California Early Learning Quality Improvement System (CAEL QIS) Advisory Committee
Finance and Incentives, Including Funding Model Subcommittee
Cliff Marcussen , Chair
Jeannie Oropeza, Vice-Chair
Subcommittee Meeting Highlights
The CAEL QIS Finance and Incentives Subcommittee met at the California Department of Education in Sacramento, California, on Thursday, September 9, 2010 from 10:00 a.m. to noon. Additional information such as the meeting agenda, power points and hand-outs are available on the CAEL QIS Advisory Committee Web page.
Introductions
Welcome and introductions were provided by Cliff Marcussen, Subcommittee Chair. Committee member Dennis Vicars was in attendance. Jeannie Oropeza, Vice-Chair, and Venus Garth, Committee member, were not present. Subcommittee meeting participants introduced themselves.
Overview
Mr. Marcussen provided a brief summary of the CAEL QIS Finance and Incentives Subcommittee’s charge and Work Plan in the CAEL QIS process, and stated that this was the last Finance and Incentives Subcommittee meeting. Mr. Marcussen informed attendees that due to the length of the August 26, 2010 CAEL QIS Committee meeting, he was not able to present a status report and recommendations from the Finance Subcommittee to the Committee as a whole. He will present the Finance Subcommittee status report and recommendations to the Committee on September 30, 2010 for their input and feedback. He envisions the Committee will take action on the Finance Subcommittee recommendations at their November meeting. Mr. Marcussen stated that much of the Finance Subcommittee’s work is dependent on the recommendations from the Workforce and Design subcommittees. Since the recommendations of those subcommittees were only recently finalized, the recommendations of the Finance Subcommittee are process oriented, as opposed to recommendations on funding levels. The Finance Subcommittee has developed a conceptual funding model, and the new Early Learning Advisory Council will do the majority of the cost analysis.
Presentation from the Child Care Resource and Referral (R&R) Network
Donita Stromgren, Policy Director for the Child Care R&R Network, presented information on the history of the R&R Network, and how the R&R Network can use its resources for QIS implementation, including a public awareness campaign for parents and providers. The R&R Network has a 34 year history of connecting with parents on how to determine quality programs and the factors to consider when choosing quality care, and with providers on how to enhance their services to families. The R&R Network could disseminate information to parents regarding the new QIS rating system through their referral process, newsletters, and websites, and can note provider ratings and what it means to parents. The R&R Network can integrate QIS goals into trainings for providers. The R&R Network is often the “touch point” between parents and providers and can serve as the conduit of information between parents and providers on quality child care and development practices. The R&R Network can build county support for a QIS infrastructure to meet both expanding parent requests for QIS information and for provider participation in the QIS rating process.
Mr. Marcussen responded to a concern that R&R contractors cannot recommend providers to parents. R&R contractors should at least be able to share detailed information regarding the rating levels of individual providers and what the rating levels mean. Mr.Marcussen stated that the Education Code and Title 5 regulations need to be reviewed to determine if R&Rs are legally prohibited from making provider recommendations, or whether the current practice of not making recommendations is the result of concerns over liability.
In response to a question regarding increased costs, Ms. Stromgren stated that R&R contractors may experience increased costs if they were to expand their data base and provide formal training to parents and providers regarding the QIS. Mr. Marcussen noted that license-exempt providers is a group for which R&R contractors currently provide training. Although not a part of the QIS rating system, license-exempt providers need to be included in the QIS technical assistance. This was a recommendation that has been accepted by the Committee. Since a primary mission of R&R contractors is to provide child development information and training for parents, and licensed and license-exempt providers, they are a group that could provide QIS informational and training services. A question was asked regarding other options for delivering information and training to the community, and Mr. Marcussen responded that County First 5 Commissions, Local Planning Councils, and local child care coordinators could also provide such services, but that R&R contractors have the largest base of community contacts.
Review of Revised Draft Report of the Finance Subcommittee
Mr. Marcussen reported that the initial draft report of the Finance Subcommittee was partially revised as a result of participant input from the August Finance Subcommittee meeting. He wanted to use the current meeting for additional participant suggestions and comments.
Section I. Cost Analysis
The draft report has been revised to recognize that the NCCIC Cost Calculator will not be the only tool used to estimate costs for California’s QIS. Other computerized tools may be identified to assist in cost estimation.
