Docstoc

UCLA Center for Healthier Children_ Families and Communities

Document Sample
UCLA Center for Healthier Children_ Families and Communities Powered By Docstoc
					UCLA Center for Healthier
 Children, Families and
     Communities                  Partnering Schools, Communities and
                                             Proposition 10:

                             Financing Considerations for Early Childhood
                                             Initiatives




       Funded by                                         By
  The Stuart Foundation                           Margaret Flynn
                                                  Cheryl D. Hayes
                                                The Finance Project
                                                        ___

                                           Kimberly Uyeda, M.D., M.P.H.
                                             Neal Halfon M.D., M.P.H.
                            UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities
      January 2002
Financing Considerations for Early Childhood Initiatives

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Throughout the country, a growing number of schools are linking with early education programs and
other service providers to promote school readiness. Leaders of these initiatives are working to
create a more integrated and coordinated early learning system, with more continuity between this
system and K-12 education. Several converging trends are spurring and shaping these efforts:

•   Research over the last decade highlights the importance of early brain development. We have a
    better understanding of the roles and relationships that affect the development of the very young,
    and the critical role that early experiences play in subsequent learning and development;

•   Welfare reform has highlighted the need for quality full-day, full-year early care and education
    programs and led to new collaborations between Head Start, child care, preschool, and other
    community-based programs; and

•   Funders, policymakers, and community leaders are focusing on community-based, collaborative
    efforts. There are an increasing number of service integration initiatives (within large
    government departments, as well as between these agencies and other community organizations)
    that are creating more comprehensive and seamless systems of care.

These trends are leading to new investments in early care and education at the federal, state, and
local level and in California, are most clearly manifested by the enactment of Proposition 10. Prop
10 is focused on locally driven initiatives to improve the lives of children from before birth to age
five. The collaborative structure and flexible funding created by Prop 10 poses new opportunities for
linkages among all those with a stake in quality early care and education – including schools,
counties, early care and education providers, and other community agencies. These opportunities
are tempered by the substantial financing and sustainability challenges inherent in developing more
comprehensive and integrated programs and services. This reports explores issues related to
financing school-linked early learning initiatives*. It is meant to help stakeholders such as school
officials, county officials, Prop 10 Commissioners, non-profit agency and community leaders to
effectively finance and sustain these important initiatives.

Financing Challenges. The challenges faced by program developers and community leaders often
include concerns about funding. First, there is not enough funding to meet the incredible demand for
early childhood services. This leads to shortcomings in quantity (i.e. not enough child care or
preschool slots for eligible children), as well as quality (i.e. centers and care arrangements without
the resources to improve quality of care). Second, the categorical nature of most funding streams is
too restrictive and makes it difficult to address the specific needs of a community. Funds that are
handed down in categorical streams lead to gaps and duplications in service and contribute to the
overall inefficiency of the financing system.


* Throughout this report the term school-linked early learning initiative is used to describe initiatives that may
include a variety of supports and services in addition to early childhood education, such as health services, social
services, parent education and others.
UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities                                              -1-
Financing Considerations for Early Childhood Initiatives

Sources of Funding. Understanding the current landscape of funding sources supporting early care
and education is an important foundation for optimizing resources and identifying and filling funding
gaps. The federal government expends large amounts of money on early childhood services through
federal programs such as Head Start, Early Head Start, and the Child Care and Development Fund.
Some streams of federal funding flow through the states, where they may be combined with state-
level funding into programs such as subsidized child care or adult education funds. State
governments also fund programs directly through state appropriations (e.g. the Healthy Start Program
and State Preschool in California). Finally, there are local funding sources, such as county and city
governments and school districts. The amount of funding from these sources is variable, but may be
more responsive to specific community needs.

Strategic Approaches. The four basic financing strategies discussed in this report are briefly
explained below. The full report provides examples and considerations for how these strategies can
be used to support school-linked early learning initiatives. None of the suggested strategies is
intended to represent a solution to all funding challenges; rather they offer methods that can be
selected and tailored depending on local resources, needs and priorities.

