1 Income Eligible Re-Procurement Board of Early Education and Care December 9, 2008

2 Procurement Discussion Overview of Board Discussion & Votes December Background Information & Summary of RFI Results Procurement Goals Allocation of Contract Resources Contract Eligibility Criteria Preliminary Evaluation Criteria January Final Evaluation Criteria Required Services Contract Duration & Integration with QRIS Vote on RFR

3 Components of Re-Procurement Topics for Board Discussions Minimum Contract Eligibility Criteria Allocation of Contract Resources Quality Evaluation Criteria Integration of Contracts With Other Policy Innovations Streamlining Administrative & Fiscal Policies

4 Income Eligible Contracts Background Information

5 Background Information Income Eligible Program The Income Eligible program provides financial assistance to more than 30,000 children from birth to age 13 (age 16 for children with special needs) Financial assistance provides families with access to a mixed system of providers through vouchers, grants and contracts Schools and independent family child care providers do not currently participate in the contract program Contract portion of the program covers nearly 12,000 children, approximately 40% of Income Eligible caseload Recent changes made in response to emergency budget will significantly increase slots covered under contracts

6 Background Information Income Eligible Contract Spending in Context Notes: (1) Includes vouchers for children receiving assistance through the Income Eligible, TANF and Supportive programs. (2) Includes contracts for supportive care, teen parents and homeless families. (3) Assumes $24 million in slots funded by the CPC grant program are converted into Income Eligible contracts. (4) Remaining $22 million in slots funded by the CPC grant program will be converted to vouchers or remain as grants.

7 Background Information Historical Spending on Contracts & Vouchers

8 Income Eligible Contracts Goals of Re-Procurement

9 Income Eligible Re-Procurement Goals Comply with state procurement laws Make policies and practices more equitable Ensure consistent and stable placements Support stability of the early education system Focus on the highest need areas Strengthen program quality Continue building a thriving system

10 Income Eligible Contracts Overview of Request for Information (RFI)

11 Overview of RFI Purpose of RFI Purpose of the Request for Information (RFI) was to: Collect basic program information from providers Test feasibility of using contracts in all parts of the mixed delivery system, including schools and independent family child care providers Test feasibility of fiscal and operational policy options currently under consideration The RFI was available to group and school-age child care providers, family child care providers and systems, and public schools Not intended to be a representative survey of all providers but targeted to providers likely to be interested in EEC contracts

12 Overview of RFI Summary of Providers Responding 413 center-based organizations and schools, representing 589 sites across the state 57 family child care systems, representing more than 2,600 family child care homes 68 independent family child care providers 20 Head Start agencies, representing 142 centers and family child care homes across the state 93% response rate among EEC’s existing contracted providers

13 Income Eligible Contracts Allocation of Contract Resources

14 Allocation of Contract Resources Distribution of Resources Compared to Community Need EEC has analyzed the following data for 351 communities across three age groups: Children below federal poverty level and children on the EEC’s centralized waiting list Capacity for 12,000 licensed providers and more than 450 school-based programs Early education resources provided through contracts, vouchers, CPC, Head Start and school- based preschool Accountability status of schools in each community Compared relative need in each community with existing subsidized capacity

15 Allocation of Contract Resources EEC Resources Compared to Need Across Regions EEC resources are distributed proportionately across regions Contracts are in high-need communities, with 95% of children on the waiting list and 95% of children below federal poverty living in towns with EEC contracts We know that we need to do more in all communities to serve children seeking financial assistance Recommendation Maintain existing distribution of contract resources across communities, and target any future expansion funding in communities with highest need tied to waiting list and ESE designations.

16 Allocation of Contract Resources EEC Resources Compared to Need By Age Group We know that we need to do more in all age groups to serve children seeking financial assistance Child populations change at program and community level during life of a contract Options to Consider Maintain existing distribution of contract resources for each age group, and target future expansion funding to age groups with highest need. Allow providers to have some flexibility to adapt the age groups served to respond to population changes and ensure continuity of care over time. OR Redistribute contract resources based on age groups with higher need.

17 Income Eligible Contracts Contract Eligibility Criteria

18 Contract Eligibility Criteria Existing Eligibility Criteria Income Eligible contracts were last put out to bid in 1998, with eligibility criteria requiring providers to: Operate on a full-day (10 hours per day) and full-year schedule (260 days per year) Follow state financial assistance policies Meet all child care licensing requirements Contracts were awarded to licensed center-based programs and family child care systems The 1998 contract required family child care homes to be affiliated with a family child care system in order to have access to state contract slots

19 Contract Eligibility Criteria Schools – Contract Model Tested in RFI Schools have not used EEC contracts due to full-day/full-year requirements and licensing requirements RFI explored the feasibility of a contract model that schools could use to: Expand part-day preschool programs to full-day/full-year * Create new full-day/full-year * preschool programs Create new full-year * school-age programs Under the model explored in the RFI, schools could remain license- exempt but would need to: Be accredited or in-process of accreditation (NAEYC or comparable institution) Implement the Early Childhood Program Standards (Preschool) Follow the Guidelines for Preschool Learning Experiences (Preschool) Meet ESE standards for school-age programs (school-age) RFI also collected data on accreditation, educator degree attainment, screening, assessment practices and other program information _______ * Schools could meet full-year requirement by extending days of operation or forming partnerships with licensed programs.

