriers—including higher costs to implement infant and toddler care, less funding available, funding rates not covering actual costs, and facilities no longer designed to meet infant and toddler licensing requirements— providers in the county who once served infants, or infants and toddlers, now serve only preschoolers. Address the insufficient supply of infant and toddler care by: License-exempt family, friend, and neighbor care makes up a significant portion of the ECE system in Los Angeles County. It is most likely to be used by low-income families with infants or toddlers, yet very few resources go to support these providers. Implement strategies to support those delivering family, friend, and neighbor care and provide a pathway toward licensed child care for those interested in growing into the profession. • • Implementing county-level goals for seeking, drawing down, and using all available contract-based funding from the California Department of Education. Designing and implementing strategies to better support current infant and toddler care providers and increase the supply of high-quality child care for this age. 8 A Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis of the Los Angeles County Early Care and Education System Section I: Introduction Improving access to early care and education (ECE) programs is one of the seven strategies outlined in Los Angeles County’s 2017 Paving the Road to Safety for our Children: A Prevention Plan for Los Angeles County. With funding from the Los Angeles County Quality and Productivity Commission, First 5 LA, and the Office of Child Protection (OCP), OCP engaged Capito Associates—a team of national experts in early childhood systems and financing with many years of early childhood systems and finance experience from multiple states, counties, and cities—to conduct a comprehensive fiscal analysis (CFA) of the ECE system in Los Angeles County. OCP, the Policy Roundtable for Child Care and Development, First 5 LA, and other partners convened the OCP Prevention Plan/ECE Workgroup to advise and guide the CFA team and make recommendations to strengthen the efficiency and effectiveness of the ECE system. This report summarizes the information gathered through the CFA process and is intended to further the early care and education system goals held by Los Angeles County stakeholders. What Is a Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis? To build an infrastructure that supports and sustains comprehensive and cross-sector early childhood systems work, an understanding of the fiscal context is imperative. A brief from the National Center for Children in Poverty (NCCP)1 provides guidance on conducting this type of work, outlining potential approaches. Most important is the collecting of budgetary information, then linking that information together in a way that promotes systems thinking and cross-systems analysis. The CFA team followed this approach, presenting here a multi-level analysis threading fiscal and programmatic information together in a way that can aid Los Angeles County stakeholders in answering questions related to the policies and regulations of funding streams, levels of investment, and opportunities for varied investments in early care and education. The guiding questions the CFA addressed are: • • • What funding currently supports early care and education services in Los Angeles County? How are these funds being used and are they being fully leveraged? What opportunities exist to better coordinate, streamline, and maximize existing funds? For Los Angeles County, the CFA approach also addressed the most complex challenges raised in the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2018 report Transforming the Financing of Early Care and Education2—the existing patchwork of different funding sources and financing mechanisms that can cause inequities in access, quality, affordability, and accountability. The team’s approach rests on several guiding principles regarding early childhood systems work, including: • • • A system that works for all children and ensures that programming reaches and positively affects those children most vulnerable. A system that is fair to providers and supports their developing capacity for quality implementation. A system that uses public resources wisely and efficiently. 1 Johnson, K. (2006). SHORT TAKE No. 3: Developing Fiscal Analyses and Children’s Budgets to Support ECCS. New York, NY: National Center for Children in Poverty, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health. http://www.nccp. org/publications/pdf/text_677.pdf. Accessed May 23, 2015. 2 National Academies Press, (800) 624-6242; http://www. nas.edu/Finance_ECE 9 A Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis of the Los Angeles County Early Care and Education System The research and investigation phase involved collecting and analyzing data at the system, community, and individual provider level. We reviewed all funding sources used in Los Angeles County, including federal, state, and local sources, and met with funding administrators to get an in-depth understanding of the goals and activities associated with each funding stream. At the provider level, the team met with child care center and family child care home providers to gather data on program revenue and expenses. The data gathered then enabled us to create separate revenue and expense models for child care centers and for family child care homes. These models include all available funding streams and allow users to model provider-level revenue and expenses based on different quality levels and/or funding streams accessed. The models also allow for the calculation of cost-per-child amounts broken out by infants, toddlers, and preschoolers. These activities culminated in the CFA team’s recommendations for strengthening the Los Angeles County early care and education system going forward. Los Angeles County’s Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis Stakeholders in Los Angeles County identify access to ECE programs as a barrier for families. For example, 51% of children from birth to age three in Los Angeles County are eligible for statesubsidized early care and education services, yet only six percent of this population in the county 3 receive those services. This is frequently because of the complicated eligibility and enrollment processes and various public funding streams. Multiple funding sources and complex financing mechanisms result in an uncoordinated system that perpetuates inequities that are most acutely felt by the children and families whom ECE is trying to serve. One way to tackle this issue is to use fiscal-analysis data and planning to build a fiscal infrastructure that supports and sustains comprehensive and coordinated early childhood systems. With the CFA, Los Angeles County stakeholders learn where investments are being made at both the systems and program levels—including a clear tracking of funds to serve families—and how these investments are, or could be, layered to make the most of each funding source. Structure of this Report Section II reviews the approach used for each component of the report, combined with an analysis of the information gathered. While it is important that a CFA be independent and impartial, the team also believes that the strength of this work and its end product rests in a collaborative process between the CFA team and ECE stakeholders in Los Angeles. To that end, the CFA process has included multiple discussions with those administering local funding programs as well as with providers who deliver the services and operate their programs using the multiple funding streams available in Los Angeles County. n The Funding Catalogue encompasses all the funding research and investigation, with summary tables to provide quick analysis of the data. n The community and county profiles highlight the diversity of types of investments in ECE that can be found across Los Angeles County. A summary table of themes from the profiles point to some of the most promising approaches to investing in ECE that may be useful for replication in other parts of the County. The key activities of the CFA were split into three broad categories: • • • Research and investigation of funding streams and county and community approaches. Creating revenue and expense models for center-based child care and family child care. Analyzing the information gathered and developing recommendations 3 Advancement Project. Building California’s Future: Tackling the Facilities Challenge for Our Youngest Learners. February 2019. https://www.advancementprojectca.org/ wp-content/uploads/2019/02/FINAL-ECE-Facilities-report. pdf pp 9, 11. 10 A Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis of the Los Angeles County Early Care and Education System n The revenue and expense models created by the CFA team summarize the results of cost of services at different levels of quality with a comparison to available revenues, including stacked revenue charts based on the results of the revenue and expense models. Each recommendation includes findings and rationale, along with multiple strategies for implementation. Section III details the CFA team’s seven recommendations, organized into three major categories: • • • • • Appendices include additional details on: • Leverage and fully utilize existing and new resources. Maximize the potential and efficiency of current structures. Increase equitable access to highquality ECE for targeted populations and communities. • • The Funding Catalogue—Appendix A A complete set of community and county initiative profiles—Appendix B Snapshots of the revenue and expense model tools—Appendix C Additional data and instructions on the model functioning—Appendix D A glossary of ECE and Los Angeles County terms—Appendix E 11 A Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis of the Los Angeles County Early Care and Education System Section II: Approach and Analysis Funding Catalogue A key aspect of the CFA process involved reviewing information on all available funding streams in Los Angeles County. We reviewed extant data on federal, state, and local public funding streams and conducted 45 keyinformant interviews with fund administrators to gather and synthesize information for this process. The CFA team also reviewed program materials, contracts, and budgets, and engaged with system-level administrators and providers across the Los Angeles area. What follows is a summary of the team’s analysis of the current fiscal landscape in Los Angeles, based on data collected at the system and direct service levels and framed within a rubric meant to streamline a review of initiatives. This resulted in a Funding Catalogue (Appendix A) detailing the key characteristics of all funding initiatives plus a summary of total funding and total children served across each. These tables summarize the data in the Funding Catalogue. TABLE 2. DIRECT SERVICE FUNDING BY SOURCE This table illustrates all the direct service funding streams in Los Angeles County and includes their total amount by source. TABLE 3. SYSTEM SUPPORTS FUNDING BY SOURCE This table illustrates all system supports funding streams in Los Angeles County and includes their total amounts by source. TABLE 4. NUMBER OF CHILDREN FUNDED BY DIRECT SERVICE INITIATIVES This table identifies the total number of children funded by direct service initiatives in Los Angeles County and includes their total amounts by source. TABLE 5. PROGRAMS BY FUNDING ENTITY This table illustrates both direct service and system supports programs organized by the funding entity. 12 A Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis of the Los Angeles County Early Care and Education System TABLE 2. DIRECT SERVICE FUNDING BY SOURCE State Direct Service Funding Initiatives Federal CA Department of Education (Federal and General Fund Prop 98) CA Department of Education (Federal and General Fund non Prop 98) CA Department of Social Services (Federal and General Fund) Local Total by Initiative CA Dept. of Education* Transitional Kindergarten $2,167,303 $2,167,303 CA Dept. of Education Title 5 Contractors CCTR (General Child Care and Development) $100,376,687 CSPP (CA State Preschool Program) $100,376,687 $359,831,057 $359,831,057 CA Vouchers Alternative Payment Program (CAPP) $78,162,337 $78,162,337 Cal WORKs Stage 2 $173,450,760 $173,450,760 Cal WORKs Stage 3 $99,210,622 $99,210,622 $64,053,832 Cal WORKs Stage 1 Early Head Start/ Head Start Early Head Start-Child Care Partnership $64,053,832 $165,234,967 $165,234,967 $22,706,179 $22,706,179 Emergency Child Care Bridge Vouchers $8,512,973 $8,512,973 Family Child Care Home Education Network (CFCC) vouchers $19,407,371 $19,407,371 TOTAL BY FUNDING SOURCE $187,941,146 $361,998,360 $459,713,379 $64,053,832 $885,765,571 * California Department of Education funding includes Transitional Kindergarten Expanded and Title I federal funding but it is difficult to establish the amounts in use in LA County. Local education agencies may opt to offer Transitional Kindergarten Expanded and may use General Fund, Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) base dollars, Title I, Title II, or other local district funding and community partnerships to fund the program; local education agencies are not required to report this program expenditure to CDE. Local education agencies may use Title I federal funding for preschool programming but tracking these expenditures separate from overall Title I funding is not required of local education agencies. 13 A Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis of the Los Angeles County Early Care and Education System TABLE 3. SYSTEM SUPPORTS FUNDING BY SOURCE State System Supports Funding Initiatives Federal CA Dept. of CA Dept. of Education Education (Federal and (Federal and General Fund General Fund Prop 98) non Prop 98) Local Prop 10 LA Co. Office of Child Protection Total by Initiative CA Dept. of Education AB 212 Child Care Salary Retention Incentive Program $3,078,826 $3,078,826 CA Preschool Instructional Network $835,469 $835,469 $13,513,043 $13,513,043 CA State Preschool Progam QRIS Block Grant CA TK Professional Development Program $1,026,000 $1,026,000 CA TK Stipend Incentive Program $3,643,172 $3,643,172 Child Care Initiative Project $1,099,674 $1,099,674 $2,586,382 $2,586,382 $199,939 $199,939 – – $5,690,590 $5,690,590 Navigation $1,345,090 $1,345,090 Training $1,516,420 $1,516,420 $2,899,952 $2,899,952 Quality Counts Block Grant Local Child Care and Development Planning Council Child Care Facilities Revolving Loan Fund Child Care Resource and Referral Emergency Child Care Bridge Family Child Care Home Education Network (CFCC) Supports  First Five Los Angeles Early Care and Education Competencies Curriculum Project $700,000 $700,000 Early Care and Education Credential Advocacy Project $700,000 $700,000 Early Care and Education Emerging Opportunities $400,075 $400,075 Early Care and Education Shared Services Support $200,000 $200,000 Early Care and Education Workforce Registry $665,000 $665,000 $399,803 $399,803 $4,035,968 $4,035,968 Quality Coaching and Quality Investment Supports $212,000 $212,000 Quality Rating and Improvement System Architects Group and Systems Planning $438,000 $438,000 Quality Rating and Improvement System Continuous Site Engagement $14,333,000 $14,333,000 Quality Rating and Improvement System Data System Administrator $650,000 $650,000 Educare Policy and Advocacy Kindergarten Readiness Assessment LA Co. Library System Reading Machine TOTAL BY FUNDING SOURCE $5,768,846 $31,432,540 $22,733,846 $600,000 $600,000 $600,000 $60,535,232 14 A Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis of the Los Angeles County Early Care and Education System TABLE 4. NUMBER OF CHILDREN FUNDED BY DIRECT SERVICE INITIATIVES NUMBER OF CHILDREN FUNDED BY INITIATIVE Direct Service Funding Initiatives Number of Children Funded* California Department of Education Transitional Kindergarten 31,844 California Vouchers CAPP CalWORKs Stage 2 CalWORKs Stage 3 6,950 12,100 19,563 CalWORKs Stage 1 7,606 CDE Title 5 Contractors CCTR CSPP 3,979 36,796 Early Head Start/Head Start 25,357 Early Head Start-Child Care Partnerships 633** Emergency Bridge Vouchers 1,353 * The above numbers of children from birth to five served by these early care and education funding initiatives are not unduplicated counts; some children are covered by more than one funding initiative. Children served by Title I Preschool funds or Transitional Kindergarten Expanded are not included in this chart due to lack of consistent reporting requirements. ** This number is not the total funded under EHS-Child Care Partnerships, not all of the grantees were counted. New federal awards were made during FY19 and the final amount, funding and children to be served, was not able to be captured by end of CFA data collection. The numbers of children served are a point-intime figure for these funding initiatives, captured in 2019. Some figures are based on contracted/ planned enrollment, some on actual numbers served. On any given day, service numbers will fluctuate based on actual utilization, as children go in and out of enrollment in programs. 15 A Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis of the Los Angeles County Early Care and Education System TABLE 5. PROGRAMS BY FUNDING ENTITY California Department of Education DIRECT SERVICE PROGRAMS SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES • • • • • • • • • California Department of Social Services • • Alternative Payment Program (CAPP) CalWORKs Stage 2 (child care vouchers) CalWORKs Stage 3 (child care vouchers) Family Child Care Home Education Networks (FCCHEN) General Child Care and Development (CCTR) California State Preschool Program (CSPP) Transitional Kindergarten (TK) TK Expanded (TKE) • • • • • • • CalWORKs Stage 1 (child care vouchers) Emergency Child Care Bridge Program • First 5 LA • • • • • • • • • • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families • • • CA Preschool Instructional Network (CPIN) CA TK Stipend Incentive Program AB 212 Child Care Salary Retention Incentive Program Child Care Initiative Project (CCIP) Local Child Care and Development Planning Council (LPC) CA State Preschool Program QRIS Block Grant, Quality Counts California (QCC) Block Grant (QRIS) Child Care Facilities Revolving Loan Fund (CCFRF) Child Care Resource and Referral (CCRR) Early Care and Education Competencies Curriculum Project Early Care and Education Credential Advocacy Project Early Care and Education Emerging Opportunities Early Care and Education Shared Services Support Early Care and Education Workforce Registry Educare Policy and Advocacy Kindergarten Readiness Assessment Quality Coaching and Quality Investment Supports Quality Rating and Improvement System Architects Group and Systems Planning Quality Rating and Improvement System Continuous Site Engagement Quality Rating and Improvement System Data System Administrator Head Start Early Head Start Early Head Start Child Care Partnerships LA Reading Machine Los Angeles County Office of Child Protection 16 A Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis of the Los Angeles County Early Care and Education System Community and County Initiative Profiles The comprehensive fiscal analysis used a profiling approach to provide more qualitative data and information on the myriad strategies that communities and agencies use to supplement and leverage additional funding for early childhood care and education. The profile areas were generated through meetings with systems leaders to identify County departments, school districts, and municipalities with unique approaches to supporting ECE. The team then conducted 70 key-informant interviews to understand and profile the approaches in use across the county. These stakeholder interviews resulted in the profile themes and examples presented in Table 6, and provided the opportunity to raise awareness of the creative strategies and outof-the-box thinking required to support the ECE service system. From school districts to collaborative community efforts to government agencies, few spaces fail to recognize the importance and great need for early care and education services to support children, families, and—ultimately—communities. TABLE 6. PROFILE THEMES AND EXAMPLES THEMES COMMUNITY AND INITIATIVE PROFILE EXAMPLES Establish active cross-sector leadership groups focused on improving early childhood systems and policy. • • • • • Antelope Valley Coalition Long Beach Early Childhood Education Committee Collaborate PASadena Santa Monica Early Childhood Task Force Santa Monica Cradle to Career Initiative Develop local strategic plans to guide efforts to improve early childhood systems and policy. • • • Santa Monica Child Care Master Plan & Policy Long Beach Early Childhood Education Strategic Plan Pasadena Master Plan for the Young Child Charge impact fees to private developers to support ECE facilities and programming. • • • Santa Monica Child Care Linkage Program Santa Monica Child Care Support Program Los Angeles County Chief Executive Office’s ECE Facilities Report Recommendations Change local zoning ordinances and regulations that limit the development of new ECE facilities. • • Santa Monica Amendments to City Zoning Ordinances Los Angeles County Chief Executive Office’s ECE Facilities Report Recommendations Fund dedicated early childhood city/County staff who provide support and technical assistance to other departments as well as providers in the community, sharing information and resources with stakeholders and the public. • • Long Beach Health and Human Services Department Pasadena Office of the Young Child within the Pasadena Public Library Santa Monica Planning and Human Services Department Expand programming for early childhood by developing partnerships between early childhood services and other publicly funded programs. • • • • • • Early Childhood Mental Health Consultation Project Head Start Electronic Referral System (Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services) Los Angeles Unified School District’s Locke Health Center Los Angeles County Library Early Childhood Programming Northeast Valley Child Care Resource Center and Friends of the Family collaborative efforts 17 A Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis of the Los Angeles County Early Care and Education System THEMES COMMUNITY AND INITIATIVE PROFILE EXAMPLES Collect and use local data to better support local systems planning efforts, partnerships, and resource allocation. • Support and incentivize school districts to use funds to support early childhood programming/ scholarships. • • • • Los Angeles Unified School District Lennox School District Long Beach Unified School District Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District Leverage funding to provide programming that meets the unique needs of families within the community. • Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation’s Tiny Tots Program Los Angeles County Office of Education’s Community Schools initiative Early Childhood Mental Health Consultation Project—Los Angeles Unified School District prevention programming Los Angeles Unified School District’s Dual-Language Program for Preschool Los Angeles Public Library • • • • • • Early Development Index (EDI) Communities (Pasadena, Santa Monica) RAND study on Early and School-Age Care in Santa Monica Los Angeles City Councilmember Paul Krekorian’s motion for additional analysis The complete profiles in Appendix B showcase the many County and local-government entities involved in funding and supporting ECE services beyond the “usual suspects”—examples from across the county that recognize the tremendous diversity in geography, race, ethnicity, and economic well-being that exists in this vast area. Providers and communities must be responsive to the specific needs of the populations they serve, and several examples are included to capture those approaches. The profiles additionally support the recommendations resulting from this project and raise awareness of strategies that could potentially be replicated across Los Angeles County. Revenue and Expense Models Revenue and expense models are tools used to understand the relationship between the expense of delivering early care and education services and the available revenues. The CFA team developed two models—one for center-based settings and one for family child care settings. These models aid stakeholders in understanding: • • n The Excel file Early Care and Education Center-based Revenue and Expense Model contains the model illustrating expense compared to revenue in center-based early care and education settings in Los Angeles County. n The Excel file Early Care and Education Family Child Care Revenue and Expense Model contains the model illustrating expense compared to revenue in family child care home early care and education settings in Los Angeles County. The cost to provide early care and education services in Los Angeles County and how this varies by program type, size, location, and quality level. The extent to which current revenues available to providers are able to cover costs. These models can be used to create centerbased and family child care home profiles and per-child financing profiles; they include the current set of funding streams in use to support early care and education in the county, displaying annual budget (revenues and expenses pro forma) for a center or home at three different levels of quality. The models allow users to see the impact on provider revenue and expense when changes 18 A Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis of the Los Angeles County Early Care and Education System are made to a number of variables, such as program characteristics (e.g., size and age mix), child populations served, program quality, and occupancy costs. The models integrate the policies related to all funding streams available to ECE providers in Los Angeles County and users can select whether a site accepts different funding streams or has children eligible for those funding streams. year preschool program. It allows users to model different-sized programs, as well as variations for four regions of the county— Antelope Valley, Long Beach, Santa Monica, and Southeast Los Angeles–Watts/Willowbrook. To estimate available revenue streams, the model also includes the ability to modify the number of children receiving different types of state subsidy versus private-pay families. Model Methodology The model also allows users to run a scenario at three different levels of quality: The revenue and expense models are informed by data collected from more than 100 providers across the county. The CFA team reviewed financial records and conducted interviews, collecting revenue and expense data from a mix of providers—including multi-site agencies, individual nonprofit providers, for-profit providers, family child care homes, small and large programs, and programs serving different variations of child age and family income levels— to inform the models’ assumptions related to salary and non-personnel expenses. Appendix D provides detailed information about how to use each of the models and the sources of the data they include. • Baseline Quality • Quality • Aspirational Quality With around 70% of the total expenses for an early care and education program driven by personnel, these quality differentials primarily focus on aspects of quality related to increased personnel costs. To that end, the primary changes for each scenario in the center-based model involve staff-to-child ratios, group sizes, and salaries as shown in Table 7. For staff-to-child ratios and group size, the Baseline Quality model aligns with Title 22 minimum requirements for a licensed child care program. The Quality scenario is aligned with CA Department of Education Title 5 contractor requirements, and the Aspirational Quality model is an improvement on the Quality level. Center-Based Model The center-based model allows users to model a full-day, full-year program serving children birth to age five as well as a part-day, school- TABLE 7. STAFF-TO-CHILD RATIOS AND GROUP SIZES USED IN CENTER-BASED MODEL BASELINE QUALITY QUALITY ASPIRATIONAL QUALITY Staff-toChild Ratio Group Size Staff-toChild Ratio Group Size Staff-toChild Ratio Group Size Infants (0–23 months) 1:4 12 1:3 9 1:3 8 Toddlers (24–35 months) 1:6 12 1:4 12 1:3 9 1:12 24 1:8 24 1:8 20 Preshoolers (3–5 years) 19 A Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis of the Los Angeles County Early Care and Education System In the Baseline Quality model, baseline salaries were informed by actual salary data collected from current providers in the county, with adjustments to ensure that all employees are paid the Los Angeles County minimum wage of $13.25 per hour as of July 2019. The CFA team gathered input from a compensation subgroup of the OCP’s Prevention Plan ECE Workgroup to inform these salary rates that both meet minimum-wage requirements and provide lead teachers with a $40,000 annual salary. Baseline Quality level, the assumption is that three-quarters of lead teachers have a Child Development Teacher Permit. At the Quality level, three-quarters of lead teachers must have a bachelor’s degree in ECE or higher, or a Program Director Permit. In the Aspirational model, all lead teachers must have a master’s degree. Full details of the credential requirements at different quality levels are found in Appendix D. Table 8 shows the increase salaries for the Quality and Aspirational model that is applied for different staff positions relative to the salaries used in the Baseline Quality model. To adjust for quality, increases to the Quality and Aspirational Quality models reflect a requirement for higher credentials. At the TABLE 8. SALARY ADJUSTMENTS FOR QUALITY BASELINE QUALITY QUALITY ASPIRATIONAL QUALITY Director 100% 110% 120% Program supervisor 100% 135% 150% Lead teacher 100% 150% 200% Assistant teacher 100% 150% 200% Teacher aide 100% 110% 120% STAFF CATEGORY Under this program profile, the default model includes a full-time program director, program supervisor, financial/business manager, and administrative assistant. Each toddler and preschool classroom has a lead teacher and an assistant teacher; the infant classroom has these two positions plus a teacher aide. The model includes time for “floaters” to maintain ratios during opening and closing and provide additional coverage throughout the day for activities. Model Assumptions The center-based model developed by the CFA team is a tool that can be manipulated and updated to run different scenarios and answer different questions. For the purposes of this report, the CFA team ran several models using a default program based on the most commonly occurring sizes of center and compositions of children. The default center-based program includes one infant classroom, one toddler classroom, and two preschool classrooms. Total program capacity varies depending on the quality level selected due to the lower staff-tochild ratios and group sizes in the Quality and Aspirational Quality models. The Baseline Quality model uses the salary levels as determined by the compensation subgroup of the OCP’s Prevention Plan ECE Workgroup with adjustments as noted for higher-quality levels. 20 A Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis of the Los Angeles County Early Care and Education System TABLE 9. DEFAULT SALARIES USED IN CENTER-BASED MODEL BASELINE QUALITY QUALITY ASPIRATIONAL QUALITY Lead teacher $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 Assistant teacher $33,000 $49,500 $66,000 Teacher aide $27,560 $30,316 $33,072 Director $100,166 $110,18 $120,199 Program supervisor $53,066 $71,639 $79,599 Financial manager $48,910 $48,910 $48,910 Administrative assistant $37,726 $37,726 $37,726 Table 9 summarizes the annual salaries used in the model. specific, at the Quality level. Additional results for other quality levels are included in Appendix C. As a point of reference, the estimated living wage for a three-person family (two adults and one child) in Los Angeles County is just over $58,000.4 Cost Per Child Analyses of scenarios in the revenue and expense model show the impact that increased salaries have on the cost of early care and education. As shown in Figure 1, the estimated annual cost to serve an infant based on current salaries is $22,190. The 150% increase in teacher salaries at the Quality level raises this cost per child by about $10,000 per year; Aspirational Quality would nearly double it. Figure 1 also illustrates the impact of child age on the cost of care. Preschoolers cost significantly less than infants because of the larger group sizes and staff-to-child ratios allowed in these classrooms; the infant classroom has three teachers but only nine children, while the preschool classroom has two teachers and 24 children. The model also includes: • • Annual employer contribution to cover the cost of additional benefits such as health insurance, retirement contributions, etc.; the amount varies depending on the program quality being modeled—$5,000 per employee at Baseline Quality, $7,500 at Quality, and $10,000 per employee at Aspirational Quality Substitute time to cover 12 days paid sick leave per year for teaching staff, plus release time for professional development Model Results For the purposes of this report, our scenarios focus on countywide results, rather than region- 4 Living Wage Calculator (2019, October 28). Retrieved from https://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/06037. 21 A Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis of the Los Angeles County Early Care and Education System FIGURE 1. COST FOR FULL-DAY, FULL-YEAR CENTER-BASED CARE Figure 2, Figure 3, and Figure 4 show how these potential revenue sources are—or are not—able to meet the estimated cost of providing centerbased child care; they use the Quality level scenario.5 Please see Appendix C for additional charts for other levels. Child Stacked Revenue Charts Stacked bar charts can compare the revenue available to fund ECE services and the actual cost of those services, demonstrating the revenue/expense gaps for particular funding combinations and how they vary by child age. Early care and education programs in Los Angeles County are primarily funded through private tuition fees, state vouchers, and/or state contracts. Providers may also receive reimbursement from the federal Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) for food costs. 5 While the charts show a cost per child for each individual age group, this cost is based on a center operating at the most commonly occurring size and composition of children in Los Angeles County, rather than a program serving only one age group. The potential per-child revenue shown in these figures is based on the current set of funding streams available to support early care and education in Los Angeles. 22 A Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis of the Los Angeles County Early Care and Education System FIGURE 2. PER-CHILD REVENUE CHARTS CHILD CARE CENTER INFANT FIGURE 3. PER-CHILD REVENUE CHARTS CHILD CARE CENTER TODDLER 23 A Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis of the Los Angeles County Early Care and Education System FIGURE 4. PER-CHILD REVENUE CHARTS CHILD CARE CENTER PRESCHOOLER As shown, gaps exist between revenue and expenses for all age groups, with no funding scenario fully covering estimated costs. A center under state contracts loses nearly $8,000 per year for an infant, and over $4,000 for a toddler and a preschooler. Even when programs are able to collect tuition from families, annual expenses exceed the 85th percentile of the market rate in all scenarios—although the gap between tuition rates and cost is significantly larger for infants than it is for preschoolers. Antelope Valley and Southeast Los Angeles– Watts/Willowbrook. To estimate available revenue streams, the model also includes the ability to modify the number of children receiving different types of state subsidy versus private-pay families, as well as the income mix of children and families. To accurately compare the cost of FCC care with center-based care, and to model best practices, the CFA team included a salary for the provider/ owner in all FCC scenarios. In reality, however, many providers do not take a salary (or don’t build an equivalent “profit” into their budgets), but rather get by with whatever is left over after expenses are paid. Too often, this means that family child care is viable only when the provider is willing to work for less than minimum wage or is supported by a partner or family. For family child care to be a sustainable and robust part of the early care and education system, it is vital that providers be paid an adequate salary. In our models, the provider/owner salary is equivalent to that of a lead teacher in the center-based scenarios discussed above. The data in these figures show that, using currently available revenue streams, providers in Los Angeles County cannot provide quality early care and education services where teachers are adequately compensated and best-practice staff-to-child ratios and group sizes are maintained. As shown in Appendix C, even at the Baseline Quality level, using Title 22 ratios/group sizes and current salaries, the gap between expenses and revenue (tuition or state vouchers) still exists. At the Aspirational Quality level, the gap is even more significant. Family Child Care Home Model As with the center-based model, the FCC model allows users to run a scenario at three different levels of quality: The family child care (FCC) home model allows users to posit a small FCC home serving up to six children or a large FCC home serving up to 12 children. It allows users to model different child/age mixes within these capacity limits and offers variations for two regions of the county— • Baseline Quality • Quality • Aspirational Quality 24 A Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis of the Los Angeles County Early Care and Education System For the FCC model, this means the provider/ owner’s salary ranges from $40,000 per year at the Baseline level to $80,000 per year at Aspirational Quality level. The CFA team acknowledges that FCC providers often work longer than 40-hour workweeks; therefore, the model also notes the equivalent hourly wage based on the typical number of hours worked per year by FCC providers. classrooms, with age limits usually restricting only the number of infants allowed in a program. In California, for instance, a family child care provider can serve up to four infants, but that becomes the home’s maximum capacity; if they serve up to three infants, they may then also serve up to three additional older children. Expenses for that provider will be similar whether they serve four or six children, given that our model’s primary driver of expense is the provider’s salary. The cost per child, though, differs depending on whether that expense is shared across four children or six children. These different costs can be estimated by using the model, but for the purposes of this report, the data is based on a small FCC serving six children, including two infants, and a large FCC serving 12 children, including four infants. As quality levels increase, staffing for small FCC homes also increases. At the Baseline level, no expenses are included for additional staff; at the Quality level, a part-time assistant teacher and a 0.25 FTE assistant/floater is included; at the Aspirational Quality level this becomes a full-time assistant teacher and a part-time assistant/floater. In the large FCC home scenarios, the Baseline scenario includes the provider/owner and a fulltime assistant. At the Quality level, a 0.25 FTE assistant/floater is included. The Aspirational Quality model includes one full-time assistant, one part-time assistant, and one half-time assistant/floater. Figure 5 reports the annual cost per child at each of the three quality levels for both a small FCC and a large FCC. This ranges from just under $17,000 in the Baseline Quality scenario to over $49,000 in the Aspirational Quality model. The cost per child is less in large FCCs, ranging from $13,408 to $29,159. Although additional personnel are required to serve additional children, greater economies of scale exist moving from a program with a capacity of six to a program with capacity of 12. For both the small and large FCC model, discretionary benefits are included for all staff at the same levels as the center-based program—$5,000 at Baseline Quality, $7,500 at Quality, and $10,000 at Aspirational Quality. Figure 6, Figure 7, and Figure 8 demonstrate how potential revenue sources are—or are not— able to meet the estimated cost of providing child care in a small FCC home setting; they use the Quality level scenario and are shown for small FCCs. Appendix C includes charts for other quality level scenarios and for large FCCs.6 Model Results For the purposes of this report, our scenarios focus on countywide results, rather than regionspecific, at the Quality level. Additional results for other quality levels are included in Appendix C. Cost Per Child 6 While the cost per child does not vary by age in the current model output, charts by age are shown here to demonstrate the different gaps that exist between costs and revenues for different-age children served by a family child care provider. Analyses of scenarios in the revenue and expense model show the impact that increased salaries have on the cost of early care and education. For the family child care home model, we do not report different cost-per-child data based on age because of the lack of cost drivers for FCC that are linked to the ages of children. In center-based programs, the staff-to-child ratios and group sizes within different-age classrooms have a significant impact on cost, but FCC homes operate more like individual 25 A Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis of the Los Angeles County Early Care and Education System FIGURE 5. FAMILY CHILD CARE HOME MODEL COST COMPARISON FIGURE 6. PER-CHILD REVENUE/EXPENSE RATES SMALL FAMILY CHILD CARE HOME INFANT 26 A Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis of the Los Angeles County Early Care and Education System FIGURE 7. PER-CHILD REVENUE/EXPENSE RATES SMALL FAMILY CHILD CARE HOME TODDLER FIGURE 8. PER-CHILD REVENUE/EXPENSE RATES SMALL FAMILY CHILD CARE HOME PRESCHOOLER As shown, a significant gap exists between estimated expenses and available revenue. Even though state contracts reimburse providers around $4,000 more for infants and toddlers than they do for preschool-age children, the gap between expenses and revenue is so large that this barely affects the chart. which means the provider is earning $17.75 per hour. While this is above minimum wage, it is still not a high wage. At this level, providers face a shortfall of nearly $15,000 per infant per year. The current reality is that most providers are not taking salaries anywhere near this level, and their expenses are reduced as a result of a partner or family member whose income can cover the cost of rent/mortgage and who can provide health insurance benefits. Under these scenarios, the provider/owner receives income of $60,000 per year, with $7,500 for discretionary benefits. On average, FCC providers work around 65 hours per week, 27 A Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis of the Los Angeles County Early Care and Education System Section III: Findings and Recommendations Based on the data presented in this report’s previous sections and numerous stakeholder interviews held over the past year, the CFA team developed a list of recommendations that fall into three areas: • • This section presents the major findings and rationale that support each recommendation shown in Table 10. • Leverage and fully utilize existing and new resources Maximize the potential and efficiency of current structures Increase equitable access to high-quality ECE for targeted populations and communities TABLE 10. RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Leverage and fully utilize existing and new resources. Utilize the full potential of the Cal WORKs program across each stage of implementation. 2. Support and encourage school districts to use funding for early care and education and develop partnerships to increase access to services. 3. Address the local monitoring burden on the programs administering funding to providers in order to lessen time and resources directed to monitoring. 4. Expand programs that develop the early childhood educator pipeline and access additional funding streams to support the development and professionalization of the workforce. Maximize the potential and efficiency of current structures. 5. Empower Los Angeles County’s Office for the Advancement of Early Care and Education (OAECE) as a central organizer for the early care and education system in the county. Provide adequate funding and staffing for OAECE to: • • Address inconsistencies and inefficiencies in current systems and processes Advance and coordinate additional investments to expand access and support program quality for all providers 6. Address the insufficient supply of infant and toddler care by: • Increase equitable access to high-quality ECE for targeted populations and communities. • Implementing county-level goals for seeking, drawing down, and using all available contract-based funding from the California Department of Education Designing and implementing strategies to better support current infant and toddler care providers and grow the supply of quality child care for this age 7. Implement strategies to support those delivering family, friend, and neighbor care and to provide a pathway to licensed child care for those interested in growing into the profession. 