1. Income Eligible Re-Procurement
Board of Early Education and Care
November 18, 2008

2. Procurement Discussions Review of Board Discussion Topics
November
Allocation of Resources & Effect of CPC Changes
Overview of RFI Responses
Eligibility for Contracts within a Mixed System
Administrative & Fiscal Policy Changes
December
Evaluation Framework for Analyzing Contract Bids
Review Options for Continuity of Care
January
Review RFR Criteria
Vote on RFR

3. Components of Re-Procurement Topics for Research & Board Discussions
Integrate Contract Requirements With Other Policy Innovations
Streamline Administrative and Fiscal Policies
Set Minimum Criteria for Eligible Bidders
Minimum Eligibility Criteria
Identify minimum thresholds, beyond licensing, required of contract providers.
Also…eligibility criteria for schools
Integrate with Other Policy Innovations
Significant linkages between contracts and agency policy initiatives – e.g., regulation reform, QRIS, rate policy
Need design contracts to absorb future policy innovations
Streamline Administrative & Fiscal Policies
Develop options to improve the efficiency of contracts & reduce admin burden
Example – Make reimb. policies consistent for vouchers and contracts, also consider reimbursing providers for eligibility assessment work.
Method for Evaluating & Awarding Contracts
Develop criteria by which competing bid proposals are evaluated
Develop quality preferences for ranking and awarding bids
Allocation of Contracts Geographically
Need to decide whether or not to keep the existing allocation of resources
Subsequent slides show results of current research on resource allocation
Establish Methodology for Allocating Contracts Geographically
Establish Methodology for Evaluating Bids and Awarding Contracts

4. Income Eligible Re-Procurement Goals
Comply with state procurement laws
Make policies and practices more equitable
Ensure consistent and stable placements
Support provider stability
Focus on the highest need areas
Encourage quality programming
Continue building a thriving system

5. Income Eligible Program Background Information
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 may significantly increase slots covered under contracts
Many new faces around the table…felt important to start with background information and wade into policy issues and give overview of coming discussions
Should thank Orlando who has started attending meeting of our procurement advisory team….and also thank the entire team that’s been working on research and development of policy option for last few months

6. Income Eligible Program Annual Contract Spending in Context
Financial assistance makes up most of agency budget
Vouchers represent about 53% of all financial assistance, with rest provide through contracts (40%) and grants (10%)
Pie chart pullout illustrates the $100 million in Income Eligible contracts.
* Includes contracts for supportive care, teen parents and homeless families.
** Assumes $24 million in slots funded by the Community Partnerships for Children (CPC) grant program are converted into Income Eligible contracts.

7. History of Financial Assistance Spending Contract & Voucher Mix
Note: Shaded areas illustrate total spending if EEC converts 60% of existing CPC-funded slots into Income Eligible contracts. This change would add about $24 million in contracts in FY2010.

8. Income Eligible Financial Assistance 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
Subsidized capacity across five funding sources including 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
Accountability status….corrective action, restructuring or any schools designated for improvement in either English Language Arts or Math

9. Income Eligible Financial Assistance EEC Resources Compared to Need Across Regions
Contracts 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 are already in communities with highest need, and we know that we need to do more in those communities
Distribution is not a perfect match, but generally mirrors the distribution of children in poverty.
Also point out that all of the schools with special accountability status (corrective action or improvement) are in towns with EEC contract coverage.
Max eligibility is $35,900 (50% SMI)….FPL max is nearly half at $17,600. We use mapping and data software that draws up-to-date data on towns using FPL…but the conclusion would roughly be the same.