1. Optimize the efficiency of existing resources. Approaches in this category include
   redeployment, which involves shifting funding from higher-cost, remedial programs to lower-
   cost, preventive investments. Another option is for collaborating agencies to streamline
   administrative and management processes, for example, by creating a single application or point
   of entry for multiple programs accessed by clients. Co-locating different services and providers
   in one setting, such as a school is another strategy that can lead to economies of scale and more
   efficient us of resources by different agencies as well as greater convenience for clients.

2. Maximize public revenue. It is critical for programs to leverage or draw down funds from
   available sources. Administrative claiming is a strategy for leveraging federal matching funds
   for administrative activities, such as outreach and enrollment, under certain federal programs
   (e.g. Medicaid and Foster Care). Service agencies and schools are frequently engaged in eligible
   activities and may be able to access reimbursement through collaboration with relevant state and
   county agencies. Capitalizing on available subsidies and reimbursements is another important
   financing strategy for school-linked early learning initiatives. This strategy requires an
   understanding of what programs provide subsidies or reimbursements (e.g. nutrition programs,
   child care subsidies, Medicaid, and state child health programs) and who is eligible to receive
   them. Finally, capturing funds through effective grant writing can provide helpful program start-
   up, and short-term operating support for those with the resources and staff to pursue such
   endeavors.

3. Increase flexibility in categorical funding. As mentioned above, one of the major obstacles to
   integrated services and fashioning comprehensive programs are the restrictions and inflexibility
   of traditional funding streams. Coordination is a program-level strategy that involves combining
   funding from different sources to support more comprehensive services, while maintaining
   accountability to the various funding sources through careful cost-allocation. A state or county-
   level strategy that minimizes the burden of categorical funding is to pool funds across agency
UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities                             -2-
Financing Considerations for Early Childhood Initiatives

    lines and distribute the more flexible funding to local programs and municipalities. An even
    more ambitious step is to decategorize funding by removing restrictive regulations that separate
    the different funding streams. This creates the greatest funding flexibility, and is also the most
    difficult to implement, typically requiring state legislative approval.

4. Build public-private partnerships. Strong partnerships are essential to the development of
   school-linked early learning initiatives. Partnerships between the public and private sectors can
   help leverage funds, as well as non-monetary resources (e.g. technical assistance) and foster
   strong leadership for early childhood issues.

Prop 10 creates an excellent opportunity to improve the health, well-being and academic success of
children through new connections between California schools and those providing supports and
services for very young children and their families. In order to take advantage of this opportunity,
Prop 10 Commissioners, county officials, school officials, and other community stakeholders must
come together and develop a shared vision of school-linked services, as well as the financing
strategies    which     will    enable      them     to    make      that    vision     a   reality.




UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities                              -3-
Financing Considerations for Early Childhood Initiatives

I.      INTRODUCTION

Public schools face significant obstacles in their mission to educate today’s children and youth.
Challenged by social problems that spill into the schoolyard, and insecure and insufficient funding,
schools struggle to make a difference in the lives of the children they serve. With increasing
pressure to meet academic achievement standards as measured by testing, educators are searching for
new ways to address barriers to learning and promote academic success. Most long-standing
educational reform efforts have focused on remedial education for children with multiple learning
barriers. In light of recent research on the importance of early brain development, policy makers,
administrators, teachers, and parents increasingly recognize that these interventions are often too
little, too late. A new vision of education reform is emerging that includes early learning and other
supports and services for young children as critical building blocks to lifelong learning and success.
Across the country, there are a growing number of exciting examples of schools linking with early
care and education and other service providers to promote school readiness and continuity between
early learning and K-12 education. These collaborative initiatives take a variety of forms depending
on community needs and resources– ranging from comprehensive on-site service centers to schools
with a network of partnered community-based providers. They are succeeding in not only creating
new connections between schools and community-based providers, but also providing a hub around
which early learning and other supports and services can be integrated and coordinated. Many of
these initiatives provide evidence of improved outcomes for children in the areas of readiness and
primary school performance.1 Their experience runs counter to the common argument that schools
will only overburden already tight resources by expanding their role in early learning and other
health and social supports. Rather, through partnerships, schools can access the resources and
experience to address early learning and care issues that affect academic success, but fall beyond the
purview of traditional K-12 education