28 A Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis of the Los Angeles County Early Care and Education System established definitions around the target population to be served and the type and terms of services. Other funding streams allow for local decision-making regarding implementation, thus putting more control at the county or local level. CalWORKs Stage 1, funded by the California Department of Social Services and administered by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS), is a funding stream that allows for some local control. Leverage and Fully Utilize Existing and New Resources FINDING In Los Angeles County, CalWORKs (California Work Opportunities and Responsibility to Kids) families are moved off Stage 1 and into Stage 2 according to the local definition of stability, which is typically a six month term. This transition may place additional burdens on other CDE funding streams that are already at capacity. Fortunately, a new state regulation authorizes immediate and continuous eligibility for child care for Stage 1 families. This program change is an exciting new opportunity for Los Angeles County to maximize Stage 1 child care for eligible families. In the 2019–2020 legislative session, a Senate bill was introduced and passed that addresses these issues in part by authorizing 12 months of child care coverage for families in CalWORKs Stage 1. This new regulation, called “Immediate and Continuous Eligibility for Stage 1 Child Care,” establishes the immediate authorization of 12 months of child care, no longer linked to a specific welfare-to-work activity, for CalWORKs families qualifying for cash aid. Under this new regulation, DPSS is empowered to modify local policies surrounding the length of time that families are maintained in Stage 1 before transitioning to Stage 2, which if lengthened, may decrease Stage 2 expenditures, thus possibly allowing for CDE funding to be used to address child care needs for other, nonCalWORKs families. Research has demonstrated the significant positive benefits that come with access to early care and education services and affect several domains, including parental employment, child and family health, child educational outcomes, and many more. As a result, it is in the interest of families and communities, as well as almost all social-service programs to ensure that young children have strong early care and education experiences. Many government agencies at the local, state, and federal level have a role and responsibility in funding and supporting ECE services, a situation that presents both opportunities and challenges. While multiple agencies and levels of government may bring significant investments to ECE, they can also bring multiple requirements, administering agencies, levels of oversight, and additional complexity to an already complicated system of social services. These agencies and funding streams must coordinate closely to ensure program alignment by alleviating confusion for families, reducing the burden on providers, and ensuring that investments are maximized to identify and reach all children in need. While multiple agencies and levels of government may bring significant investments to ECE, they can also bring multiple requirements/ administering agencies, levels of oversight, and additional complexity to an already complicated system of social services. Prior to the passage of this new legislation, several counties across the state piloted elements of the bill, including the authorization of 12 months of child care for Stage 1 families. Even with regulations made more favorable to families needing child care, counties reported that only 50% of families received their 12 months Some funding presents less opportunity for local control. For instance, the direct administration of federal funding such as an Early Head Start or Head Start grant includes limited federally 29 A Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis of the Los Angeles County Early Care and Education System of access. Careful planning and continuous monitoring of the program operations appears to be the most critical aspect of its successful implementation. Los Angeles is well positioned to learn from the pilot counties and to establish a supportive partnership between DPSS and other key stakeholders to develop an implementation approach ensuring that all qualified families achieve access to 12 months of Stage 1 child care. support, compared to the application process for other state and federal subsidized child care. Los Angeles County’s transition of families from Stage 1 to Stage 2 child care may be overburdening other CDE funding sources and impacting voucher programs like the California Alternative Payment Program (CAPP), all of which have long waiting lists for subsidized child care. CAPP and the Family Child Care Home Education Networks (CFCC) target populations who are not eligible for CalWORKs Stage 1. Due to the overly difficult process of qualifying for CalWORKs Stage 1 child care benefits, families who could be served by Stage 1 funding may be pushed to one of these other sources, where they are placed on a waiting list, go unserved, or are given a child care voucher that could have gone to a family who does not qualify for Stage 1. In administering CalWORKs Stage 1 child care, counties have discretion over the drafting of the welfare-to-work plans that guide the implementation of the funding locally, as well as the opportunity to establish the local adoption of concepts such as the determination of “stability.” (CalWORKs families move from Stage 1 to Stage 2 when their cash aid ends or when they are determined to be “stable.”) Our Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis found that in Los Angeles County, families were most frequently moved off Stage 1 into Stage 2 at six months. This transition of families off Stage 1 and into Stage 2 increases Stage 2 expenditures, which may place additional burdens on CDE funding streams for other programs like the California Alternative Payment Program (CAPP) and Family Child Care Home Education Network (CFCC) vouchers. Recommendation 1 focuses on the implementation of the new state regulations around Stage 1 child care in Los Angeles County. Partnering together across DPSS and other early care and education stakeholders to support families in accessing Stage 1 and transitioning smoothly to Stage 2 and other subsidized child care is a tremendous opportunity for the county’s ECE system. Counties have a good deal of control over how the CalWORKs program is implemented. The CFA found that the process of accessing Stage 1 child care is difficult for many families in Los Angeles County, with barriers mirroring those experienced in other counties across the state and reflected in Blue Ribbon Commission focus groups with families.7 While an extensive review of Stage 1 implementation was not part of the Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis, providers and program staff who were interviewed identified several barriers faced by families when accessing Stage 1; these barriers have a direct impact on utilization of Stage 1, and, by extension, impact across all subsidized child care programs. Pryor L. and Ignatius M. (Fall 2018) “Waiting to be seen. Demanding to be heard. Parent recommendations to the CA Assembly Blue Ribbon Commission on Early Childhood Education”. Retrieved from https://drive.google.com/file/d/ 1tgup68GezhRGjWXX6lYZU56cRvZjOAs4/view?ts=5c8179af 7 Family applications involve extensive paperwork and burdensome processes to capture information required by state Stage 1 regulations that may lead to a disincentive to accessing the 30 A Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis of the Los Angeles County Early Care and Education System RECOMMENDATION 1 Utilize the full potential of the CalWORKs program across each stage of implementation. Action Steps n Change the local definition of family stability to better reflect the intent of the Immediate and Continuous Child Care Eligibility regulation, which focuses on access to stable child care as a two-generation strategy benefiting both parents and children. A local definition of stability that aligns to the 12-month child care authorization will be more responsive to families on CalWORKs and the circumstances that qualify them for the program. Allow for a longer period on Stage 1 to minimize transitions for families and maximize available resources. n Implement a family input process to further explore the barriers to access Stage 1 child; work directly with families to gather their input and gain detailed information on local barriers (such as patterns of staffing, location, processes). The OAECE should identify an external partner to gather feedback from families and develop a robust family feedback loop. n Create a report on lessons learned from counties who participated in the 12 month pilot, including strategies that were successful in increasing uptake enrollment and program usage. n Assess barriers to engaging families about CalWORKs Stage 1. At a minimum, the approach should include the following family-friendly policies: • • • Inform all families of the full range of child care options available to them, even if they already have child care or think they do not need it. Ensure that homeless families are aware of the benefits that are available to them and not limited in accessing these services due to a perception of requirements related to housing or work search. Assign a child care navigator to each family, with the two weeks of child care coverage for work search beginning after the navigator connects with the family. n Strengthen the approach to qualifying a family for child care; educate families on what they qualify for and minimize the State’s required paperwork and processes wherever possible. n Develop a working group to partner with county offices, including the Office for the Advancement of Early Care and Education and DPSS, and the subsidized child care administrators to plan for the responsive implementation of new Stage 1 program regulations. 31 A Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis of the Los Angeles County Early Care and Education System School districts, however, need not be the providers of those direct ECE services. In many communities, the school district is only one of several agencies delivering early care and education. Strong reasons exist for developing partnerships between schools and other ECE providers in the community. FINDING Those districts using their Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) dollars to fund early care and education have been able to significantly expand and strengthen their ECE offerings. While a review of the Local Control and Accountability Plans (LCAPs) for all 80 school districts serving students in the county was not within the scope of the CFA, stakeholder interviews made it clear that most districts do not leverage LCFF funding for ECE services, which is a missed opportunity. n The physical location of community-based programs may be more accessible to families than that of the local school. n Community-based organizations are more likely to be providing full-day, full-year care, therefore meeting the needs of working families in ways that a school-year-only extended-day program cannot. n Community-based organizations are more likely to serve the birth to age five population, whereas schools have more experience with preschool-age programming. School districts have the flexibility in their Local Control and Accountability Plans (LCAPs) to use Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) funds to strengthen early learning opportunities available to families in their community, thereby providing a solid foundation for long-term academic success. The CFA found that only a handful of districts in Los Angeles County use their LCFF dollars to fund early care and education, but those who do have been able to significantly expand and strengthen their ECE offerings. The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), for example, generated $41 million in 2017–2018 by the identifying the children under age 5 whom they serve as a “targeted service population.” Approximately 80% of those funds supported LAUSD’s early care and education services and to develop and run more robust ECE programming than would otherwise be delivered through LAUSD’s existing early childhood program. Other districts like Long Beach Unified and Santa Monica-Malibu Unified also invest LCFF funds in early childhood education. Partnerships between schools and community-based ECE providers can build on existing infrastructure and help to sustain a mixed-delivery system, but that need not mean that school districts add infant and toddler child care to their services. Access to care for infants and toddlers is the biggest ECE gap in Los Angeles County, and strategies to increase services for this population are desperately needed. Partnerships between schools and community-based ECE providers can build on existing infrastructure and help to sustain a mixed-delivery system, but that need not mean that school districts add infant and toddler child care to their services. Instead, they may be able to partner with appropriately equipped community organizations. Supporting these programs with funding and associated quality expectations benefits districts by preparing children to be more ready for kindergarten; families in the communities likewise benefit through increased access to services that are responsive to their needs. The CFA found that only a handful of districts in Los Angeles County use their LCFF dollars to fund early care and education, but those who do have been able to significantly expand and strengthen their ECE offerings. 32 A Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis of the Los Angeles County Early Care and Education System RECOMMENDATION 2 Support and encourage school districts to use funding for early care and education and develop partnerships to increase access to services. Action Steps n Explore opportunities to maximize LCFF funding for ECE, including strategies that enable districts to draw down additional funds for high-need students from birth to age five. n Support Local Education Agencies (LEAs) to collect and track data on LCFF funding being used for early care and education services. n Develop trainings and other supports to encourage school-district leaders to strengthen their role in early care and education and understand the broader ECE system of which they are a part. n Strengthen and sustain the birth-to-five mixed-delivery system within communities by developing partnerships between school districts and local community-based ECE providers. ECE revenue that is generated through districts’ use of LCFF funding is likely to be most effective in meeting the needs of families when used to support access at both district schools and community programs. n Develop partnerships to deliver on existing California State Preschool Program contracts, especially in cases where these contracts are “under-earning” (contract slots going unused so that the number of children served is less than the funded amount). Community-based organizations may struggle to secure a contract from the California Department of Education, but may be a source for service delivery in their community through a subcontract with their district.INDING FINDING CalWORKs Stage 1 monitoring is more frequent (monthly vs. annually), less efficient (paper forms vs. electronic) than Stages 2 and 3, and the necessary operating systems and staffing differ, placing additional administrative burden on administrators and providers. work needed to administer the funds nor the work inherent to engaging families in Stage 1. • While early care and education is complex and siloed, local control over funding can offer opportunities for a more streamlined and efficient approach. At a minimum, it is incumbent upon local structures to understand where they add burdens to an already overly complex and stretched system. Currently, CalWORKs Stage 1 administrators are paid a lower per-case administrative rate than the rate for Stages 2 and 3, which does not match the • • Monitoring for CalWORKs Stage 1 occurs quarterly, whereas child care funded under CalWORKs Stages 2 and 3 is monitored annually. The lack of electronic forms and signatures for Stage 1 make administration and monitoring more onerous than do the comparable processes for Stages 2 and 3. Organizations that administer Stage 1 child care as well as Stages 2 and 3 maintain different internal operating systems for funding that is in essence supporting the same service to families. 33 A Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis of the Los Angeles County Early Care and Education System Currently, CalWORKs Stage 1 administrators are paid a lower per-case administrative rate than the rate for Stages 2 and 3, which does not match the work needed to administer the funds nor the work inherent to engaging families in Stage 1. An aligned approach to agency monitoring, particularly for same-service funding, should focus on minimizing different monitoring expectations and being clear around reasons for any variances. Addressing inefficiencies in funding administration is one key way to make an impact on the delivery of early care and education in Los Angeles County without an influx of additional dollars. The focus here is on investing the time to ensure that existing resources go further. RECOMMENDATION 3 Address the local monitoring burden on programs administering funding to providers, lessening the time and resources directed to monitoring. Action Steps n Explore discrepancies across the administration of state funding within the county, particularly those in monitoring CalWORKs Stages 1, 2, and 3 child care, analyzing them for alignment opportunities. Compare the monitoring requirements of the California Department of Social Services to the county-level monitoring of Stage 1. n Task the County’s Office for the Advancement of Early Care and Education (OAECE) with preparing a report in partnership with DPSS that analyzes monitoring variables across CalWORKs child care funding administration and maps the time and dollars directed to such monitoring, including approach and frequency, audit sources, and auditing-agency goals, to recommend efficiencies and alignments. n Develop and implement changes to county-level monitoring that streamline the process for those administering the funding to providers; the OAECE should work in partnership with DPSS for CalWORKs Stage 1 and with Child Care Alliance of Los Angeles partners for CalWORKs Stages 2 and 3.NDING FINDING The ECE workforce in Los Angeles County (as in other jurisdictions) is facing a crisis: providers leaving the workforce because of low compensation and better job options in other sectors, an aging population of early educators, and an insufficient supply of new recruits into the field. The primary driver of quality in ECE programs is the relationship between early educators and the young children they serve. Children who experience stable, nurturing, and responsive relationships with their teachers benefit the most from their ECE experience. Frequent 34 A Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis of the Los Angeles County Early Care and Education System The lack of qualified professionals and high rates of turnover in ECE programs threaten to undermine all investments made in early care and education. teacher turnover has negative effects on children, preventing them from developing secure attachments with teachers and caregivers. Research shows that early educators (particularly family child care providers) are leaving the field in large part because the compensation is so low. Early childhood educators are among the lowestpaid professionals in the United States. Nearly half of all child care workers (46 percent) are in families that rely on least one public-assistance program such as Medicaid or food stamps, whereas only about one-quarter (26 percent) of the U.S. workforce as a whole relies on these programs.8 The CFA Funding Catalogue (Appendix A) identifies over 20 system support initiatives representing more than $70 million in funding, yet only a handful of these funding streams directly address compensation, retention, or recruitment. Stakeholders in Los Angeles County have actively engaged in state and federal advocacy to increase investments in these areas, and additional state funding has been budgeted for the Early Learning and Care Workforce Development Grants Program. Funding streams focused on the entire workforce (not on ECE specifically) could also be used to support the growth and development of the ECE workforce. One example is federal Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) funds. WIOA, signed into law in 2014, encourages states to better support more disadvantaged adults and youths by addressing barriers to success such as child care needs for those in school and training programs. According to provider data collected for the CFA, the average annual salary of lead teachers in center-based programs in Los Angeles County was $38,226 ($18.38 an hour); assistant teachers earned $29,247 ($14 an hour). For comparison, the living wage—the hourly rate an individual in a house must earn to support him—or herself and a family) for a single adult in Los Angeles County is $14.36, and $30.17 for a single adult with a child.9 Thus, assistant teachers are not quite making a living wage if they are single with no children, and both lead teachers and assistant teachers are far from a living wage if they have a child themselves. In addition to retention issues caused by low compensation, the ECE workforce is aging and fewer young people are choosing ECE as a career. There is a substantial shortage of ECE educators overall, let alone those with the specialized knowledge and competencies needed to support the healthy development and learning of our youngest children. The lack of qualified professionals and high rates of turnover in ECE programs threaten to undermine all investments made in early care and education. Apprentice—model programs exist in some areas of the county—the Service Employees International Union has programs that work with Head Start parents, family child care providers, and others to prepare/train them to enter the workforce and to improve their skills if they are already employed. Early childhood teachers will always be needed; this is one industry that will not be disrupted by automation. Investing in the ECE workforce is therefore a substantial investment in the future of Los Angeles County. 8 Whitebook, M., McLean, C., and Austin L.J.E. (2016). Early Childhood Workforce Index—2016. Berkeley, CA: Center for the Study of Child Care Employment, University of California, Berkeley. 9 Living Wage Calculator (2019, October 28). Retrieved from https://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/06037. 35 A Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis of the Los Angeles County Early Care and Education System RECOMMENDATION 4 Expand programs that develop the early childhood educator pipeline and access additional funding streams to support the development and professionalization of the workforce. Action Steps n Conduct a compensation study to increase understanding of current qualifications/ compensation and inform a strategy to address compensation goals. n Conduct a capacity analysis of higher education and current training opportunities for ECE professionals in Los Angeles County; identify barriers, effective models for replication, and alternatives to funding through already limited ECE funding streams. n Expand apprenticeship programs, partnerships, and models that support individuals seeking to enter the early childhood field and attain degrees/credentials to progress in the profession. n Partner with local workforce investment boards to support initiatives that ensure an adequate supply of appropriately trained and educated ECE professionals. n Explore opportunities to access federal Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) funds to develop the Los Angeles region’s ECE workforce. n Partner with secondary education institutions to engage high school students in ECE classes that could put them on a path into the profession. n Explore private funding opportunities to design “professional pathway” models with higher education institutions and local community agencies. n Explore opportunities to connect professional-development pathways across birthto-five-service sectors such as home visitation and early care and education. Administrative systems such as licensing (child care and business licenses), land use and zoning approval processes, and fire and health codes pose barriers for ECE providers wanting to open new programs or expand existing ones. A significant need exists for support and technical assistance both for these providers and for city and County planners to understand the ECE industry. Maximize the Potential and Efficiency of Current Structures FINDING There appears to be wide variability in the requirements of County ECE initiatives, as well as a lack of coordination across departments that oversee them, including County employee child care centers. Unlike other jurisdictions, no central entity exists in County government with oversight over these ECE programs and the ability to provide content expertise, support, connections across programs, and accountability to a common set of quality standards. In the area of high-quality supports for providers, Los Angeles County has over $76 million invested across more than 20 separate system support initiatives, yet it is unclear if these programs are reaching the providers who need it the most. 36 A Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis of the Los Angeles County Early Care and Education System Los Angeles is a large county with significant existing investments in ECE as well as opportunities for maximizing efficiencies within and across those programs, and for working in partnership to attract additional funding. Departments are involved in the administration of early care and education in a number of ways, including 13 County employee child care centers administered by DPSS, the Department of Health Services (DHS), and the Department of Public Works (DPW); plus a unique partnership in Van Nuys overseen by the Chief Executive Office (CEO) that includes DCFS, DPSS, the District Attorney’s Office, the Probation Department, and the Public Defender’s Office. In addition to these centers, other ECE programs also exist— the Department of Parks and Recreation’s Tiny Tots program (part-day preschool at 23 parks across the county), for example, and the Los Angeles County Library’s Reading Machine program (storytime services as well as tools and resources for community-based ECE providers). Full profiles appear in Appendix B. programs, or accountability to a common set of quality standards. The Office of Advancement of Early Care and Education (OAECE) within the Department of Public Health has the potential to be this central entity, setting the standard for quality and consistency and providing guidance, responsive support, and tools/resources for County departments and other local agencies. Further opportunities to make systems more efficient lie within the arduous and complicated steps required to start a child care business. Licensing (both to provide child care and to open a small business), land use/zoning approval processes, and fire and health codes all pose barriers for ECE providers seeking to open new programs or expand existing ones. Most early care and education program directors/owners do not have a business background or staff with experience in negotiating complicated zoning and business-development structures in their particular jurisdictions. The CFA found that support and technical assistance is a significant need, particularly for individuals thinking about starting a family child care home. Given the almost 30% decline in the number of licensed child care homes in California between 2008 and 2016,11 this is of particular importance. (The 2017 Los Angeles County Child Care Needs Assessment reported a similar trend within the county.) The wide variability in approaches and requirements for these County programs, however, results in inconsistencies in the quality of care offered. Contracted ECE providers operating the employee child care centers, for instance, receive financial benefits unavailable to most ECE providers, like free rent and other occupancy expenses, free building-maintenance services, and even free office furniture in some cases. Given these significant financial incentives, it follows that they be expected to use those cost savings to meet higher quality standards. In addition to supporting providers in navigating these complex systems, city and county planners need themselves to be educated about the ECE industry. Misconceptions have led to land-use regulations inconsistent with state law in some municipalities, or not relevant to the business of child care. Unnecessary public hearings and appeals can be so expensive and timeconsuming that potential child care providers give up the process entirely. Another challenge is the siloed administration of substantially similar County programs within their respective departments. This lack of coordination creates inefficiencies, with programs potentially “recreating the wheel”10 and developing their own procurement procedures, quality requirements, and contracts—as well as tools for program monitoring and accountability—when these policies and tools could be shared. Unlike in other jurisdictions, no central entity within County government has oversight of these ECE programs; no single entity provides content expertise, support, and connections across 10 One example that came up in the CFA interviews was a County initiative to develop a curriculum for all of County preschool sites, rather than reaching out to ECE providers for recommendations on existing curricula. 11 Child Care Resource Centers (2018). Declines in Small Businesses that Support Working Families. Retrieved October 30, 2019, from https://www.ccrcca.org/images/ research_evaluation/pdf/2018_FCC_Declines.pdf 37 A Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis of the Los Angeles County Early Care and Education System While it was not a direct focus of the CFA, the lack of available physical facilities was raised numerous times during our study, a challenge well documented in the CEO’s July 2, 2019, report to the Board of Supervisors, Assessing Los Angeles County Property for Future Early Care and Learning Sites.12 This report also outlines several sound strategies to remove barriers to ECE facility development and licensing that would help to increase access. a part of particular direct service funding streams (in other words, California Department of Education system supports target CDE contractors). As a result, systems support is more likely to go to higher-quality programs and may have the unintended consequence of keeping other providers at lower levels of quality. A stronger systemic approach to investing these funds is to concentrate on those who need supports the most. Acknowledging where providers are on the quality continuum and supporting their progress along that continuum could not only benefit a more diverse group of providers, but would also have the greatest potential impact on the quality of care in the county. Los Angeles County as a region has over $76 million invested across more than 20 separate ECE system support initiatives (Appendix A), with significant public funds supporting providers in areas ranging from quality improvement and comprehensive programming to coaching, training, education stipends, and facilities loans. Despite the dollars involved, the reach of these supports is small; most initiatives tend to focus on licensed providers who are 12 http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/supdocs/130345. pdf#search=”Assessing Los Angeles County Property for Future Early Care and Learning Sites” RECOMMENDATION 5 Empower the County’s Office for the Advancement of Early Care and Education (OAECE) as a central organizer for the early care and education system in Los Angeles County. Provide adequate funding and staffing for OAECE to 1) address inconsistencies and inefficiencies in current systems and processes and 2) advance and coordinate addi­tional investments to expand access and support program quality for all providers. Action Steps n Integrate all County-supported early care and education programming under a common approach to quality and implementation, develop and share tools and resources, and establish opportunities for regular and ongoing communication among staff who oversee child care programs and initiatives within County departments. n Develop tools to support capital development, program selection and implementation, and program standards and requirements that apply across a continuum of early care and education programming and that align with state quality standards and best-practices in the field. n Develop an understanding of the county and municipal systems, jurisdictions, and departments that providers must work with to open new programs or expand existing ones (licensing, zoning, fire, public health, others) and identify ways to reduce unnecessary—and in some cases illegal—barriers. Create tools and supports for providers (for example, mapping processes that providers must go through) and offer step- by-step guidance. 38 A Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis of the Los Angeles County Early Care and Education System RECOMMENDATION 5 n Establish relationships with and provide education/resources to county and municipal planning and zoning staff so they understand how child care is regulated and how providers use space, thereby creating a more streamlined land-use approval process specifically geared to child care. This could be done through a specific position—a planning staff person dedicated to ECE ordinance issues, for instance—or by partnering with local organizations such as Public Counsel to offer staff development and collaboration in developing solutions. n Partner with the CEO to explore opportunities to implement recommendations from the County facilities report. n Work with key partners to assess the “reach” of system supports; in other words, what is the current level of access that ECE providers of all types and funding streams have to those supports? n Partner with other ECE system leaders to develop a comprehensive systemsupport model that includes all entities delivering these supports and that considers where providers fall on a continuum of quality and how to mobilize supports so providers progress along that continuum. n Modify the quality-improvement components to encompass all system supports that effect services (e.g., health, mental health, inclusion, family support). n Partner with others like Quality Start LA to develop/implement a set of guiding principles and practices for coaching, training, and technical assistance that are linked to expected outcomes; encourage their coordination and use to support quality-improvement providers (coaches and technical assistance providers). The California Department of Education (CDE) funds two separate types of contracts for state preschool and child care for children from birth to age 12—the California State Preschool Program (CSPP) for three- to five-year-olds, and General Child Care and Development (CCTR) for children birth to age 12 (full-day or beforeand after-school care in center-based settings). Many areas in Los Angeles County are saturated with preschool programming as well as Transitional Kindergarten and Early Transitional Kindergarten, resulting in the under-utilization of CSPP contracts. Slots within existing CSPP contracts go “unearned,” meaning that funding exists to serve a preschool-age child but no child is enrolled in the slot. Increase Equitable Access to High-Quality ECE for Targeted Populations and Communities FINDING Many areas in the Los Angeles region are saturated with programming for children three to five years old, resulting in an underutilization of California State Preschool Program (CSPP) contracts. Conversely, Los Angeles County has a significant infant and toddler child care supply issue. Because of multiple barriers—including higher costs to implement infant and toddler care, less funding available, funding rates not covering actual costs, and facilities no longer designed to meet infant and toddler licensing requirements—providers in the county who once served infants, or infants and toddlers, now serve only preschoolers. 39 A Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis of the Los Angeles County Early Care and Education System Slots within existing CSPP contracts go “unearned,” meaning that funding exists to serve a preschool-age child but no child is enrolled in the slot. • • Conversely, the insufficient supply of infant and toddler child care remains a significant issue. CCTR contracts can pay for that care, but the capacity of CCTR contract providers across the county is far under the need profile of their various communities. A 2019 report from the Advancement Project3 shows that only six percent of income-eligible infants and toddlers in Los Angeles County are served with state subsidy funds. A very limited approach allows funds to be temporarily moved from an underearning CSPP contract to a CCTR contract that is over-extended and has a waiting list of qualifying families (only CSPP revenue, not funded by Proposition 98). Even within an organization holding both these contracts, though, funds cannot be moved between them beyond limited and temporary instances. (CDE does allow for end-of-year contract transfers across contracts of the same type—CSPP to CSPP and CCTR to CCTR—across communities and contracting entities. The time-limited nature of this opportunity, though, along with the need to reach a formal agreement with all parties, often creates enough of a barrier that contractors do not participate in transfers.) • Specific licensing requirements for facilities serving infants and toddlers include factors of space, plumbing, and refrigeration to provide a safe and healthy environment to support how young children learn and grow. Substantially less funding is available to serve children during their first three years of life than to serve them during the two years they are in preschool; maintaining infant and toddler care becomes a liability if revenue sources cannot be guaranteed. Funding rates do not cover the actual costs of infant or toddler care. Because of this, staffing issues cause a program that is harder to administer. Providers cannot afford to pay infant and toddler teachers commensurately with teaching staff for other age groups, and this results in high employee turnover and difficulties in recruitment. The primary focus on preschool in recent years has too often come at the expense of infant toddler child care. By looking at the system comprehensively, policymakers and community leaders can better understand the trade-offs involved and the impact of their decisions, thereby taking steps to ensure that the full needs of families are met. Only six percent of incomeeligible infants and toddlers in Los Angeles County are served with state subsidy funds. Another cause of the infant and toddler care supply issue relates to the challenges inherent in serving this population—often the cause of providers electing to no longer serve the age group. Providers in Los Angeles County who once served infants, or infants and toddlers, and now serve only preschoolers report several reasons for their choice: • The need for smaller groups of children and higher caregiver-to-child ratios makes the cost of providing high-quality care for infants and toddlers much more expensive than for older children. 40 A Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis of the Los Angeles County Early Care and Education System RECOMMENDATION 6 Address the insufficient supply of infant and toddler care: • By implementing county-level goals for seeking, drawing down and using all available (contract based) funding from CA Department of Education. • By designing and implementing strategies to better support current infant and toddler care providers and grow the supply of quality child care for this age. Action Steps n Develop a strategy for seeking and securing new CDE funding that is tailored to Los Angeles County’s needs for ECE; use these goals/needs in supporting subareas of the county and organizations to pursue funding. n Develop a strategy for working with school-district partners to seek out General Child Care funds (CCTR) for infants and toddlers and to subcontract with community-based providers to deliver care under that contract. Orange County’s approach to supporting school districts in pursuing CSPP funding is a model for the type of training and technical assistance needed to bring in more CCTR funding and build up the supply of infant and toddler slots at Los Angeles child care programs. n Maximize opportunities to move funds when allowed; develop an intentional strategy across communities and regions of the county to commit to partnerships and activities that have a positive impact on shared goals for utilizing funding and ensuring access to funds for communities with the greatest need. n Analyze current work on annual end-of-year contract transfers to assess the expansion of this approach. n Explore converting CSPP slots not funded by Proposition 98 to CCTR, increase opportunities for contractors to request moves between these two contracts (if they hold both), and determine what incentives and supports are necessary for contractors to make these conversions. n Work with advocates to address the conversion of CSPP contracts to CCTR with CDE and allocating more funds to CCTR, highlighting changes in the delivery of preschool care and the role of Transitional Kindergarten that have resulted in an oversaturation of preschool contracts compared to the need for infant and toddler care. n Analyze the CDE’s tracking of “underearned” amounts for each contract type, including a contract-type comparison and the identification of contracts with the highest underearning rates. Work directly with providers having those high rates to understand their reasons for underearning; develop support strategies to addresses barriers to full contract earning. 41 A Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis of the Los Angeles County Early Care and Education System RECOMMENDATION 6 n Provide technical assistance to local programs interested in expanding to serve infants and toddlers; include assistance with applying for CDE funding. n Establish guidelines and strategies for localities investing local funds to serve infants and toddlers first. n Explore the necessary supports to strengthen family child care homes throughout the county in their role with infants and toddlers. FINDING License-exempt family, friend, and neighbor care makes up a significant portion of the ECE system in Los Angeles County. It is most likely to be used by low-income families with infants or toddlers, yet very few resources go to support these providers. families, which is particularly important for families working non-traditional hours. Lastly, many families choose FFN care because it is more affordable than other types of care. While FFN offers many benefits to families, it is also largely unregulated. In California, FFN providers who accept subsidy payments in the form of vouchers must complete a simple health-and-safety checklist and register with Trustline (California’s criminal background-check database) unless they are a close relative (i.e., grandparent, aunt, or uncle). While Child Care Resource and Referral agencies provide training and resources to FFN providers through the Child Care Initiative Project (CCIP)—particularly to those who are interested in becoming licensed—the CFA found that relatively few quality-support dollars go to this important part of the ECE system in Los Angeles. Los Angeles County is home to a diverse mixeddelivery system of early care and education that includes licensed centers and family child care homes as well as license-exempt group care14 and license-exempt home-based care, also called family, friend, and neighbor (FFN) care.15 FFN is the most prevalent type of child care in the United States16 and infants and toddlers are more likely than older children to be with an FFN provider exclusively when they are not in the care of their parent or legal guardian. (Older children are more likely to be in multiple types of care, including FFN.) Families living below the poverty line are more likely to use FFN care, although families from all socioeconomic groups rely on this form of care. California has a large FFN population compared other states; it is estimated that almost half of all ECE providers in the state (49%) are FFN providers.17 Los Angeles County has a significant share of this population; families in many low-income parts of the county (e.g., Antelope Valley, South Los Angeles, Southeast Los Angeles) are more likely to rely on this type of care. 14 These include public recreation programs, before- and after-school programs run by schools, and cooperative agreements where parents share responsibility for child care but no payments are involved. 15 FFN providers are those who care for only their relatives or those who only care for the children of one other family. 16 Amy Susman-Stillman and Patti Banghart, Demographics of Family, Friend, and Neighbor Child Care in the United States. Research Connections, August 2008. 17 Lea J E Austin, Bethany Edwards, and Marcy Whitebook, “California’s ECE Workforce: What We Know Now and the Data Deficit That Remains” (Berkeley, CA: Center for the Study of Child Care Employment, University of California, Berkeley, October 2018). Families choose FFN care for several reasons, including feeling more comfortable leaving their children in the care of someone who is familiar and who meets their cultural and linguistic preferences. FFN care is also more flexible for 42 A Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis of the Los Angeles County Early Care and Education System RECOMMENDATION 7 Implement strategies to support those delivering family, friend, and neighbor care in Los Angeles County and provide a pathway toward licensed child care for those interested in growing into the profession. Action Steps n Conduct a study of FFN providers in Los Angeles County to better understand their demographics, needs, and interest in becoming licensed. n Develop strategies to further strengthen and support FFN providers by building on current strategies and developing new approaches tailored to different regions of the county. 