In response to a participant’s question regarding costs associated with a QIS data system, Mr. Marcussen stated that cost analysis has associated costs, but the costs are not all State costs. Cost determination will be refined through the pilot project. Assessing local administrative costs and its impact on available funding for rating and ongoing implementation are important factors in implementation costs.
Section II. Incentives
Mr. Marcussen stated that the first level of incentives will simply cover administrative costs. A combination of incentives or approaches could be tested in the pilot project. Minor revisions to the list of financial incentives were made, and a “hybrid” incentive system comprised of a combination of periodic incentive payments to the provider/owner, plus periodic direct payments to the lead teacher for additional education was included. The “hybrid” model could lead to higher levels of participation along with higher tier ratings. Once consumers are knowledgeable of the rating system, market pressure will increase for providers to obtain higher tiers, and the impact of fiscal incentives may decline over time. In response to a comment that the above statement regarding market pressure should be included in the draft report, Mr. Marcussen agreed to include it.
Section III. Government Funding Models And Existing Possible Funding Sources
This section has been reorganized so that typical methods of government funding, possible sources of funding, existing funding streams, and appropriate matches to probable QIS cost centers are major components. One participant opposed the recommendation to have the QIS website post provider ratings. He believed that site operators will not have updated information on ratings. Mr. Marcussen stated that he probably will not remove the statement, but instead will rewrite the paragraph to discuss multiple points of access for information and links to updated information.
In response to a question regarding the possible repurposing of existing funds, the Finance Subcommittee did not look into this. The subcommittee did look at existing funding streams that could be utilized for QIS activities, but only if the funding stream currently could be used for such purposes. Mr. Marcussen will add a comment that repurposing of existing funds should be considered by the Early Learning Advisory Council.
Section IV. New Funding Sources
This section focused primarily on existing funding streams since the Finance Subcommittee believed that discussing existing streams was more realistic then discussing possible federal and state resources given the decline in tax revenues. The subcommittee did discuss the federal Early Learning Challenge Grants, and targeted federal education and Health and Human Services funds. A recommendation was made to broaden the recommendations to include local funding streams, and Mr. Marcussen agreed to do so.
Section V. Partnering - A Promising Implementation Strategy That Can Utilize Existing Resources
This section was pulled out of New Funding Sources and made a separate concept. County First 5 Commissions control the largest funding source available to “build-out” a QIS, including expanding the scope and resources of the pilot project. County First 5s are local independent entities, with local decision-making authority and local priorities. Some County First 5s have already devoted substantial resources to promote quality improvements and alignment with the QIS. For other First 5s, partnership building is essential to promote local QIS implementation. Mr. Vicars recommended that the role of private businesses and organizations be included as resources for QIS implementation. Ms. Stromgren stated that R&Rs can’t bring funds, but can bring resources for the QIS. The discussion continued with how business and organizational partnerships could conceivably triple or quadruple the funds available for the QIS, and result in true partnerships at the local level as opposed to the current vendor model. Mr. Marcussen stated that he will rewrite this section to emphasize a variety of partnerships and the potential impact on the QIS.
Section VI. Developing a Funding Model
The Finance Subcommittee originally wanted to specify dollar amounts for the QIS, but lacked time, staff resources, and definitive elements to cost out implementation. The funding model emphasized cost centers and potential existing funding sources and funding streams. Mr. Marcussen anticipates that the results from the pilot projects will assist the ELAC in developing cost ranges. No recommended revisions were proposed by subcommittee participants.
Section VII. Progressive Build-Out
Given limited funds, a progressive build-out of the QIS may be the only practical means to implement the system over the next few years. Local and state funding availability, and the “political will” to implement the system, may determine how quickly the system can build-out. Some local entities may test the system on their own, outside of the formal pilot project process. No recommended revisions were proposed by subcommittee participants.
Section VIII. Trade Offs
The Finance Subcommittee recognized that limited funding would result in priorities being developed to determine what aspects of the QIS will be funded first. The subcommittee is not making any funding priority recommendations at this time, but may need to if directed by the QIS Advisory Committee. No recommended revisions were proposed by subcommittee participants.
Next Steps for the Finance Subcommittee
Mr. Marcussen anticipates that the Report of the Finance Subcommittee will be posted with input from today’s meeting. Public input during the QIS public hearings in San Mateo and Los Angeles may also result in revisions to the report. Mr. Marcussen provided his email address, CMarcussen@optionscc.org, for subcommittee participants to provide additional comments on the Finance Subcommittee report.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at noon.