In California, Prop 10 makes this a prime time for schools and communities to move forward in
creating school-linked early learning initiatives. Proposition 10, a ballot initiative passed in 1998,
created an excise tax on tobacco products that is dedicated to locally driven early childhood
development initiatives. The majority of Prop 10 funds are allocated to county-level commissions
that are responsible for bringing together the many early childhood stakeholders in a community to
create a more integrated and effective system of early childhood supports and services. These
commissions provide a vehicle through which schools can partner with a range of public service
agencies and community-based providers. They also have the flexible resources to support planning
and coordination necessary to develop new, more integrated models of early learning.

If these partnerships are to flourish, school officials, Prop 10 Commissioners, counties, community
organizations, and providers must create a shared vision of what is possible, and build upon the
promising models that already exist throughout California and the nation. A companion document
on “best practices” in creating school-linked early learning initiatives highlights examples of schools
creating or working with existing early childhood programs to provide parenting, child development,
health and family services.2 What each of these initiatives has in common is strong leadership,
strong collaboration, development of a shared vision, and a commitment to breaking traditional
boundaries between early learning and K-12 education.
UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities                               -4-
Financing Considerations for Early Childhood Initiatives


In addition to the will, the vision, and the blueprints for new programs for younger children, success
also depends on the ability to effectively finance and sustain promising initiatives. Financing goes
hand in hand with design and structure and must be considered simultaneously. It is not possible to
create new programs without addressing where the necessary funding will come from. Nor is it
possible to integrate discrete services without considering how to make fragmented funding streams
work together. Prop 10 funds provide one possible source of support for integration efforts, but it is
only one of many potential funding sources and will likely decrease as tobacco consumption declines
due to increasing prices and more intensive prevention efforts.3 If schools and communities are to
succeed in expanding and improving existing early care and education resources, they will need to
consider creative ways to optimize a range of existing funding streams and develop new sources of
support.

This report explores strategies for financing school-linked early learning initiatives*. It is meant to
help county agencies, school systems, and community organizations coordinate and expand their
respective resources. The overall approach that we present relies on partnerships and collaborations
to meet the financing challenges faced by individual agencies and organizations working toward
common goals. The report is organized in the following sections:

    •    The Early Learning Policy Context. New awareness of the importance of early learning to
         education reform is one of a number of converging trends that are pushing communities to
         create more integrated early learning systems. This section explores these trends and their
         implications for the development of school-linked early learning initiatives.

    •    Financing Challenges. This section reviews basic challenges that policy makers,
         community leaders, and program developers struggle with as they finance school-linked early
         learning initiatives.

    •    Current Funding Sources. This section highlights the funding sources most commonly
         tapped for school-linked early learning initiatives. Funds flow from federal, state, and local
         sources to support a number of separate programs that often have gaps and duplications.
         Given the billions of dollars that are currently spent on children before they enter school,
         development of appropriate strategies requires a basic understanding of existing streams and
         how they can be optimized.

    •    Strategic Approaches to Financing School-Linked Early Learning Initiatives. The final
         section of this document looks at financing strategies that can be employed to maximize the
         efficiency of existing resources and leverage new funding to support school-linked early
         learning and other supports and services for young children and their families. The strategies
         explored in this section are defined with examples in Appendix A.


* Throughout this report the term school-linked early learning initiative is used to describe a variety of services and
supports that are not limited to early childhood education and care, but include health, social services, income
support, parent education and others.
UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities                                              -5-
Financing Considerations for Early Childhood Initiatives


    The current pressure on counties and commissions to engage in strategic short and long-term
    financial planing has lead to a number of reports focused on sustainable funding for Prop 10
    programs and commission initiatives.4 This document provides a common framework to address
    the fiscal issues facing Prop 10, school districts, and early childhood programs, and offers a
    variety of options for financing new and innovative school-linked early learning initiatives for
    children and their families. It is hoped that a better understanding of financing challenges,
    opportunities, and strategies will help policy makers, community leaders, and providers to
    develop more effective and integrated early education services that prepare children for success
    in school.




UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities                            -6-
Financing Considerations for Early Childhood Initiatives

II.     THE EARLY LEARNING POLICY CONTEXT

Recent findings on brain development emphasize the importance of quality early childhood
experiences to school success. Research suggests that critical neuron growth and formations occur at
an unprecedented rate in the preschool years (0 to 5 years old). Although the brain continues to form
significant synaptic connections into young adulthood, development slows thereafter. Research also
indicates the double jeopardy that many low-income children face – not only are they less apt to
receive positive learning experiences in the home, but they also have less access to quality early
learning programs, which are expensive and frequently not available in low-income areas. Many
studies show that low-income children are at particular risk to enter school without basic school
readiness skills and subsequently fail due in part to the reduced capacity of their parents,
communities, and local institutions to provide adequate early childhood experiences.5

Several efforts to address these problems clearly indicate that quality early learning environments can
foster healthy development and the skills needed to enter school. Longitudinal studies on
comprehensive community-based prevention and intervention programs for children and families,
such as the Chicago’s Child-Parent Center, demonstrate both modest and significant effects in areas
such as academic achievement, school retention, and juvenile delinquency prevention measures.6
Other federally sponsored programs, such as Early Head Start have preliminary evaluation findings
that indicate intensive childhood development programs directed at low-income children and
families result in positive parenting behavior and better cognitive, language, and socio-emotional
development.7 Studies concerned with specific components of care, such as the Cost, Quality, and
Child Outcomes study demonstrated that high quality childcare environments can affect both
academic and behavioral outcomes for high-risk children.8 In addition, programs such as Perry
High/Scope Preschool, Carolina Abecedarian Project, and Elmira/ New York’s Early Intervention
Program have all yielded important positive results.9 High quality, comprehensive, early learning
programs can make a difference in academic and social outcomes.

To meet the national and local goal of school readiness for all children, communities must develop
an array of early learning opportunities and other supports and services responsive to the diverse
needs of families and children. Depending on community needs, these might range from
comprehensive, intensive programs for high-risk families to basic early learning opportunities for
others. Policymakers, community leaders, and providers have established some components of such
a system over a number of years. The federal Head Start program, which has operated for over thirty
years, is one comprehensive model that includes early learning as well as other social and health
services targeted to high-risk families. Federal and state governments have also made significant
new investments in child care programs in recent years. These funds have expanded slots and also
supported quality improvements that are moving the focus of child care from custodial care to an
early learning and development emphasis.

In addition, federal, state, and local governments are making new investments in early learning and
other supports and services connected to schools. In 1999, thirty-two states reported investing an
estimated $1.7 billion of their own funds (beyond that required for state match purposes) to support
early childhood education programs.10 These pre-kindergarten initiatives are typically less intensive
UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities                               -7-
Financing Considerations for Early Childhood Initiatives

models of early learning that offer part-time opportunities to a three and four year olds from lower-
income families. In California, a Department of Education taskforce has recommended universal
preschool for all age-eligible children by the year 2008.11 A more comprehensive model of early
learning and other supports and services connected to schools are family resource centers. Federal,
state and local governments are investing in these one-stop service centers, which bring together
educational, social, and health services for families.12

While these programs represent a promising beginning, they currently do not have the capacity to
serve even those families and children most in need. In addition, they are often categorical programs
that narrowly define eligibility and services, and operate separately from each other. Rather than
representing a system of early learning and essential related supports and services for young children,
they are a patchwork of disjointed and duplicative programs. For example, a single child may be
eligible to attend Head Start, a state sponsored preschool program, and receive a child care subsidy.
While each of these programs may have something distinct and beneficial to offer the child, if they
are not coordinated, parents must make choices based on urgency and convenience. In the face of
welfare reform, too often this means placing children in substandard care that is affordable and
available during the hours that parents work, but does not provide needed educational or social
service benefits. The more needs that families have for supports and services, such as adult
education or mental health interventions, the more difficult it is to navigate the many separate
programs and services in a community.