43 A Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis of the Los Angeles County Early Care and Education System Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis of Los Angeles County’s Early Care and Education System Appendices Prepared for the Los Angeles County Office of Child Protection Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis of Los Angeles County’s Early Care and Education System Appendices Table of Contents Appendix A: Funding Catalogue Catalogue Categories and Descriptions Direct Service Funding 1 1 3 California Department of Education (CDE) Transitional Kindergarten, TK Expanded, Title I Preschool 3 California Department of Education (CDE) Title 5 Contractors (CCTR, CSPP) 8 Table: Standard Reimbursement Rates (SRR) Fiscal Year 2018–2019 California Vouchers (CAPP, CalWORKs Stages 2 and 3) Table: Maximum Reimbursement Rates 14 15 21 CalWORKs Stage 1 22 Early Head Start/Head Start 27 Early Head Start—Child Care Partnerships 31 Emergency Child Care Bridge Program for Foster Children Vouchers 34 Family Child Care Home Education Network (CFCC) Vouchers 40 System Supports Funding California Department of Education 44 44 AB 212 Child Care Salary Retention Incentive Program 44 California Preschool Instructional Network (CPIN) 47 California State Preschool Program QRIS Block Grant 49 California Transitional Kindergarten Professional Development Program 51 California Transitional Kindergarten (TK) Stipend Incentive Program 52 Child Care Initiative Project (CCIP) 53 Local Child Care and Development Planning Council (LPC) 56 Quality Counts California QRIS Block Grant 58 Child Care Facilities Revolving Loan Fund 60 Child Care Resource and Referral 62 Emergency Child Care Bridge Program for Foster Children (Navigation and Training) 66 Prepared for the Los Angeles County Office of Child Protection Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis of Los Angeles County’s Early Care and Education System Appendices Family Child Care Home Education Networks Supports 69 First 5 Los Angeles 72 Early Childhood and Education Competencies Curriculum Project (Training and Technical Assistance Contracts and Grants) 72 Early Childhood and Education Credential Advocacy Project 74 Early Care and Education Emerging Opportunities 76 Shared Service 77 Los Angeles Early Care and Education Workforce Registry 79 Educare Policy and Advocacy 80 Kindergarten Readiness Assessment Project 81 Quality Coaching and Quality Improvement Supports 83 First 5 LA QRIS Architects Group and Systems Planning 85 Quality Rating and Improvement System Continuous Site Engagement 87 First 5 LA Quality Rating and Improvement Data System Administrator 89 Los Angeles County Library Reading Machine Appendix B: Community and County Initiative Profiles 91 93 Antelope Valley 93 Lennox Elementary School District 96 Long Beach 97 Los Angeles City Councilmember Paul Krekorian’s Early Care and Education Motion 99 Northeast Valley 100 Pasadena 102 Santa Monica 104 Watts/Willowbrook 107 Los Angeles County Department of Children And Family Services (DCFS) Head Start Electronic Referral System 108 Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation Tiny Tots Program 110 Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) 111 Los Angeles Early Childhood Mental Health Consultation Project (Department of Mental Health and LAUSD Prevention Programming) 113 Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE) Community Schools 114 Los Angeles County Public Library 115 Prepared for the Los Angeles County Office of Child Protection Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis of Los Angeles County’s Early Care and Education System Chief Executive Office Reports Appendices 117 Child Care for Homeless Children 117 Child Care Facilities 118 Appendix C: Revenue and Expense Model Snapshots, Center-Based and Family Child Care 119 Introduction 119 Child Care Center-Based Model 120 Baseline Quality Stacked Per-Child Finance Charts (Infant, Toddler, Preschooler) 120 Quality Stacked Per-Child Finance Charts (Infant, Toddler, Preschooler) 121 Aspirational Quality Stacked Per-Child Finance Charts (Infant, Toddler, Preschooler) 122 Small Family Child Care Home 123 Baseline Quality Stacked Per-Child Finance Charts (Infant, Toddler, Preschooler) 123 Quality Stacked Per-Child Finance Charts (Infant, Toddler, Preschooler) 124 Aspirational Quality Stacked Per-Child Finance Charts (Infant, Toddler, Preschooler) Large Family Child Care Home 125 126 Baseline Quality Stacked Per-Child Finance Charts (Infant, Toddler, Preschooler) 126 Quality Stacked Per-Child Finance Charts (Infant, Toddler, Preschooler) 127 Aspirational Quality Stacked Per-Child Finance Charts (Infant, Toddler, Preschooler) 128 Appendix D: Revenue and Expense Model Instructions, Center-Based and Family Child Care 129 Introduction 129 Instructions for Use 129 Center-Based Model 129 Family Child Care Model 132 Appendix E: Glossary of Terms Prepared for the Los Angeles County Office of Child Protection 135 Appendix A: Funding Catalogue The Funding Catalogue is a resource tool which brings together information on direct service and system level programs that comprise Los Angeles County early care and education. The catalogue was created through the review of program materials, such as contracts, budgets, and narrative description, and through interviews and conversations with expert stakeholders for each of the various initiatives. A rubric was used to guide and frame all the information gathered under key aspects of the Los Angeles County early care and education system and relate these to the financing. Each catalogue entry follows the same format, with the following categories as the focus of information gathered in the catalogue. To the right of each category there is a brief description outlining the detail, or specific information, which was sought on each area of funding. Category Description Funded Programs and Primary Service Name of program(s), primary purpose, and specific goals, e.g., school readiness, work support for parents, prevention, intervention, direct service, quality support, and what services supported Source of Funds/Funding Amount Total available funding: total annual. Specify: local tax, foundation, state, federal direct, federal via state. Match required, If so, how much? Total Number of Children Served For direct service initiatives, total children served in the year related to the funding. Authority Who has the authority to make changes to the funding, policies and programmatic requirements? Parent /Family Fee or CoPay How determined, Family size, income, a sliding fee scale, and service schedule, full or part time? Provider Eligibility Criteria What entities can deliver the service? Criteria may include type of program/service, hours, location, target population, education qualifications, etc. Participant Eligibility Criteria Age, family income, location, other child and family risk factors – developmental, homelessness Length of Child or Family Eligibility How long is determination applicable? Outreach, Eligibility, and Recruitment Process Details on the process that may speak to opportunities for use of funds Payment Process and Rates Grant, fee for service, allocation. By factors – Child age, other criteria Appendices 1 Category Description Rate Policies How rates are determined, how frequently are payments made, when does rate change, why does rate change? Financial Requirements Contract details? Stipulations on use of funds e.g. pay for certified teachers only. Budget submission, details of budget required Program Requirements • Staff qualifications • Ongoing training & education requirements • Ratio and group size • Length of day/year • Reporting and monitoring requirements Other standards/criteria the provider needs to meet to get/maintain the funding. Appendices 2 Direct Service Funding California Department of Education (Transitional Kindergarten, TK Expanded, Title I Preschool) Transitional Kindergarten (TK): Year one of a two-year kindergarten program for students who turn five years old between September 2 and December 2 and who may benefit from an enriched foundational early childhood education program to prepare them for success in traditional kindergarten. Funded Programs and Primary Service Transitional Kindergarten Expanded (TKE): A high-quality, free option for lowincome children who turn five after December 2. Title I, Part A Preschool Programs: A preschool program for which a Local Education Agency (LEA) or school uses Title I funds, in whole or in part, to improve cognitive, health, and social emotional outcomes for eligible children below the grade at which an LEA begins providing a free public elementary education. Such a program is designed to prepare eligible children with the prerequisite skills and dispositions for learning, enabling them to benefit from later school experiences. TK is funded by the California Department of Education General Revenue Fund (Proposition 98) and federal Title I. TKE* is funded through a combination of local and Average Daily Attendance (ADA) funding. Districts can use local general fund, federal Title I, or Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) supplement and concentration dollars (as appropriate) for the part of the school year before students turn five. After their fifth birthday, these children qualify for ADA funds from state through the LCFF. Source of Funds/Funding Amount Title 1, Part A Preschool* are funded through Federal Title I; may use in combination with General Revenue Fund, local general funds and/or LCFF. TK: $2,167,303 Title I, Part A Preschool: $4,776,823 (Los Angeles County Office of Education 2019 Allocation) $346,629,926 (Los Angeles Unified School District 2019 Allocation) * California Department of Education funding includes Transitional Kindergarten Expanded and Title I federal funding but it is difficult to establish the amounts in use in LA County. Local education agencies may opt to offer Transitional Kindergarten Expanded and may use General Fund, Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) base dollars, Title I, Title II, or other local district funding and community partnerships to fund the program; local education agencies are not required to report this program expenditure to CDE. Local education agencies may use Title I federal funding for preschool programming but tracking these expenditures separate from overall Title I funding is not required of local education agencies. Appendices 3 Total Number of Children Served California Department of Education (Transitional Kindergarten, TK Expanded, Title I Preschool) TK: 31,844 California Department of Education Authority Title I, Part A Preschool Program: California Department of Education is the Title I grantee responsible for all oversight of all Title I programs. Administered by school districts. TK: No family fee Parent/Family Fee or Co-Pay TKE: No family fee Title 1, Part A Preschool Program: No family fee No fees are collected from families who are also receiving California Work Opportunities and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) aid Stage 1. TK and TKE: Schools must provide a full schedule with a 6-hour daily program Monday through Friday during the 180-day school year. All LEAs are required to provide TK in all schools, while TKE is optional. Title I, Part A Preschool Program: Any Title I LEA or school may use Title I funds to operate, in whole or in part, a preschool program consistent with Title I requirements—Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) section 1112(b)(1)(K). A Title I LEA or school determines whether or not to use its Title I funds to operate a preschool program based on the needs of its eligible students and the most effective use of those funds. Provider Eligibility Criteria An LEA may use its Title I funds to support a preschool program in several ways: • School-operated Title I preschool program: A Title I school may use all or a portion of its Title I funds to operate a preschool program for eligible children. • District-operated Title I preschool program: An LEA may reserve a portion of funds off the top of its Title I allocation to operate a preschool program for eligible children in the district as a whole or in a portion of the district. • Coordinating with other preschool programs: An LEA may use Title I funds to coordinate with and support eligible children enrolled in other preschool programs, such as Head Start. If Title I funds are used in whole or in part to operate a preschool program, all Title I requirements apply to the program. Appendices 4 California Department of Education (Transitional Kindergarten, TK Expanded, Title I Preschool) TK: Children who turn five years old between September 2 and December 2 and who may benefit from an enriched foundational early childhood education program to prepare them for success in traditional kindergarten. TKE: Children who turn five years old after December 2 are eligible. After that criterion is met, priority order for enrollment is based on the order of ADA reimbursement as follows: • • • • • Participant Eligibility Criteria December birthdays (after December 2) January birthdays February birthdays March birthdays April, May, June birthdays Family residency within school boundaries is a priority. After all neighborhood children have been offered enrollment, schools may enroll students outside of the residential boundary. Title I, Part A Preschool Program: To be eligible, preschool-age children, like school-age children, must be failing or considered most at risk of failing to meet the State’s challenging student academic achievement standards. The use of family income to determine eligibility is allowable, especially for the purpose of prioritizing when insufficient Title I resources exist to serve all preschool-age children; however, children should not be identified for Title I preschool solely on the basis of family income. In addition, children who participated in a Head Start, Even Start, Early Reading First, or Title I preschool program at any time during the two preceding years, homeless children, and children in institutions for neglected or delinquent children are automatically eligible for Title I preschool and to continue into Title I school programs. Length of Child or Family Eligibility A schoolwide program is not required to identify particular children as eligible. All children in the attendance area of that school are eligible for preschool services if a minimum of 40% of the students enrolled in the school or residing in the school’s attendance area, are from low-income families (ESEA section 1114(a)(1)). TK and TKE: Children are eligible for the program until they enter kindergarten. Title 1, Part A Preschool Program: For the purpose of Title I, children from birth to the age at which the LEA provides a free public elementary education may receive preschool services. Appendices 5 California Department of Education (Transitional Kindergarten, TK Expanded, Title I Preschool) TKE: Children who turn five years old after December 2 are eligible. After that criterion is met, priority order for enrollment is based on the order of ADA reimbursement based on the month of the child’s birth. Outreach, Eligibility, and Recruitment Process Title 1, Part A Preschool Program: This serves preschool children most at risk of failing to meet the state’s academic achievement standards based on multiple educationally related objective criteria, such as developmentally appropriate measures of child development, teacher judgment, and interviews with parents. The use of family income as one factor in determining eligibility for a districtwide Title I preschool program is allowable, especially for the purpose of prioritizing when insufficient Title I funds exist to serve all eligible preschool-age children, but children should not be identified as eligible for a Title I preschool program solely on the basis of family income. Certain children are “automatically eligible” to participate in a Title I preschool program—ESEA section 1115(b)(2)—including: Children who participated in Head Start or a Title I preschool program at any time in the prior two years • Homeless preschool-age children • Children who are in a local institution for neglected or delinquent children and youth or attending a community day program for these children TK: School districts and charter schools receive full ADA for students. • Payment Process and Rates Rate Policies Financial Requirements TKE: School districts and charter schools receive ADA once students turn five and may use local funding to cover costs prior to students turning five. Funding for TK and TKE is provided through the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), the state’s primary school-funding formula. The LCFF provides schools with base per‑student funding, adjusted by four grade spans, with additional funding generated for students who are low-income, English learners, or foster youth. TK and TKE: Programs must report daily attendance and verify birthday and school boundary residency. TK programs must adhere to all reporting requirements that Title I requires for kindergarten programs. Title 1, Part A Preschool Program: A district must allocate Title I funds to participating schools/school attendance areas in rank order of percentage of poverty, high to low. Allocations are made on the basis of the total number of children from low-income families in each area or school. The district must allocate a higher per pupil amount to areas/schools with higher poverty rates than it allocates to areas/schools with lower poverty rates. Appendices 6 Program Requirements California Department of Education (Transitional Kindergarten, TK Expanded, Title I Preschool) TK and TKE: Classroom sizes are made up of 24 children with a credentialed teacher and one teacher assistant. TK/TKE classes must offer the same level of service offered for students enrolled in a traditional kindergarten program. The required minimum of hours and days that pertain to kindergarten also pertain to TK and TKE. Programs are required to complete both a developmental profile on each child (a Desired Results Developmental Profile, or DRDP) and the applicable Environment Rating Scale. Additionally, programs must adhere to criteria outlined by CDE regarding education program, staff development program, parent involvement and education, health and social services, community involvement, nutrition, program self-evaluation, and parent surveys. As mandated in statute, TK and TKE are to be staffed by credentialed teachers or holders of teaching permits that authorize general education instruction in self-contained classrooms for the grade level of kindergarten (California Commission on Teacher Credentialing 2011). Additionally, programs with children identified as English learners must be staffed by teachers who are qualified to deliver English learner instructional services. Qualifications include possession of the Cross Cultural, Language, and Academic Development (CLAD) certificate, which authorizes a person to teach English language development (ELD) and specially designed academic instruction in English (SDAIE). Title I, Part A Preschool Program: Programs must meet all requirements set forth by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Teachers working in a Title I preschool program in a state that considers preschool to be part of public elementary education must meet the Title I requirements for “highly qualified teachers” (ESEA sections 1119, 9101(23); 34 C.F.R. §§ 200.55 and 200.56). Requirements also include ongoing completion of a community assessment, professional development, support services, parent involvement, family engagement, transition to kindergarten, and coordination with Head Start and other early learning programs, including migrant programs. For a comprehensive look at all requirements, visit https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg2.html Appendices 7 California Department of Education Title 5 Contractors (CCTR, CSPP) Under Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations, the California Department of Education (CDE) maintains child development contracts with child care providers for the delivery of child development services as defined by the programmatic requirements. Funded Programs and Primary Service General Child Care and Development (CCTR): Subsidized care for birth to age 12, all day and before and after school care, in center-based settings, or through family child care home education networks. California State Preschool Program (CSPP): Part-day and full-day educational programs for low-income or otherwise disadvantaged threeand four-year old children. Funded by the General Revenue Fund (GRF) and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) Source of Funds Total Number of Children Served Authority Parent /Family Fee or Co-Pay Provider Eligibility Criteria CCTR total: $100,376,687 (combination of state GRF and federal funds) CSPP total: $359,831,057 (combination of GRF Proposition 98 and federal funds; Proposition 98 only for school districts and community colleges) CCTR FY 2017–2018 Total number of children in part-day: 89 Total number of children in full day: 3,890 Total number of children: 3,979 CSPP FY 2017–2018 Total number of children in part-day: 19,403 Total number of children in full day: 17,393 Total number of children: 36,796 State legislature; California Department of Education CCTR: Family fees are determined by adjusted family monthly income and family size CSPP: No family fee for part day; full day subject to family fees same as CCTR. No fees are collected from families who are also receiving CalWORKs aid Stage 1. Providers must maintain a minimum days of operation (MDO) of 246 per year and are allowed a 2% flex factor on MDO; the contract allows for full payment if MDO is within 98 to 100%, in case provider is short on days of operation. Appendices 8 California Department of Education Title 5 Contractors (CCTR, CSPP) CCTR: Providers must collect family fees. CSPP: Providers must offer age-appropriate planned educational activities throughout each program day that address all developmental domains contained in the California Department of Education’s Desired Results Development Profiles (DRDP). For part-day programs, providers must offer 175 days of service at least three hours a day but not more than three hours 59 minutes. CCTR: Birth to age 12 CSPP: Three and four-year-old children Participant Eligibility Criteria CCTR and CSPP: Children, must meet one of the following criteria: • Family is a public assistance recipient • Family is income eligible • Family is homeless • Family has a child who is at risk of abuse, neglect, or exploitation, or is receiving child protective services through the county childwelfare department For CCTR and full-day CSPP, family need is established by one or both of the following: The child is a recipient of protective services or is at risk of abuse, neglect, or exploitation • The parent(s) and any other adult counted in the family size are any of the following:  Employed  Seeking employment  Participating in vocational training  Homeless and seeking permanent housing for family stability  Incapacitated Three-year-old children are eligible for the General Child Care and Development Program (CCTR) only until they are California State Preschool Program (CSPP) eligible. CSPP eligible three-year-olds are defined as children who have their third birthday on or before September 1 of the fiscal year they are being served. CSPP eligible four-year-old children are ineligible for center-based CCTR services. • Length of Child or Family Eligibility At initial certification or recertification, contractors shall: • Certify services for not less than 12 months Appendices 9 California Department of Education Title 5 Contractors (CCTR, CSPP) Consider the family to meet the eligibility and/or need requirements for not less than 12 months • Provide those services for not less than 12 months before having the family’s eligibility or need recertified CCTR/CSPP: Title 5 providers must complete the eligibility determination and application process as laid out by CDE. • CCTR First Priority: • Providers shall give first priority to families whose children are recipients of child protective services, or who are identified as neglected, abused, or exploited or at risk of being neglected, abused, or exploited. • Within this priority, children receiving child protective services through the local county child-welfare department shall be admitted first. Outreach, Eligibility, and Recruitment Process Second Priority: • All children and families who do not fall within the first priority for admission shall be admitted in accordance with family income, with the lowest income-ranked families admitted first. • For purposes of determining the order of admission, families with the lowest gross monthly income in relation to family size as determined by a schedule adopted by the State Superintendent of Public Instruction shall be admitted first. Public-assistance grants are counted as income. CSPP First Priority: • Three- or four-year-old neglected or abused children who are recipients of child protective services; or • Three- or four-year-old children who are at risk of being neglected or abused. If an agency is unable to enroll a child in the first priority category, the agency shall refer the family to local resource and referral services to locate services for the child. Second Priority: • After children in the first priority are enrolled, priority is given to eligible four-year-old children who are not enrolled in a state funded transitional kindergarten program before enrolling eligible three- Appendices 10 California Department of Education Title 5 Contractors (CCTR, CSPP) year-old children. Contractor shall certify that enrollment priority is being given to eligible four-year-old children. Families with the lowest gross monthly income in relation to family size as determined by a schedule adopted by the State Superintendent of Public Instruction shall be admitted first. Centers are reimbursed monthly. • Center-based direct service contracts use the Standard Reimbursement Rate (SRR). The reimbursement fact sheet for FY 2018–2019 is included Payment Process and Rates SRR for CCTR is $47.98 per child day of enrollment or $11,995 per annum based on 250 days of operation. This is the standard rate; modifications exist for special populations such as infants, toddlers, and family child care providers. SRR for CSPP is $48.28 per child day of enrollment or $12,070 per annum based on 250 days of operation. Rate Policies Financial Requirements https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/cd/op/factsheet18.asp Rate policy is set by state legislature. Effective January 1, 2018, the new Regional Market Rate ceilings for licensed providers are established at the 75th percentile of the 2016 Regional Market Rate survey or the Regional Market Rate ceilings as they existed on December 31, 2017, whichever is greater. Providers must adhere to compliance reviews and reporting as required by CDE in state contract requirements. Reporting specifics for CCTR and CSPP: https://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/cd/documents/ftc1920.docx CCTR/CSPP: Program Requirements 1. Providers must adhere to program quality requirements and are subject to compliance reviews as required by CDE in the CCTR and/or CSPP state contract requirements. 2. Providers must adhere to all state requirements for enrollment, sign-in/sign- out, eligibility, and other contract requirements for state Title 5 contractors. 3. ABSENCES: Except for children who are recipients of protective services or at risk of abuse or neglect, excused absences “in the best Appendices 11 California Department of Education Title 5 Contractors (CCTR, CSPP) interest of the child” shall be limited to 10 days during the contract period. Grantees shall also adopt a policy governing unexcused absences that may include reasonable limitations, if any. Grantees shall inform parents of these policies. 4. ENROLLMENT REPORTING: Providers are required to report days of enrollment and attendance for all children served in the program in the current reporting period and year-to-date. 5. STAFFING QUALIFICATIONS (with requirements specified by CDE at http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/cd/staffingqatt.asp) • Program Director: If a provider operates at two or more sites, they must employ a program director who has administrative and programmatic responsibility for the program. • Site Supervisor: At each site, a person designated as the site supervisor has operational program responsibility for the program. • Teachers: Teachers must have a permit issued by the Commission on Teacher Credentialing authorizing service in the care, development, and instruction of children in a child care and development program. 6. STAFFING RATIOS: Providers maintain at least the following minimum ratios in all centers: • Infants (birth to 18 months old)—1:3 adult-child ratio, 1:18 teacherchild ratio, group size 18 • Toddlers (18 months to 36 months old)—1:4 adult-child ratio, 1:16 teacher-child ratio • Preschool (36 months to enrollment in kindergarten)—1:8 adultchild ratio, 1:24 teacher-child ratio, group size 24 • Children enrolled in kindergarten through age 13—1:14 adult-child ratio, 1:28 teacher-child ratio, group size 28 • Whenever groups of children of two age categories are commingled and the younger age group exceeds 50% of the total number of children present, the ratios for the entire group must meet the ratios required for the younger age group. If the younger age group does not exceed 50% of the total number of the children present, the teacher-child and adult-child ratios shall be computed separately for each group. 7. Programs are required to complete a Desired Results Developmental Profile (DRDP) on each child and complete the applicable Environment Rating Scale every three years. Additionally, programs must adhere to criteria regarding education program, staff development program, parent involvement and education, health Appendices 12 California Department of Education Title 5 Contractors (CCTR, CSPP) and social services, community involvement, nutrition, program selfevaluation, and parent surveys, outlined at CDE. Full program requirements for CCTR: https://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/cd/documents/cctr1819.doc Full program requirements for CSPP: https://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/cd/documents/cspp1920.docx Appendices 13 Table Standard Reimbursement Rates (SRR) Fiscal Year 2018–2019 CCTR – General Child Care Family Child Care Homes infants and toddlers (birth up to Exceptional 36 months) Needs Standard Infants (birth to 18 months) Toddlers (18 - 36 months) Infants $47.98 $99.32 NA $67.17 Toddlers $47.98 NA $76.77 $67.17 Limited or Non-English Proficient Children at risk of abuse or neglect Severely Handicapped $65.73 $52.78 $52.78 $82.29 $65.73 $52.78 $52.78 $82.29 CSPP – California State Preschool Program Preschoolers Standard Exceptional Needs Limited or Non-English Proficient Children at risk of abuse or neglect Severely Handicapped $48.28 $66.14 $53.11 $53.11 $82.80 Appendices CSPP Part Day Rate $29.90 14 California Vouchers (CAPP, CalWORKs Stages 2 and 3) Under Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations, the California Department of Education (CDE) maintains child development contracts with child care providers for the delivery of child development services as defined by the programmatic requirements. Funded Programs and Primary Service Alternative Payment Program (CAPP): Child care arrangements for families using center-based care, family child care, and license-exempt care. Families arrange child care services and CAPP makes payments for those services directly to the child care provider selected by the family. CAPP is intended to increase parental choice and accommodate the individual needs of the family. California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) Child Care: CalWORKs programs provide an array of welfare-to-work services. Child care is provided with state and federal funds. CalWORKs Stage 2 is administered by CDE through 11 Alternative Payment (AP) contractors. CalWORKs families are transferred into Stage 2 after 12 months or when the family is deemed to be stable (stability is locally defined). Families remain on Stage 2 until they have been off cash aid for two years; they then transition to Stage 3. Stage 3 is also administered by CDE through the 11 APs. This program provides care as long as funding is available and the family remains eligible. Combination of General Revenue Fund (non-Proposition 98) and Federal Child Care Development Block Grant Source of Funds/Funding Amount CAPP: $78,162,337 CalWORKs Stage 2: $173,450,760 CalWORKs Stage 3: $99,210,622 Total funding amount: $350,823,719 Number of children from birth to age 5 served by vouchers (2018): Total Number of Children Served CalWORKs Stage 2: 19,563 CalWORKs Stage 3: 12,100 CAPP: 6,950 Authority Parent /Family Fee or Co-Pay State legislature; California Department of Education Family fees are collected according to fee schedule from CDE’s Early Learning and Care Division. The following factors determine the fee to be assessed for each family: adjusted monthly family income, family size, and certified family need for full or part day care. For a fee schedule, visit: Appendices 15 California Vouchers (CAPP, CalWORKs Stages 2 and 3) http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/cd/ci/documents/famfeeschedsept2018.xlsx Center-based care, family child care home, and license-exempt care. Provider requirements: • The center or family child care home is licensed or qualifies as license exempt prior to receiving reimbursement for services. • License-exempt caregivers (except grandparents, aunts, and uncles) complete a health and safety self-certification and TrustLine application process within 14 calendar days.* TrustLine is a database for nannies, babysitters, and license- exempt providers; those in database have cleared criminal background checks. *These requirements will change in the near future due to federal regulations. • Providers must maintain a minimum days of operation (MDO) of 250 per year and are allowed a 2% flex factor on MDO; the contract allows for full payment if MDO is within 98 to 100%, in case provider is short on days of operation Provider Eligibility Criteria Providers must collect family fees, using the CDE Early Learning and Care Division fee schedule. Age: CAPP and CalWORKs—birth through 13th birthday, except for children with exceptional needs and/or severely disabled who are served to age 21 • The Stage 2 eligibility period is up to 24 months off aid; Stage 3 eligibility is for families receiving Stage 2 in the 24th month who are otherwise eligible to continue receiving a child care subsidy. CalWORKs Stages 2 and 3 and CAPP • Participant Eligibility Criteria • • • Family is a former cash aid public assistance recipient (Stages 2 and 3 only) Family is income eligible (Stage 3 until family income exceeds 70% the State Median Income (SMI) Family is homeless Family has a child who is at risk of abuse, neglect, or exploitation, or is receiving child protective services through the county child-welfare department Families that are eligible also must have a need for child care because of their engagement in an approved work activity. Parent(s) and any other adult counted in the family size are any of the following:  Employed Appendices 16 California Vouchers (CAPP, CalWORKs Stages 2 and 3)  Seeking employment  Participating in vocational training  Homeless and seeking permanent housing for family stability  Incapacitated Family is recertified every 12 months. CalWORKs Stages 2 and 3 and CAPP have an exit ceiling of 70% of SMI. Length of Child or Family Eligibility Outreach, Eligibility, and Recruitment Process CalWORKs Stage 2: Family remains eligible to enroll for 24 months after they stop receiving cash assistance. CalWORKs Stage 3 and CAPP: Until child turns age 13 or family no longer qualifies. CalWORKs Stages 2 and 3 and CAPP: Contractor must complete eligibility determination and application process with families as laid out by CDE. https://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/cd/ftc2018.asp CalWORKs: Child care begins with a parent’s entry into a County-approved welfare- to-work activity or employment. CAPP: Admission priority: children in child protective services or at risk for abuse then lowest income children. The State of California establishes Regional Market Rate (RMR) ceilings for each county that are based on local market rates for child care services. The RMR ceilings are broken down as follows: • • Payment Process and Rates Rate Policies Financial Requirements • • By rate type (hourly, daily, weekly, monthly) By type of care (center, family child care home, license-exempt provider) By child’s age (0-<2, 2–5, and 6+) By hours of care (part-time vs full-time) To determine the appropriate RMR ceiling to use, agencies must consider the age of the child, the approved child care schedule, and the type of provider. Child care providers will be reimbursed at their established rate, not to exceed the applicable RMR ceiling. Rate policy is set by the state legislature. Effective January 1, 2018, the new Regional Market Rate ceilings for licensed providers are established at the 75th percentile of the 2016 Regional Market Rate survey or the Regional Market Rate ceilings as they existed on December 31, 2017, whichever is greater. License-exempt child care providers continue to be 70% of the family child care home ceiling. Providers must adhere to compliance reviews and reporting (below)as required by CDE in state contract requirements. Appendices 17 California Vouchers (CAPP, CalWORKs Stages 2 and 3) CAPP: Complete expenditure and caseload reports on monthly basis. CalWORKs Stages 2 and 3: Submit monthly CalWORKs Fiscal Report and CalWORKs Caseload Report. For full reporting details, visit: https://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/cd/documents/ftc1920.docx 1. Providers must adhere to all state requirements for enrollment, sign in/sign out, eligibility, and other contract requirements. 2. ABSENCES: Except for children who are recipients of protective services or at risk of abuse or neglect, excused absences “in the best interest of the child” shall be limited to 10 days during the contract period. Grantees shall also adopt a policy governing unexcused absences that may include reasonable limitations, if any. Grantees shall inform parents of these policies. 3. ENROLLMENT REPORTING: Providers are required to report days of enrollment and attendance for all children served in the program in the current reporting period and year to date. (CalWORKs—hours per week) Program Requirements 4. STAFFING QUALIFICATIONS: For the following center- based positions, Administrator, Center Director, Teachers, Teacher Aides—visit: https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/cd/ci/genstaffqual.asp https://www.cdss.ca.gov/Portals/9/CCLD/CCP%20Documents/Child%20C are%20Center%20Provider%20Requirements%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf?ver= 2019-05-30-165154-250 For family child care homes, personnel requirements are outlined at: https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/cd/re/caqfamcchomes.asp 5. STAFFING RATIOS: Providers maintain at least the following minimum ratios in all centers: • Infants (12 weeks to 24 months old) – 1:4 adult-child ratio, 1:4 teacher-child ratio, group size 12. • Toddlers (18 months to 30 months old) – 1:6 adult-child ratio, 1:6 teacher-child ratio, group size 12. The toddler component is an addon to an infant or preschool license. • Preschool (2- to 5-year-olds, entry into 1st grade)  1:12 teacher-child ratio (2- to 5-year-olds)  1:15 with one teacher and one aide (2- to 5-year-olds)  1:18 with one teacher and one aide (3- to 5-year-olds) Appendices 18 California Vouchers (CAPP, CalWORKs Stages 2 and 3) 6. FCC STAFFING Large Family Child Care Home: The maximum number of children, when there is an assistant provider in the home—including children under age 10 who live in the licensee’s home and the assistant provider’s children under age 10—shall be either:   • 12 children, no more than four of whom may be infants or A large family day care home may provide care for more than 12 children and up to and including 14 children, if all the following conditions are met:  At least two of the children are at least six years of age.  No more than three infants are cared for during any time when more than 12 children are being cared for.  The licensee notifies a parent that the facility is caring for two additional school-age children and that there may be up to 13 or 14 children in the home at one time.  The licensee obtains the written consent of the property owner when the family day care home is operated on property that is leased or rented. Small Family Child Care Home: The maximum number of children with one adult meeting the requirements—including children under age 10 who live in the licensee’s home—is one of the following: (1) Four infants; or • Six children, no more than three of whom may be infants; or • A small family day care home may provide care for more than six and up to eight children, without an additional adult attendant, if all of the following conditions are met:  At least two of the children are at least six years of age.  No more than two infants are cared for during any time when more than six children are cared for.  The licensee notifies each parent that the facility is caring for two additional school-age children and that there may be up to seven or eight children in the home at one time.  The licensee obtains the written consent of the property owner when the family day care home is operated on property that is leased or rented. 7. FCC LICENSE EXEMPTIONS: Licensure is required before family child care is provided except in the following situations relative to family child care homes: Appendices 19 California Vouchers (CAPP, CalWORKs Stages 2 and 3) • Any family day care home providing care for the children of only one family in addition to the operator’s own children.   Any cooperative arrangement between parents for the care of their children where no payment is involved and the arrangement meets all the following conditions: In a cooperative arrangement, parents shall combine their efforts so that each parent, or set of parents, rotates as the responsible care giver with respect to all the children in the cooperative. Any person caring for children shall be a parent, legal guardian, stepparent, grandparent, aunt, uncle, or adult sibling of at least one of the children in the cooperative.  There can be no payment of money or receipt of in-kind income in exchange for the provision of care.  No more than 12 children are receiving care in the same place at the same time. • Any arrangement for the receiving and care of children by a relative. • Any child day care program that operates only one day per week for no more than four hours on that one day. For full program details, visit: https://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/cd/documents/capp1819.doc Appendices 20 Table Maximum Reimbursement Rates for CalWORKs Stages 1, 2, 3 and APP Child Care Centers for Los Angeles County Age Group Full-Time Daily Full-Time Weekly Full-Time Monthly Part-Time Hourly Part-Time Weekly Part-Time Monthly Birth to 24 months $96.53 $398.15 $1,594.48 $16.28 $274.31 $1,048.63 2 through 5 years $67.37 $301.55 $1,124.28 $12.19 $227.58 $727.62 Family Child Care Homes for Los Angeles County Age Group Full-Time Daily Full-Time Weekly Full-Time Monthly Part-Time Hourly Part-Time Weekly Part-Time Monthly Birth to 24 months $56.40 $232.26 $927.25 $11.34 $178.58 $690.93 2 through 5 years $51.96 $214.55 $866.57 $10.83 $171.73 $638.63 TrustLine/License-Exempt Care for Los Angeles County Age Group Full-Time Daily Full-Time Weekly Full-Time Monthly Part-Time Hourly Birth to 24 months $39.48 $162.58 $649.08 $3.61 2 through 5 years $36.37 $150.18 $606.60 $3.34 Appendices 21 Funded Programs and Primary Service CalWORKs Stage 1 The California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) programs provides an array of welfare-to-work services. Child care is provided with state and federal funds in three stages. Stage 1 is administered by the California Department of Social Services through the Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) and contracted to 10 Alternative Payment Program (APP) agencies. Stage 1 begins when a participant enters the CalWORKs grant program and engages in activities pursuant to a welfare-towork plan developed for each family. CalWORKs families are transferred into Stage 2 once terminated from CalWORKs cash aid, or earlier if the family was deemed to be stable. CalWORKs Stage 1 is funded by Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) through the California Department of Social Services. Source of Funds/Funding Amount Total Number of Children Served Authority Parent /Family Fee or Co-Pay Provider Eligibility Criteria Allocation Expenditures FY2018 $107,019,234 $79,546,695 FY2019 $91,845,541 $64,053,832 See Maximum Reimbursement Rate table in California Voucher entry Number of children authorized for CalWORKs Stage 1 (monthly average for the fiscal year) 2018: 9,330 2019: 7,606 DPSS has local authority for CalWORKs Stage 1; state authority is the California Department of Social Services No family fee if cash-aided Provider Requirements: • The center or family child care is licensed or qualifies as license-exempt prior to receiving reimbursement for services. • License-exempt providers complete a health and safety self-certification and TrustLine application process. Providers who are not required to register with TrusLine are grandparents, aunts, and uncles. TrustLine is a database for license-exempt providers who have cleared criminal background checks. Appendices 22 Participant Eligibility Criteria CalWORKs Stage 1 A child is eligible to receive Stage 1 from birth to their 13th birthday, except for children with exceptional needs and/or severely disabled who are served to age 18. Stage 1 is offered as a supportive service for participants who are receiving CalWORKs and participating in a Welfare to Work activity or are employed. Family is recertified every 12 months. Length of Child or Family Eligibility Outreach, Eligibility, and Recruitment Process Family may be served in Stage 1 until the family’s work activity and child care become stable, or until the participant is no longer receiving CalWORKs cash aid. All Stage 1 provider requirements comport with CDE’s, CDSS’ Licensing Division’s, and Health & Safety regulations by cited reference in the Stage 1 regulations. Contractor must complete eligibility determination and application process with families as laid out by CDE at https://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/cd/ftc2018.asp Child care begins with a parent’s entry into a County-approved welfare-towork activity or employment. The State of California establishes Regional Market Rate (RMR) ceilings for each county that are based on surveyed local market rates for child care services. The RMR ceilings are broken down as follows: • • Payment Process and Rates Rate Policies Financial Requirements • • By rate type (hourly, daily, weekly, monthly) By type of care (center, family child care home, license-exempt provider) By child’s age (0-<2, 2–5, and 6+) By hours of care (part-time vs full-time) To determine the appropriate RMR ceiling to use, agencies must consider the age of the child, the approved child care schedule, and the type of provider. Child care providers are reimbursed at their established rate not to exceed the applicable RMR ceiling. Rate policy is set by the state legislature. Effective January 1, 2018, the new Regional Market Rate ceilings for licensed providers are established at the 75th percentile of the 2016 Regional Market Rate survey or the Regional Market Rate ceilings as they existed on December 31, 2017, whichever is greater. License-exempt child care providers continue to be 70% of the family child care home ceiling. All Stage 1 provider requirements comport with CDE’s, CDSS’ Licensing Division’s, and Health & Safety regulations by cited reference in the Stage 1 regulations. Appendices 23 CalWORKs Stage 1 All Stage 1 provider requirements comport with CDE’s, CDSS’ Licensing Division’s, and Health & Safety regulations by cited reference in the Stage 1 regulations. Program Requirements  ABSENCES: Except for children who are recipients of protective services or at risk of abuse or neglect, excused absences “in the best interest of the child” shall be limited to 10 days during the contract period. Grantees shall also adopt a policy governing unexcused absences that may include reasonable limitations, if any. Grantees shall inform parents of these policies.  ENROLLMENT REPORTING: Providers are required to report days of enrollment and attendance for all children served in the program in the current reporting period and year-to-date. CalWORKs must report hours attended per week.  STAFFING QUALIFICATIONS: For the following center-based positions—Administrator, Center Director, Teachers, Teacher Aides—visit: https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/cd/ci/genstaffqual.asp https://www.cdss.ca.gov/Portals/9/CCLD/CCP%20Documents/Ch ild%20Care%20Center%20Provider%20Requirements%20Fact%2 0Sheet.pdf?ver=2019-05-30-165154-250 For family child care homes, personnel requirements are outlined at: https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/cd/re/caqfamcchomes.asp        STAFFING RATIOS: Providers maintain at least the following minimum ratios in all centers: Infants (12 weeks to 24 months old)—1:4 adult-child ratio, 1:4 teacher-child ratio, group size 12. Toddlers (18 months to 30 months old)—1:6 adult-child ratio, 1:6 teacher-child ratio, group size 12. The toddler component is an add-on to an infant or preschool license. Preschool (2- to 5-year-olds, entry into 1st grade)— 1:12 teacher-child ratio (2- to 5-year-olds) 1:15 with one teacher and one aide (2- to 5-year-olds) 1:18 with one teacher and one aide (3- to 5-year-olds) FCC STAFFING Large Family Child Care Home: The maximum number of children, when there is an assistant provider in the home—including children under age 10 who live in the licensee’s home and the assistant provider’s children under age 10—shall be either: Appendices 24      CalWORKs Stage 1 12 children, no more than four of whom may be infants; or A large family day care home may provide care for more than 12 children and up to and including 14 children, if all of the following conditions are met: At least of the children are at least six years of age. No more than three infants are cared for during any time when more than 12 children are being cared for. The licensee notifies a parent that the facility is caring for two additional school-age children and that there may be up to 13 or 14 children in the home at one time. The licensee obtains the written consent of the property owner when the family day care home is operated on property that is leased or rented. Small Family Child Care Home: The maximum number of children with one adult meeting the requirements, including children under age 10 who live in the licensee’s home, is one of the following:  Four infants; or  Six children, no more than three of whom may be infants; or  A small family day care home may provide care for more than six and up to eight children, without an additional adult attendant, if all the following conditions are met: o At least two of the children are at least six years of age. o No more than two infants are cared for during any time when more than six children are cared for. o The licensee notifies each parent that the facility is caring for two additional school-age children and that there may be up to seven or eight children in the home at one time. o The licensee obtains the written consent of the property owner when the family day care home is operated on property that is leased or rented.  FCC LICENSE EXEMPTIONS: Licensure is required before family child care is provided, except in the following situations relative to family child care homes:  Any family day care home providing care for the children of only one family in addition to the operator’s own children. Appendices 25  CalWORKs Stage 1 Any cooperative arrangement between parents for the care of their children where no payment is involved and the arrangement meets all of the following conditions:  In a cooperative arrangement, parents shall combine their efforts so that each parent, or set of parents, rotates as the responsible care giver with respect to all the children in the cooperative.  Any person caring for children shall be a parent, legal guardian, stepparent, grandparent, aunt, uncle, or adult sibling of at least one of the children in the cooperative.  