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 11th, November 14th, 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

• ur h

hope f e for

• r 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

• ok 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

• f 3-5 year
• lds in PF

A and/ or CCAP (N = 127,325)

PFA Only CCAP Only Bo th T

• 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

Of Office e of H Head ead S Star art-Illino nois 2 2017 Cum umul ulative E Enr nrollment

CHILDREN BY AGE Under 1 year 1 year old 2 years old 3 years old 4 years old 5 years and older Source: Office of Head Start 2017 PIR # OF CHILDREN AT ENROLLMENT 3,162 3,442 5,817 15,671 18,925 130

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

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 CHILDREN

Of Office o

• f H

Head ead Star art-Ill llin inois is 2 2017 Funde unded d Enrollment by by P Program O Opt ption

PROGRAM OPTION

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

# OF CHILDREN

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

• f 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

• f 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 11th, November 14th, December 11th
• Proposed time/location(s)
• Reference Materials

Thank you!