A number of trends, however, are pushing states and communities to bring together traditionally
separate systems using a common focus on early learning and school readiness. The first trend is the
greater involvement of schools and districts in early learning. Some states, such as Georgia, New
York, and California, allow schools, child care providers, or Head Start programs to receive
preschool funding, and require connections between preschool programs and K-12 education. The
result is new collaborations between schools and the surrounding community-based providers. At
the same time, welfare reform and the growing number of working mothers has highlighted the need
for quality, full-day, full-year early childhood programs. In an effort to offer full-time care to
children in Head Start (which has traditionally been part-day, part-year), states and communities are
fostering new partnerships between childcare providers and Head Start programs. Finally, federal,
state and local governments, as well as private funders are making substantial investments in
comprehensive, community-based initiatives that bring together categorical programs to serve
families in a more holistic manner. These efforts provide models and structures for inter-agency
collaboration and public-private partnership, as well as a foundation for integrating separate systems.


These trends are pushing policy makers, community leaders, and providers to tackle the significant
challenges inherent in bringing together separate systems governed by different agencies with
differing priorities and regulations. The passage of Prop 10 provides California communities with a
decisive advantage in addressing challenges and moving from the current categorical and
disconnected services to a coherent set of policies and programs to meet the needs of young children
and their families. Prop 10 not only provides new resources to support integrated early learning and
other supports and services, but also establishes the collaborative mechanism that is critical to
UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities                               -8-
Financing Considerations for Early Childhood Initiatives

bringing together separate systems. Tax revenues from tobacco products are expected to generate
approximately $700 million annually, most of which is allocated to county commissions in a highly
flexible manner that allows for a variety of innovative uses driven by local need.13 These funds can
support the collaborative and administrative capacities that are critically important, but typically
difficult to find funding for. The revenue from Prop 10 should not be viewed simply as an infusion
of new categorical money to add to program operating budgets, but more strategically as a chance to
instigate significant and lasting change in the structure, organization, and quality of early childhood
programs.14

The California Children and Families Commission (CCFC), in conjunction with the Governor’s
Office of the Secretary for Education, have developed a School Readiness Initiative for California
communities. This Initiative presents an opportunity for County Commissions to utilize $200
million in matching funds over four years (beginning in 2001) to establish local School Readiness
Centers/Programs. These programs will be targeted to meet the needs of communities with low-
performing schools as measured by student’s standardized test scores. In addition to the matching
funds, the CCFC will offer implementation assistance funding and rollout the program in phases,
depending on the capacity and development of existing sites. As with other programs initiated
through the Commission, the monetary resources are limited both in scope and time. This has
immediate implications for counties and sites to develop sustainability plans, which will ensure that
gains made through the School Readiness Initiative development and implementation process are not
abandoned at the end of the funding cycles.

Schools will be mandatory collaborators in any of the locally established CCFC-sponsored School
Readiness Centers. Schools can potentially act as a viable hub for integrating early learning and
other supports and services for young children and their families. The nature of public schools
makes them accessible and easily identifiable structures in virtually every California community.
This is not always the case for early childhood programs, whether they are early childhood
educational, health, or traditional childcare programs. In addition, schools have a clear interest in
school readiness. Children who enter their first classroom ill prepared to learn are more likely to
experience school failure in subsequent school years.15 Schools, counties, community organizations,
and providers can all benefit by joining together to seize the opportunity presented by Prop 10.
Creating school-linked early learning initiatives can further the schools’ mission of effectively
educating children, lead to a more integrated and expansive early learning system, and ultimately,
lead to better academic and social outcomes for children.
    Current Funding Sources for Early Childhood Services. This section highlights the funding
        sources most commonly tapped for school-linked early childhood services. Funds flow from
        federal, state, local and private sources to support a number of separate programs that often




UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities                               -9-
Financing Considerations for Early Childhood Initiatives