There can be no payment of money or receipt of in-kind income in exchange for the provision of care.  No more than 12 children are receiving care in the same place at the same time.  Any arrangement for the receiving and care of children by a relative.  Any child day care program that operates only one day per week for no more than four hours on that one day. Appendices 26 Funded Programs and Primary Service Source of Funds/Funding Amount Early Head Start/Head Start Early Head Start (EHS) and Head Start (HS) programs support the cognitive, social, and emotional development of children from birth to age 5. In addition to education services, programs provide children and their families with health, nutrition, social, and other services. Early Head Start serves pregnant women, infants and toddlers; Head Start serves three- and fouryear-old children. Programs may be based in centers, schools, or family child care homes. Center-based Early Head Start services are provided for at least six hours per day, whereas Head Start preschool services may be half-day (four hours) or full-day. The federal government (the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services) contracts directly with local grantees. EHS /HS entities operate their own programs with some partnerships in the community (FCC sites, for instance) to deliver education services. Grantees can contract with delegate agencies (similar to a subcontractor) to operate an EHS or HS program on behalf of the grantee. County-wide funding numbers for FY 2017. HS total amount: $143,666,530 EHS total amount: $20,931,844 Allocation of LACOE HS/EHS slots: LACOE contracts with nine delegates to deliver EHS services and 15 delegates to deliver HS services in defined service areas. Total number of children served: EHS 1,361 children: 39% in center-based, and 61% in a home-based setting Total Number of Children Served HS 9,149 children: 98% in center-based, and less than 1% in a family child care setting. • • • • • • • • • • ABC Unified School District: HS 160 Bassett Unified School District: HS 170; EHS 50 Children’s Institute: HS 441; EHS 62 El Monte City School District: HS 652 Foundation for Early Childhood Education, Inc.: HS 630 Garvey School District: HS 421 Mexican American Opportunity Foundation: HS 1,365 Mountain View School District: HS 456; EHS 20 Norwalk-La Mirada Unified School District: HS 781; EHS 120 Pacific Asian Consortium in Employment: HS 1,000; EHS 206 Appendices 27 Early Head Start/Head Start • • • • • Para Los Niños: HS 373; EHS 27 Plaza de la Raza Child Development Services: HS 1,118; EHS 394 Pomona Unified School District: HS 1,028; EHS 320 Santa Monica- Malibu Unified School District: HS 132 St. Anne’s Maternity Home: HS 422; EHS 162 Additional Grantees (non-LACOE) Child Care Resource Center: 2,695 University of Southern California School for Early Childhood Education: HS 497 • Baldwin Park Unified School District: HS 1,010 • Crystal Stairs: HS 834 • Long Beach Unified School District: HS 1,552; EHS 160 • Montebello Unified School District: 666 HS • Plaza Community Center: HS 199 • Options for Learning: HS 1,744; EHS 114 • Volunteers of America of Los Angeles: HS 3,093; EHS 600 • La Merida School District: HS 885 • Pacific Clinics: HS 331; EHS 219 • El Nido Family Centers- HS 144 • Hope Street Family Center: EHS 72 • Hacienda- LA Puente School District: HS 363 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services • • Authority Parent /Family Fee or Co-Pay Provider Eligibility Criteria EHS/HS prohibits charging family fees or co-payments for EHS or HS services. Grantees deliver the services or engage in partnerships or delegate relationships with other community organizations to deliver services. Grantees must deliver the type of service outlined in their Notice of Funding award; if a grantee seeks to modify its service model, it must appeal to the regional office of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (Los Angeles is in Region IX.) Grantees and their delegates or partners must comply with local licensing and zoning regulations. EHS: Children from birth to 36 months of age Participant Eligibility Criteria HS: Three and four year- old children • • • • The family’s income is equal to or below the federal poverty line, or The family is eligible for public assistance, or The child is homeless, or The child is in foster care Appendices 28 Length of Child or Family Eligibility Outreach, Eligibility, and Recruitment Process Payment Process and Rates Rate Policies Financial Requirements Early Head Start/Head Start Children are eligible for EHS or HS services until they age out. Programs do not re-determine family income/eligibility during the course of serving a family; to transition from EHS to HS, a family’s eligibility will be redetermined. EHS/HS programs require programs to develop recruitment efforts that reach and inform families with eligible children. Programs also must include specific efforts to actively locate and recruit children with disabilities, children experiencing homelessness, children living in foster care, and other vulnerable children. EHS/HS programs must verify eligibility initially through an interview process with the family, completing an enrollment packet. EHS/HS grantees are on five-year grant cycles, with annual budget approvals. EHS/HS grantees draw down funds electronically on an as-needed basis from their annual approved budget allocations. EHS/HS are awarded via competitive applications, issued when federal funding is available. At the time of funding, budget and per child rates are set for a grantee. Each year, a grantee receives a renewal of its funding for base operations, along with a set percentage to use toward training and technical assistance costs. In addition, if funding allows, grantees may receive a costof-living adjustment on their base operations grants, to be used for compensation. Grantees are required to follow HS Program Performance Standards (HSPPS): http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/standards/hspps Reporting includes monthly, quarterly, and annual reports. Grantees are required to follow HS Program Performance Standards (HSPPS). The following excerpts are from HSPPS: 1. RATIO/GROUP SIZE Program Requirements EHS—1:4 staff-to-child ratio (birth to 36 months), group size not to exceed eight children. If state licensing standards are more stringent, programs must adhere to the more stringent requirements. HS—Maximum staff-to-child ratio of 1:10, with class sizes of fewer than 20 children. The predominant age of children in the room drives group size; with predominantly three-year-olds, the group size cannot exceed 17. 2. STAFFING QUALIFICATIONS Appendices 29 Early Head Start/Head Start EHS: Teachers must have a minimum of a Child Development Associate credential and have been trained (or have equivalent coursework) in early childhood development. HS: Each preschool Head Start classroom in center-based programs must have a teacher who has earned at least one of the following:  An associate, baccalaureate, or advanced degree in early childhood education  An associate degree in a field related to early childhood education and coursework equivalent to a major relating to early childhood education, with experience teaching preschool-age children  A baccalaureate or advanced degree in any field and coursework equivalent to a major relating to early childhood education, with experience teaching preschool-age children  A baccalaureate degree in any field and has been admitted into the Teach for America program, has passed a rigorous early-childhood content exam such as the Praxis II, has participated in a Teach for America summer training institute that includes teaching preschool children, and is receiving ongoing professional development and support from Teach for America’s professional staff. Appendices 30 Early Head Start—Child Care Partnerships Early Head Start (EHS) programs support the mental, social, and emotional development of children from birth to age three. In addition to education services, programs provide children and their families with health, nutrition, social, and other services. Early Head Start serves pregnant women, infants, and toddlers; programs may be based in centers, schools, or family child care homes. Center-based Early Head Start services are provided for at least six hours per day. Funded Programs and Primary Service Source of Funds/Funding Amount The EHS Child Care Partnerships (EHS-CCP) program enhances and supports early learning settings to provide comprehensive and continuous services. It increases access to high-quality, full-day, full-year child care, including family child care, for low-income working families. The EHS-CCP program partners with local licensed child care centers and family child care providers to enhance their programs. Through this program, child care centers and family child care providers have access to resources to provide the comprehensive services needed to support better outcomes for children most at-risk. Children are eligible for direct family-specific benefits such as home visits, health tracking and follow-up, and individualized family support services. Teachers and providers receive ongoing supervision and coaching to support the implementation of curriculum and responsive caregiving. The federal U.S. Department of Health and Human Services contracts directly to local grantees. EHS entities are direct contractors, and each operates its own program with some partnerships in the community (FCC sites, for instance) to deliver education services. County-wide funding total accurate for FY 2018. Total amount: $22,706,179 The Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE) contracts with five delegates to deliver the EHS-CCP program. LACOE currently serves 428 infants and toddlers in this program model. Total Number of Children Served • • • • Mexican American Opportunity Foundation (104 slots) Plaza de la Raza Child Development Services, Inc. (88 slots) St. Anne’s Maternity Home (75 slots) Pomona Unified School District Child Development Program (72 slots) Additional EHS-CCP: • Child 360 • CCRC (136 slots) • Vista del Mar (131 slots) • California Medical Center- Hope Street Margolis Family Center • Vista Del Mar Child and Family Services • Volunteers of America Los Angeles Appendices 31 Authority Parent /Family Fee or Co-Pay Provider Eligibility Criteria Early Head Start—Child Care Partnerships U.S. Department of Health and Human Services EHS prohibits charging family fees or co-payments for EHS services. EHS-CCP partners with licensed child care centers and family child care providers to provide high-quality care for infant and toddlers. Participating centers and providers must meet all licensing and safety requirements. All grantees must ensure that every child receives all of the required services set forth in the Head Start Program Performance Standards, whether that is done directly by the grantee or through support or financial assistance to the child care partner. Partner sites are responsible for providing all of the direct education and health and safety requirements. Grantees ensure that all other comprehensive services are provided directly by the grantee, by the partners, or through community referrals. Grantees must deliver the type of service outlined in their Notice of Funding award; if a grantee seeks to modify its service model, it must appeal to the regional office the of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (Los Angeles is in Region IX.) Grantees and their delegates or partners must comply with local licensing and zoning regulations. Children from birth to 36 months of age in the identified service areas and: The family’s income is equal to or below the federal poverty line, or The family is eligible for public assistance, or The child is homeless, or The child is in foster care. Participant Eligibility Criteria • • • • Length of Child or Family Eligibility Children are eligible for EHS services until they age out. Programs do not redetermine family income/eligibility during the course of serving a family. EHS requires programs to develop recruitment efforts that reach and inform families with eligible children. Programs also must include specific efforts to actively locate and recruit children with disabilities, children experiencing homelessness, children living in foster care, and other vulnerable children. Outreach, Eligibility, and Recruitment Process Payment Process and Rates Rate Policies EHS programs must verify eligibility initially through an interview process with the family, completing an enrollment packet. EHS grantees are on five-year grant cycles, with annual budget approvals. EHS grantees draw down funds electronically on an as-needed basis from their annual approved budget allocation. EHS grants are awarded via competitive applications, issued when federal funding is available. At the time of funding, budget and per child rates are set for a grantee. Each year a grantee receives a renewal of its funding for base operations, along with a set percentage to use toward training and technical assistance costs. In addition, if funding allows, grantees may receive a cost of Appendices 32 Financial Requirements Early Head Start—Child Care Partnerships living adjustment on their base operations grant, to be used for compensation. Grantees are required to follow HS Program Performance Standards (HSPPS): http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/standards/hspps Reporting includes monthly, quarterly, and annual reports. Grantees are required to follow HS Program Performance Standards (HSPPS). The following excerpts are from HSPPS: Program Requirements RATIO/GROUP SIZE1:4 staff-to-child ratio (birth to 36 months), group size not to exceed 8 children. If state licensing standards are more stringent, programs must adhere to the more stringent requirements. STAFFING QUALIFICATIONS: Teachers must have a minimum of a Child Development Associate credential and have been trained (or have equivalent coursework) in early childhood development. Appendices 33 Emergency Child Care Bridge Program for Foster Children Vouchers The Emergency Child Care Bridge Program for Foster Children Program (Bridge) provides vouchers for child care, child-care navigator services for families, and trauma-informed care (TIC) training and coaching for child care providers to enhance their ability to provide nurturing and safe environments for children. The Bridge Program is not an entitlement; instead, it is a time-limited “bridge” to longer term child care solutions used at the time that children are placed in foster care to stabilize them in the best possible settings, ensuring that caretakers have adequate support to balance their work and home lives. Voucher: Eligible families receive a time-limited child care voucher to help pay for child care costs for foster children birth through age 5 and their siblings. This also includes foster children with exceptional needs and severely disabled children up to age 21. Funded Programs and Primary Service Child care navigator: Resource and referral agencies throughout Los Angeles County house child care navigators to assist eligible foster care resource families with: • Finding a child care provider • Securing a subsidized child care placement • Completing child care program applications • Developing a plan for long-term child care appropriate to the child’s age and needs TIC training: Child care programs engaged in the Bridge Program receive access to trauma-informed care training and coaching. Topics of the training include, but are not limited to, infant and toddler development and research-based trauma- informed best care practices. Child care providers also receive access to coaching to assist them in applying training curriculum, and to learn strategies for working with children in foster care. Source of Funds/Funding Amount Number of Children Served Authority Funded by State of California General Revenue Fund (non-Proposition 98) and federal Title IV-E. County funding is allowable. Voucher allocation: $8,512,973 1,353 (FY19 was first year of implementation and was not a full year of services) California Department of Social Services and Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services* *If the annual cost projection exceeds the state general fund allocation, the county may choose to further prioritize eligible populations to ensure sufficient funding, or Appendices 34 Emergency Child Care Bridge Program for Foster Children Vouchers choose to utilize/leverage local and federal funds to cover any additional costs, or choose to discontinue services for the remainder of the fiscal year. Parent /Family Fee or Co-Pay No family fee Child care providers that are otherwise eligible for a child care subsidy are eligible for Bridge funds. Provider Requirements: Provider Eligibility Criteria • The family child care or center is licensed or a registered child care provider (or qualifies as license-exempt) prior to receiving reimbursement for services. • License-exempt or in-home providers (except grandparents, aunts, and uncles) complete a health and safety self-certification and TrustLine application process within 14 calendar days. TrustLine is a database for nannies, babysitters, and license-exempt providers; those in the database have cleared criminal background checks. Providers must maintain a minimum days of operation (MDO) of 250 per year and are allowed a 2% flex factor on MDO; the contract allows for full payment if MDO is within 98 to 100%, in case the provider is short on days of operation. Participating counties determine the eligibility of a child for the Bridge Program using the criteria outlined below. Families eligible for a child care Bridge Program payment include: • • Participant Eligibility Criteria • • • Resource families and families that have a child placed with them in an emergency or for a compelling reason Licensed foster family homes or certified family homes Approved homes of relatives or nonrelative extended family members Parents under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, including, but not limited to, non-minor dependent parents Length of Child or Family Eligibility Counties may establish additional eligibility criteria based on local priorities for the populations who are eligible for Bridge Program funding. Eligible families shall have a choice in selecting child care providers. Six months; however, each county can extend eligibility from six months to 12 months at their discretion on a case-by-case basis. Outreach, Eligibility, and Recruitment Process The Bridge Program ensures that emergency child care services are made available to the following out-of-home caregivers with DCFS-placed children, birth to age 5 and their siblings: Appendices 35 Emergency Child Care Bridge Program for Foster Children Vouchers • Resource parents pending RFA approval who already have a child placement • Existing resource parents who already have a child placement or are considering a placement • Parenting teens/non-minor dependents under DCFS supervision The Bridge Program referral process is collaboratively administered between DCFS, the Child Care Alliance of Los Angeles, and the local Resource and Referral (R&R) agency serving the case carrying DCFS regional office. DCFS will refer families to the Bridge Program: • As a condition of accepting a new placement or • To accept the placement of siblings together in the same home or • To preserve an existing placement The Child Care Alliance of Los Angeles partners with Alternative Payment (AP) agencies, including R&Rs, for voucher administration. Payment Process and Rates Financial Requirements Program Requirements All vouchers must be paid in accordance with the Regional Market Rate (RMR) ceilings for subsidized child care payment rates. • Centers are paid monthly after they submit required attendance forms. • FCC providers are paid monthly by using their weekly payment rate, after they submit required attendance forms. • License-exempt care providers are paid weekly after they submit required attendance forms As a condition of receiving funds, the agency must develop and enter into a memorandum of understanding, contract, or other formal agreement with the county child welfare agency to facilitate interagency communication. and, to the maximum extent possible, to leverage federal funding, including administrative funding, available pursuant to Title IV–E of the federal Social Security Act. • Providers must adhere to compliance reviews and reporting as required by the California Department of Social Services, DCFS, and the contracting agencies administering the funds. Funds are used for emergency vouchers, child care navigators (hired through the R&R), and provider trainings for those serving eligible children. 1. Providers must adhere to all state requirements for enrollment, signin/sign-out, eligibility and other contract requirements by CDSS and DCFS. 2. ABSENCES: Except for children who are recipients of protective services or at risk of abuse or neglect, excused absences “in the best interest of the child” shall be limited to 10 days during the contract period. Grantees shall also adopt a policy governing unexcused absences that Appendices 36 Emergency Child Care Bridge Program for Foster Children Vouchers may include reasonable limitations, if any. Grantees shall inform parents of these policies. 3. ENROLLMENT REPORTING: Providers are required to report days of enrollment and attendance for all children served in the program in the current reporting period and year-to-date. 4. STAFFING QUALIFICATIONS: For the following center-based positions— Administrator, Center Director, Teachers, Teacher Aides—visit: https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/cd/ci/genstaffqual.asp https://www.cdss.ca.gov/Portals/9/CCLD/CCP%20Documents/Child%20 Care%20Center%20Provider%20Requirements%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf?ve r=2019-05-30-165154-250 For family child care homes, personnel requirements are outlined at: https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/cd/re/caqfamcchomes.asp 5. STAFFING RATIOS: Providers maintain at least the following minimum ratios in all centers: • Infants (12 weeks to 24 months old)—1:4 adult-child ratio, 1:4 teacher-child ratio, group size 12. • Toddlers (18 months to 30 months old)—1:6 adult-child ratio, 1:6 teacher-child ratio, group size 12. The toddler component is an addon to an infant or preschool license. • Preschool (two- to five-year-olds, entry into 1st grade)—  1:12 teacher-child ratio (2-5 yr olds)  1:15 with one teacher and one aide (2-5 yr olds)  1:18 with one teacher and one aide (3-5 yr olds) 6. FCC STAFFING: Small Family Child Care Home: The maximum number of children with one adult meeting the requirements—including children under age 10 who live in the licensee’s home—is one of the following: • Four infants; or • Six children, no more than three of whom may be infants; or • A small family day care home may provide care for more than six and up to eight children, without an additional adult attendant, if all the following conditions are met:  At least two of the children are at least six years of age.  No more than two infants are cared for during any time when more than six children are cared for. Appendices 37 Emergency Child Care Bridge Program for Foster Children Vouchers  The licensee notifies each parent that the facility is caring for two additional school-age children and that there may be up to seven or eight children in the home at one time.  The licensee obtains the written consent of the property owner when the family day care home is operated on property that is leased or rented. Large Family Child Care Home: The maximum number of children, when there is an assistant provider in the home—including children under age 10 who live in the licensee’s home and the assistant provider’s children under age 10—shall be either: • • 12 children, no more than four of whom may be infants; or A large family day care home may provide care for more than 12 children and up to and including 14 children, if all the following conditions are met:  At least two of the children are at least six years of age.  No more than three infants are cared for during any time when more than 12 children are being cared for.  The licensee notifies a parent that the facility is caring for two additional school-age children and that there may be up to 13 or 14 children in the home at one time. The licensee obtains the written consent of the property owner when the family day care home is operated on property that is leased or rented. 7. FCC LICENSE EXEMPTIONS: Licensure is required before family child care is provided except in the following situations relative to family child care homes: • Any family day care home providing care for the children of only one family in addition to the operator’s own children • Any cooperative arrangement between parents for the care of their children where no payment is involved and the arrangement meets all of the following conditions:  In a cooperative arrangement, parents shall combine their efforts so that each parent, or set of parents, rotates as the responsible caregiver with respect to all the children in the cooperative.  Any person caring for children shall be a parent, legal guardian, stepparent, grandparent, aunt, uncle, or adult sibling of at least one of the children in the cooperative. Appendices 38 Emergency Child Care Bridge Program for Foster Children Vouchers  There can be no payment of money or receipt of in-kind income in exchange for the provision of care.  No more than 12 children are receiving care in the same place at the same time. • Any arrangement for the receiving and care of children by a relative. • Any child day care program that operates only one day per week for no more than four hours on that one day. MONITORING AND REPORTING: Programs are required to submit data and outcomes using the Emergency Child Care Bridge Program for Foster Children report (CCB 18). The CCB 18 report includes data on Bridge Program vouchers eligibility and enrollment, type of voucher placements and child care settings, the length of time receiving vouchers, and transition information. The data also includes the number of referrals to, and families served by, child care navigators and the number of trauma-informed care trainings held. Appendices 39 Family Child Care Home Education Network Vouchers (CFCC) Funded Programs and Primary Service Family Child Care Home Education Networks (FCCHENs) are funded by the California Department of Education (CDE) to provide early education and child care to eligible families with children from birth to age 13. Children are cared for in licensed family child care homes that meet the standards for quality set forth by the CDE. Groups of family child care homes operate under sponsoring organizations, such as a center or local Resource and Referral agency, which provide consultation, training, resource materials, and support services to participating family child care providers and enrolled families. Funded by the California Department of Education General Revenue Fund (non-Proposition 98) Total allocation FY 2018–2019: $22,307,323 • Estimated amount for vouchers: $19,407,371 • Estimated amount for other supports: $2,899,952* FY 2018–2019 full contract amounts (includes vouchers and other supports): Source of Funds/Funding Amount • • • • • • • • Child Care Resource Center, Inc.: $3,585,881 Children’s Home Society of California: $8,499,318 Comprehensive Child Development, Inc.: $1,192,584 Dignity Health dba California Hospital Medical Center: $365,496 Los Angeles Community College District: $802,819 Mexican American Opportunities Foundation: $3,711,234 Options for Learning: $3,107,671 Westside Children’s Center Inc.: $1,042,320 *It is estimated that CFCC entities use 13% of the total allocation for FCC supports. This was calculated by applying the percentage a contractor is allowed beyond their general administration allowance to use of their CFCC contract to provide the support such as trainings and coordination to FCC providers to the total allocation for Los Angeles County. Authority Parent /Family Fee or Co-Pay California Department of Education Families enrolled in a family child care home participating in a FCCHEN are required to pay a monthly fee on a sliding scale depending on their income unless they are exempt from paying fees. Family fees are collected according to fee schedule from CDE Early Education and Support Department: http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/cd/ci/documents/famfeeschedsept2018.xlsx. Appendices 40 Family Child Care Home Education Network Vouchers (CFCC) • • • The following factors determine the fee to be assessed for each family: Adjusted monthly family income Family size Certified family need for full- or part-day care Sponsoring agencies can be institutions of higher education, local educational agencies, nonprofit organizations, and other organizations or agencies. Family Child Care Home Education Networks support educational objectives for children in licensed family child care homes that serve families eligible for subsidized child care. Each family child care home education network contractor, in addition to participating in network supports and activities, shall do all of the following: Provider Eligibility Criteria • • • • • • • • Recruit, enroll, and certify eligible families; Recruit, train, support, and reimburse licensed family home providers; Collect family fees in accordance with contract requirements; Assess, according to standards set by CDE, the educational quality of the program offered in each family child care home in the network; Assure that a developmental profile is completed for each child based upon observations of network staff, in consultation with the provider Monitor requirements, including quality standards, and conduct periodic assessments of program quality in each family child care home affiliated with the network Ensure that basic health and nutrition requirements are met Provide data and reporting in accordance with contract requirements Participant Eligibility Criteria Participating family child care homes are licensed to serve up to eight or 14 children from birth through age 12. Services are offered full-day and yearround. Length of Child or Family Eligibility Families are recertified every 12 months. Children are eligible until 13 years of age or until the family no longer qualifies. FCCHEN has an exit ceiling of 70% of the State Median Income (SMI). Outreach, Eligibility, and Recruitment Process Contractor must complete eligibility determination and application process with families as laid out by CDE: https://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/cd/ftc2018.asp Payment Process and Rates Child care and development contracts are awarded through the Management Bulletin Continued Funding process. Reimbursements are provided to contractors in monthly apportionments. Rate Policies Rate policy is set by the state legislature. Effective January 1, 2018, the new Regional Market Rate ceilings for licensed providers are established at the Appendices 41 Family Child Care Home Education Network Vouchers (CFCC) 75th percentile of the 2016 Regional Market Rate survey or the Regional Market Rate ceilings as they existed on December 31, 2017, whichever is greater. License-exempt child care providers continue to be 70% of the family child care home ceiling. Financial Requirements Providers must adhere to compliance reviews and reporting as required by CDE in state contract requirements. Complete expenditure and caseload reports are required on a monthly basis. Providers must adhere to all state requirements for enrollment, sign-in/sign-out, eligibility and other contract requirements by CDE. For personnel requirements on family child care homes, visit: https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/cd/re/caqfamcchomes.asp FCC STAFFING: Large Family Child Care Home: The maximum number of children when there is an assistant provider in the home—including children under age 10 who live in the licensee’s home and the assistant provider’s children under age 10—shall be either: • • Program Requirements 12 children, no more than four of whom may be infants or A large family day care home may provide care for more than 12 children and up to and including 14 children, if all the following conditions are met:  At least two of the children are at least six years of age.  No more than three infants are cared for during any time when more than 12 children are being cared for.  The licensee notifies a parent that the facility is caring for two additional school-age children and that there may be up to 13 or 14 children in the home at one time.  The licensee obtains the written consent of the property owner when the family day care home is operated on property that is leased or rented. Small Family Child Care Home: The maximum number of children with one adult meeting the requirements, including children under age 10 who live in the licensee’s home, is one of the following: • • Four infants; or Six children, no more than three of whom may be infants; or Appendices 42 Family Child Care Home Education Network Vouchers (CFCC) • A small family day care home may provide care for more than six and up to eight children, without an additional adult attendant, if all the following conditions are met:  At least two of the children are at least six years of age.  No more than two infants are cared for during any time when more than six children are cared for.  The licensee notifies each parent that the facility is caring for two additional school-age children and that there may be up to seven or eight children in the home at one time. • The licensee obtains the written consent of the property owner when the family day care home is operated on property that is leased or rented Appendices 43 System Supports Funding AB 212 Child Care Salary Retention Incentive Program Funded Programs and Primary Service Source of Funds/Funding Amount The purpose of this program is to improve the retention of qualified child development employees who work directly with children in California Department of Education (CDE) - contracted Title 5 Child Care and Development programs, including state preschools, teachers in non–CDE contracted centers serving a majority of state subsidized children, and family child care providers who participate in a CDE-contracted Family Child Care Home Education Network or serve a majority of state-subsidized children. The Child Care and Local Development Planning Councils (LPCs) develop countywide plans in accordance with approved guidelines and submit these plans to the CDE’s Early Learning and Care Division (ELCD) for review and approval. The funds are intended to supplement, not supplant, existing efforts and investments to retain qualified child care staff and to promote best practices that foster high-quality early childhood education (i.e., continuity of care). Funded by the California Department of Education General Revenue Fund (non-Proposition 98). This funding is allocated to the LPCs based on the percentage of state-subsidized center-based child care funds in a county. The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors administers the funds through the Office for the Advancement of Early Care and Education (OAECE). 2018–2019 funding: $3,078,826 Authority Participant Eligibility Criteria California Department of Education (CDE); implementation authority lies with Local Child Care and Development Planning Council (LPC) (in Los Angeles County, the Child Care Planning Committee serves as the LPC). Funds are used to provide stipends to eligible child development staff to pursue additional education, thereby increasing their likelihood of remaining in the field. In accordance with the legislation and the approved guidelines, 15% of the funds may be spent on planning and administrative costs associated with the implementation of the approved local plans. Eligible child development staff include: • Teachers in CDE-contracted child care and development programs; • Teachers in non-CDE-contracted centers serving a majority of statesubsidized children • Family child care providers who participate in a CDE-contracted Family Child Care Home Education Network or serve a majority of state-subsidized children Appendices 44 AB 212 Child Care Salary Retention Incentive Program Los Angeles County established the following priorities for participant eligibility: First Priority: Teaching staff in CDE-contracted centers holding a valid Child Development Permit or working toward meeting permit requirements, who work at least 15 hours per week directly with children, and who complete a minimum of three semester units of college coursework will earn stipends. Second Priority: Family child care providers participating in FCCHENs contracted by CDE, holding a permit during the stipend cycle or working toward meeting the permit requirements, and who complete a minimum of three semester units of college coursework will earn stipends. FCCHEN status is verified by the FCCHEN Coordinator. Outreach, Eligibility, and Recruitment Process Third Priority :Licensed family child care providers and their assistants and teaching staff in programs serving a majority of children subsidized through a CDE-contracted Alternative Payment Program (APP) agency at the time of application, who are working a minimum of 15 hours per week directly with children, who complete a minimum of three semester units of college coursework, and who hold a permit during the stipend cycle or are working toward meeting permit requirements. To verify eligibility, each participant must attach a copy of payment invoice/summary or contracts provided by the APP agency that reimburses the provider or center for the care of subsidized children. These invoices/contracts must list the children currently enrolled and subsidized by CDE. The director or provider also must submit the current enrollment number so stipend program staff may calculate the percentage of subsidized children served at the time of application. Fourth Priority: Stipend program participants graduating with an AA, BA, or MA degree within the stipend cycle will receive a graduation stipend if the degree is in child development or a closely related field. Stipend amounts average from $750 to $2,000 depending on the number of units completed. Actual stipend awards may be adjusted depending on the availability of funds and the number of applicants. Assistance will be provided to teaching staff and family child care providers who have not obtained a permit and who may need extra help in connecting with a community college and selecting the appropriate classes. Payment Process and Rates Financial Requirements Funding is allocated to Local Child Care and Development Planning Councils based on the percentage of state-subsidized child care funds in a county. Funding is to supplement, not supplant, existing efforts and investments to retain qualified Title 5 child care staff at the local level. Appendices 45 AB 212 Child Care Salary Retention Incentive Program The contract funds must be allocated to retain qualified Title 5 child care employees who work directly with children who receive subsidized care in state subsidized, center-based programs, and family child care and education home networks. 1% of the total funding allocation may be used for planning purposes. This includes any costs related to developing the plan. Contractors may claim no more than 15% of actual costs incurred, including the 1% expended on planning, for administration. Each LPC must submit yearly a Child Care Retention Program Report that describes the distribution and uses of the funds in the prior fiscal year and the number of individuals or entities who received a stipend or benefit. Additionally, the contractor is required to submit CDE quarterly revenue and expenditure reports. 1. Each county must develop a plan that identifies the uses of funds from a variety of sources (Child Care Salary/Retention Incentive Funds, as well as funds from both local and state children and families commissions— First 5 LA and First 5 California—and other funds) to support the retention and recruitment of qualified Title 5 child care employees throughout that county’s early care and education programs (including both subsidized and non-subsidized services). Program Requirements 2. The LPCs may submit either type of plan: a comprehensive county plan that includes a variety of funding sources and initiatives (as long as the plan clearly and separately identifies the required information about the specific funds announced in the bulletin); or a county plan that is limited to the funds announced in the bulletin. 3. Each plan must describe current data about needs and resources available relative to this initiative in its county, including but not limited to data about staff turnover and retention rates, and then must explain how awarded funds will be allocated in accordance with those data. 4. Each plan must identify and prioritize the types or categories of Title 5 child care employees who will qualify for participation in this child care staff retention initiative. 5. Each plan must describe measurable outcomes and how they will be used to assess and document the effectiveness of this funding award in retaining qualified, Title 5 child care employees. Appendices 46 California Preschool Instructional Network (CPIN) Funded Programs and Primary Service Operated by the Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE), the California Preschool Instructional Network (CPIN) supports early childhood education programs by providing communities of practice opportunities and professional learning sessions for teachers, teacher leaders, and administrators working in programs that serve children three to five years of age, including those with disabilities and those who are dual language learners. Topics are based on the nine curriculum content domains of the California Preschool Learning Foundations Volumes 1, 2, and 3; California Preschool Curriculum Volumes 1, 2, and 3; the Preschool English Learners (PEL) Guide; Preschool Program Guidelines; Family Partnerships and Culture; Integrated Nature of Learning; Inclusion Works; and the Integrated Nature of STEM in Early Childhood. Topics are aligned to the Early Learning and Development System, which includes the Desired Results Developmental Profile (DRDP), transition to kindergarten, and working with children with disabilities and children who are dual language learners. The goals of the network are to: 1. Establish and maintain regional communities of practice for administrators and leaders of early care and education programs 2. Provide high-quality professional learning, technical assistance, and onsite support to California’s preschool program administrators and teachers 3. Develop and/or support regional communication and collaboration systems among various stakeholders in early care and education/school readiness 4. Promote smooth transitions from preschool to kindergarten for all children, including dual language learners and those with special needs Source of Funds/Funding Amount Authority Funded by the General Revenue Fund (non-Proposition 98) Funding amount: $835,469 (includes base funding and funding for at least 1.0 FTE certified lead, at least one part-time CPIN Instructor with dual language learner expertise, and additional certified instructors as resources allow) California Department of Education (CDE); administered by the Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE) Provider Eligibility Criteria Only regional offices of the County Superintendents Educational Services Association (CCSEA) are eligible to receive CPIN funding. Eligible grade levels to receive services are pre-K and Transitional Kindergarten. Participant Eligibility Criteria Target audiences are CDE-contracted programs; others are invited to participate as space is available. Appendices 47 California Preschool Instructional Network (CPIN) Outreach, Eligibility, and Recruitment Process Payment Process and Rates Financial Requirements CDE-contracted pre-K and TK programs have priority for professional learning sessions and communities of practice opportunities. Annual allocation from CDE; Base allocations are determined using demographic information in regard to children ages three to five years old in the counties of each CCSEA region. Budget submission required; use of funds must target CDE-contracted pre-K and TK programs. Participants must hold a teaching credential: Program Requirements General: Kindergarten–Primary (grades K–3) Elementary (grades K–8) Standard: Early Childhood (preschool–grade -3) Elementary (grades K–9) Appendices 48 California State Preschool Program QRIS Block Grant Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS) Block Grant funding is allocated to local consortia for the support of local early learning QRIS that increases the number of low-income children in high-quality state preschool programs that prepare those children for success in school and life. Funded Programs and Primary Service Source of Funds/Funding Amount Quality Start Los Angeles (QSLA) is designed to help parents of children birth to age five choose the best early childhood education for their family by helping them understand what makes an early learning program effective. This grant strives to maximize the success of children and their families at participating early learning sites across Los Angeles County by supporting early childhood professionals in the continuous improvement of their programs. Providers who participate in QSLA receive access to training, resources, and funding to support their ongoing efforts. Funded by California State Preschool Program‘s QRIS Block Grant (Proposition 98), administered by the Los Angeles County Office of Education; funds are disbursed to two Los Angeles organizations: Child 360 and the Child Care Alliance of Los Angeles. No match is required. Funds are based on the number of California State Preschool Program (CSPP) and California Migrant Child Care and Development Program (CMIG) slots in the county or region. Total FY 2019–2020 funding amount: $13,513,043 Authority Provider Eligibility Criteria California Department of Education (CDE) • • • • • Participant Eligibility Criteria Payment Process and Rates Financial Requirements Applicants must be a part of a local QRIS consortium. Partnerships and signatures of consortium participants are required. Consortia must implement a QRIS incorporating the Quality Continuum Framework. Consortia must use a shared tiered rating matrix. Consortia must set targets to improve the quality of state preschool programs. The priority of the funds is for early learning settings with a CSPP contract. The allocation formula is based on CSPP enrollment for the approved applicants. Funding is received subject to semi-annual fiscal reporting. Appendices 49 California State Preschool Program QRIS Block Grant The QRIS system must have: Program Requirements A local consortium, including: • Local educational agency (at least one of the following are required): county office of education; school district/charter school; community college • First 5 County Commission • Local post-secondary educational institution(s) • Local Child Care Planning Council • Local Resource and Referral Agency • Optional: other community agencies The local consortium must be able to provide: • An overview of the consortium’s current QRIS • Quality Continuum Framework and Tiers (enhance and align standards) • Rating and Assessing (ensure accountability) • Quality Improvement Process (create and support improvement strategies) • Convening and Strengthening Partnerships (build local consortia) • Monitoring and evaluating the impacts on child outcomes • Disseminating information to parents and the public about program quality Appendices 50 California Transitional Kindergarten (TK) Professional Development Program Funded Programs and Primary Service The California Transitional Kindergarten Professional Development grant program allocates $4,504,000 statewide for professional development for teachers serving students in transitional kindergarten (TK) or combination kindergarten classrooms. The program is administered by 11 county offices of education that represent the California County Superintendents Educational Services Association (CCSESA) regions as utilized by the California Preschool Instructional Network (CPIN). Source of Funds/Funding Amount Grant period from January 1, 2016, through June 30, 2017: $1,026,000 Authority California Department of Education; LACOE administers the program. Provider Eligibility Criteria Regional county offices administer the program using the CPIN lead county office of education for the region. Participant Eligibility Criteria Transitional Kindergarten or combination kindergarten classroom teachers and administrators. Outreach, Eligibility, and Recruitment Process Professional-development trainings and opportunities are made available to those teachers working in Transitional Kindergarten classrooms. Funded by the General Revenue Fund (Proposition 98). Payment Process and Rates Annual allocation from CDE is based on demographic data and comprise a projection of the actual numbers of eligible TK children in each county. Financial Requirements Budget submission required; use of funds must be used for those professionals serving Transitional Kindergarten programs. Participants must hold a teaching credential: Program Requirements General: Kindergarten-primary (grades K–3) Elementary (grades K–8) Standard: Elementary (grades K–9) Appendices 51 California Transitional Kindergarten (TK) Stipend Incentive Program Funded Programs and Primary Service Source of Funds/Funding Amount The California Transitional Kindergarten Stipend Incentive Program allocates $15,000,000 for professional development and educational stipends to be administered by Local Planning Councils (LPCs) for teachers in Transitional Kindergarten (TK) and teachers in the California State Preschool Program (CSPP). Funded by the General Revenue Fund (Proposition 98); funding ended September 30, 2019. Total funding amount: $ 3,643,172 California Department of Education; Authority the Los Angeles County Office for the Advancement of Early Care and Education (OAECE) administers the program. Participant Eligibility Criteria Professional-development stipends are made available to teachers working in Transitional Kindergarten or CSPP programs. Payment Process and Rates Financial Requirements Annual allocations from CDE are based on demographic data and are a projection of the actual numbers of eligible TK children in each county. Budget submission required; funds must be used for professionals serving Transitional Kindergarten programs. Participants must hold a teaching credential: Program Requirements General: Kindergarten–Primary (grades K–3) Elementary (grades K–8) Standard: Elementary (grades K–9) Early Childhood (preschool–grade-3) Appendices 52 Child Care Initiative Project (CCIP) The goal of the Child Care Initiative Project (CCIP) is to build licensed child care capacity and enhance the quality of care in every county. The project focuses on the recruitment of individuals interested in obtaining a family child provider license to increase the supply of child care in home settings, as well as on training new and currently licensed providers. Emphasis is placed on the recruitment of family child care providers who will provide care for infants and toddlers. • Funded Programs and Primary Service • • • • The project model includes five components: Assessments of child care supply and demand throughout California Recruitment of individuals to become licensed family child care providers Training on child development, health and safety, and business practices Technical assistance Ongoing support and retention This project is administered in partnership with the California Child Care Resource and Referral Network (CCCR&RN), which provides program orientations, training, technical assistance, and training materials (some at cost) as requested and needed by Resource and Referral programs. Funded by the General Revenue Fund and federal funds. CCCR&RN administers funding for Los Angeles to: Source of Funds/Funding Amount • • • • • • • • Child Care Resource Center: $183,946 Children’s Home Society of California: $300,975 Connections for Children: $72,907 Crystal Stairs, Inc.: $115,358 Mexican American Opportunity Foundation: $142,574 Options for Learning: $127,962 Pathways: $67,979 Pomona Unified School District: $87,973 Total: $1,099,674 Authority California Department of Education, administered by the California Child Care Resource and Referral Network Provider Eligibility Criteria CCCR&RN in good standing with CDE Participant Eligibility Criteria Providers delivering child care in their homes interested in obtaining a child care license; new and currently licensed providers Appendices 53 Child Care Initiative Project (CCIP) Outreach, Eligibility, and Recruitment Process Administering agencies must create a recruitment strategy to engage providers that are looking to be licensed. Payment Process and Rates Contract funds are one-time-only funds. 