Income Eligible Re-Procurement
Board of Early Education and Care
January 14, 2009
1
Background Information
Income Eligible Program
2

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 related to “9c” budget cuts will shift a
significant number of CPC grant-funded slots into this
contract bid
Background Information
Income Eligible Contract Spending in Context (Fiscal Year 2009)
Access Management
$23 Million
Administration
$13.7 Million
Other Programs
$33 Million
Supportive &
Targeted Contracts
$76Million *
Financial Assistance
$483 Million
Vouchers $261 Million
Income Eligible Contracts
Current Contracts $99 Million
CPC Conversion
$24 Million
Total
$123 Million
CPC
Grants
$22 Million
*
3
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.
Income Eligible Re-Procurement Goals
4

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
Current Context for Contract Bid
Strategic Considerations & Constraints

New contract bid is critical opportunity to introduce strategic changes
to strengthen provider quality and streamline administrative policies

Current constraints place limitations on policy options:

Uncertain fiscal climate, with no new funding

Timing of future strategic policy initiatives – e.g. QRIS

Providers facing significant fiscal and operational shifts

EEC managing multiple initiatives with limited capacity
Proposed contract would incrementally implement strategic changes by
phasing them in during the life of the contract
5
Highlights of Proposed Contract

Proposed contract would have an initial term of three years, with two
options to renew during which EEC could phase in strategic policy changes
related to provider quality

Would focus on strengthening quality of contracted providers, by:



6
Selecting providers based on quality evaluation criteria
Phasing in accreditation requirement for contract providers
Aligning contract requirements with QRIS

Would continue existing eligibility criteria for contracts, but create a limited
demonstration project to test feasibility of contracting directly with schools
and family child care homes in areas with access challenges

Would streamline administrative and reporting requirements

Would ensure stability of placements for families by maintaining contract
resources in the communities where they currently exist and maintaining
the current level of contract slots by age group, while targeting future
expansion funding in communities and age groups with the highest need
Contract Duration
Facilitating Implementation of Strategic Changes
7

Contract would have an initial term of three years that could
be extended for two additional two-year terms

Contract term would facilitate implementation of strategic
changes, by allowing EEC to implement new standards and
policies during the first and second renewals

Both QRIS and revised standards for family child care
systems could be incorporated into the contract during the
contract renewal process

Allows EEC to continue collaborative development of
strategic policy innovations – e.g., QRIS - but also assures
their future integration with the contract program
Contract Eligibility Criteria
Maintaining Existing Criteria & Testing Alternatives

8
Proposed contract would maintain existing eligibility criteria,
which would require providers to:

Operate on a full-day (10 hours per day) and full-year
schedule (260 days per year)

Follow EEC’s child care financial assistance policies

Meet all EEC licensing requirements

Would also continue to require family child care homes to be
affiliated with a family child care system in order to have
access to state contract slots

Would create a limited demonstration project to test the
feasibility of contracting directly with schools and family child
care homes in communities with access challenges
Contract Eligibility Criteria
Demonstration Project – Schools & Family Child Care

Participation in demonstration project focused on high-need communities with
limited capacity

The project would have the following eligibility requirements:
Category
Licensing
Schedule of Operations
Financial Assistance Policies
Accreditation
9
Requirement
Must be licensed and in good standing or licensed-exempt
Must provide care (or access to care) on a full-day & full-year schedule
Must follow EEC financial assistance policies – e.g., waiting list & parent fees
Must be accredited by NAEYC, NAFCC or comparable accrediting body

All other program and administrative requirements would be the same

Project would be limited to five school sites and five family child care homes
Strengthening Provider Quality
Selecting Providers Using Quality Evaluation Criteria


10
To assure best quality, each bidder will respond to a series of
narrative and data questions covering the following areas:

Program Characteristics – Accreditation, staff qualifications,
screening and assessment practices, curriculum practices, and
other structural program characteristics – e.g., comprehensive
services

Provider Experience – Experience with EEC systems, provider
licensing history and fiscal compliance history

Collaborations & Partnerships – Collaborations and
partnerships designed to improve program quality, streamline
services, promote shared services or create economies of scale
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
Strengthening Provider Quality
Phasing in Accreditation Requirement
11

Would award additional evaluation points to providers who
are accredited or in-process of accreditation

Would require all center-based contracted providers to be
accredited or enrolled as a candidate for accreditation by
2012 (equivalencies for school-age and family child care)

Goal would be to have all contracted providers accredited
by the end of the contract period

Contract would provide funding or access to funding for
accreditation fee support
Strengthening Provider Quality
Aligning with Quality Rating & Improvement System
12

Contract term would facilitate the
implementation of QRIS standards among
contracted providers without delaying
procurement timeline

QRIS standards are currently being developed
through a collaborative process and will be
piloted starting in 2009-2010

Standards will not be complete in time to be
included in the initial contract in 2009

The structure of the contract term would allow
EEC to align contracts with the QRIS as it is
developed
Procurement Timeline
2008
Aug Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
2009
Jan
Feb
Marc
April
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Research &
Option
Developm ent
Board Discussions & RFR
Developm ent
RFR Posted &
Providers
Respond
Responses Analyzed &
Contracts Aw arded
Contracts Prepared & Signed
13