III.       FINANCING CHALLENGES

In order to successfully design, implement and sustain school-linked early learning initiatives,
policymakers, community leaders, and program developers need to successfully address two major
challenges. The first is that there is simply not enough funding to offer quality early learning
opportunities to the many families that need them. Both the public and private sectors have invested
significantly in child care and early education in recent years, however the demand for services
continues to outweigh the supply. In California, for example, estimates indicate that child care
programs serve fewer than 30% of income-eligible families and the waiting list for subsidized care
currently numbers over 200,000 families.16 Although the state preschool programs provided services
for 145,000 children in 1999, this does not nearly meet the needs of all of the income-eligible 3 and 4
year olds in the state.17

Furthermore, the K-12 education system, though continually a high priority among voters and policy
makers, is frequently strapped for resources. Although the California public education system is
financed primarily through state and local taxes, districts are affected by local capacity (e.g.
foundations, fund raising and general community resources). This leads to clear variation in local
ability to raise and invest sufficient funds to provide quality educational opportunities. Many school
districts struggle with funding the basics such as adequate and well-maintained facilities, materials,
or sufficient numbers of teachers. Consequently, there is a clear need for collaboration in order to
optimize scarce resources.

Inadequate funding often forces policymakers and program developers to make difficult trade-offs
between scope of services, target population, and quality. These trade-offs, and the differing
priorities driving them, lead to the second challenge in creating an integrated system of early
learning– the categorical nature of funding streams. Separate funding streams created in response to
different priorities are governed by a number of federal and state agencies. As a result, there are
parallel funding streams that fund early care programs with different:

       •   Types of services;
       •   Breadth of eligibility;
       •   Staff training and qualifications; and
       •   Regulations and requirements.


At the community level the result is a plethora of program and services that are fragmented and make
it difficult to tailor early learning programs and other supports and services to respond to families
needs. It makes it particularly difficult to fund comprehensive and intensive programs for those most
in need. Categorical funding can also make accessing early learning and other supports and services
cumbersome and confusing for families. Families in one program may need something that the
single funding source does not cover, forcing them to do without or go to yet another provider and
another program to access the service. On the other hand, if they are forced to take only what a
single funding source offers, money is wasted on supports a family might not necessarily need.

UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities                             - 10 -
Financing Considerations for Early Childhood Initiatives

While these challenges are daunting, communities that come together and strategically address them
can succeed in financing and sustaining school-linked early learning initiatives. The following
strategies are critical to success:

    1) Using scarce resources most effectively. This may require the difficult and politically
       sensitive job of redirecting spending from less effective to more effective programs and
       services, from higher-cost to lower-cost approaches. It also may involve efforts to co-locate
       separate services and increase the efficiency of administrative and management processes;

    2) Maximizing public funding for early learning. This can be accomplished by maximizing
       existing sources of funds, as well as by generating new revenue for early learning and other
       supports and services. Prop 10 is an excellent first step in this direction, and if managed
       well, can be used to leverage additional public and private-sector resources;

    3) Increasing flexibility in categorical funding by either aligning and coordinating separate
       streams or removing restrictive requirements. The need for better coordination of the many
       separate early childhood funding streams is striking, and Prop 10 funding is a resource that
       can support this process; and

    4) Developing strong partnerships among the many people and organizations in a community
       who have a stake in early learning-- state and local government agencies, providers, business
       and foundation partners, schools, community leaders, early childhood advocates, and parents.
        Strong partnerships are the foundation for getting beyond the turf issues associated with
       inadequate resources and tackling the administrative obstacles to bringing together separate
       funding streams. They also help communities to leverage both cash and other important
       resources, such as leadership and technical expertise.

Section V explores these strategies in more detail and provides examples of communities where they
have been successfully implemented.




UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities                           - 11 -
Financing Considerations for Early Childhood Initiatives

IV.       THE CURRENT FUNDING LANDSCAPE

Precise estimates of current spending on early learning and other supports and services for young
children and families are nearly impossible to formulate. This stems in part from the variable
contribution of parents, government, public and private organizations. Estimates indicate that parents
and the government (federal, state, and local) pay for the bulk of early learning (60% and 39%,
respectively) with businesses and foundations contributing only 1%.19 Even federal government
investments in early learning and other supports and services for young children are difficult to track
because funds originate from a number of different federal agencies and may flow directly to
families, through state social service or education agencies, to communities, or directly to local
programs. Dollars that flow to states are often commingled with state revenues, and therefore, are
hard to disentangle. In addition, while some programs are specifically targeted for young children
(i.e. Head Start and State preschool), others are broader in scope but also benefit young children and
families (i.e. Medicaid and TANF). Lastly, there are also revenue sources, such as the state and
federal tax credit programs, which are difficult to figure into the equation.

At a minimum, it is clear that the federal government invests billions of dollars annually into
multiple programs to cover the needs of the youngest members of our population.20 What follows is
a review of the federal, state, and local sources most commonly used to support school-linked early
learning initiatives.

Federal financing. There are a large number of federal programs that can be tapped to support
school-linked early learning and care initiatives. A few of the largest programs are reviewed here for
illustrative purposes only.

      •   Head Start, the federal government’s largest and most comprehensive early childhood
          education program, receives over $4 billion in appropriations that are distributed directly to
          local grantees through regional offices.21

      •   Early Head Start, created in 1994 and funded at $421 million in FY 2000, extends the early
          childhood education and parent support services included in Head Start to families with
          children under age three.

      •   The Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) is a block grant program administered to
          states and used to fund child care subsidies for children under age 13, as well as for quality
          enhancement, system building, and resource and referral activities. Although CCDF is the
          mainstay for most government sponsored child care programs, the states must maintain a
          certain level of program spending and use some specific type of funds in a prescribed
          timeframe. This means that some states might be underutilizing the available federal funds.
          For example, although California spent almost $600 million in CCDF funds in 1999 (three
          times the 1997 spending), it was still only 73% of the total funds available to the state.22
          Furthermore, in the wake of welfare reform, federal and state governments have encouraged
          collaboration between Head Start and child care programs (which have traditionally operated
          separately) in an attempt to ensure that parents have access to full-day, full year programs.
UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities                               - 12 -
Financing Considerations for Early Childhood Initiatives



    •   Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), the block grant that replaced the
        entitlement Aid to Families with Dependent Children, is also used by states to support child
        care and early education initiatives. States can use TANF directly on child care or they can
        transfer a portion of TANF (up to 30%) into CCDF. California has elected to transfer $257
        million in federally allocated TANF funds to the Child Care and Development Fund in an
        effort to meet rising child care demands.24 Although this is viewed as a step in the right
        direction, the transfer represents only 7% of the state’s TANF grant, whereas another $800
        million of transferable funds are allowed under federal law. Furthermore, the GAO reports
        that California had a $1.6 billion balance of unspent TANF block grant funding at the end of
        fiscal year 1999.25


There are also educational funding streams that communities can tap to support school-linked early
childhood programs:

    •   Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act supports programs and services for
        economically disadvantaged children, with early education being one of many allowable
        activities schools can choose to support. Nationally, funding for early childhood education is
        estimated to have been about 12% ($936 million) of the total $7.8 billion in Title I
        expenditures for fiscal year 1999.26 Only a limited number of California school districts have
        utilized Title I for school-linked early learning initiatives. This funding stream could serve as
        a strategic opportunity for schools to invest in early childhood programs as they work toward
        decreasing the academic disparities caused by growing up in poverty.

    •   The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), another education program,
        includes Grants for Infants and Families with Disabilities program, and the Preschool Grants
        program. Grants for Infants and Families with Disabilities provides states with funding to
        create a system of early intervention services for children with disabilities, while the
        Preschool Grants program provide funding for special education and related services for
        preschool-aged children.

    •   Even Start, funded at $135 million in 2000, is an education program that supports adult
        literacy, parenting education, and early care and education for children through age eight.

    •   The Workforce Investment Act of 1998 restructured adult education funds and includes
        funding for family literacy programs.