1. A report of expenditures is due to CDE upon full expenditure of the funds with a deadline of July for the fiscal year ending. Financial Requirements 2. The Expenditure and Revenue Report Form (CDFS 9529) must be submitted quarterly for reimbursement of expenditures. 3. Submit the CCCRRN reports outlined in the CCCRRN/CCIP Policies and Procedures document. 4. Submit trainer and participant data as required by the California Department of Education. Program must include the following entities: • California Child Care Resource and Referral Network (CCCR&RN) • Resource and Referral Agencies (R&R) • Potential and existing licensed family child care providers Resource and Referral Agency Requirements: Program Requirements 1. Participate in CCCRRN/CCIP orientation, meetings, and trainings, as appropriate, per CCCRRN’s guidance. 2. Participate in meetings and site visits by CCCRRN/CCIP staff, as needed. 3. Consult with the CCCRRN as needed in implementing CCIP. 4. Collect CCIP participant record data for reports outlined in the CCCRRN/CCIP Policies and Procedures document. 5. Assess child care supply and need in the service delivery area served by the R&R program. 6. Identify potential family child care providers. • Offer at least 25 hours of CCIP. • Training topics must be selected from the outline provided in the CCCRRN/CCIP Policies and Procedures document. • The CCIP training outline and modules will be accessible on the CCIP page of the CCCRRN website. 7. Offer technical assistance for providers in the following areas: Appendices 54 Child Care Initiative Project (CCIP) • • • • • • • • Starting a family child care business Setting up a family child care environment The licensing and fingerprinting process Working with parents Health and safety training Developmental needs of children Ongoing provider support Caring for infants/toddlers 8. Conduct other activities, as needed, including but not limited to: • Community outreach • Developing networks in new communities • Working with community collaborations such as local child care planning councils, family child care associations, First Five commissions, and other applicable networks that exist in the service area • Using the media for recruitment • Providing training and technical assistance to existing family child care home providers 9. Submit a Project Plan to the CCCRRN. Appendices 55 Local Child Care and Development Planning Council (LPC) Funded Programs and Primary Service Source of Funds/Funding Amount The Child Care Planning Committee (Planning Committee) serves as the Local Child Care and Development Planning Council (LPC) for Los Angeles County as mandated by state legislation (AB 2141; Chapter 1187, Statutes of 1991). The mission of the Child Care Planning Committee is to engage parents, child care providers, allied organizations, communities, and public agencies in collaborative planning efforts to improve the overall child care infrastructure of Los Angeles County, including the quality and continuity, affordability, and accessibility of child care and development services for all families. Funded by the California Department of Education; mostly supported with Child Care Development Block Grant (CCDBG) funds, including quality dollars; augmented by state General Revenue Funds. Match required in the form of monetary and/or in-kind services, equal to 25% of the annual LPC grant award amount. Total: $199,939 Authority California Department of Education; administered by the Office for the Advancement of Early Care and Education Provider Eligibility Criteria Pursuant to EC sections 8499.3 and 8499.5, both the county board of supervisors (CBS) and county superintendent of schools (CSS)/county offices of education (COEs) are mandated to be involved in the local child care planning process. CBS and COE/CSS/COEs are directed to: • Appoint members to the LPC according to the guidelines prescribed in statute • Publicize their intention and invite local organizations to submit nominations before selecting the members • Establish the term of appointments for the members of the LPC • Approve the local priorities that are developed by the LPC for submission to the CDE, for new state and federal child care funding for the county • Approve the results of the needs assessment developed by the LPC prior to submission to the CDE Outreach, Eligibility, and Recruitment Process The statute provides guidelines for the composition of the LPC membership and how appointments are made. The statute specifically requires that every effort should be made by the appointing agencies to assure that the ethnic, racial, and geographic composition of the LPC is reflective of the population of the county. Members shall be appointed from each of the five following categories of representation: Appendices 56 Local Child Care and Development Planning Council (LPC) • • • • • Payment Process and Rates Financial Requirements Program Requirements 20% consumers, defined as a parent or person who receives, or who has received within the past 36 months, child care services. 20% child care providers, defined as a person who provides child care services or represents persons who provide child care services. 20% public agency representatives, defined as a person who represents a city, county, city, county, or local education agency 20% community representatives, defined as a person who represents an agency or business that provides private funding for child care services, or who advocates for child care services through participation in civic or community-based organizations, but is not a child care provider and does not represent an agency that contracts with the CDE to provide child care and development The remaining 20% are to be appointed from any of the above categories or outside of these categories at the discretion of the appointing agencies. Annual allocation • • • • Fiscal plans and yearly budgets Annual self- evaluation reports Quarterly revenue and expenditure reports LPC County Priorities Report Responsibilities include but are not limited to the following: • Conducting an assessment of child care needs in the county no less frequently than once every five years • Preparing local comprehensive countywide child care plans designed to mobilize public and private resources to address identified needs. • Identifying local funding priority areas for child care services for General Child Care and Development Programs and the State Preschool Program for new state and federal funds. • Conducting local forums to encourage public input in the development of local priorities • Fostering local partnerships with subsidized and non-subsidized providers, local and state child and families commissions, county welfare departments, human service agencies, regional centers, job training programs, employers, parent organizations, Early Start family resource centers, family empowerment centers on disability, local child care resource and referral programs, and other parties • Coordinating part-day programs, including state preschool and Head Start, with other child care and development services to provide fullday child care. • Designing a system to consolidate local child care waiting lists Appendices 57 Quality Counts California (QCC) Block Grant (QRIS) Funded Programs and Primary Service Source of Funds/Funding Amount Quality Counts California (QCC) funding is for local Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS) consortia to support local early learning and care programs serving children birth to age five. The goal is to increase the number of low-income children in high-quality early learning and care settings. The priority of the funds is for early learning settings serving children with high needs, targeting infant and toddler programs and providers. Funded by the Federal Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) with General Revenue Fund, through the California Department of Education. Total: $2,586,382 Authority Provider Eligibility Criteria Participant Eligibility Criteria Outreach, Eligibility, and Recruitment Process Payment Process and Rates Financial Requirements California Department of Education Administering entity must have a QRIS plan on file with the California Department of Education (CDE) or demonstrate that the QRIS consortium has an operational QRIS Funds are prioritized for programs serving high need infants and toddler programs. A voluntary QRIS system for child care providers interested in raising the quality level of their care. Participating providers can achieve the highest level of quality through individualized coaching, access to professional development opportunities, and classroom supplies to enhance the classroom environment so children thrive. Federal grant; allocation formula based on the June 2016 Department of Social Services Community Care Licensing Division infant/toddler licensed capacity Funding is subject to semi-annual fiscal reporting, an annual performance report, and annual submission of the Quality Counts California Common Data File. Entities receiving infant/toddler QRIS funds must have an established consortium with QRIS plans on file. The plan must address: Program Requirements 1. An overview of the consortium’s current QRIS—a consortium’s QRIS must utilize the Quality Counts California Rating Matrix, Continuous Quality Improvement Pathways Common Tools and Resources, and the Quality Counts California Implementation Guide. 2. Quality Continuum Framework and Tiers (enhance and align standards) Appendices 58 Quality Counts California (QCC) Block Grant (QRIS) 3. Rating and Assessing (ensure accountability) 4. Quality Improvement Process (create and support improvement strategies) 5. Convening and Strengthening Partnerships (build local consortia) 6. Monitoring and Evaluating the Impacts on Child Outcomes 7. Disseminating Information to parents and the public about program quality Appendices 59 Child Care Facilities Revolving Loan Fund (CCFRF) The Child Care Facilities Revolving Fund (CCFRF) provides funding to eligible California Department of Education (CDE) child care and development contracting agencies for renovation and repair of existing facilities or the acquisition of relocatable buildings. Funded Programs and Primary Service Source of Funds/Total Funding Chapter 32, Statutes of 2014, established the Child Care Facilities Revolving Fund to provide funding for the renovation, repair, or improvement of an existing building to make the building suitable for licensure for child care and development services, and for the purchase of new relocatable child care facilities for leas to school districts and contracting agencies that provide child care and development services. Funded by the California Department of Education (CDE) General Revenue Fund (non-Proposition 98). The CDE’s Early Learning and Care Division (ELCD) administers the CCFRF program directly, monitoring the progress of building projects, and providing technical assistance and guidance to program participants regarding facilities-related issues. State total: $26,800,000 Los Angeles County’s portion of this funding is determined by how many eligible applications are submitted and funded. Authority Provider Eligibility Criteria California Department of Education Eligible applicants must be currently providing CDE-subsidized early education and support program services. They also must certify the need for the facility based on: • • • Class size reduction or other displacement Program expansion Existing facilities that need to be replaced because they are substandard or present a health and safety hazard The ELCD continuously accepts these applications and funds them on a firstcome, first-served basis. Outreach, Eligibility, and Recruitment Process An application outlining the eligible uses for funding is made available. Providers complete the application, demonstrating that they meet provider criteria and their capital needs adhere to eligibility requirements. Payment Process and Rates Approved CCFRF General Facilities loan applications are funded in two phases: initial funding at 60% and final funding at 40% (based on project costs or up to the contract’s maximum allowance, whichever is less). Appendices 60 Child Care Facilities Revolving Loan Fund (CCFRF) CCFRF General Facilities loan-contracting agencies begin making lease repayments to the CDE 180 days after the final funding has been released. Financial Requirements Program Requirements Payments are amortized over 10 years without interest. Upon full repayment, facility title transfers from the State of California to the CCFRF contracting agencies. Approved CCFRF General Facilities loan applications are funded in two phases: (1) the initial funding at 60% and (2) the final funding at 40% (based on project costs or up to the contract’s maximum allowance, whichever is less). CCFRF General Facilities loan-contracting agencies begin making lease repayments to the CDE 180 days after the final funding has been released. Payments are amortized over 10 years without interest. Upon full repayment, facility title transfers from the State of California to the CCFRF contracting agencies. Child care agencies may apply for up to $420,000 for each single, freestanding relocatable building (basic building consisting of three 12 x 40foot modules) and up to $140,000 maximum for each additional module added to the basic building. Eligible program costs include building expenses, architect and inspection fees, site development, and site improvement costs. Agencies are responsible for the design, which must be inspected and approved for structural safety by the Division of the State Architect or the local city or county building department. Appendices 61 Child Care Resource and Referral (CCR&R) Funded Programs and Primary Service Child Care Resource and Referral programs (CCR&R), funded by the California Department of Education (CDE) Early Learning and Care Division, are in every county in the state. They help families find child care that best meets their needs, recruit and train child care providers, and collect data from parents and child care providers. Child Care Resource and Referral entities provide a variety of services to parents seeking care, to providers seeking professional development and incentives for remaining in the profession, and to communities seeking support for their youngest residents. There are eight CDE-contracted CCR&R agencies operating in Los Angeles County. Each serves a specific geographic area, providing information to parents and the community about the availability of child care; assisting potential and established child care providers with training, information, licensing processes, and best practices in child development and program management; and coordinating community resources for the benefit of families and child care providers. Combination of state General Revenue Fund and federal Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) Source of Funds/ Funding Amount • • • • • • • • Child Care Resource Center: $1,697,333 Children’s Home Society of California: $695,741 Connections for Children: $301,326 Crystal Stairs, Inc.: $1,027,912 Mexican American Opportunity Foundation: $575,755 Options for Learning: $643,459 Pathways: $411,546 Pomona Unified School District: $337,518 Total: $5,690,590 Authority Parent/Family Fee or Co-Pay California Department of Education CCR&Rs do not charge a fee for resource and referral services funded by CDE except for the recovery of printing and duplication costs, the costs of damaged or lost materials from the lending library, or late fees. This does not preclude programs from entering into separate contracts for resource and referral services with other entities such as cities, counties, or private industry, which may allow for the collection of fees for the service provided. The CCR&R may charge a fee for technical assistance and parent and provider support and educational services (provided pursuant to EC 8212[d] and 8214) not funded by the CDE as identified in the 1990–1991 application. If the CCR&R plans an activity that was not included in its 1990–1991 application or was added by a supplemental amendment, the program shall obtain advance written approval from CDE and an application amendment to Appendices 62 Child Care Resource and Referral (CCR&R) the contract shall be processed. Fees collected for these activities shall be reported as restricted income. CCR&Rs may enter into agreements involving the sale of the resource and referral database (for the purpose of individual enhanced referral services). Income derived shall be reported as restricted income. CCR&Rs may enter into separate contracts for resource and referral services with other entities such as cities, counties, or private industry which may allow for the collection of fees for the services provided. Provider Eligibility Criteria CCR&Rs may be operated by public or private nonprofit entities established to serve a defined geographic area. Contracted administering entities that are responsible for resource and referral provide an array of services in their communities, including subsidized child care, resource and referral, early childhood education and training, and various other programs exclusive to each agency. Entities should have a strong understanding of their area’s unique communities, possess the cultural competencies to work effectively with their diverse clientele, and have established relationships with large networks of child care providers. Entities also have years of experience building on, expanding and adapting various programs and program models to meet the ongoing needs of children, families, and providers. Participant Eligibility Criteria Child care referrals are available to all families without regard to income. Families can qualify for subsidized child care, offered to low-income and CalWORKs families (please see California Voucher entry for guidelines and income requirements pertaining to subsidized care). Length of Child or Family Eligibility There are no length of eligibility criteria for a family to access CCR&R referral supports. Families that qualify for subsidized care can be in care until the child reaches age 13 or until the family no longer qualifies. Outreach, Eligibility, and Recruitment Process Every effort shall be made to reach all parents within the defined geographic area, including but not limited to: • Toll-free telephone lines • Office space convenient to parents and providers • Referrals in languages that are spoken in the community No eligibility requirements exist for parents to use the R&R system. Providers must have an active license and cannot be on suspension or probation, to be placed on the resource and referral list. Payment Process and Rates CDE contract; Child Care and Development Contracts are awarded through the Management Bulletin Continued Funding process. Reimbursements are provided to contractors in monthly apportionments. Appendices 63 Child Care Resource and Referral (CCR&R) Financial Requirements CCR&Rs are required to provide information on the availability of child care services in the local community and to collect statistical data concerning inquiries regarding child care and development services. These are to be reported on a quarterly basis. CCR&Rs shall provide the following services: 1. All families have access to child care and development services through resource and referral services, where appropriate, regardless of ethnic status, cultural background, or special needs. 2. Identification of the full range of existing child care services through information provided by all relevant public and private agencies in the areas of service. 3. Development of a resource file of those services that shall be maintained and updated at least quarterly 4. Establish a referral process that responds to parental need for information and which is provided with full recognition of the confidentiality rights of parents. Program Requirements 5. Provide information to any person who requests a child care referral of his or her right to view the licensing information of a licensed child day care facility required to be maintained at the facility pursuant to Section 1596.859 of the Health and Safety Code (HSC) and to access any public files pertaining to the facility that are maintained by the state Department of Social Services, Community Care Licensing Division. 6. A written or oral advisement to comply with the requirements in #5. 7. Maintain ongoing documentation of requests for service tabulated through the internal referral process. The following documentation of requests for service shall be maintained by all child care resource and referral programs: • • • • • Number of calls and contacts to the child care information and referral program or component Ages of children served Time category of child care request for each child Special time category, such as nights, weekends, and swing shift Reason that the child care is needed This information shall be maintained in a manner that is easily accessible for dissemination purposes. Appendices 64 Child Care Resource and Referral (CCR&R) 8. Provide technical assistance to existing and potential providers of all types of child care services. This assistance shall include, but not be limited to: • • • • Information on all aspects of initiating new child care services including, but not limited to, licensing, zoning, program and budget development, and assistance in finding this information from other sources Information and resources that help existing child care services providers to maximize their ability to serve the children and parents of their community Dissemination of information on current public issues affecting the local and state delivery of child care services Facilitation of communication between existing child care and childrelated services providers in the community served 9. Services shall be provided to maximize parental choice in the selection of child care to facilitate the maintenance and development of child care services and resources. 10. Within two business days of receiving notice, the program shall remove a licensed child day care facility with a revocation or a temporary suspension order, or that is on probation, from the program’s referral list. 11. Within two business days of receiving notice, the program shall notify all entities operating an Alternative Payment Program and CalWORKs child care programs in the program’s jurisdiction of a licensed child day care facility with a revocation or a temporary suspension order, or that is on probation. 12. Provide services in a manner that is responsive to the diverse cultural, linguistic, and economic needs of a defined geographic area of service. 13. Provide services to all persons requesting services and to all types of child care providers, regardless of income level or other eligibility criteria. In addition, services may include a wide variety of parent and provider support and educational services. 14. Agencies operating both a direct-service program and a resource and referral program shall provide at least four referrals, at least one of which shall be a provider over which the agency has no fiscal or operational control, as well as information to a family on the family’s ability to choose a license-exempt provider. Appendices 65 Emergency Child Care Bridge Program for Foster Children (Navigation and Training) The Emergency Child Care Bridge Program for Foster Children Program (Bridge Program) provides vouchers that cover the cost of child care services plus child care navigator services for families, as well as trauma-informed care (TIC) training and coaching for child care providers to enhance their ability to provide nurturing and safe environments for children. The Bridge Program is not an entitlement; instead it is a time-limited “bridge” to longerterm child care solutions used at the time of placement to stabilize children in the best possible settings, ensuring that caretakers have adequate support to balance their work and home lives. Funded Programs and Primary Service Source of Funds/Funding Amount Authority Provider Eligibility Criteria Participant Eligibility Criteria Child Care Navigator: Resource and referral agencies throughout Los Angeles County house child care navigators to assist eligible foster care resource families with: • • • • Finding a child care provider Securing a subsidized child care placement Completing child care program applications Developing a plan for long-term child care appropriate to the child’s age and needs TIC Training: Child care programs engaged in the Bridge Programs receive access to trauma-informed care training and coaching. Topics of the training include, but are not limited to, infant and toddler development and research-based trauma-informed best care practices. Child care providers also receive access to coaching to assist them in applying training curricula and learn strategies for working with children in foster care. Funded by State of California General Revenue Fund (non-Proposition 98) and federal Title IV-E; county funding is allowable. Navigator allocation: $1,345,090 Training allocation: $1,516,420 California Department of Social Services (CDSS) and Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) Providers must be serving children funded by the Bridge Program to access the training and coaching supports. Child care providers who are otherwise eligible for a child care subsidy are eligible for Bridge Program funds. Families eligible for child care under the Bridge Program include: • Resource families and families that have a child placed with them in an emergency or for a compelling reason • Licensed foster family homes or certified family homes • Approved homes of relatives or nonrelative extended family members Appendices 66 Length of Child or Family Eligibility Outreach, Eligibility, and Recruitment Process Payment Process and Rates Rate Policies Financial Requirements Program Requirements Emergency Child Care Bridge Program for Foster Children (Navigation and Training) • Parents under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, including, but not limited to, non-minor dependent parents 6 months; however, each county can extend eligibility from 6 months to 12 months at its discretion on a case-by-case basis. The Bridge Program ensures that emergency child care services are made available to the following out-of-home caregivers with DCFS-placed children birth to age 5 and their siblings: • Resource parents pending RFA approval who already have a child placement • Existing resource parents who already have a child placement or are considering a placement • Parenting teens/non-minor dependents under DCFS supervision The Bridge Program referral process is collaboratively administered between DCFS, the Child Care Alliance of Los Angeles, and the local Resource and Referral (R&R) agency serving the case-carrying DCFS regional office. DCFS will refer families to the Bridge program: • As a condition of accepting a new placement or • To accept placement of siblings together in the same home or • To preserve an existing placement The Child Care Alliance of Los Angeles contracts with CCR&R agencies for navigation and training support delivery. The child care navigator and training allocations are calculated by determining each county’s percentage of eligible caseload to the statewide total eligible caseload. As a condition of receiving funds, the agency must develop and enter into a memorandum of understanding, contract, or other formal agreement with the county child welfare agency to facilitate interagency communication and, to the maximum extent possible, to leverage federal funding, including administrative funding, available pursuant to Title IV–E of the federal Social Security Act. Providers must adhere to compliance reviews and reporting as required by CDSS, DCFS, and the contracting agencies. Funds are used for emergency vouchers, child care navigators (hired through the CCR&R), and training for providers with children eligible children in their program. Child Care Navigator: The child care navigator, employed by a local CCR&R, works with the eligible family, child-welfare worker, social worker or probation officer, and Child and Family Team to assess child care opportunities and provide consumer education to the family based on the child’s age and needs. The child care navigator may be co-located at the local Appendices 67 Emergency Child Care Bridge Program for Foster Children (Navigation and Training) child welfare office to facilitate collaboration between child welfare staff and the Child and Family Team as well as to build connections to resources for the child. Eligibility for navigator services shall not be contingent on a child’s receipt of a child care payment or voucher. TIC Training and Coaching: Child care providers participating in the Bridge Program have TIC training made available to them through the California Child Care R&R Network. Child care providers also receive access to coaching to assist them in applying training curriculum and learning strategies for working with children who have experienced trauma. Monitoring and Reporting: Programs are required to submit data and outcomes using the Emergency Child Care Bridge Program for Foster Children report (CCB 18). The CCB 18 report includes data on Bridge Program vouchers eligibility and enrollment, type of voucher placements and child care settings, the length of time receiving vouchers, and transition information. Data also includes the number of referrals to, and families served by, child care navigators and the number of trauma-informed care trainings held. Appendices 68 Family Child Care Home Education Networks Supports (CFCC) Funded Programs and Primary Service Family Child Care Home Education Networks are funded by the California Department of Education (CDE) to provide early education and child care to eligible families with children from birth to age 13. Children are cared for in licensed family child care homes that meet the standards for quality set forth by the CDE. Groups of family child care homes operate under sponsoring organizations, such as a center or local R&R, that provide consultation, training, resource materials, and support services to participating family child care providers and enrolled families. Funded by the California Department of Education General Revenue Fund (non- Proposition 98) Source of Funds/Funding Amount Estimated total allocation for other supports FY 2018–19: $2,899,952* *It is estimated that CFCC entities use 13% of the total allocation for FCC supports. That estimated amount was derived by applying the percentage a contractor is allowed beyond their general administration allowance to use of their CFCC contract to provide support such as trainings and coordination to FCC providers to the total allocation for Los Angeles County. Total Number of Children Served Children are served by the voucher component of CFCC. Authority California Department of Education Parent /Family Fee or Co-Pay Providers are not charged a fee for supports through Family Child Care Home Education Network participation. Sponsoring agencies can be institutions of higher education, local educational agencies, nonprofit organizations, other organizations or agencies. Provider Eligibility Criteria Family Child Care Home Education Networks support educational objectives for children in licensed family child care homes that serve families eligible for subsidized child care. Family child care home education network programs shall include, but are not limited to, all the following: • • • • • • Age and developmentally appropriate activities for children; Care and supervision of children Parenting education Identification of child and family social or health needs and referral of the child or the family to the appropriate social or health services; Nutrition Training and support for the Family Child Care Home Education Network’s family home providers and staff Appendices 69 Family Child Care Home Education Networks Supports (CFCC) • • • Assessment of each family child care home provider to ensure that services are of high quality and are educationally and developmentally appropriate; Developmental profiles for children enrolled in the program Parent involvement Each CFCC provider, in addition to the requirements set forth above, shall do all of the following: • • • • • • • • Participant Eligibility Criteria Length of Child or Family Eligibility Payment Process and Rates Recruit, enroll, and certify eligible families Recruit, train, support, and reimburse licensed family home providers; Collect family fees in accordance with contract requirements Assess, according to standards set by the CDE, the educational quality of the program offered in each family child care home in the network Assure that a developmental profile is completed for each child based upon the observations of network staff in consultation with the provider Monitor requirements, including quality standards, and conduct periodic assessments of program quality in each family child care home affiliated with the network Ensure that basic health and nutrition requirements are met Provide data and reporting in accordance with contract requirements Participating family child care homes are licensed to serve up to eight or 14 children from birth through age 12. Services are offered full-day and yearround. There is no length of eligibility that applies to FCC provider participation in Family Child Care Home Education Networks. Child care and development contracts are awarded through the Management Bulletin Continued Funding process. Reimbursements are provided to contractors in monthly apportionments. Rate Policies Rates apply only to the voucher payment portion of Family Child Care Home Education Network participation. Financial Requirements Providers must adhere to compliance reviews and reporting as required by CDE in state contract requirements. Program Requirements Providers must adhere to all state requirements for enrollment, sign-in/signout, eligibility, and other contract requirements by CDE. For family child care homes, personnel requirements are outlined at: https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/cd/re/caqfamcchomes.asp Appendices 70 Family Child Care Home Education Networks Supports (CFCC) FCC STAFFING Small Family Child Care Home: The maximum number of children with one adult meeting the requirements—including children under age 10 who live in the licensee’s home—is one of the following: • Four infants; or • Six children, no more than three of whom may be infants; or • A small family day care home may provide care for more than six and up to eight children, without an additional adult attendant, if all the following conditions are met:  At least two of the children are at least six years of age.  No more than two infants are cared for during any time when more than six children are cared for.  The licensee notifies each parent that the facility is caring for two additional school-age children and that there may be up to seven or eight children in the home at one time.  The licensee obtains the written consent of the property owner when the family day care home is operated on property that is leased or rented. Large Family Child Care Home: The maximum number of children when there is an assistant provider in the home—including children under age 10 who live in the licensee’s home and the assistant provider’s children under age 10—shall be either: • • 12 children, no more than four of whom may be infants or A large family day care home may provide care for more than 12 children and up to and including 14 children, if all the following conditions are met:  At least two of the children are at least six years of age.  No more than three infants are cared for during any time when more than 12 children are being cared for.  The licensee notifies a parent that the facility is caring for two additional school-age children and that there may be up to 13 or 14 children in the home at one time.  The licensee obtains the written consent of the property owner when the family day care home is operated on property that is leased or rented. Appendices 71 Funded Programs and Primary Service Source of Funds/Funding Amount Authority Early Childhood and Education Competencies Curriculum Project (Training and Technical Assistance Contracts and Grants) The purpose of the First 5 LA Early Childhood Educator Competencies Training and Technical Assistance Project is to strengthen the early learning professional-development system by integrating the Early Childhood Educator competencies into Los Angeles County training programs. The project supports early care and education professional-development organizations to enhance and align professional development outside of the higher education system. The Child Care Alliance of LA (CCALA) develops and leads various training and technical assistance activities with ECE leaders, including a multiday training, coaching, a peer learning community, and an expansion plan. Funded by Proposition 10; administered by First 5 LA 2018–2019 budget: $700,000 2017–2018 budget: $45,000 2017–2018 actuals: $28,983 First 5 LA Contracting agency is the Child Care Alliance of Los Angeles. Provider Eligibility Criteria Payment Process and Rates Financial Requirements Participating agencies: • Crystal Stairs • Institute for the Redesign of Learning (IRL) • Baldwin Park Unified School District • Pacific Asian Consortium in Employment • Child Care Resource Center • Girls Club of Los Angeles • Los Angeles County Office of Education Investment made by First 5 LA • • • • Program Requirements • • Submit required First 5 LA performance and narrative reports (mid-year and year-end) Submit required annual First 5 LA Getting Better Data reports, as required Submit quarterly invoices for processing to First 5 LA Develop curriculum to train on the ECE competencies and their connection with broader efforts. Design and administer an assessment tool at the end of each session of the four-day training to inform the training agendas, activities, and curriculum. Develop and administer pre- and post-test surveys to assess participant learning and progress. Appendices 72 • • • • • • • Early Childhood and Education Competencies Curriculum Project (Training and Technical Assistance Contracts and Grants) Implement a four-day training for 10 to 20 ECE identified professionaldevelopment leaders. Co-develop TA action plans with training participants. Develop and launch online platform (Samepage) as a repository of professional development best practices and an interactive tool for ongoing peer learning and networking. Provide one technical assistance session (organizational coaching) to training participants (ECE leaders) from each of the seven participating organizations to support inclusion of the ECE competencies in professional development programs. Convene training participants (ECE leaders) for quarterly peer-to-peer learning exchanges. Design and administer a tool to evaluate technical assistance work with ECE leaders. Design and administer a tool to assess the baseline in the ECE professional development system, including the use of the Workforce Registry and existing systems alignment efforts and/or accomplishments. Appendices 73 Early Childhood and Education Credential Advocacy Project The Early Childhood Education (ECE) Credential Advocacy Project supports increased access to high-quality early care and education by strengthening the preparation and professional-development system for early childhood educators. The project supports: • Funded Programs and Primary Service Source of Funds/Funding Amount Authority Provider Eligibility Criteria Payment Process and Rates • The modification and implementation of the Child Development Permit Matrix, a tool that defines California’s six levels of Child Development Permits and the issuance requirements of each level The development and implementation of ECE Credential, a professional credential for teachers who work with children from birth to age eight The work is led by Partnerships for Education, Articulation and Coordination through Higher Education (PEACH), a collaborative of early childhood education/child development faculty from over 20 colleges and universities. In addition to strengthening and developing pathways for the ECE workforce, PEACH works to align community colleges’ and universities’ curricula with the competencies. Funded by Proposition 10; administered by First 5 LA 2018–2019 budget: $700,000 2017–2018 budget: $790,000 2017–2018 actuals: $761,493 First 5 LA The Child Care Alliance of Los Angeles is the fiscal agent and contracted agency on behalf of PEACH to deliver the Early Childhood and Education Credential Advocacy project. Investment made by First 5 LA; project length is four years. Submit required First 5 LA performance and narrative reports (mid-year and year-end) • Submit required annual First 5 LA Getting Better Data reports, as required • Submit quarterly invoices for processing to First 5 LA Contract requires the Early Childhood and Education Credential Advocacy project to: • Participate in California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC) meetings, Child Development (CD) Permit revision meetings, Transforming the Workforce for Children Birth Through Age 8 (TWB8), California QRIS, and related initiatives to advocate for and support the development of an ECE Credential • Financial Requirements Program Requirements Appendices 74 • • • • • • • • Early Childhood and Education Credential Advocacy Project Maintain ongoing communication and strategic partnerships through monthly PEACH collaborative meetings for 10 months of the program year Individual meetings with six key influencers, including CTC Commissioners and Blue Ribbon Commission on ECE members, to gain support for PEACH’s proposed recommendations on the development and implementation of an ECE Credential Organize and lead Child Development Permit stakeholder meeting with 30 participants to review results of CTC’s draft performance expectations and preparation program guidelines survey, to build alliances and solicit feedback Research collaborative models of program design and meet individually with two private and two public institutions of higher education (IHEs) to explore the potential development of a joint doctoral program. Based on the PEACH ECE Credential Proposal Recommendations, organize and lead an ECE Credential Stakeholder meeting with 30 participants representing IHE faculty, the Los Angeles Unified School District, and ECE staff and administrators to identify opportunities for and barriers to adoption and implementation. Organize a convening for at least 30 faculty from those campuses involved in the mapping process to discuss the use of data produced by the mapping tool and identify strategies and methods to leverage the information in support of program development and student success. Organize and lead at least five follow-up cluster meetings to continue the mapping of California ECE competencies in CD/ECE core program courses. Organize and lead a cross-disciplinary/cross-sector IHE convening with 30 participants to identify potential ECE Credential preparation pathways. Appendices 75 Early Care and Education Emerging Opportunities The First 5 LA Early Care and Education Emerging Opportunities Project supported: • Office for the Advancement of Early Care and Education Strategic (OAECE) strategic planning process: project funds dedicated to hire consultants through the Early Care and Education Office of Investment, coordination of Local Planning Councils and Policy Roundtable • Funded Programs and Primary Service Office of Child Protection (OCP) technical assistance: A total of $1,000,000 over five years was to be dedicated to the pilot model at the Pomona Unified School District (the contract closed in 2019). The Pomona