20 Contract Eligibility Criteria Schools – Summary of RFI Responses Of the 100 RFI submitted for schools, 94 were from school districts and six were from private schools Of the 94 public school districts responding, three are Commissioner Districts Schools were asked to estimate the number of sites and number of classrooms that would be likely to participate, if the RFR used the same contract model included in the RFI

21 Contract Eligibility Criteria Schools – RFI Feedback on Contracts The RFI asked schools to rate the difficulty of complying with specific elements of the preschool and school-age contract models in the RFI, including: Expansion of Existing Service Full-Day & Full-Year Schedule Achieving Accreditation Using EEC Financial Assistance Policies Preschool Standards & Guidelines ESE School-Age Quality Standards With the exception of adherence to the Preschool Standards & Guidelines for Learning, most schools found all of the requirements “somewhat difficult” to implement on average A limited number of schools indicated that each of contract elements would “not be difficult” to implement, including 10% of those responding to the preschool model and 20% of those responding to the school-age model A small number of schools indicated that each of the contract elements would be “too difficult” to implement, including 5% of those responding to the preschool model and 10% of those responding to the school-age model Concerns expressed in the narrative section related to compliance with state financial assistance policies, finding space for expansion, adhering to EEC’s holiday closure policies, and operating on a full-day schedule throughout the entire year

22 Contract Eligibility Criteria Schools - Considerations Within existing resources, adding new providers will require reallocation of resources among providers and from the private to the public sector Some school systems affiliated with CPC programs are familiar with EEC’s financial assistance system, but not all EEC may not have adequate staff and oversight capacity, if significant numbers of schools need training and support in EEC policies upon entering the contract system

23 Contract Eligibility Criteria Independent Family Child Care Providers EEC does not currently contract with independent family child care providers RFI explored interest of family child care providers in EEC contracts Collected data on accreditation, educator degree attainment, screening, assessment practices and other program information Also collected information on the interest that providers might have in specific services offered by family child care systems RFI feedback allows EEC to assess the fiscal and operational feasibility of developing a contract model for independent family child care

24 Contract Eligibility Criteria Independent Family Child Care Providers – RFI Results Providers most frequently cited the following as “very important” reasons for being interested in EEC contracts: Easier to serve families with financial assistance More consistent and stable cash flow Many providers also highlighted the need for higher reimbursement rates, with some under the impression that higher rates could be realized through contracts (rates would actually remain the same through contracts) Some providers were also under the impression that contracts would provide access to additional support services, such as transportation and professional development Providers also commented that contracts might improve collaboration with EEC and provide greater access to information, trainings and transportation The following family child care systems services were perceived to have the highest benefit to the providers completing the RFI: Eligibility & EnrollmentProfessional Development Substitute Child CareReferrals to Community Services

25 Contract Eligibility Criteria Independent Family Child Care Providers - Considerations ~ 8,600 licensed family child care providers in Massachusetts Expanding the number of contracts – regardless of the size of the contracts - places additional demands on EEC’s contract staff and contract monitors Nearly all of the respondents indicated no experience with EEC’s contract billing system and more than 1/3 indicated need for training in EEC software systems Many of the perceived benefits of direct contracts might also be achieved by improvements to voucher policies and strengthening of services offered by family child care systems EEC may not have adequate staff and oversight capacity, if significant numbers of family child care providers entered the contract system Future development of the Unified IT Systems could facilitate direct contracts

26 Contract Eligibility Criteria Options for Board Discussion Eligibility Category Minimum Eligibility Criteria to Discuss for 2009 RFR Option or Recommendation Licensing EEC Licensed in good standing (compliance with all fiscal and regulatory requirements) OR EEC licensed or legally license-exempt and meet additional requirements (e.g., adhere to licensing requirements, be accredited, etc.)* OPTION Schedule of Operations Provide care on a full-day (10 hours) & full-year schedule (260 days) OR Provide care or access to care on a full-day & full-year schedule OPTION State Financial Assistance Policies Must follow all EEC financial assistance policies – e.g., waiting list & sliding-fee scale RECOMMENDATION Family Child Care Homes Family child care homes must be affiliated with a family child care system to be eligible for access to contract slots RECOMMENDATION * Would only be implemented on a pilot basis, at a limited number of sites.

27 Income Eligible Contracts Quality Evaluation Framework for Reviewing Contract Bids

28 Quality Evaluation Framework Framework for Evaluating Quality of Contract Bids To assure best quality, each bidder will respond to a series of narrative and data questions covering the following areas: Program Quality – Accreditation, teacher education levels, staff turnover, screening and assessment practices, curriculum practices, and other structural measures of quality Provider Experience – Experience with EEC systems, policies and programs Collaborations & Partnerships – Current or planned collaborations/partnerships designed to improve the quality of care and access to services Age Groups Served – Planned age groups to be included in contract in comparison with community needs Evaluation teams will review each bid and award points based on the content and quality of the responses in each area, with priority points provided if certain criteria are met – e.g., accreditation Will discuss in more detail at the January Board meeting

29 Summary of RFR Framework Board will need to approve the following components of the RFR framework at the January meeting:  Goals of Procurement  Allocation of Contract Resources  Contract Eligibility Criteria  Evaluation Criteria  Required Services  Contract Duration & Integration with QRIS With Board approval in January, the RFR can be posted in late January with RFR responses due to EEC by early March

30 Procurement Timeline