10. Research Update Income Eligible – Request for Information (RFI)
Purpose of RFI was to:
Collect basic program information from providers
Test feasibility of 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

11. Research Update Highlights of Issues Explored in RFI
Collected data on accreditation, educator degree attainment, screening, assessment practices and other program information
Gathered data on age groups likely to be served
Solicited feedback on various policy options that EEC staff will consider during the RFR process
Expanding Infant/Toddler Capacity Integration with Head Start
Parent Schedule Options Eligibility Reassessments
Contract Admin. Reimbursements Length of Contract
School-Age Reimbursement Rate Cooperation with ELT Schools
Also solicited feedback on options to change the reimbursement structure for family child care systems

12. Research Update Overview of RFI Responses
RFI solicited program information and feedback from all provider types throughout the state’s mixed delivery system
Received RFI responses from 413 center-based organizations and schools, representing 589 sites across the state
Received responses from 57 family child care systems, representing more than 2,600 family child care homes
Received RFI responses from 68 independent family child care providers
The response rate was 93% among EEC’s existing contracted providers

13. Contracts Within a Mixed System Eligibility Across Provider Types
EEC has statutory charge of “maximizing family choice by preserving a mixed system of high-quality public and private programs for children”
EEC uses vouchers, contracts and grants to secure access to care for income-eligible families
Income Eligible contracts were last put out to bid before the creation of EEC, leaving contracts available only to center-based programs and family child care systems
RFI results will inform discussion on the applicability of contracts within a mixed system

14. Research Update RFI for Independent Family Child Care
EEC does not 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
Using feedback to assess the fiscal and operational feasibility of developing a new contract model for family child care

15. Response to RFI for Family Child Care Interest in EEC Contracts & FCC Systems Services
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
Access to EEC supports and services – e.g., transportation funding
Providers also commented that contracts might improve collaboration with EEC and provide greater access to information, trainings and transportation
Many providers also noted the need to increase family child care rates
The following family child care systems services were perceived to have the highest benefit to the providers completing the RFI:
Eligibility & Enrollment Professional Development
Substitute Child Care Referrals to Community Services

16. Response to RFI for Family Child Care Implications of RFI Findings
There are currently 8,600 family child care providers
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
EEC may not have adequate staff and oversight capacity, if significant numbers of family child care providers entered the contract system
Likely Options to Consider
Contract with limited number of family child care providers who meet certain programmatic, educational and technological requirements.
AND/OR
Address providers needs through improvements to the existing voucher system and family child care systems services.

17. Research Update RFI for Schools
Schools have not used EEC contracts due to full-day/full-year requirements and licensing requirements
RFI explores alternate contract model 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
Eligible schools could continue to be exempt from licensing requirements but could have to :
Implement the Early Childhood Program Standards (Preschool)
Follow the Guidelines for Preschool Learning Experiences (Preschool)
Meet ESE standards for school-age programs (school-age)
Will also collect 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.

18. RFI for Schools Summary of All 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 in 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

19. RFI for Schools Feedback on Preschool Model in RFI
The RFI asked schools to rate the difficulty of complying with specific elements of the preschool contract model included in the RFI:
Expansion of Existing Service Full-Day & Full-Year
Preschool Standards & Guidelines Financial Assistance
With the exception of adherence to the Preschool Standards & Guidelines for Learning, on average, schools found each of the requirements “somewhat difficult” to implement
Approximately 10% of schools found all aspects of the contract model “not difficult” to implement
Approximately 5% of schools found all aspects of the contract model “too difficult” to implement
Concerns expressed in the narrative section related to compliance with EEC’s sliding fee scale, finding space for expansion and operating year-round programs

20. RFI for Schools Feedback on School-Age Contract Model in RFI
The RFI asked schools to rate the difficulty of complying with specific elements of the school-age contract model included in the RFI:
Expansion of Existing Service Full-Year
ESE Quality Standards Financial Assistance
On average, schools found each of the components above “somewhat difficult” to implement
Approximately 20% of schools found all aspects of the contract model “not difficult” to implement
Approximately 10% of schools found all aspects of the contract model “too difficult” to implement
Concerns expressed in the narrative section related to compliance with the EEC’s financial assistance policies, finding space for expansion and making care available during the summer

21. RFI for Schools Implications of RFI Findings
Within existing resources, adding additional providers will require reallocation of existing 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
Likely Options to Consider
Implement pilot program to test preschool and school-age contract models.
AND/OR
Focus contract resources on Commissioner Districts that have low levels of existing EEC resources in the surrounding community.

22. Procurement Timeline