Unified “Reinvest in Success” preschool pilot (RIS) was a response to Pomona Unified’s challenges and was intended to be a fiveyear project with the goal of providing an ongoing, stable source of funding for early education programs for low-income children in Pomona. The RIS project goals and milestones included:  Opening expansion preschool classrooms  Increasing preschool access and enrollment for vulnerable children  Implementing effective assessment measurements  Performing a rigorous evaluation of preschool expansion data  Increasing positive outcomes of students in preschool  Increasing positive outcomes for K–3 students  Sharing “Reinvest in Success” research Funded by Proposition 10; administered by First 5 LA Source of Funds/Funding Amount Authority Provider Eligibility Criteria Payment Process and Rates Total Funding: $400,075 OAECE Strategic Planning 2018–2019 budget: $24,999 OCP Technical Assistance 2018–2019 budget: $300,000 First 5 LA OAECE Strategic Planning: bid for proposals from First 5 LA’s approved pool of consultants Investment made by First 5 LA • Financial Requirements • OAECE Strategic Planning provided budget and deliverables, along with detailed invoices to receive funds. Office of Child Protection (OCP) Technical Assistance: Funds from First 5 LA were to support non-slot personnel costs, non-slot operating costs, and parent fees. Appendices 76 Funded Programs and Primary Service Source of Funds/Funding Amount Shared Services Through ECE Shared Services technical assistance, Third Sector New England (fiscal agent for Opportunities Exchange) will strive to 1) increase awareness and understanding of shared services among Los Angeles County ECE providers and 2) build alliances among Los Angeles County ECE providers to maximize limited administrative resources and improve program quality. In FY 2018–2019, the project focused on increasing Los Angeles ECE provider participation in Shared Service Alliances, providing technical assistance to the four existing Shared Service Alliances, launching at least one new Shared Service Alliance, and distributing the Marketing Toolkit for family child care providers. Funded by Proposition 10; administered by First 5 LA 2018–2019 budget: $200,000 2017–2018 budget: $200,000 2017–2018 actuals: $199,999 Authority First 5 LA Provider Eligibility Criteria Contracting agency is Third Sector New England Payment Process and Rates Investment made by First 5 LA • Financial Requirements • • • • Program Requirements • • Submit required First 5 LA performance and narrative reports (mid-year and year-end) Submit required annual First 5 LA Getting Better Data reports, as required Submit quarterly invoices for processing to First 5 LA Increase awareness: Conduct at least 12 group and individual contacts (meetings, phone calls, or emails) to support ECE providers in learning about Shared Service Alliances and thinking about whether they would like to participate in an Alliance. Explore Alliances: Provide customized technical assistance and support to at least two new groups of ECE providers as they explore the potential for Shared Service Alliances and work to identify potential resources to support the implementation of Shared Service Alliances. Launch Alliances: Of the two new groups of ECE providers exploring Shared Services, launch at least one new Alliance and begin operation. Support Alliance implementation: Continue to provide technical assistance and support to up to four existing Alliances of ECE providers to implement their Shared Services plans, cultivate leadership and Appendices 77 • • Shared Services staffing for their Alliance and explore the implementation of more intensive Shared Services. Based on user activities and feedback, refine and further customize up to six existing elements of the Marketing Toolkit and add new elements (in both English and Spanish) to better meet provider needs. Explore the resources needed to support the ECE Shared Services Alliance Los Angeles platform in Los Angeles County and statewide. Appendices 78 Funded Programs and Primary Service Source of Funds/Funding Amount Authority Provider Eligibility Criteria Participant Eligibility Criteria Los Angeles Early Care and Education Workforce Registry The California Early Care and Education Workforce Registry is a web-based information system that compiles demographic, education, professional development, and employment data for early childhood workers. It also serves as a workforce resource by providing access to a calendar for training and other professional development opportunities, as well as a job board and résumé-building tools. Funded by Proposition 10; administered by First 5 LA 2018–2019 budget: $665,000 2017–2018 budget: $650,000 2017–2018 actuals: $622,065 First 5 LA The Child Care Alliance of Los Angeles (CCALA) is the contracting agency to deliver this service. Made available to all early care and education professionals, including providers, teachers, and directors Outreach, Eligibility, and Recruitment Process CCALA is responsible for the outreach and recruitment process, including outreach events/activities to promote/increase Registry use among direct staff, family child care providers, center-based teachers, pre-service college students, and others—and to develop and update targeted outreach and marketing materials as needed. Payment Process and Rates Investment made by First 5 LA; project length is five years Financial Requirements Program Requirements Monthly progress memos Quarterly progress memos • Annual report Operations: • Maintain the quality, security, and confidentiality of Registry data. • Manage and maintain Registry user profile data. • Add employers and manage the program administrative access and employment verification process. • Provide support to Registry users. • Manage the Registry’s training module and provide ongoing support to training sponsor organizations (Los Angeles County). • Outreach to potential registry users • Participate in the partnership eligibility review (PER) cohort. • Continuous quality improvement Registry Development: Support the ongoing development and enhancement of the Registry. Expansion and Sustainability: Promote the sustainability of the Registry in Los Angeles County and statewide, and management of overall project. • • Appendices 79 Funded Programs and Primary Service Source of Funds/Funding Amount Authority Provider Eligibility Criteria Payment Process and Rates Educare Policy and Advocacy Educare Los Angeles at Long Beach is the only nationally recognized research based Educare model in Southern California. First 5 LA funds its focus on expanding professional development for ECE educators, access to the mental health system, family engagement practices, and local evaluation efforts. Funded by Proposition 10; administered by First 5 LA 2018–2019 budget: $399,803 2017–2018 budget: $100,000 2017–2018 actuals: $18,353 First 5 LA Contracting agency is the Long Beach Education Foundation Investment made by First 5 LA • Financial Requirements • • Submit required First 5 LA performance and narrative reports (midyear and year-end) Submit required annual First 5 LA Getting Better Data reports, as required Submit quarterly invoices for processing to First 5 LA Appendices 80 Kindergarten Readiness Assessment Project Funded Programs and Primary Service Source of Funds/Funding Amount Authority Provider Eligibility Criteria To better understand the school readiness of children entering kindergarten, First 5 LA has embarked on an endeavor called the Kindergarten Readiness Assessment (KRA). As a part of KRA, various school districts across Los Angeles County are implementing the Early Development Instrument (EDI), a population-level assessment that provides insight into young children’s readiness for kindergarten and highlights population- wide vulnerabilities in five development domains. Once data are collected, school districts, in partnership with community agencies, will engage teachers and community stakeholders in understanding the results. The three primary objectives of KRA are to: • Implement the EDI and collect data to assess the kindergarten readiness of children in the community • Strengthen the capacity of school district and community agency staff to utilize the EDI to support policy and systems change • Build the capacity of community stakeholders to understand EDI results The KR Training and Technical Assistance project expands the number of districts collecting EDIs in Los Angeles County and provides technical assistance and shared learning opportunities to local stakeholders to support the use and spread of EDI results to improve and monitor local early childhood systems. Funded by Proposition 10; administered by First 5 LA 2018–2019 budget: $4,035,968 2017–2018 budget: $530,000 2017–2018 actuals: $456,556 First 5 LA Participating Agencies • El Monte School District • Los Angeles Unified School District • Pomona Unified School District • City of Pasadena Library • Connections for Children • Rosemead School District • Mountain View School District • Compton Unified School District • Lowell Joint School District Technical Assistance Agencies • UNITE-LA • The Regents of the University of California Appendices 81 Kindergarten Readiness Assessment Project Participant Eligibility Criteria Kindergarten teacher and students at the nine participating sites Outreach, Eligibility, and Recruitment Process Seven strategic partners—school districts, municipalities, and community anchor agencies—are participating in KRA data collection and stakeholder engagement. Payment Process and Rates Investment made by First 5 LA Submit required First 5 LA performance and narrative reports (mid-year and year-end) • Submit required annual First 5 LA Getting Better Data reports, as required • Submit quarterly invoices for processing to First 5 LA • Participate in quarterly check-in meetings with SoCal EDI Learning Exchange Administered by kindergarten teachers three to six months after students enter their class, the EDI tool provides insights and highlights population-wide vulnerabilities in five development domains: social competence, emotional maturity, language and cognitive skills, communication skills, and physical health and well-being. • Financial Requirements Program Requirements Each participating agency has individualized objectives outlines in First 5 LA’s performance matrices. Appendices 82 Funded Programs and Primary Service Source of Funds/Funding Amount Authority Provider Eligibility Criteria Participant Eligibility Criteria Outreach, Eligibility, and Recruitment Process Payment Process and Rates Quality Coaching and Quality Improvement Supports This local initiative helps participating providers achieve the highest level of quality through individualized coaching, access to professionaldevelopment opportunities, and classroom supplies to enhance the classroom environment, so children thrive. This program provides qualityimprovement coaching to child care providers who are not currently being served under QRIS funding streams. Using a Quality Improvement Coaching model with an average caseload of 1 coach per 17 providers, each participant will receive a minimum of two hours of coaching once per month. Funded by Proposition 10; administered by First 5 LA; local funding, First 5 LA 2018–2019 Budget: $212,000 2017–2018 Budget: $745,000 2017–2018 actuals: $656,815 First 5 LA The Child Care Alliance of Los Angeles is the contracting agency. Child care providers who are currently not receiving coaching under QRIS funding Priority is given to those professionals who were previously engaged in Los Angeles County QRIS efforts but who are not currently being served through existing QRIS funding streams. If space allows, this may include a limited number of previous Gateways participants. Investment made by First 5 LA • • Financial Requirements • • • Program Requirements Report on number of participants by program type (family child care home vs. center-based care). Submit a mid-year update and a final report on evaluation to First 5 LA. Submit quarterly invoices for processing to First 5 LA. Detail participating sites, demonstrating participants’ previous participation in QRIS (e.g., under which QRIS funding stream they were previously served), if applicable. For sites previously enrolled in Los Angeles County QRIS efforts, identify under which funding stream they previously participated in quality improvement efforts, if applicable. Retain and enroll at least 75 participants, prioritizing those who were previously engaged in Los Angeles County QRIS efforts but who are not currently being served through existing QRIS funding streams to receive quality improvement coaching activities. Appendices 83 Quality Coaching and Quality Improvement Supports • Ensure that 100% of participants develop a new or enhance an existing Quality Improvement Plan. Each QIP has at least two goals within two months of enrollment in ECE-IQ. • Ensure that 85% of participants develop goals focused on adult-child interactions as part of their Quality Improvement Plan. • Ensure that participants receive at least one in-person two-hour quality improvement coaching session per month. • Provide five professional-development trainings; share the number of participants who attend each training, topics, and evaluation results in performance report notes. • Certify QRIS trainers, observers, assessors, and coaches on several QRIS-related tools, including:  Ages and Stages Questionnaires (ASQ/ASQ-SE)  California Preschool Instructional Network (CPIN)  Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) Infant, Toddler, and Pre-K  Desired Results Developmental Profile (DRDP)  Early Childhood Environmental Rating Scale revised (ECERS-R)  Infant/Toddler Environment Rating Scale revised (ITERS-R)  Family Child Care Environment Rating Scale revised (FCCERS-R)  California’s Center on the Social Emotional Foundations for Early Learning (CSEFEL) Teaching Pyramid  Program Administration Scale or Business Administration Scale for Family Child Care (PAS/BAS)  Strengthening Families™ Five Protective Factors  Program for Infant and Toddler Care (PITC)  Practice-Based Coaching [CDE/CA-QRIS Certification Grant] • Ensure that 75% of program participants achieve at least one goal included in their Quality Improvement Plan. • Retain at least 85% of program participants through the program year. Appendices 84 First 5 LA QRIS Architects Group and Systems Planning The QRIS Architects Group is a collaborative of seven organizations working collectively to develop a countywide QRIS that addresses the quality improvement needs of different licensed provider types, strengthens relationships between QRIS participants for successful implementation, and enhances the QRIS infrastructure so that it is efficient and able to be expanded. Members of the QRIS Architects are: Funded Programs and Primary Service Source of Funds/Funding Amount Authority Provider Eligibility Criteria Payment Process and Rates Financial Requirements Program Requirements Child Care Alliance of Los Angeles (Alliance) Child Care Planning Committee First 5 LA LAUP (formerly Los Angeles Universal Preschool) Office for the Advancement of Early Care and Education Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE) Partnerships for Education, Articulation and Coordination through Higher Education (PEACH) Funded by Proposition 10 through First 5 California’s Improve and Maximize Programs so All Children Thrive (IMPACT); administered by First 5 LA • • • • • • • 2018–2019 budget: $438,000 2017–2018 budget: $1,242,000 2017–2018 actuals: $1,079,548 First 5 LA with approval from First 5 California Seven agencies that are the required signatures on First 5 California and California Department of Education QRIS funding applications Allocated through First 5 California’s IMPACT framework; investment made by First 5 LA Fiscal reporting to First 5 California The QRIS Architect Group and Systems Planning project is to: • Establish clear data collection parameters and sharing processes. • Respond to agreed-upon Architect data requests that will inform the development of a countywide QRIS model. • Contribute to the development and/or refinement of a local implementation guide based on findings from the learning phase. • Refine QRIS data system elements as necessary to reflect the countywide QRIS model. Appendices 85 First 5 LA QRIS Architects Group and Systems Planning • Integrate the Architect-designed countywide QRIS model by weaving in best practices and lessons learned through the systems-building process, to the greatest extent feasible, to all existing and new QRIS related funding sources. • Ensure that these foundational components are integrated in the QRIS system:  QRIS Matrix  Continuous Quality Improvement Pathways  QRIS Local Indicators (Tier 2 and Tier 5)  Data collection and sharing  Data system  ECE Registry  Rating and monitoring  Research and evaluation  Coaching models  Technical assistance  Stipends/incentives  Tiered reimbursement  Rating communications  Educator communications  Educator outreach and recognition  Parent communications Appendices 86 Funded Programs and Primary Service Source of Funds/Funding Amount Authority Provider Eligibility Criteria Participant Eligibility Criteria Outreach, Eligibility, and Recruitment Process Payment Process and Rates Financial Requirements Quality Rating and Improvement System Continuous Site Engagement Child360 uses First 5 LA QRIS funds to support work in four areas: quality rating and improvement systems (QRIS), workforce development, policy and advocacy, and business development. Quality improvement supports include navigation, coaching, leadership consultation, training/professional development, family engagement support, and grants for high-quality programs.Child360 works with a minimum of 239 programs that are not eligible for similar services under the QRIS block grant because they do not have California State Preschool Program (CSPP) funding. Staff from QSLAparticipating programs (Quality Start Los Angeles) have an opportunity to participate in a stipend program. Child360 also uses these funds to advocate for increased public investment in high-quality early education. Advocacy efforts include funding for increased reimbursement rates, access, and quality improvement. In addition, a portion of the fund balance is used to support Child360’s ongoing business development activities, including its expansion of training, consulting, and assessment services. Funded by Proposition 10; administered by First 5 LA 2018-2019 budget: $14,333,000 2017-2018 budget: $ 13,842,000 2017-2018 actuals: $ 13,623,814 First 5 LA Child 360 is the contracting agency to deliver this QRIS model. Project participant priorities include: Programs not eligible for similar services under the QRIS block grant Minimum 10% of sites participating in First 5 California’s Improve and Maximize Programs so All Children Thrive (IMPACT) serve infants and/or toddlers (birth to age three) • 15% of IMPACT sites are Family Child Care Homes (FCCHs) Funds target a minimum of 239 programs that are not eligible for similar services under the QRIS block grant because they do not have California State Preschool Program (CSPP) funding. • • Investment made by First 5 LA; project length is four years The bulk of the allocation is to be used to provide site-level quality improvement supports for ECE programs serving infants, toddlers, and preschoolers in Los Angeles County. Submit Getting Better Data (GBD) report annually. Appendices 87 Quality Rating and Improvement System Continuous Site Engagement A First 5 LA/Child360 performance matrix measures performance objectives that are part of the agreement. Below are those performance objectives, along with some excerpts of ongoing milestones: Program Requirements Support the implementation of a uniform QRIS in Los Angeles County. • Retain at least 239 early education programs serving children birth to age five in Los Angeles County to participate in First 5 California’s IMPACT initiative. • Ensure that at least 15% of sites participating in IMPACT are Family Child Care Homes (FCCHs). • Offer 32 trainings to help providers increase their understanding of elements identified in the Quality Continuum Framework and acquire tools for practical application. • Train staff in tools such as:  Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS)  Education Resource Strategies (ERS)  California Preschool Instructional Network (CPIN)  Center on the Social Emotional Foundations for Early Learning (CSEFEL) [CDE/CA-QRIS Certification Grant] • Submit to First 5 LA any CDE/CA-QRIS required reports by the specified due date. Strengthen the professional-development system of the ECE workforce. • Recruit at least 450 individuals from Quality Start Los Angeles sites who are not receiving or eligible for similar supports from other funding sources into the Stipend Program to incentivize the completion of a minimum number of units of appropriate coursework and participation in other support services to increase the preparation of the ECE workforce. • Provide a minimum of 700 advisement sessions to Stipend Program participants. Support high-quality ECE in Los Angeles County through policy and advocacy. • Recruit and train 250 Community Ambassadors to advocate on behalf of their children and communities. Advance Child360’s strategic direction through business development. • Meet a FY 2019 revenue-generation goal of $2,000,000 by submitting:  At least six governmental, corporate, or foundation grant applications  At least 15 bids for contracts related to high-quality early learning Appendices 88 Funded Programs and Primary Service First 5 LA Quality Rating and Improvement Data System Administrator First 5 LA established a three-year strategic partnership with the Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE) that allows for the establishment of a common Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS) data system (Early Quality System’s iPinwheel) for Los Angeles County. As the data system administrator for Quality Start Los Angeles (QSLA)—Los Angeles County’s QRIS—LACOE contracts with iPinwheel to provide a database system for use by QRIS partners to track and record data for early learning providers participating in QSLA. Under the partnership, LACOE shares approximately 60% of the costs for the contracted services (iPinwheel), and provides the staffing required to support the use of the database by County partners. LACOE receives funds to coordinate all aspects of the QRIS data system, including management of the vendor contract with iPinwheel, overseeing the process of ensuring accurate data, training and technical assistance, and working with the Data System Workgroup to inform data system decisions. Source of Funds/Funding Amount Funded by Proposition 10 through First 5 California’s Improve and Maximize Programs so All Children Thrive (IMPACT) framework and Proposition 10 funds that come directly to First 5 LA; administered by First 5 LA Authority Provider Eligibility Criteria 2018–2019 budget: $650,000 First 5 LA, with approval from First 5 California The Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE) is the contracted agency to deliver the project. Payment Process and Rates Allocated through First 5 California’s IMPACT framework; project length is three years. Financial Requirements • Quarterly progress reports • Getting Better Data report • Responsible for all payment invoices for the database system LACOE is required to meet all objectives outlined in the performance matrix. Examples include: • Program Requirements • • LACOE will renew the contract with the database-system vendor, iPinwheel, to continue providing QRIS database services for all participating QRIS sites in Los Angeles County as well as for those served for QI activities. The iPinwheel contract language includes protocol and assurances typical for database vendors such as data security, data ownership, data retention, and data/system backup. LACOE will provide contract oversight, ensure that contractual obligations are met, and pay all invoices for the database system. LACOE will update the technical use manuals for the data system as new processes and features are implemented. Appendices 89 • • • • First 5 LA Quality Rating and Improvement Data System Administrator LACOE, with input from the Data System Workgroup, will continue to develop and maintain standard operating procedures on the administration of the database system to ensure clear lines of responsibility and expectations for staff and users of the data system. This will be on an ongoing basis, with timelines and deliverables based on needs identified. LACOE will coordinate database-system trainings to all partner agency users as needed to support their needs for operational proficiency. LACOE will provide database-system technical assistance and help-desk support to all partner agency users. LACOE will monitor and address data security issues, including entering into data-sharing agreements or memoranda of understanding (MOUs) with partner agencies, overseeing the collection of confidentiality agreements completed by each data system user, and ensuring that each new user complies with data confidentiality requirements. Appendices 90 Los Angeles County Library Reading Machine Reading Machine is a service provided by the Los Angeles County Library in which mobile outreach vans bring early literacy and STEAM–based activities (science, technology, engineering, art, and math) outside library walls. Reading Machine librarians visit licensed home day cares and preschools to lead story times and give early childhood service providers tools and resources to enhance their interactions, storytelling, and STEAM explorations. The visits include the lending of story time kits and STEAM kits with developmentally appropriate early literacy and STEAM activities to extend children’s learning and support the provider’s work with children. The program offers the following to participating day cares and preschools: Funded Programs and Primary Service • • • • Source of Funds/Funding Amount Total Number of Children Served Authority Parent /Family Fee or Co-Pay Advice on how to explore the California Preschool Foundations and Frameworks for Math and Science through literacy-based story times that feature content-specific subjects to heighten a child’s knowledge of basic STEAM concepts Tips on how to actively participate in story time visits to strengthen skills and confidence Free library resources to support work with children Activities to extend children’s explorations with developmentally appropriate early literacy and STEAM activities In addition, Reading Machines also deliver pop-up early literacy, early intervention, and play programs as they travel to locations often frequented by parents, including health clinics, Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) offices, outreach events, parks, teen parenting programs, housing projects, and custody hearings at family courts. The program was initially started with funding from the Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health (DMH), which provided training in the Positive Parenting Program (Triple P) for 60 librarians, staff salaries for the Reading Machine, and materials. That funding was discontinued as of 2018. The program is currently funded by the Los Angeles County Office of Child Protection in the amount of $600,000 to cover staff salaries and some materials. Program staff include 3 librarians, 1 library assistant, and 2 parttime library aides. Multiple classrooms within 36 sites receive visits from the program. Varies based on enrollment at the 36 sites Los Angeles County Library No fees involved for parents or providers Appendices 91 Los Angeles County Library Reading Machine Provider Eligibility Criteria Participant Eligibility Criteria Length of Child or Family Eligibility Outreach, Eligibility, and Recruitment Process Program Requirements Licensed child care facilities and preschools in the following cities: • Bell • Compton • El Monte • Florence • Hawaiian Gardens • Lake Los Angeles • Lancaster • San Fernando • South Whittier Families are served at provider sites. Programs participate for one year and receive biweekly visits. Interested licensed ECE providers must apply online to receive services. Child care sites and preschools must be licensed and provide the following information for site visits: • • • • • • • • Contact information Child Care License number Preferred language Business hours Months and days of operation Child population Age ranges Staff numbers Child care facilities and preschools are encouraged to develop a schedule of regular Reading Machine visits throughout the year to provide high interest story times for the children in their care. Appendices 92 Appendix B: Community and County Initiative Profiles ANTELOPE VALLEY OVERVIEW The Antelope Valley is the northernmost section of Los Angeles County, a largely desert region between two mountainous areas that also includes the western tip of the Mojave Desert. The region is one of the least densely populated in Los Angeles County, with just under 500,000 residents over its 2,200-square-mile area. The largest cities in the Antelope Valley are Lancaster and Palmdale, both of which were identified by First 5 LA as Best Start communities—a funding approach to supporting communities with a common vision and intention for children and families to thrive. Through Best Start, communities engage in planning and work to strengthen community leadership and collaboration across sectors. As part of this work, the region started a monthly early care and education stakeholder meeting involving schooldistrict, child care, Head Start, and home-visiting/parenting-education partner organizations. Growing out of the Antelope Valley Best Babies Collaborative, this network has become the Antelope Valley Home Visiting Coalition, with local leaders taking responsibility for its functioning and role in the community. In addition to monthly meetings, annual meet-and-greet events—with all birth-to-five programs participating—help participants keep abreast of services and capacities at different organizations and programs, as well as learn processes for making referrals. The Antelope Valley has been successful in leveraging its community and local partnerships to grow its home visiting programming. One investment from First 5 LA into the area’s Best Babies collaborative has now become the Welcome Baby program, a Los Angeles–grown targeted universal home visiting model implemented in 14 hospitals countywide. All families within those facilities are engaged in the program and receive “light touch” home visiting and linkages to programs. Part of the Welcome Baby approach is to link families to the social services and resources most appropriate to their eligibility and needs, which may include more intensive home visiting program. There are several intensive home visiting programs in the Antelope Valley, the organizations implementing these models partner around enrollment of families in the model that is most appropriate to a family’s eligibility and needs. The models include Healthy Families America, Nurse Family Partnership, Early Head Start home-based, and Parents As Teachers. In the Antelope Valley, these programs, along with local hospitals, obstetrics offices, and Women, Infants and Children (WIC) offices, engage in their own outreach but do so under the concept of ‘best fit.’ All are committed to the idea that matching a family’s needs with the program that is the best fit is in the family’s long-term interest and results in the best possible program outcomes. Due In part to the strong community partnership around both the targeted universal and intensive home visiting models, the Antelope Valley has been positioned to leverage multiple funding streams to support their family support system. These programs leverage federal funding through Early Head Start grants, state administered federal funds for home visiting through Maternal Infant and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV), state funding through First 5 LA, and state funding through Medicaid for CalWORKs populations (a newer source of state funding administered by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health and includes funds from the Los Angeles County Department of Appendices 93 Mental Health). The region’s work to maintain a systemic approach to home visiting, led by the Antelope Valley Partners for Health, has positioned it well for integrating Medicaid home visiting in an efficient and targeted manner. While the Coalition initially organized around home visiting, all of the partners are engaged in numerous other services for Antelope Valley. It is this diverse nature of the services partners represented along with their clear focus to break down silos across services that ensures the partnership is focused on meeting family needs. Coalition members are fully aware of the programs provided by their colleagues, which makes for stronger referrals, avoids duplications in services, and builds the capacity of all partner organizations. Coalition partners also share professionaldevelopment opportunities and work together to bring other needed offerings to the Antelope Valley in a coordinated fashion. Acknowledging the range of needs of families of young children vary enormously, organizations in the Antelope Valley have worked to engage with a range of family support and mental health services and support these entities in growing their service capacity for the Antelope Valley. These organizations are also engaged in the Antelope Valley Coalition. Prevention, intervention, and treatment programs often target families with older children only, and lack the capacity to serve families of very young children, which is an identified gap in communities across LA County that is also true in the Antelope Valley. Although service capacity remains low for children age five and under and their families, the region’s organizations are very aware of the need. They continue to work collaboratively to match families with appropriate services, seek investments in programs for the very young, develop additional programming, and recruit and retain appropriate staff. An example of this cross-sector partnership, the Service Area Advisory Committee (SAAC) convened by the Department of Mental Health, has formed a workgroup focused on young children to compile and share programs that may be a referral match for local mental health prevention or intervention needs. Multiple organizations in this SAAC offer those services—which may include parent education, therapy services for children and families, community-based programs, and case management—specifically for families involved in the child-welfare system. Another resource for early care and education in Antelope Valley is the Students Raising Children (SRC) program at Antelope Valley College (AVC). In collaboration with the local Child Care Resource Center (CCRC), AVC Student Equity initiative sponsors child care for a limited number of students. Requirements include being currently enrolled as an AVC student registered in six or more units with a 50% or higher course-completion rate, earning a 2.0 grade-point average or higher, having a current Educational Plan, and being on track for degree/certificate completion. With these criteria met, AVC students may access child care offered on the AVC campus, which supports their school attendance and degree/certificate completion. OPPORTUNITY The Antelope Valley is a strong example of how historically under-resourced communities with deep needs and unique geographic factors come together to address the needs of children and families and what they require to thrive. Through its community-based leadership, the region has been able to maximize funding opportunities as they arose. Other municipalities, or small regional areas of cities and communities, may want to consider this coalition approach to early care and education, home visiting, and other services touching the families of young children. With this collaborative mind-set, community partners are better prepared to respond to funding Appendices 94 proposals, support each other with in access to data on need and service gaps, and ensure that existing services are being fully utilized by increasing the efficacy of the referral and enrollment process. Appendices 95 LENNOX ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT OVERVIEW The Lennox Elementary School District focuses comprehensively on children birth to age five and their families, leveraging both local district and state funding sources. In 2000, with time-limited funding from First 5 LA, the District implemented School Readiness Centers. The program was so successful that, when that funding ended, the district opted to continue operating the centers with local general funds. Four sites located on elementary school campuses serve primary caregivers of infants and toddlers through 90-minute Mommy & I and Daddy & I sessions twice weekly, helping parents and children transition to school while extending access to Parent Center services like educational courses and parent workshops—all free of charge to families. Parents are supported in taking an active role in their child’s education, partnering with experienced teaching staff to learn about developmental milestones and how best support their child’s development. Services are offered in English and Spanish, to enhance and enrich oral language development and brain growth. The continuation of the program beyond the original funding period is a direct result of the powerful family engagement work taking place in the School Readiness Centers. Several parents who participated in the program in its early years ultimately became members of the Lennox Elementary School District’s board of education, and their leadership and advocacy is in large part responsible for the continuation of the readiness program with local funding. Recognizing the importance of preschool services and the great need in the community for these services, the district uses California Department of Education funds to offer California State Preschool Programs at five sites, operated under the purview of Title 5 and licensing regulations and serving approximately 650 children in income-eligible families across the district. OPPORTUNITY The Lennox Elementary School District highlights the success of local districts’ using discretionary funding to support early childhood services. Even with the growing popularity of preschool and awareness of the importance of brain development during the first five years of life, many school districts still see their primary service population as only children in kindergarten through twelfth grade. Lennox leadership understands that when children begin kindergarten having had high-quality ECE services—with their parents already engaged in and knowledgeable about their child’s education and development—children and families do better. Lennox also exemplifies what true parent engagement looks like and how powerful the long-term outcomes of meaningful parent engagement can be. It was parents who participated in the program with their young children who ensured that the program continued with district funding after the initial time limited funds went away. Appendices 96 LONG BEACH OVERVIEW Long Beach is a highly collaborative community with a wide array of cross-sector leaders dedicated to working together on behalf of the city’s young children. In 2018, multiple stakeholders throughout Long Beach— the city’s Health and Human Services Department (LBDHHS), the Mayor’s Fund for Education, the Long Beach Early Childhood Education Committee, and the Long Beach Unified School District—developed a comprehensive Early Childhood Education Strategic Plan, a guide for not only supporting local educational institutions, but also in-home ECE providers, educational partners like nonprofits and libraries, and families, with a goal of helping all children develop the foundational skills they need for future success. Consultants and staff of the LBDHHS facilitated 22 focus groups and held 11 interviews with diverse groups of parents, ECE providers community partners, and elected officials across Long Beach to inform development of the plan. This comprehensive Early Childhood Education Strategic Plan is a blueprint for collective action—one that compels all partners, individually and as institutions, to dedicate their best thinking, energy, and commitment to making significant improvements for all Long Beach children by removing barriers, by considering the whole child, and by ensuring that all children and their families receive the opportunities they need to succeed. The plan was created to ensure that families and young children across the city have equitable access to the programs and supports they need, and likewise provides a roadmap for the city’s early childhood system to continue to promote access to high-quality services and supports for all families. The plan provides direction for early childhood investments and advocacy, and outlines collaborative opportunities that can strengthen the city’s offerings for young children and their families. Highlighting the collaborative nature of the work in Long Beach and the breadth of committed stakeholders, below are the key groups working to shepherd the plan. • The Long Beach Early Childhood Education Committee is a nonprofit membership organization comprised of educators, advocates, and caregivers of children from birth to age five who work together to promote highquality early care and education in the community. The committee’s mission is to ensure that all children in Long Beach grow up healthy, safe, and educated. In addition to supporting increased access to high-quality ECE services and supporting the workforce, the committee increases public awareness of current and future economic, social, and educational impacts of ECE through advocacy and education, and also makes policy recommendations to the mayor, city council, the Board of Health and Human Services, the Commission on Youth and Children, and other local, regional, and state entities. • With the belief that investments in education offer one of the greatest opportunities for meaningful impact, the nonprofit Mayor’s Fund for Education collaborates with the mayor of Long Beach in supporting education, works closely with community and education partners to amplify and support their programs, partners with local entities in identifying student needs at all levels of education, and assists in fundraising, capacity-building, and program development to ensure that education in Long Beach thrives and grows. The Fund involves local businesses and industries to develop new opportunities and empower the growth of a skilled, educated local workforce. Appendices 97 • The Long Beach Department of Health and Human Services (LBDHHS) provides critical backbone support for early childhood collaborations across the city, including expertise on early childhood development, services to support young children, and access to early childhood systems. It works across a range of community stakeholders and public and private agencies/departments to ensure buy-in and well-coordinated efforts. • The Long Beach Unified School District (LBUSD) offers a variety of programs, including Early Transitional Kindergarten (ETK) and Transitional Kindergarten, part-day and full-day California State Preschool programs, and full-fee preschool. The LBUSD is also an Early Head Start and Head Start grantee and provides those services at 23 locations across Long Beach. One of its newer initiatives is Educare Los Angeles at Long Beach, formed through a public-private partnership to increase access to high-quality early learning. The School serves as a model of how early learning programs can provide high-quality early childhood education, partner with families, and advocate for education practice and policy. According to LBUSD’s Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) for 2019– 2020, the district continues to expand its early learning programs, aligning curricula, social/emotional supports, and interventions across various early learning service models—an important component given the breadth of LBUSD’s early childhood services. OPPORTUNITY The Long Beach community serves as an example of how multiple partners can come together to support a common vision and plan, recognizing the power in true collaboration rather than working in isolated ‘silos’ to serve their community. The Long Beach Early Childhood Education Committee is a robust, funded collaboration operating as its own independent non-profit agency. The collaboration’s by-laws clearly enumerate roles and responsibilities to support the good of the whole group. The strategic planning process has helped the community coalesce around a common vision and approach, and leadership from across the community—from the mayor’s office to all those who step up to serve on the Committee—make this a powerful force for supporting young children in Long Beach. Appendices 98 LOS ANGELES CITY COUNCILMEMBER PAUL KREKORIAN’S EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION MOTION OVERVIEW In February 2019, the councilmember from the City of Los Angeles’ Second Councilmanic District, Paul Krekorian, introduced a motion to explore the provision of quality early care and education in the city. The motion addressed multiple elements of the early care and education supply, from facilities, funding opportunities, and program costs to ECE workforce training and professional development. The ultimate goal of the motion was to add one high-quality ECE setting per Councilmanic district and invest in the ECE workforce to deliver high-quality services across the city. The motion directs city departments including the Chief Legislative Analyst, the Department of Recreation and Parks, the City Administrative Officer, and the Economic and Workforce Development Department to: • Study the city’s current state-licensed child care program and report back on options to bring it to scale in every Councilmanic District; • Analyze ballot measures to establish children’s funds created in other cities and identify how to proceed in Los Angeles; • Map funding possibilities for early care and education, including the Governor’s initiatives, other public funding, and private sources. This motion presented an opportunity for the City of Los Angeles to consider past years’ structures focused on early care and education compared with the existing gap in that area now that these structures are no longer in place. Historically, the city has been a leader in ECE: Mayor Tom Bradley created a Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Child Care and established a child care coordinator position; Mayor Richard Riordan formed the Commission for Children, Youth and Their Families. Funding for all these was eliminated during the recession of 2008. At present, no single city entity holds responsibility for family and youth issues, the city funds very little in those areas, and there is a particular absence in focus on the birth-to-five population. California Governor Gavin Newsom’s commitment to early care and education will bring more attention to this issue and its funding; the City of Los Angeles should have a voice at the table and to continue taking steps to poise the city to make use of new funds and support the delivery of ECE services. OPPORTUNITY A consideration of the resources needed by the City of Los Angeles to advance early care and education—including how other major urban areas have addressed the requisite infrastructure—is underway. Councilmember Krekorian’s staff are working with other city partners to streamline the conditional use permit process for child care programs, for example. A citywide approach to ECE could ease similar barriers to access and supply faced by families and providers, address systemic changes necessary for city offices to function more seamlessly across birth-to-five programming, and seek and leverage public and private investments through a common fiscal vision for young children and their families. City departments are responding to the research requested in Councilmember Krekorian’s motion, and his staff are also partnering with Los Angeles County (Board of Supervisors’ offices, the Chief Executive Office, and other agencies) to plan for joint responses. Appendices 99 All these elements give the city an opportunity to elevate early care and education at a time