Integration and Alignment Committee (IAC) Mixed Delivery System Ad - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Integration and Alignment Committee (IAC) Mixed Delivery System Ad Hoc Committee Co-Chairs: Theresa Hawley & Jamilah R. Jor’dan Staff: Iveree Brown Meeting 1: September 13, 2018 Location: Joliet Junior College

Mixed D Del elivery Sys ystem m Agenda nda • Welcome and Introductions • Co-Chairs: Theresa Hawley, Illinois Action for Children and Jamilah R. Jor’dan, Governor’s Office Early Childhood Development • Staff: Iveree Brown, Ounce of Prevention Fund • Committee Charge and Background • Background and current status • What are we solving for? • Who are we solving for? • What are the experiences in the field? • Committee Composition • Who’s missing?

Mixed D Del elivery Syste tem A Age genda (continue nued) d) • Data Discussion • What information do we have? • What information do we need? • Additional data needs • What has been done: Models • Others? • Webinars • Closing/Next Steps • Reflections • Action Items • Future meeting dates: October 11 th , November 14 th , December 11th/proposed time/location(s) • Reference Materials • Adjourn

History o y of M Mixed D Deliv iver ery i y in P PFA/PI PI • Pre-Kindergarten At-Risk Program ◦ Original state pre-k program that preceded Preschool for All ◦ School districts were only eligible applicants ◦ Some school districts did sub-grant/sub-contract program to Community-Based Organization ◦ Chicago placed nearly half of slots in CBOs • CBOs became eligible to directly apply for state Pre-K funds in 2003 • Preschool for All legislation passed in 2006 ◦ School districts and CBOs can apply directly for funding ◦ Some growth of CBO participation 2006-2011 ◦ Re-competition in 2012 in context of significant funding cuts—lots of CBOs lost grant • Prevention Initiative Center-Based Model was introduced at state level around 2007 ◦ Last year fewer than a dozen grantees used center-based model outside Chicago

Cur urrent Status us i in I Illino nois • In Chicago, roughly 1/3 of children in PFA are served in CBOs • In balance of state, few classrooms are in CBOs ◦ Hard to get this data given how data is collected by ISBE • Some CBOs participate through partnership with local district, some get grant directly • In recent re-competition, many more CBOs received funding, but still small minority of total slots ◦ More Head Start grantees applied for PFA and/or PFAE funding ◦ Head Start Program Information Report (PIR) does not show if a HS/EHS program also has PFA or PI funding

What is a s a Mixed D Del elivery S System? • The term “mixed delivery system” means: Programs, providers and settings (such as Head Start, licensed family and center-based child care programs, public schools and community-based organizations) that is supported with a combination of public funds and private funds. • In the context of state-funded preschool , it refers to the practice of providing preschool both in school-based settings and in community- based organizations.

Mixed D Deliver ery S System em PDG B G B-5 • Defined by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). System of early childhood care and education services that are delivered through a combination of programs, providers, and settings, such as Head Start, licensed family and center-based child care programs, public schools, and other community- based organizations, that is supported by a combination of public and private funds.

What is o our h hope f e for or the e ear arly ly child ldhood s system em i in Illin inois is? • Does the current distribution of PFA slots in schools vs CBOs match what we want? • If not, why not? • What principles can we use to determine what an ideal system would look like?

Mixed ed Delivery y System: H How d does es it l loo ook i k in I Illinois is? • For children? • For program administrators, teachers and other staff? • For families/parents? • For communities?

2016: Per c entage and number of 3-5 year olds in PF A and/ or CCAP (N = 127,325) PFA Only CCAP Only Bo th T o ta l (N) 2012 44.3% 44.1% 11.6% 145,227 2013 45.2% 43.6% 11.2% 143,700 2014 44.1% 44.9% 11.0% 141,226 2015 42.4% 46.4% 11.3% 140,036 2016 46.9% 43.2% 10.0% 127,325 Source: Early Childhood Matching Project, ILDS

Office Of e of H Head ead S Star art-Illino nois 2 2017 Cum umul ulative E Enr nrollment # OF CHILDREN AT ENROLLMENT CHILDREN BY AGE 3,162 Under 1 year 3,442 1 year old 5,817 2 years old 3 years old 15,671 4 years old 18,925 5 years and older 130 Source: Office of Head Start 2017 PIR

Of Office e of H Head ead S Star art-Illino nois 2 2017 Funde ded d Enr nrollment by by Program O Opt ption PROGRAM OPTION # OF CHILDREN Center-based program-5 days per week: Full-day enrollment 19,969 Of these, the number available as full-working-day enrollment 11,605 Of these, the number available for full-calendar-year 7,937 Part-day enrollment 7,042 Of these, the number in double sessions 4,505 Source: Office of Head Start 2017 PIR

Of Office o of H Head ead Star art-Ill llin inois is 2 2017 Funde unded d Enrollment by by P Program O Opt ption PROGRAM OPTION # OF CHILDREN Center-based program-4 days per week: Full-day enrollment 476 Part-day enrollment 7,787 Of these, the number in double sessions 6,066 Home-based program 4,441 Combination option program 8 Family child care program 217 Of these, number available as full-working-day enrollment 205 Of these, the number available for full-calendar-year 154 Source: Office of Head Start 2017 PIR

What informati tion do w we n need? • About current status • About other parts of the early childhood system in Illinois • About how this works in other states

What has b been done? • North Carolina • Georgia • New Jersey • Pennsylvania • Minnesota • New York

Ben enefits o of a a Mixed D Del elivery S System • Sharing of resources • Ability to scale services more quickly • Fewer transitions for children • Fiscal benefits • Improved communication among partners • Better coordinated services • Improved program quality • Coordinated professional development • Improved program accountability • Family-centered services

What contributes es t to t the s succes ess o of a Mixed Deliv iver ery y Sys ystem? m? • Committed leadership • Common vision and goals • A plan for ongoing communication • A structured planning process • A funding plan • Maintaining stability among partners • A process for exploring alignment issues related to regulations, standards and policies • Public relations and marketing

Closing/Ne Next S Steps • Reflections • Action Items • Future meeting dates: October 11 th , November 14 th , December 11 th • Proposed time/location(s) • Reference Materials

Thank you!