both of unprecedented attention at the state level and of great need for Los Angeles’ young children. Initial results of the city’s focus, along with the potential long-term impact of new funding streams, early care and education positions, and partnerships with the County, could also be turned in to resources that would be made available to other municipal leaders and staff for similar purposes. NORTHEAST VALLEY OVERVIEW The northeast San Fernando Valley is an area of high need where families often rely on the public social safety net to get them back on their feet. Many transient families pass through—often attracted there by the relatively low cost of housing—but once these families are stable again, they frequently move on in search of safer neighborhoods in which to raise their children. This creates a constant need for the community organizations that provide the critical services that help families keep afloat and get back on their feet. Despite decades of great work by non-profits in the area, the constant influx of new families with their own set of needs means that overall progress is often slow and the need of support programs never diminishes. The resource and referral agency that covers the San Fernando Valley, Child Care Resource Center (CCRC), has long provided that support, and its history in the region has made it an organizing hub for collaboration of early childhood services across this large part of Los Angeles County. Over time, CCRC has been involved in numerous projects focused on expanding access to services for young children and their families, and has collaborated with many other organizations. This includes Friends of the Family, a nonprofit in North Hills, which started as a counseling agency for low-income families and has expanded to provide a number of services addressing protective factors for families and children. Friends of the Family’s mission-focused programming centers on developing social connections so that families and individuals are integrated into the community and have a network of support. To achieve this the organization has developed deep partnerships across the region, including with CCRC, to support referrals between agencies and ensure families are not falling between the cracks. CCRC also works closely with local schools and school districts. For example, CCRC secured a grant from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation to manage a playgroup at Panorama City Elementary School using the Kaleidoscope Play and Learn curriculum. This 10-week playgroup provided support to young families and also brought young children and parents into their neighborhood school helping to foster important connections for future parental involvement in their child’s education. CCRC’s involvement in this initiative also generated additional capacity for the school system; when the grant ended, CCRC helped develop a toolkit for the school to manage the program on its own while working to secure additional funding. The collaborative approach that organizations like CCRC and Friends of the Family take to meeting the needs of the community allows each organization to focus on what they do best and to ensure that family needs are met in an efficient and streamlined manner. This also allows organizations to manage the different restrictions they might have from various funding streams. For example, Friends of the Family is supported by state and County grants, but also Appendices 100 has a robust development arm that organizes fundraisers and manages individual giving campaigns. These unrestricted funds allow the organization significant flexibility in meeting the needs of the community, whether it be providing emergency shelter for a family or helping families with their taxes or providing family education programs. Thus, If there are services that CCRC’s funding does not cover, the collaboration means that they are often able to make a referral to Friends of the Family who is able to support the family. OPPORTUNITY The longevity of organizations like CCRC and Friends of the Family in this community is particularly beneficial given the transient nature of many San Fernando Valley residents, and the collaborative approach in the Northeast Valley serves as a model for other communities within Los Angeles County. Particularly given the vast size of the county, it is important that community-level approaches to supporting young children and families are developed. This can ensure there is ‘no wrong door’ for families and that each organization in a community is aware of and connected to the full range of supports and services available in the community to best meet the needs of families. Appendices 101 PASADENA OVERVIEW The City of Pasadena has a long history of prioritizing early care and education. From 1989, when the city first adopted a policy on children, youth, and families, to the resolution to become an ‘early learning city’ by 2025 and the creation of the Office of the Young Child in 2016, the community has long focused on meeting the needs of young children. That Pasadena is one of only three cities in California to have its own public health department has also ensured that its focus is not just on traditional early education services, but more broadly considers the whole needs of young children and their families. Located north of downtown Los Angeles, Pasadena includes both extremes of the economic spectrum. While the city is home to the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory and Caltech – helping drive the median annual household income above $90,000 – there are still areas of high need where children and families live in deep poverty. Collaborate PASadena is an effort based on the Collective Impact model that brings together the City of Pasadena, Pasadena Unified School District (PUSD) and community nonprofits and other partners to improve outcomes for children of Pasadena, Altadena and Sierra Madre. The effort is funded by the city, the school district, and the County of Los Angeles and is housed within Pacific Oaks College and Children’s School. There are several workgroups that cover early learning, healthy families, parent engagement, student success, and supportive communities. Pasadena’s creation of the Office of the Young Child has helped to coordinate multiple initiatives and efforts across the city, including the ongoing design, planning, and implementation of the five-year Master Plan for the Young Child. Housed within the Pasadena Public Library, the Office of the Young Child also convenes a data/research committee that oversees the collection and use of Early Development Index (EDI) data, the measure used to evaluate the city’s success in improving outcomes for young children. Pasadena also has an ability to analyze local data to more effectively plan and refine its initiatives; the Pasadena Health Department, for instance, was able to break down EDI data even further to better understand the vulnerabilities in all the sub-domains of child development on which that the city is focused so that initiatives can be targeted to the neighborhood level. Numerous local champions over the years have helped the city get to this point, with investments from local foundations, supportive councilmembers, and a public health department focused on social determinants of health all ensuring that the city strives to meet the needs of the community. As a result of these partnerships, the city is currently piloting an Early Childhood Hub strategy that brings together neighborhood resources, such as libraries, schools, recreation centers, hospitals, and WIC programs, to connect families to the services and supports they need, as well as to each other. Pasadena has allocated city funds to support their early childhood initiatives directly through the Office of the Young Child and indirectly through the city’s commitment to a holistic approach to child well-being through its public health department and the Pasadena Public Library. The city has also benefited from First 5 LA grants and philanthropic support. However, many programs rely on continued grant funding, leaving programs such as the city’s Black Infant Health Program under threat when grantee priorities or focus areas change. Appendices 102 Pasadena’s local commitment has also enabled the city to build on state and county initiatives and go above and beyond in services offered to the community. For example, All Children Thrive Pasadena is an offshoot of a statewide initiative, with the city aligning resources from across the area to push measurable change under four Community Health Improvement Plan (CHIP) areas. Relationships developed by years of focus on young children across city agencies and the community help Pasadena take full advantage of opportunities such as this. OPPORTUNITY While very few cities have a city health department, Pasadena provides an illustrative model for how communities can approach the needs of young children and families in a holistic way that takes into account health, social, and economic needs and realities of a community. In addition, the sustained focus from the city council and community-based organizations offers a model of public-private coordination that can be replicated in other localities in Los Angeles County, California, and beyond. Appendices 103 SANTA MONICA OVERVIEW The City of Santa Monica’s sustained commitment to investing in the well-being of its youngest residents, dating back to 1979, recognizes the need to remove obstacles to accessing high-quality and affordable child care and early education. In 1991, the Santa Monica City Council, alongside Santa Monica College (SMC) and the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD), adopted a Child Care Master Plan and Policy. This policy continues to frame a long-term vision of supporting families by addressing the shortage of child care and early education facilities, protecting existing child care, and increasing infant and toddler child care. The city and its partners have continued to elevate the well-being of young children and their families through a variety of strategies: • The 1992 and 2015 adoption of amendments to the city’s zoning ordinance to facilitate the development of child care and early education facilities, allowing for the conversion of single-family residential homes into non-residential child care centers • The 2006 adoption of the Child Care Linkage Program to help meet ECE facility needs associated with demand created by new residential development. Based on research demonstrating and quantifying the nexus between new development and child care demand, the Linkage Program requires impact fees on new development in Santa Monica that are used to support the capital expenses necessary to increase the city’s availability of early care and education. • The 2011 launch of the Santa Monica Cradle to Career Initiative and Early Childhood Task Force (ECTF) to bring together service providers, civic institutions, and community partners to address the social, emotional, academic, and physical needs of youth in Santa Monica. The ECTF is a volunteer group that advocates for unique and workable solutions to address the needs of young children, is part of the Cradle to Career initiative, and receives regular updates from the Early Childhood Well-Being Project, a larger community-wide initiative designed to go beyond economic indicators and use the science of well-being to create an index of factors that make a city thrive. • The City of Santa Monica has dedicated staff in planning and human services to work collaboratively across city departments and with SMMUSD and other key stakeholders to support early care and education initiatives. Responsibilities include monitoring, developing, and recommending policy in program areas relating to early childhood and the Santa Monica Cradle to Career initiative; supporting and assisting individuals interested in opening child care centers or family child care homes; acting as a resource and providing technical assistance on program development, policy, and procedure; monitoring trends and research; and providing information to the public, city departments, commissions, task forces, and other key stakeholder groups. • The 2014 release of the RAND Study on Early Education and School-Age Care in Santa Monica analyzing the city’s early childhood and child care system. The report continues to highlight the need for ECE services and especially the need for child care for infants, toddlers, and two-year-olds. Appendices 104 • Santa Monica also participates in the Transforming Early Childhood Community Systems initiative in partnership with the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA). With funding from First 5 LA, Connections for Children leads the collection of community school-readiness data via the Early Development Instrument (EDI), used by the City of Santa Monica, SMMUSD, and Connections for Children to improve programs/ supports and better coordinate services to help children be better prepared for success in school. • Scheduled to open in 2020, the Santa Monica Early Childhood Lab School, a unique partnership of Santa Monica College, the City of Santa Monica, RAND, and The Growing Place (a local provider of ECE services) will serve as an innovative early childhood laboratory school to serve the community. Teachers in training will develop crucial expertise under the guidance of leading education professionals. Supported with funding from the Child Care Linkage Program for capital costs, the Lab School will be on the RAND campus and should eventually serve up to 110 children annually. The school will help fulfill the city’s vision of ensuring highquality early education for area residents and employees, with at least 30% of participating families being residents and 15% of low-income status, plus slots for the civic center and downtown workforce. The Lab School also actively participates in the interagency Cradle to Career initiative. • A history of funding through the local Human Services Grants Program (HSGP) supports access to and quality in child care and early education, including operational and subsidy funding to local ECE providers. The purpose of the HSGP is to develop, fund, and sustain human service programs and increase the impact of organizations by cultivating an effective safety net that builds on the unique assets and strengths of neighborhoods, community organizations, and public institutions. Funding awarded through the HSGP comes from multiple local and national sources, including the city’s general fund, city development agreements (community benefit resources), Los Angeles County Proposition A funds, Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) funds, federal entitlements (Community Development Block Grants) and federal competitive grants. Grantees are required to provide a minimum 30% cash match. • The Santa Monica Child Care Support program is funded by the city for its residents who are working or are students and have children from birth to age five. The program provides subsidies for families who do not meet the income-eligibility criteria of state-subsidized child care programs (CalWORKs or the Alternative Payment Program) but still cannot afford child care. Parents apply for the program through the resource and referral agency—Connections for Children—as they would for other subsidies, and are able to use the subsidy at a licensed facility. • The Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD) provides a range of early childhood education and development services in schools throughout Santa Monica. SMMUSD provides California Preschool Programs to qualifying families, a full-fee Preschool Program to families with three- and four-year-olds, and comprehensive programs adhering to Head Start standards to qualifying families at no fee. Until this year, SMMUSD was a Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE) Head Start delegate, but made the strategic decision to give up the Head Start grant but continue the program with local district funds. As a result of the demographics of the district, fewer and fewer families were qualifying under the federal eligibility guidelines, yet vulnerable families in the community and individuals who come into Santa Monica to work still have a Appendices 105 need for these services. The school board voted to provide approximately $1 million from its budget to support this important early childhood service. SMMUSD includes early childhood education programs in its Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP). OPPORTUNITY Santa Monica’s commitment to the care and education of its youngest children is demonstrated in terms of its breadth, depth, and responsiveness to local community context and need. Recognizing the importance of ECE to thriving communities, multiple municipal agencies and private agencies choose to prioritize their limited funds for serving young children, recognizing both the long- and short-term benefits of ensuring that working families have access to high-quality care and supporting the education of their community’s next generation. In addition to funding services, the city explicitly charges staff with the responsibility to support collaboration and ongoing policy development for the ECE community. Appendices 106 WATTS/WILLOWBROOK OVERVIEW Watts is a neighborhood in South Los Angeles located north of Willowbrook, an unincorporated community in Los Angeles County. The Watts/Willowbrook area is a First 5 LA Best Start community whose vision is “to provide access to education, social, and economic resources that support a healthy, environmentally friendly lifestyle for parents, children, and all community members in order to help them be more productive members of society who contribute positively to all communities.” This community is home to the Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science, which includes a joint medical education program with the University of California Los Angeles, a medical magnet school, residency programs, and health research programs; it also oversees the area’s Head Start program. Also located in Willowbrook is the newly renovated Martin Luther King, Jr. Medical Campus. Los Angeles County’s Department of Health Services (DHS) has made tremendous strides in improving community access to care through the revitalization of this campus, which serves as a “one-stop shop” for South Los Angeles residents needing health care and other services. The Martin Luther King, Jr. Community Hospital is the anchor institution for the campus, offering outpatient care and homeless services, and the Martin Luther King, Jr. Outpatient Center provides psychiatric urgent care 24/7 for people suffering from substance abuse or mental illness. With the leadership of Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted to establish a child care center for county employees and community members at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Medical Campus. DHS recommended converting what used to be Hudson Auditorium for this center, and the Department of Public Works (DPW) conducted a feasibility study of the project site. According to Supervisor Ridley-Thomas, the vision for the center is to “allow doctors, nurses, other medical staff to rest assured that their kids are in a safe place nearby, allowing them to focus on keeping the community healthy. Local residents will also be able to take advantage of the service.” In 2018, the Martin Luther King, Jr Learning Center opened. The facility is brand new, built out specifically to meet the needs of child care for very young children, with welcoming common spaces for families, small rooms in which parents and teachers can meet, and large classrooms and outdoor spaces for the children. The program serves 120 children from six weeks of age to six years and is administered by KinderCare. (The regional administration of KinderCare created a subsidiary entity to support operating County employee child care centers; KinderCare also operates the South Vermont County employee child care center in this area of Los Angeles.) OPPORTUNITY The MLK Jr Learning Center is a model for other supervisorial districts to replicate. Supervisor Ridley-Thomas saw the need for County employee child care and marshalled his staff to investigate the possibility for a facility; explore the necessary capital, design, and procurement; and manage the processes to fund and build out a facility on the Medical Campus. Addressing supply issues within child care is complex and involves multiple entities, funding streams, permissions, regulations, and standards at the local and state levels. Local leadership, paired with the political will to shepherd an idea to completion, can be a significant driver in meeting community and family needs. Municipal leaders throughout the county are well positioned to advance the use of under-utilized or unused public spaces for early care and education. Appendices 107 LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES (DCFS) HEAD START ELECTRONIC REFERRAL SYSTEM OVERVIEW Children in the child protective services system are, because of that status, generally eligible for early care and education services, and are prioritized for those services through most federal and state-funded programs. Historically, Los Angeles County has encountered a variety of barriers—including at times the policies related to implementing these programs, along with the difficulties in engaging caregivers/resource families—preventing children in protective services from receiving ECE services. A 2013 Advancement Project brief found the utilization rate of early care and education services, by children under age five in Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) system, was less than 13%. DCFS’s education unit sought to address the need to enroll more children under five years of age in the early care and education services available to them by focusing on the connections between DCFS and ECE programs. In order to support a simplified process for DCFS caseworkers to refer children to early care and education programs, the Head Start Electronic Referral System was built. This is a computer system that produces a list of all preschool-age children on a social worker’s caseload; once verbal consent is obtained from the child’s caregiver, the caseworker returns to the system to identify one or more agencies providing early care and education services matching the age and location of the child, and makes those referrals. (Despite the name, the Head Start Electronic Referral System also includes other preschool programs, and ECE programs in the county serving children under age two.) Once a program receives that referral, its staff reach out directly to the family to enroll them in the program. The ease of this referral system for caseworkers has resulted in both a huge increase in children being referred to ECE programs and year-to-year tracking (previously unfeasible) of these referral numbers. All partners acknowledge the need to take advantage of certain enrollment windows for preschool children. Although DCFS-involved children are eligible for programming, program slots are not held for them. DCFS caseworkers have therefore moved to making preschool referrals during the yearly spring/early summer transition and enrollment push. Further development of the system has focused on two of the most critical elements of any intake and referral system. One, the quality of the database that referrals are generated from and, two, a feedback loop related to engagement in services by the child and family referred. In order to address the quality of the database, DCFS is committed to ensuring that the system is easy for the entities to use and maintain their own program information. DCFS works in partnership with the organizations whose programs make up the content, and are responsible for its accuracy. Organizations whose programs are included can easily maintain and update their information. The second critical element of a referral system, particularly for high risk populations, is tracking and being accountable for engagement in services by the child/family. The organization receiving the referral is tasked with putting referral results into the system, the caseworker then follows up accordingly. The system also allows organizations to document reasons they were not able to enroll a child—a wrong or inactive phone number for the referred family, for instance. Of the referrals with feedback in place (about half of the total referrals made), 30% have resulted in a child’s enrollment in an early care and education program. DCFS is using this information to comprehend more about why families turn down ECE referrals and what can remove those barriers. Appendices 108 OPPORTUNITY The expansion of the Head Start Electronic Referral System is an opportunity to improve the overall ECE system in Los Angeles County. All programs that serve or could serve DCFS-involved families should be fully engaged in and utilizing the system. Understanding one’s role in the referral feedback process and increasing the understanding of how to meaningfully engage families involved with DCFS in early care and education is a critical part of the success of the referral resource. Numerous organizations have the opportunity to make the database more accurate and the referrals successful. ’The attention paid by DCFS to understanding the core elements of a referral system can serve as a model for communities working together to maximize use of program funding through coordinated intake and engagement. Appendices 109 LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION TINY TOTS PROGRAM OVERVIEW The Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) offers Tiny Tots, a preschool program for children ages three to five designed to prepare them for preschool and kindergarten through activities and educational field trips that promote development, learning, play, and discovery. Children attend for three hours a day, four days a week, in 12-week sessions. Most of the 23 park sites housing the program across the county offer three sessions annually (equal to the length of a school year) with no programming in the summer. A few sites (three, currently) hold an additional session and are therefore nearly year-round. For the most part, Tiny Tots is funded by parent fees charged for each session, although three sites receive Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) federal funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Federal HUD funding focuses on developing viable urban communities by providing decent housing, a suitable living environment, and expanded economic opportunities, principally for low- and moderate-income persons; HUD activities may include youth recreation, parenting programs, and child care. In Los Angeles County, the CDBG is administered by the Los Angeles County Development Authority (LACDA), which works closely with each of the five Supervisorial Districts and 48 participating cities to assess local needs, identify programs, and administer the funding for implementation. DPR uses some of the CDBG funds it receives for Tiny Tots, thereby lowering parent fees at those sites. Across the program, parent fees range from $40 to $100 per month, with two of the CDBG-funded sites charging no parent fee. 1 Preschool programs through parks and recreation departments are a staple in communities across the United States. For many families these programs meet multiple needs including: intensity of the preschool experience, location and access within the community or neighborhood, and affordability compared to private preschools. The addition of federal CDBG funds makes the program even more accessible for families with lower household incomes who may not meet the work requirements of state-subsidized child care nor the federal poverty guidelines of the Head Start program. The Tiny Tots programs are fully enrolled and offer links for families to other DPR resources such as the parks, youth sports and the overall community. Some of the sites/regions have engaged in professional development offerings, such as modules on social emotional development in young children and trainings offered through the California Preschool Instructional Network. Although program elements now vary from site to site, DPR is currently developing a single operating model for Tiny Tots and systemizing the approach countywide. OPPORTUNITY The Office for the Advancement of Early Care and Education (OAECE) possesses tremendous knowledge of early care and education programs across the county, and should consider better aligning the many ECE programs being run by numerous County departments. As an example, the Office could share with DPR resources related to part-day preschool models, including operating manuals, sample curricula, best-practice approaches to delivering teaching and learning to preschool children in part day programs. The Office resources could include —and likewise link DPR staff to other part-day preschool programs to serve as models for DPR’s work. 1 2018 fee data Appendices 110 LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (LAUSD) OVERVIEW The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) is fully committed to the concept that learning begins at birth, demonstrating that commitment through the range of programs it funds, runs, and supports far beyond the traditional K–12 offerings. More than 20,000 children participate in LAUSD programs, including CalSAFE Infant Centers, Expanded Transitional Kindergarten (ETK), Early Education Centers (EEC) for two- to five-year-olds, the California State Preschool Program, and Preschool Collaborative Classrooms. A total of 652 programs operate at 469 schools across the district. In addition to state funding streams that specifically target children under 5, LAUSD uses $41 million from their Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) in 2017–2018 by identifying the children under age five whom they serve as a “targeted service population.” Approximately 80% of those funds supported LAUSD’s early care and education services and built more robust programming. Other districts, like Long Beach Unified and Santa Monica Malibu Unified, also invest LCFF funds in early childhood education. While a review of the Local Control and Accountability Plans (LCAPs) for all 80 school districts in Los Angeles County was not within the scope of the our study, stakeholder interviews made it clear that not all districts leverage LCFF funding for ECE services. The breadth of programs offered by LAUSD confirms its dedication to meet the needs of diverse communities throughout the district and support high-quality programming. When teachers needed assistance working with children with challenging behaviors in the classroom, it implemented a new social/emotional curriculum that trained principals and teachers to address several specific issues. Programs also have access to mental health consultants, and every EEC has access to Quality Start coach. One innovation is the dual-language program for preschool. Acknowledging the benefits of learning multiple languages at a young age, LAUSD’s board of education in 2017–2018 unanimously approved a resolution to pilot duallanguage immersion instruction in early education programs. The two-year pilot was developed and funded in partnership with the Sobrato Foundation and uses the comprehensive Sobrato Early Academic Language (SEAL) model—intensive, enriched language and literacy education designed for English-language learners starting in preschool and continuing through third grade. Teachers and staff at the 10 pilot sites—chosen based on school interest and their having pathways to bilingual K-12 schools—received intensive pre-service training, ongoing inservice training, and coaching on the SEAL model. Teachers then developed and implemented their own modules and curricula for students who are non-native English speakers. The program is a split-day model (50% Spanish or Korean; 50% English) with the teachers switching languages at half day. A thematic connection exists across the Spanish/Korean and English portions of the curriculum, with intentional planning about what will be done in which language. This immersion program allows students to more quickly reclassify as proficient in English while retaining their home languages, and also assists native English speakers to acquire skills in multiple languages. While the Sobrato Foundation supported the pilot phase, LAUSD funds in-service training and program coaches, including substitute teachers to take the place of participating staff, and it is continuing the program beyond the pilot, through the 2019–2020 school year. Appendices 111 Recognizing the close connection between health and learning, LAUSD also supports Health and Wellness Centers across the district—collaborative efforts providing a comprehensive array of services to support student achievement and success. As an example, LAUSD leases space at the Locke Early Education Center to a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC), Watts Health, at a reduced rate. Watts Health provides comprehensive health care services for children and families, and LAUSD also offers a range of mental health services at this site. In addition, LAUSD has adapted the UCLA SEEDS model, a trauma-informed professional-development program for early childhood educators and care providers that helps them provide trauma-informed care so that children with histories of trauma can build healthy relationships and self-regulation (both essential for school readiness). The district also provides Parent Child Interaction Therapy. OPPORTUNITY LAUSD is another school district that recognizes the importance of early care and education, supporting skills that help children succeed in life, focusing on the whole child, and meeting parents and children where they are via a strengths-based approach. A substantial portion of LAUSD’s LCFF funds support early childhood programs, as do district partnerships with private foundations that expand services for dual-language learning children. On-campus Health and Wellness Centers further acknowledge the importance of meeting the comprehensive physical and mental health needs of families. Appendices 112 LOS ANGELES EARLY CHILDHOOD MENTAL HEALTH CONSULTATION PROJECT (DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH AND LAUSD PREVENTION PROGRAMMING) OVERVIEW Prevention programming within the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) recognizes that providing education, intervention, and supports early in a child’s life can result in long lasting positive changes for a family. To this end, LAUSD targets students, families, and educators at five Early Education Centers (EECs) and one feeder elementary school per selected EEC—chosen by using the Student Equity Needs Index (SENI3). This community hub approach brings together families, educators, and community partners to provide high-quality enrichment, health, mental health, and social services for children to thrive and excel, along with greater access to resources and linkages. A dedicated team supports classroom teachers through the Early Childhood Mental Health Consultation (ECMHC) framework, and two additional models are also being explored for implementation: SEEDS of Early Learning—a trauma‐informed, relationship-based professional-development program for early childhood educators, parents, and care providers—and the Georgetown Mental Health Consultation model, through which mental health professionals partner with individuals caring for young children to promote healthy social-emotional development. This unique opportunity emerged from a one-time infusion of prevention dollars from the State of California’s Proposition 63, known as the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA). The project has an estimated budget of $9.8 million to strategically invest into communities. The project has not been fully implemented, making actual costs difficult to assess; however, the goal is to create a sustainable infrastructure within the school district that can build community capacity to continue the work without funding. Eventually, it is hoped that all 80 school districts in Los Angeles County will participate in this partnership with the Department of Mental Health (DMH). MHSA funds can be used to build the model, increase provider capacity through integrated training platforms, and create the community collaborations needed to sustain the work. Each community can retain ownership of the EEC hub, using established relationships to carry out the work. Once the infrastructure is successfully built, communities can continue to build upon their collaborations across sectors to comprehensively serve all children and families. OPPORTUNITY This partnership between LAUSD and the County’s DMH illustrates how publicly funded programs can leverage dollars to better equip communities for serving their youngest residents. This partnership brings together two different sectors to create shared goals, build upon existing community systems, and leverage resources and staff to provide high quality services to families and children. By continuing this trend, the ability to build new programming to meet unmet service gaps is possible. This approach to program funding not only demonstrates a commitment to the healthy development of children and families, but also makes long-term economic investments that are a result of supporting the very youngest children in Los Angeles. Appendices 113 LOS ANGELES COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION (LACOE) COMMUNITY SCHOOLS OVERVIEW In January 2019, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors approved a motion requesting that the director of the Department of Mental Health (DMH), in coordination with the Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE) and the Auditor-Controller develop a countywide plan to provide school-based mental health services, including prevention and early intervention. In collaboration with LACOE, the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), the County’s Chief Executive Office, and the Auditor-Controller, DMH proposed providing supportive services, training, and coordination at selected school sites using the Community Schools Initiative (CSI) model. This work offers collaborative mental health services to young children that encompass both prevention and early intervention. In partnership with DMH, LACOE is expanding access to prevention services and supports for students and their families, working toward individual and community well-being and stability. A total of $8.2 million over three years is allocated for this initiative, which will implement the CSI model in 10 school districts. Though this framework, community schools are positioned as centralized hubs for students and their families to have greater access to a continuum of mental health care ranging from prevention services and supports to assessment and linkages to more intensive Medi-Cal- supported treatments as needed. The initiative not only addresses the mental health needs of the school community, it also creates greater access to other resources and supports. Programming will address violence, relationships, health, and trauma- and resilience-informed trainings for the school workforce and for students. The target population includes children, youth, and families residing in these 10 pilot districts: Antelope Valley Union High School District Inglewood Unified School District Azusa Unified School District Lynwood Unified School District Bassett Unified School District Montebello Unified School District Centinela Valley Union High School District Paramount Unified School District Compton Unified School District Pomona Unified School District Pilot districts were identified based on an analysis of data included in Measure of America’s Portrait of Los Angeles County and the Department of Public Health’s Education and Health in Los Angeles County report, such as education index, underrepresented students, high school graduation rates, graduates with A–G requirements, student suspension rates, chronic absenteeism, and violent crimes. OPPORTUNITY County programs are committed to working with school districts to improve student outcomes, support trauma-informed practices, and strengthen community partnerships. This commitment demonstrates how different systems can come together to provide high-quality services in a community, create a shared vision and goals, and leverage publicly funded programs. Based on this approach, LACOE built the Community Schools Initiative model across various communities with the goal of one day integrating it into all 80 school districts. Appendices 114 LOS ANGELES COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY OVERVIEW Libraries may not always be key players in early childhood systems, but the Los Angeles County Library has implemented several innovative programs and service-delivery models that expand the traditional role of children’s library services. Priorities include training to focus on equity and to recognize and eliminate hidden biases; developing programs and services for underserved and marginalized populations; and recognizing and responding to the fact communities are constantly changing and staff must work to stay abreast of and be responsive to those changes. The Library has sought out both public sector and private partners to further its early childhood work; some initiatives were funded by the Department of Mental Health (DMH), including initial training for Triple P (the Positive Parenting Program) and the early history of the Reading Machine (now funded through the Los Angeles County Office of Child Protection). • The Family Place offers over 3,400 early literacy programs attended by more than 104,000 children across Los Angeles County. The program supports parents and caregivers of children birth to age five in their roles as their children’s first teachers. A five-week parent-child module for toddlers and their parents/caregivers is an informal play-based program taking place in a specially designed environment, rich with toys, books, music, and art activities. Specially trained librarians conduct workshops and connect parents to needed community resources and enhanced library services and programs. Participants are able to talk one-on-one with a different community resource professional each week. These sessions are offered twice a year. • The Positive Parenting Program (Triple P) addresses and helps prevent common behavioral and emotional problems in children and teens. Although it is customarily used by social workers and clinicians, not library staff, the Library worked with Triple P to adapt the program to a library setting, and now about 60 staff members are certified Triple P providers. They offer:  Advice on how to explore the California Preschool Foundations and Frameworks for Math and Science through literacy-based story times that feature content-specific subjects to heighten a child’s knowledge of basic STEAM (science, technology, engineering, art, and mathematics) concepts  Tips on how to actively participate in storytime visits to strengthen skills and confidence  Free library resources to support work with children  Activities to extend children’s exploration with developmentally appropriate early literacy and STEAM activities Appendices 115 • The Reading Machine brings mobile outreach vans to community-based ECE programs to provide early literacy and STEAM-based activities outside library walls. Reading Machine librarians visit licensed home and center-based child care facilities and preschools to lead storytimes and give early childhood service providers tools and resources to enhance their interactions, storytelling, and STEAM explorations. Visits include the lending of Storytime Kits and STEAM Kits with developmentally appropriate early literacy and STEAM activities to extend children’s learning and support the provider’s work with children. Providers must apply to participate, and centers and homes in the following communities are served: Bell, Compton, El Monte, Florence, Hawaiian Gardens, Lake Los Angeles, Lancaster, San Fernando, and South Whittier. Additionally, Reading Machine delivers pop-up early literacy, early intervention, and play programs as vans travel to locations often frequented by parents, including health clinics, Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) offices, outreach events, parks, teen parenting programs, housing projects, and custody hearings at family court. • Smarty Pants Storytime events are specially designed for toddlers and preschoolers to help empower parents and guardians in supporting the education needs of their children. The Library redesigned story times into Smarty Pants Storytimes in partnership with the Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE), applying curriculumbased standards and readiness indicators in a fun, interactive setting. While having fun and enjoying books, songs, rhymes, and movement, kids build early literacy skills, basic math skills, social skills, and many more essential school readiness competencies. Smarty Pants Storytime sessions take place once a week and also offer take-home activities that help parents use the tips they pick up there at home. The program is now offered at every County Library location. OPPORTUNITY Young children interact with many units of local government beyond the typical agencies like education, health, and human services. The Los Angeles County Library has stepped up to ensure that it reaches families who come through its doors and builds partnerships with local child care providers to strengthen and enhance their practices. Other county agencies that interact with young children and their families can also look for opportunities to reinforce the importance of early care and education and provide resources to families in need. Appendices 116 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE REPORTS: CHILD CARE FOR HOMELESS CHILDREN AND CHILD CARE FACILITIES REPORTS Child Care for Homeless Children OVERVIEW While housing is a critical component to a homeless family’s stabilization, it is only one component addressed by Measure H, the 2017 quarter-percent increase to Los Angeles County’s sales tax to fund homeless services, rental subsidies, and housing. For homeless families, the importance of high-quality child care cannot be overstated. That same year, the Board of Supervisors directed the Chief Executive Office (CEO) to work with the Department of Public Social Services (DPSS), the Office for the Advancement of Early Care and Education, the Department of Children and Family Services, First 5 LA, and other relevant County departments and community child care providers to report on barriers to accessing child care, to conduct an assessment of child care needs, and to make recommendations for increasing access to and funding for child care for families experiencing homelessness. Although a full response with recommendations is not expected until late 2019, this motion has already resulted in both child care providers and the homeless services delivery system developing a better understanding and a more intentional collaboration to enhance child care access for homeless families. Additionally, the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority and various County departments are evaluating the overall functioning of the Coordinated Entry System for Families (CESF), the system supporting homeless families in accessing all needed services including child care. One of the directive’s various deliverables calls for the development of reports that allow for enhanced monitoring of CESF’s ability to shelter homeless families and connect them to appropriate services. Through these collaborations and ongoing discussions, both the child care assistance system and the homeless services system have acknowledged that families experiencing homelessness have greater barriers and needs related to accessing child care. To further enhance access to child care for California Work Opportunities and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) homeless families potentially eligible for Stage 1 child care, in January 2019 DPSS issued the last in a string of planned policy reinforcements to remind both eligibility and welfare-to-work (WtW) staff to educate and encourage families experiencing homelessness and applying for/receiving CalWORKs benefits that they may be eligible for Stage 1 child care services by participating in WtW activities, including the Family Stabilization Program and housing search activity (both specifically tailored to assist homeless families). Also, as space permits, both DPSS WtW staff and Child Care Resource and Referral staff are co-locating in CESF lead agencies—DPSS in Service Planning Areas (SPAs) 3, 5, 6, and 7, with planning underway in SPAs 1 and 2; and R&Rs in SPAs 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7. Even where space constraints prevent colocation, the relationships that have formed between the CESF staff and both R&R and DPSS WtW staff are supporting connections to child care as needed. OPPORTUNITY This initiative recognizes the importance of reaching out to the most vulnerable families with great care and intentionality. Clearly, homeless families have a unique set of needs and issues that make it extraordinarily difficult for them to “jump through the hoops” frequently required to access government-funded services. Special efforts must be appropriately funded and intentionally implemented to ensure that these families can access child care services that will enable and support greater stability for Los Angeles’ most vulnerable children and families. The Appendices 117 forthcoming report may offer additional insight on how program policy and implementation can changed be better serve the needs of LA’s most vulnerable families. Child Care Facilities OVERVIEW To address the unmet need for ECE services (particularly infant and toddler care) in Los Angeles County, the Board of Supervisors adopted a motion in consultation with the Policy Roundtable for Child Care and Development (Policy Roundtable), the Office for Advancement of Early Care and Education, the Internal Services (ISD), and Public Works (DPW), to explore whether unused County-owned property and County-owned buildings could be used to build new or house existing ECE facilities in accordance with state and local regulations. This collaborative process between multiple offices, departments, and stakeholders led to the identification of only one vacant County-owned property, the Torrance Health Center, as a possibility for ECE programming. Part of this process included exploring a comprehensive plan for the site and assessing the scope and cost of renovations that would be needed to comply with state and local regulations. Although the process failed to identify additional options, it did serve to highlight an important theme—the numerous hurdles ECE providers face when seeking to open or expand ECE facilities. Challenges that ECE providers face include, but are not limited to, navigating the zoning process, accessing permits, and meeting regulatory requirements. How best to assist providers through these challenges is now an imperative part of the initiative; therefore, the strategies created to meet this need include: • Offering technical assistance to help child care providers navigate the development process from beginning to end • Creating a “one-stop” website with informational resources for providers, including user-friendly summaries of state and local code requirements and permitting processes • Creating a directory or “matchmaking service” to link providers with available facilities (ideally with information on the scope and estimated costs of required renovations, if available) • Offering free, informal one-on-one guidance to qualified ECE providers before they lease space or begin the permitting process • Creating a “one-stop” permitting center in each local jurisdiction where providers can obtain the required approvals from all departments (e.g., planning, building and safety, fire, public health, business licensing, etc.) with a single application and a single point of contact • Identifying potential funding sources and partners to help child care providers offset renovation and construction costs • As part of implementing future reuse plans for County properties, offering subsidized space to qualified ECE providers OPPORTUNITY One recommendation emerging from this process is to focus on the County’s highest-need communities to see if other organizations—school districts, regional agencies, faith-based organizations, and so on—may have vacant or underutilized facilities that could accommodate ECE programs. Similar analyses in various regions, perhaps supported by the philanthropic community, could identify both new partnerships (thereby increasing access to care) and spark creative community-led solutions to the ongoing space needs of ECE programs. Appendices 118 Appendix C: Revenue and Expense Model Snapshots, Center-Based and Family Child Care Introduction The revenue and expense models are designed to allow users to model a variety of scenarios. However, the models are also pre-populated with data to show the cost per child at three levels of quality. Additional tabs are included in the models with stacked finance charts for each of these levels of quality. In the center-based model, the [Baseline], [Quality], and [Aspirational] tabs include charts for infants, toddlers, and preschoolers that show the estimated annual cost per child and the available revenues to cover that cost. In the FCC model, similar tabs are available for both small and large homes. These charts are replicated below. Appendices 119 Annual Potential Revenue per Child Stacked Per Child Revenue Charts with Per Child Expense Rates Child Care Center, Baseline Quality, Infant $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 Total: $20,261 Total: $19,134 CACFP, $1,127 Tuition $20,220 Voucher $19,134 Voucher $19,134 Tuition Voucher Voucher & CACFP Potential Revenue Source Combinations Annual Potential Revenue per Child Stacked Per Child Revenue Charts with Per Child Expense Rates Child Care Center, Baseline Quality, Toddler $30,000 $20,000 Total: $17,867 Total: $13,491 $10,000 $0 Tuition $17,867 Tuition Total: $15,291 QualityTotal Per Child Annual Expense: $19,331 CACFP, $1,127 Voucher $13,491 Voucher $13,491 Voucher Voucher & CACFP Potential Revenue Source Combinations Annual Potential Revenue per Child Stacked Per Child Revenue Charts with Per Child Expense Rates Child Care Center, Baseline Quality, Preschooler Center Baseline $0 Total: $20,220 QualityTotal Per Child Annual Expense: $22,190 $30,000 CACFP, $1,127 $20,000 Total: $14,271 $10,000 $0 Tuition $14,271 Tuition Total: $13,869 Total: $12,070 CACFP, $1,799 Contract $12,070 Contract $12,070 Contract Contract& CACFP QualityTotal Per Child Annual Expense: $14,444 Potential Revenue Source Combinations Appendices 120 Annual Potential Revenue per Child Stacked Per Child Revenue Charts with Per Child Expense Rates Child Care Center, Quality, Infant $30,000 Total: $24,830 $20,000 $10,000 Total: $25,956 CACFP, $1,127 Total: $20,220 Tuition $20,220 Contract $24,830 Contract $24,830 Tuition Contract Contract & CACFP Center Quality $0 QualityTotal Per Child Annual Expense: $32, 364 Potential Revenue Source Combinations Stacked Per Child Revenue with Per Child Expense Child Care Center, Quality, Toddler $35,000 Annual Potential Revenue per Child $30,000 $25,000 $20,000 CACFP, $1,127 Contract $19,192 Contract $19,192 Contract Contract & CACFP Total: $17,867 $15,000 $10,000 Tuition S17,867 Total: $20,319 Total: $19,192 QualityTotal Per Child Annual Expense: $23,660 $5,000 $0 Tuition Potential Revenue Source Combinations Stacked Per Child Revenue with Per Child Expense Child Care Center, Quality, Preschooler Annual Potential Revenue per Child $18,000 $16,000 Total: $14,271 Total: $13,197 $14,000 $12,000 Total: $12,070 CACFP, $1,127 Contract $12,070 Contract $12,070 Contract CSPP & CACFP QualityTotal Per Child Annual Expense: $16,953 $10,000 $8,000 $6,000 Tuition $14,271 $4,000 $2,000 $0 Tuition Potential Revenue Source Combinations Appendices 121 $60,000 $50,000 CACFP, $1,127 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $0 Total: $20,220 Total: $24,830 QualityTotal Per Child Annual Expense: $42,683 Total: $25,956 CACFP, $1,127 Tuition $20,220 Contract $24,830 Contract $24,830 Tuition Contract Contract & CACFP Center Aspirational Annual Potential Revenue per Child Stacked Per Child Revenue Charts with Per Child Expense Rates Child Care Center, Aspirational Quality, Infant Potential Revenue Source Combinations Stacked Per Child Revenue with Per Child Expense Child Care Center, Aspirational Quality, Toddler QualityTotal Per Child Annual Expense: $34,561 $35,000 Annual Potential Revenue per Child $30,000 $25,000 $20,000 CACFP, $1,127 Contract $19,192 Contract $19,192 Contract Contract & CACFP Total: $17,867 $15,000 $10,000 Tuition S17,867 Total: $20,319 Total: $19,192 $5,000 $0 Tuition Potential Revenue Source Combinations Annual Potential Revenue per Child Stacked Per Child Revenue with Per Child Expense Child Care Center, Aspirational Quality, Preschooler QualityTotal Per Child Annual Expense: $22,018 $20,000 $15,000 $10,000 CACFP, $1,799 Total: $14,271 Tuition $14,271 Total: $13,197 Total: $12,070 CACFP, $1,127 Contract $12,070 Contract $12,070 CSPP CSPP & CACFP $5,000 $0 Tuition Potential Revenue Source Combinations Appendices 122 Stacked Per Child Revenue Charts with Per Child Expense Rates Small Family Child Care Home, Baseline Quality, Infant $20,000 Total: $17,904 Total Per Child Annual Expense: $16,950 CACFP, $1,111 $15,000 Total: $11, 316 $10,000 Total: $13,189 Total: $12,078 CACFP, $1,111 Contract $16,793 Tuition $11,316 Contract $16,793 $5,000 Voucher $12,078 Voucher $12,078 Voucher Voucher & CACFP $0 Tuition Contract Contract & CACFP Potential Revenue Source Combinations Stacked Per Child Revenue Charts with Per Child Expense Rates Small Family Child Care Home, Baseline Quality, Toddler $20,000 Annual Potential Revenue per Child Total: $16,793 Total: $17,904 Total Per Child Annual Expense: $16,950 CACFP, $1,111 $15,000 Total: $10,209 $10,000 Total: $12,268 Contract $16,793 Total: $11,157 CACFP, $1,111 Voucher $11,157 Voucher $11,157 Voucher Voucher & CACFP Tuition $10,209 Contract $16,793 $5,000 $0 Tuition Contract Contract & CACFP Potential Revenue Source Combinations Stacked Per Child Revenue Charts with Per Child Expense Rates Small Family Child Care Home, Baseline Quality, Preschooler $20,000 Annual Potential Revenue per Child Total Per Child Annual Expense: $16,950 Small FCC Baseline Annual Potential Revenue per Child Total: $16,793 $15,000 Total: $13,181 Total: $10,711 Total: $12,070 CACFP, $1,111 Total: $12,268 Total: $11,157 CACFP, $1,111 Voucher $11,157 Voucher $11,157 Voucher Voucher & CACFP $10,000 Tuition $10,711 Contract $12,070 Contract $12,070 $5,000 $0 Tuition Contract Contract & CACFP Potential Revenue Source Combinations Appendices 123 Stacked Per Child Revenue Charts with Per Child Expense Rates Small Family Child Care Home, Quality, Infant Annual Potential Revenue per Child $40,000 Total Per Child Annual Expense: $30,275 $30,000 $20,000 Total: $17,904 Total: $16,793 CACFP, $1,111 Total: $11, 316 $10,000 Tuition $11,316 Contract $16,793 Contract Contract & CACFP CACFP, $1,111 Voucher $12,078 Voucher $12,078 Voucher Voucher & CACFP $0 Tuition Potential Revenue Source Combinations Stacked Per Child Revenue Charts with Per Child Expense Rates Small Family Child Care Home, Quality, Toddler Annual Potential Revenue per Child $40,000 Total Per Child Annual Expense: $30,275 $30,000 $20,000 Total: $16,793 $10,000 CACFP, $1,111 Tuition Total: $12,268 Total: $11, 157 Total: $10,209 Tuition $10,209 $0 Total: $17,904 Contract $16,793 Contract $16,793 Contract Contract & CACFP CACFP, $1,111 Voucher $11,157 Voucher $11,157 Voucher Voucher & CACFP Potential Revenue Source Combinations Stacked Per Child Revenue Charts with Per Child Expense Rates Small Family Child Care Home, Quality, Preschooler Annual Potential Revenue per Child $40,000 Total Per Child Annual Expense: $30,275 $30,000 $20,000 Total: $10,711 $10,000 Tuition $10,711 $0 Tuition Total: $12,070 Total: $13,181 CACFP, $1,111 Total: $12,268 Total: $11,157 CACFP, $1,111 Contract $12,070 Contract $12,070 Voucher $11,157 Voucher $11,157 Contract Contract & CACFP Voucher Voucher & CACFP Potential Revenue Source Combinations Small FCC Quality Contract $16,793 Total: $13,189 Total: $12,078 Stacked Per Child Revenue Charts with Per Child Expense Rates Small Family Child Care Home, Aspirational Quality, Infant Total Per Child Annual Expense: $49,034 $45,000 $30,000 Total: $16,793 $15,000 Total: $11, 316 Tuition $11,316 $0 Tuition Total: $17,904 Total: $13,189 CACFP, $1,111 Contract $16,793 Contract $16,793 Contract Contract & CACFP Total: $12,078 CACFP, $1,111 Voucher $12,078 Voucher $12,078 Voucher Voucher & CACFP Potential Revenue Source Combinations Stacked Per Child Revenue Charts with Per Child Expense Rates Small Family Child Care Home, Aspirational Quality, Toddler Annual Potential Revenue per Child $60,000 Total Per Child Annual Expense: $49,034 $45,000 $30,000 Total: $16,793 $15,000 Total: $10,209 Tuition $10,209 $0 Tuition Total: $17,904 Total: $12,268 CACFP, $1,111 Contract $16,793 Contract $16,793 Contract Contract & CACFP Total: $11,157 CACFP, $1,111 Voucher $11,157 Voucher $11,157 Voucher Voucher & CACFP Potential Revenue Source Combinations Stacked Per Child Revenue Charts with Per Child Expense Rates Small Family Child Care Home, Aspirational Quality, Preschooler Annual Potential Revenue per Child $60,000 Total Per Child Annual Expense: $49,034 $45,000 $30,000 $15,000 $0 Total: $13,181 Total: $12,268 Total: $10,711 Total: $12,070 Tuition $10,711 Contract $12,070 Contract $13,181 Voucher $11,157 Voucher $11,157 Tuition Contract Contract & CACFP Voucher Voucher & CACFP CACFP, $1,111 Total: $11,157 CACFP, $1,111 Potential Revenue Source Combinations Small FCC Aspirational Annual Potential Revenue per Child $60,000 Stacked Per Child Revenue Charts with Per Child Expense Rates Large Family Child Care Home, Baseline Quality, Infant $20,000 Total: $17,904 CACFP, $1,111 $15,000 Total: $11,316 $10,000 Contract $16,793 Contract $16,793 Tuition $11,316 Total: $13,189 Total: $12,078 CACFP, $1,111 Voucher $12,078 Voucher $12,078 Voucher Voucher & CACFP Total Per Child Annual Expense: $13,408 $5,000 $0 Tuition Contract Contract & CACFP Potential Revenue Source Combinations Stacked Per Child Revenue Charts with Per Child Expense Rates Large Family Child Care Home, Baseline Quality, Toddler $20,000 Total: $17,904 Annual Potential Revenue per Child Total: $16,793 CACFP, $1,111 $15,000 $10,000 Total: $10,209 Contract $16,793 Contract $16,793 Tuition $10,209 Total: $12,268 Total: $11,157 Total Per Child Annual Expense: $13,408 CACFP, $1,111 Voucher $11,157 Voucher $11,157 Voucher Voucher & CACFP $5,000 $0 Tuition Contract Contract & CACFP Potential Revenue Source Combinations Stacked Per Child Revenue Charts with Per Child Expense Rates Large Family Child Care Home, Baseline Quality, Preschooler Annual Potential Revenue per Child $20,000 Large FCC Baseline Annual Potential Revenue per Child Total: $16,793 $15,000 Total: $13,181 Total: $12,070 $10,000 CACFP, $1,111 Total: $10,711 Total: $11,157 Total: $12,268 Total Per Child Annual Expense: $13,408 CACFP, $1,111 Tuition $10,711 Contract $12,070 Contract $12,070 Voucher $11,157 Voucher $11,157 Tuition Contract Contract & CACFP Voucher Voucher & CACFP $5,000 $0 Potential Revenue Source Combinations Appendices 126 Stacked Per Child Revenue Charts with Per Child Expense Rates Large Family Child Care Home, Quality, Infant $20,000 Total Per Child Annual Expense: $18,874 Annual Potential Revenue per Child Total: $17,904 Total: $16,793 CACFP, $1,111 Contract $16,793 Contract $16,793 $15,000 Total: $11,316 $10,000 Tuition $11,316 Total: $13,189 Total: $12,078 CACFP, $1,111 Voucher $12,078 Voucher $12,078 Voucher Voucher & CACFP $5,000 Large FCC Quality $0 Tuition Contract Contract & CACFP Potential Revenue Source Combinations Stacked Per Child Revenue Charts with Per Child Expense Rates Large Family Child Care Home, Quality, Toddler Annual Potential Revenue per Child $20,000 Total Per Child Annual Expense: $18,874 Total: $17,904 Total: $16,793 CACFP, $1,111 Contract $16,793 Contract $16,793 $15,000 $10,000 Total: $10,209 Tuition $10,209 Total: $12,268 Total: $11,157 CACFP, $1,111 Voucher $11,157 Voucher $11,157 Voucher Voucher & CACFP $5,000 $0 Tuition Contract Contract & CACFP Potential Revenue Source Combinations Stacked Per Child Revenue Charts with Per Child Expense Rates Large Family Child Care Home, Quality, Preschooler Annual Potential Revenue per Child $20,000 Total Per Child Annual Expense: $18,874 $15,000 Total:$10,711 $10,000 Total: $12,070 Contract $12,070 Total: $13,181 CACFP, $1,111 Total: $11,157 Total: $12,268 CACFP, $1,111 Contract $12,070 Tuition $10,711 Voucher $11,157 Voucher $11,157 Voucher Voucher & CACFP $5,000 $0 Tuition Contract Contract & CACFP Potential Revenue Source Combinations Appendices 127 Stacked Per Child Revenue Charts with Per Child Expense Rates Large Family Child Care Home, Aspirational Quality, Infant $30,000 Total Per Child Annual Expense: $29,159 $20,000 Total: $17,904 Total: $16,793 Total: $11,316 $10,000 Tuition $11,316 CACFP, $1,111 Contract $16,793 Contract $16,793 Contract Contract & CACFP Total: $13,189 Total: $12,078 CACFP, $1,111 Voucher $12,078 Voucher $12,078 Voucher Voucher & CACFP Large FCC Aspirational Annual Potential Revenue per Child $40,000 $0 Tuition Potential Revenue Source Combinations Stacked Per Child Revenue Charts with Per Child Expense Rates Large Family Child Care Home, Aspirational Quality, Toddler Annual Potential Revenue per Child $40,000 $30,000 Total Per Child Annual Expense: $29,159 $20,000 Total: $17,904 Total: $16,793 CACFP, $1,111 Total: $12,268 $10,000 Total: $10,209 Tuition $10,209 Contract $16,793 Contract $16,793 Total: $11,157 CACFP, $1,111 Voucher $11,157 Voucher $11,157 Voucher Voucher & CACFP $0 Tuition Contract Contract & CACFP Potential Revenue Source Combinations Stacked Per Child Revenue Charts with Per Child Expense Rates Large Family Child Care Home, Aspirational Quality, Preschooler Annual Potential Revenue per Child $40,000 $30,000 Total Per Child Annual Expense: $29,159 $20,000 Total: $13,181 Total: $10,711 $10,000 Tuition $10,711 Total: $12,070 CACFP, $1,111 Contract $12,070 Contract $12,070 Contract Contract & CACFP Total: $11,157 Total: $12,268 Voucher $11,157 Voucher $11,157 Voucher Voucher & CACFP CACFP, $1,111 $0 Tuition Potential Revenue Source Combinations Appendices 128 Appendix D: Revenue and Expense Model Instructions, Center-Based and Family Child Care Introduction Revenue and expense models are tools used to understand the relationship between the expense of delivering early care and education and the available revenues. • • The Excel file Early Care and Education Center-Based Revenue and Expense Model contains the model illustrating expenses compared to revenues in center-based early care and education settings in Los Angeles County. The Excel file Early Care and Education Family Child Care Revenue and Expense Model contains the model illustrating expenses compared to revenues in family child care home early care and education settings in Los Angeles County. The output of the models includes estimates of total revenues and expenses at the provider level and at the individual child level to fully explicate variations in expenses and revenues for different ages of children. Expense data in the model is based on budget data collected from over 100 providers across Los Angeles County. Revenue data includes all the different revenue streams available to providers in the county, including private tuition. The models include three levels of quality: Baseline Quality, Quality, and Aspirational Quality. Users can are able to model programs at each of these three levels and the linked charts will update based on the model you build. Instructions for Use Throughout the models, cells that can be changed by users are shaded yellow. To model different center profiles, change the data entered in these cells. Center-Based Model Variables Select settings for the key variables on the first worksheet in the file [Scenario—Input]. Different settings can generate a very wide range of situations. Each variable is explained below. Program Type: The model allows users to run scenarios for a full-day, full-year, birth-to-five program as well as a part-day, school-year preschool program. Program Capacity: Size is represented as the number of classrooms by age range. Age ranges are set up as infants (birth to 24 months), toddlers (24 to 36 months), and preschoolers (3 to 5 years). The number of children in each classroom is determined by staff-to-child ratios and group-size data that change based on the Program Quality selected. Program Quality: Selecting Baseline Quality, Quality, or Aspirational Quality updates the model to account for the different quality scenarios that can be run in this model. Changing the quality level impacts, group size, staff-to-child ratios, and salary and benefits expenses. Appendices 129 Region: Choose whether you want to run a countywide model or a region-specific model; selecting one of the four regions impacts the salary data used in the model. Qualifications of Teaching Staff: The model allows users to modify the percentage of teaching staff with different permits, which impacts salary levels. Revenue Inputs: To accurately project revenues for your model program, enter the number of children at each age level who receive state vouchers and state contracts. State vouchers use the Regional Market Rate (RMR), while state contracts use the Standard Reimbursement Rate (SRR). Note that the table must be changed when the size of a center is changed. Center Output The [Center Output] worksheet displays the results of the model based on the choices made in the [Scenario— Input] worksheet. Child and Classroom Profile This table shows the group size, staff-to-child ratios, number of classrooms, and number of children based on the quality level and program size selected on the input page. The Annual Cost per Child data in Column G generates the per-child results of your analysis based on input choices on the first tab and the model defaults as detailed on [Center Output]. Personnel Expenses The personnel section uses a standard staffing pattern typical of most centers, with the following assumptions built in: • • • • • • • • ECE Program Director (50% time if < 50 children, then full-time) ECE Staff Supervisor (1 per 12 teaching staff) Financial Manager (25% if <30 children, 50% up to 60 children, then full-time) Administrative Assistant (50% if <60 children, then 1 per 60 children) Lead Teachers (1 per classroom) Assistant Teachers (1 per classroom) Teacher Aides (1 per infant room) Floater-Assistant Teachers (for coverage throughout the day—this is included as 1 part-time teacher plus 0.2 FTE per teaching personnel) Wages Wages for each position start with recommendations from the compensation workgroup, informed by data collection. Wages increase based on the quality level selected in the [Scenario—Input] tab. Mandatory and Discretionary Benefits All mandatory benefits are calculated on the [Center Output] worksheet. These include federal and state requirements, including state disability and family leave insurance. In addition, 12 days paid sick leave is included. Annual training/professional development is also included at 21 hours per teaching staff member at the Baseline Quality level, 42 hours at the Quality level, and 84 hours at the Aspirational Quality level. The cost of substitutes to cover leave days as well as release time for professional development is also included. Appendices 130 Other benefits such as paid health insurance, contributions to retirement accounts, life insurance, or other discretionary benefits are represented as a benefit pool of dollars per employee. At Baseline Quality, the benefit pool is $5,000 per employee per year. This increases to $7,500 at the Quality level and $10,000 at the Aspirational Quality level. Nonpersonnel Expenses Nonpersonnel costs are aggregated into four categories: Education Program for Children and Staff, which includes: • Education/Program—Child: Food/food related, classroom/child supplies, laundry, tuition assistance, parent activities, field trips, family transportation, child assessment materials, any ongoing costs of additional quality-related materials, if needed • Education/Program—Staff: Professional consultants, training/professional development/ conferences, staff travel Occupancy: Rent/lease or mortgage, real estate taxes, maintenance, janitorial, repairs, and other occupancy-related costs Program Management and Administration: Office supplies, telephone, internet, insurance, legal and professional fees, permits, fundraising, memberships, administration fees Contribution to Operating Reserve Fund: Annual contributions to an operating reserve fund—a practice that contributes to long-term financial sustainability—can be included as a percentage of total expenses. The percentage can be set on the [Center-Output] tab. Revenue Sources The model is set up to use the range of revenue sources available to a typical child care center in Los Angeles County. Full-day, full-year rates are used with the exception of the part-day preschool site contract. These revenues sources are included in the model: • The federal Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) is used for children of all ages at the current rates for free, reduced-price, and paid meals based on family income. • Private tuition is used for children of all ages with family incomes above 85% of the State Median Income (SMI), as directed by the user. Rates are based on average tuition rates from data collected in 2019 by the CFA team. • State voucher rates are used for the user-entered number of infants, toddlers, and preschoolers on the [Center Output] page, with rates based on the age of child. • State contract rates are used for the user-entered number of infants, toddlers, and preschoolers on the [Center Output] page, with rates based on age of child and quality level. • Some centers may have revenue from other sources such as grants, fundraising events, etc. This is included as a revenue line and can be entered by the user. Adjustments to Revenue Revenue data is adjusted to account for uncollected revenue (bad debt) and enrollment efficiency, which is the overall percentage of a center’s desired capacity that is filled/enrolled, averaged for the year. The default in the Appendices 131 model is 95% enrollment efficiency and 2% bad debt; these percentages can be modified on the [Center-Output] page. Stacked Finance Charts The model includes several pre-populated charts with results at different quality levels with a typical revenue mix. These charts are available in the worksheets named [Baseline], [Quality], and [Aspirational]. Each worksheet contain three charts—one each for infants, toddlers, and preschoolers. These charts include a line showing the per-child cost at the specified quality level, and the bars indicate the different mix of revenues available to cover that cost. Use these worksheets to create your own charts with a user-specified revenue mix. Family Child Care Model Variables Select settings for the key variables on the first worksheet in the file [VariablesINPUT-FCC]. Different settings can generate a wide range of situations. Each variable is explained below. Home Size: The model allows users to run scenarios for a small family home with up to 4 infants or 6 children of mixed age, as well as a large family child care home with up to 12 children total. Capacity of Home: Input the number of children in each age group served by the home. The model will show an error if your selection violates licensing rules related to the number of infants served. Income Mix of Children and Families: To accurately estimate potential revenue for both CACFP and state-subsidy eligibility, estimate the income mix of children at different levels of State Median Income (SMI). Distribution of Income-Eligible Children: To accurately project revenues for your model program, enter the number of children at each age level who receive state vouchers and state contracts. State vouchers use the Regional Market Rate (RMR), while state contracts use the Standard Reimbursement Rate (SRR). Children receiving neither state vouchers nor state contracts are automatically added to the private tuition category. Home Quality Model: Selecting Baseline Quality, Quality, or Aspirational Quality updates the model to account for the different quality scenarios that can be run in this model. Changing the quality level impacts the number of teaching staff and their salary levels as well as discretionary benefits for employees. Region: Choose whether you want to run a countywide model or a region-specific model; selecting one of the regions impacts the expense data used in the model. Qualifications of Provider and Staff: Users may modify the qualifications and permit levels of lead teacher/providers, assistants, and other staff members, which affect the salary levels used in the model. Efficiency: Users may modify the default percentages used to adjust revenue to account for enrollment efficiency (the program not being fully enrolled 100% of the time), and for uncollected tuition and/or subsidies (bad debt). Appendices 132 Quality Home Profile The [QualityHomeProfile] worksheet displays the results of the model based on the choices made in the [VariablesINPUT-FCC] worksheet. Family Child Care Home Profile: This table shows the number of children at each age level in your modeled program. The Annual Cost per Child data in column C show the results of your analysis on a per-child basis. Expenses Salaries and Wages All scenarios include at least one full-time provider/teacher. The assistant teacher and floater positions are added based on the size of the program and the quality level selected. Salaries for all positions are determined based on the quality level and region selected on the [VariablesINPUT-FCC] worksheet. Mandatory and Discretionary Benefits All mandatory benefits are calculated on the [QualityHomeProfile] worksheet for the positions listed under Salaries and Wages. These include federal and state requirements, state disability, and family leave insurance. In addition, discretionary benefits such as paid health insurance, contributions to retirement accounts, or life insurance are represented as a benefit pool of dollars per employee. At Baseline Quality, the benefit pool is $5,000 per employee per year. This increases to $7,500 at the Quality level and $10,000 at the Aspirational Quality level. Other Direct Expense: 100% Business Use Nonpersonnel costs in the family child care home model align with the expense categories that home-based providers report on their federal taxes (Internal Revenue Service Schedule C). These expenses are broken out into the following categories: Nonpersonnel Admin/Office: This category includes expenses such as advertising, insurance, legal and professional fees, office supplies, and repairs, maintenance, and cleaning of the space used for child care. Nonpersonnel Program (calculated per child): This category includes classroom supplies, medical supplies, food, and educational supplies. This amount varies based on the number of children in the program. Child Assessments and Other Materials: The model includes an expense per child for administering child assessments and/or for additional materials explicitly related to meeting higher quality standards, such as through the QRIS. This amount can be overridden or removed on this worksheet. Occupancy Shared Use of Business and Home: Home-based businesses may count a certain percentage of their occupancy costs as business expenses, including rent/lease/mortgage costs, property taxes, homeowners insurance, utilities, and household supplies. The model follows Internal Revenue Service Form 8829 to estimate a time-space percentage for how much of these expenses are applied to the expense of the business. Appendices 133 Revenue Sources The model is set up to use the range of revenue sources available to a typical family child care home in Los Angeles County using full-day, full-year rates. • The federal Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) is used for children of all ages at the current rates for free, reduced-price, and paid meals based on family income. • Private tuition is used for children of all ages with family incomes above 85% of the State Median Income (SMI), as directed by the user. Rates are based on average tuition rates from data collected in 2019 by the CFA team. • State voucher rates are used for the user-entered number of infants, toddlers, and preschoolers on the [VariablesINPUT-FCC] page, with rates based on the age of the child. • State contract rates are used for the user-entered number of infants, toddlers, and preschoolers on the [VariablesINPUT-FCC] page, with rates based on age of child and quality level. • Some programs may have revenues from other sources such as grants, fundraising events, etc. This is included as a revenue line and can be entered by the user. Adjustments to Revenue The revenue the program expects to receive is adjusted based on the bad debt and enrollment efficiency percentages chosen on the [VariablesINPUT-FCC] page. Stacked Finance Charts The model includes several pre-populated charts with results at different quality levels with a typical revenue mix, available in the worksheets named [Small Base], [Small Quality], [Small Aspire], [Large Base], [Large Quality], [Large Aspire]. They all contain three charts—one each for infants, toddlers, and preschoolers. These charts include a line showing the per-child cost at the specified quality level, and the bars indicate the different mix of revenues available to cover that cost. You can use these worksheets to create your own charts with a user-specified revenue mix. Appendices 134 Appendix E: Glossary of Terms Alternative Payment Program (APP) California Alternative Payment Program (CAPP), also called Alternative Payment (AP) or APP. A program run by a local government agency or nonprofit organization that has contracted with the California Department of Education (CDE) to provide subsidy vouchers to early care and education providers selected by subsidy-eligible families. (Education Code, Section 8208) California Child Care License A written authorization from the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) or a county to operate an early care and education center or family child care home, and to provide care and supervision. (CCR, Title 22, and Section 10152) California Department of Education (CDE) The state agency that oversees public education, including funding centerbased contracts and vouchers for early care and education subsidies. California Department of Social Services (CDSS) The state agency that oversees social welfare programs, including California Work Opportunities and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) and foster care. CDSS also oversees child care licensing for centers and family child care homes. California State Preschool Program (CSPP) This program consolidated previous funding for state preschool, prekindergarten, family literacy, and general child care center-based programs serving eligible three- and four-year-old children to create the California State Preschool Program, the largest state-funded preschool program in the nation. Both part-day and full-day services provide a core class curriculum that is developmentally, culturally, and linguistically appropriate for the children served. The program also provides meals and snacks to children, parent education, referrals to health and social services for families, and staff development opportunities to employees. The program is administered through local educational agencies, colleges, community-action agencies, and private nonprofit agencies. California Work Opportunities and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) A program that replaced California’s Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. CalWORKs, established by California statute in 1997, is California’s implementation of the federal Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) program. It provides cash assistance and work support services, including early care and education, to low-income families with children. The early care and education subsidies can be used to pay for licensed or licenseexempt care. Center-Based Early Care and Education Programs that are licensed or otherwise authorized to provide group early care and education services in a nonresidential setting Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) A federal program that provides reimbursements for nutritious meals and snacks to eligible children and adults who are enrolled for care at participating child care centers, day care homes, and adult day care centers Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) The major federal early care and education funding stream to states established by 1996 legislation. The CCDF combines funding from the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) and several other early care and education programs to assist low-income families, families receiving temporary public assistance, and families transitioning from public assistance to obtain early care and education services so they can work or attend training/education. Appendices 135 Child Care Center Any licensed early care and education facility of any capacity, other than a family child care home, in which less than 24-hour-per-day non-medical care and supervision are provided to children in a group setting. (CCR, Title 22, Section 101152) Child care centers can include private for-profit centers, nonprofit centers, public school-based centers, parent cooperatives, and employer-supported and faith-based centers. Child care subsidies Public or private financial assistance in the form of vouchers or direct contracts that subsidizes the cost of care directly to providers on behalf of low-income or other eligible families Contract A form of publicly subsidized early care and education subsidy which is direct to the child care provider; the provider has an agreement with the public funding entity to deliver early care services to a defined population of children. In California, contracts are administered by the California Department of Education, under Title 5, for children from birth to age 12 in out-ofhome. Early care and education and development programs Programs that offer a full range of services for children from infancy through age 12, for any part of a day, offered by a public or private agency, in centers and family child care homes (Education Code, Section 8208). Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) An extensive federal statute that funds primary and secondary education. As reauthorized in 2015, Every Student Succeeds Act emphasizes high standards and accountability and funds are authorized for professional development, instructional materials, resources to support educational programs, and the promotion of parental involvement. Eligible children Children who are currently eligible for state-subsidized early care and education and development services, based on income or other eligibility factors (Education Code, Section 8263) Expanded TK See Transitional Kindergarten Expanded Family A household with at least one child Family Child Care Homes Care offered in the home of the provider. A small Family Child Care Home may be licensed to care for up to 8 children, depending on their ages. A large Family Child Care Home has at least two adults and can care for up to 14 children, depending on their ages. Family Child Care Homes are licensed by the California Department of Social Services. Family, friend, and neighbor care (FFN) Early care and education provided by relatives/family, friends, and neighbors in the child’s own home or in another home, in license-exempt settings (also called “informal care” and “license-exempt care”) General Child Care and Development (CCTR) General child care and development programs are state and federally funded programs that use centers and family child care home networks operated or administered by public or private agencies and local educational agencies to provide child development services for children from birth through age 12 and older children with exceptional needs. These programs provide an educational component that is developmentally, culturally, and linguistically appropriate for the children served. The programs also provide meals and snacks to children, parent education, referrals to health and social services for families, and staff development opportunities to employees. Appendices 136 Head Start (HS)/Early Head Start (EHS) Head Start is a federally funded program for low-income families with children age 3 to 5 years. Early Head Start is for children prenatal to age 2. In addition to early care and education programs, these programs offer health supports, family and community engagement, and parent training. Infant program Program for children birth to 18 months old LCAP The Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) is a tool for local educational agencies (LEA) to set goals, plan actions, and leverage resources to improve student outcomes. LCFF The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) was enacted in 2013–2014 and replaced the previous K–12 finance system in California. The LCFF establishes base, supplemental, and concentration grants, plus separate funding streams for county offices of education (COEs) for oversight activities and instructional programs. Local education agency (LEA) Local education agency (LEA) is a commonly used term for a school district. Licensed child care Early care and education programs operated in homes or in facilities that fall within the regulatory system of a state or community and comply with those regulations. Many states have different levels of regulatory requirements and use different terms to refer to these levels (e.g. licensing, certification, registration). In California, both centers and family child care homes are licensed through the state. License-exempt care Legally operating early care and education that is exempt from the regulatory system of the state or community. Exempt home-based care (often referred to as family, friend, and neighbor, or FFN, care) can include the caregiver’s own children and the children of one other family, or can be a cooperative arrangement among several families. There can be no more than 12 children in this type of arrangement. Exempt center-based care is child care in a center setting that is exempt from licensing requirements. It can include a cooperative arrangement among a group of parents, sponsored by a school district or other agency, for under 16 hours per week for 12 weeks or less during a 12-month period. This designation also includes public recreation programs and public and private schools that operate before- and/or afterschool care for school-age children. Los Angeles County Child Care Planning Committee (CCPC) The Local Child Care Planning and Development Council (LPC), mandated by the state to complete local needs assessments, set local priorities, and make recommendations about early care and education funds Mixed delivery system ECE services delivered in various settings (school-based, child care centers, family child care homes, faith-based, etc.) to best meet the needs of families Preschool-age children Children ages 36 months to enrollment in kindergarten (Section 18290 of Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations) Provider Individual offering early care and education services child care services in early care and education centers, family child care homes, or school-age early care and education programs Appendices 137 Resource and Referral (R&R) A program run by a public or private agency to provide parents with information and assistance in locating early care and education. Services often include guidance and referrals for parents seeking early care and education; the collection of information about the local supply of early care and education; and provider training and support. Some R&R agencies also administer early care and education subsidies and provide supports to providers and child care programs. Ratios The ratio of qualified caregivers to children in an early care and education setting Regional Market Rate Rate used by CDE to set the maximum reimbursement rate for providers to receive Alternative Payment and CalWORKs funding. The rate is based on a survey of the costs of early care and education in various regions. Self-Sufficiency Standard The Self-Sufficiency Standard measures how much income is needed for a family of a certain composition living in a particular county to adequately meet its basic needs. For example, in 2014 in California, a family with two working adults, one preschooler, and one school-age child needed a total annual income of $63,979. Slot/space A place (could be part-day or full-day) for a child in an early care and education program Standard Reimbursement Rate (SRR) The per-child maximum payment rate established by the CDE for Title 5 programs. The SRR is adjusted by several factors to account for increased costs to serve infants, toddlers, and children with special needs. (Education Code, Section 8265.5) Subsidized child care Financial assistance from local, state, or federal funding available to lowincome families and other families who meet the program eligibility requirements. This funding can be utilized in licensed and license-exempt settings. Title I Federal education funding for disadvantaged children, administered locally; part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act legislation of the U.S. Department of Education. Section A of Title I describes how funds under this Act may be used to provide early education development services to lowincome children through a local education agency (LEA). These services may be coordinated/integrated with other preschool programs. Title 5 California Education Code governing most state-contracted early care and education programs Title 5: Program for children from 18 months to 36 months old Toddler program Title 22: Toddler component of an infant care center: Children in a child care center between the ages of 18 months and 30 months may be placed in the toddler program. No child shall be placed in the toddler program before the age of 18 months. (Title 22 regulations section 101471) Preschool program with toddler component: A child who is between 18 months and 36 months of age may participate in the toddler program with written permission from the child’s authorized representative. No child in the toddler program shall be placed in the preschool program before the age of 30 months without written permission from the child’s authorized representative. (Title 22 regulations section 101216.4) Appendices 138 Transitional Kindergarten (TK) Transitional Kindergarten (TK) is a free public school program for 4-year-olds who turn 5 between September 2 and December 2. All elementary and K–12 school districts must offer Transitional Kindergarten classes. Just like kindergarten, Transitional Kindergarten is voluntary. Transitional Kindergarten Expanded (TKE) Also referred to as “expanded transitional kindergarten,” “early transitional kindergarten” or ETK, this is an extension of Transitional Kindergarten for younger children who turn 5 years old after December 2 and before the end of the school year in which they enroll. School districts and charter schools may draw down state dollars (“average daily attendance” or “ADA”) as soon as a student turns 5. Districts use local general fund, federal Title I, or Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) supplement and concentration dollars (as appropriate) to pay for ETK for the part of the school year prior to the child’s turning 5. After their fifth birthday, these children generate district ADA funds from the state through the LCFF. TrustLine TrustLine is California’s criminal background-check screening program for inhome caregivers (in-home child care providers, tutors, in-home counselors, and child care staff at ancillary child care centers who have passed a background screening) with access to fingerprint records at the California Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). TrustLine is administered by the California Department of Social Services and the nonprofit California Child Care Resource and Referral Network. Voucher A voucher is a form of publicly funded early care and education subsidy which is portable. An eligible parent is able to use their voucher to pay for child care services at the provider of their choice. Appendices 139