Through these types of programs, the federal government invests substantial funds in early learning
and other supports and services for young children and families; however, there is still a great degree
of unmet need. For example, even the well-supported and successful Head Start program only serves
an estimated 40% of eligible children.27

UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities                               - 13 -
Financing Considerations for Early Childhood Initiatives


State financing. Many of the federal funding sources mentioned above flow through state agencies
before reaching county agencies and local providers. The amount of additional investments made by
states in early learning and supports varies considerably depending on local needs and priorities.
California allocates funds directly to state preschool and state funded child care. California’s state
preschool program had a $127 million budget in 1999, and served over 145,000 young children.28
Significantly more dollars need to be invested if universal preschool is to be offered to the over one
million 3 to 4 year olds in the state. The State also increased funding for child care assistance to $820
million in 2000 (including $257 million in transferred TANF funds). Yet, it is estimated that state
childcare programs are serving less than 30% of eligible families and the wait lists continue to be
hopelessly long for subsidized care.29

California also supports initiatives that are not specifically targeted to early care and education but
can indirectly support related services. The California Healthy Start Support Services for Children
Act (1991) established planning and operational grants to be distributed on a competitive basis to
local education agencies. These grants help to establish a local collaborative body to assess needs
and implement school-linked integrated health, mental health, social, educational, and other extra-
academic services directed at supporting the K-12 student population. However, recognizing their
important influence on student health and academic outcomes, communities have chosen to offer
support to the families of students, as well. Parent education and child care (i.e. for siblings) are two
of many family-related activities that may be coordinated under the Healthy Start initiative. Another
Department of Education sponsored program is the California School Age Families Education
(CalSAFE) Program. It is designed to increase the availability of support services for pregnant and
parenting students, including parenting education and skills building, job training, health and
nutrition education, case management, and childcare and development services. In 2001, the
Governor’s Budget allocated $83 million in local assistance funds for the CalSAFE programs.30

Local Financing. County and city governments, school districts and schools, and local agencies
also provide important support for school-linked early learning initiatives. Much of the funding
allocated by county or city governments is actually federal and state dollars that flow through them.
Some counties and cities elect to invest general funds in early learning initiatives. Another important
source of support at the local level is the school districts. Most commonly, school districts and
schools provide in-kind support to school-linked early learning initiatives. Facilities, transportation,
and administrative support are critical resource needs that schools often contribute. Though less
common, some school districts also allocate direct cash support to school-linked early learning and
care initiatives.




UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities                               - 14 -
Financing Considerations for Early Childhood Initiatives

V.      STRATEGIC APPROACHES TO FINANCING EARLY LEARNING AND OTHER
        SUPPORTS AND SERVICES IN SCHOOLS

Following is a discussion of strategies that can be used to finance school-linked early learning
initiatives. These strategies are aimed at helping California schools, counties, and Prop 10
Commissions develop a broad and stable funding base in collaboration with community partners. It
should be stressed that successful employment of different strategies depend on the type of agency,
nature and scope activities, and the economic and political environment of the community. The
strategies and terms used in this section are based on the work of The Finance Project and definitions
are presented with examples in Appendix A.

Strategy 1: Optimize the efficiency of existing resources

As previously stated, significant amounts of money are already being spent on California’s young
children and their families. As Prop 10 Commissioners, school leaders, county officials and others
come together to develop school-linked early learning initiatives, an important initial step is to make
sure current funding is being used to the best advantage. The foundation for this process is a clear
understanding of what resources are currently invested in early childhood programs, and what
particular supports and services they are funding. School districts, Prop 10 Commissions, and
counties can jointly develop early childhood budgets that map current funding to program capacity.
With a clear understanding of current expenditures, it is then possible to make them go further.
Efforts to make better use of existing resources frequently focus on shifting funds from remedial to
preventive services, coordinating disconnected services, and streamlining administrative and
management processes.

Redeployment. Redeployment is a strategy for shifting funding from higher-cost, more remedial
services to lower-cost, more preventive programs and services. It favors and reinforces
comprehensive, community-oriented approaches. Traditionally, school reform efforts have focused
on remedial education, with interventions put in place after children have fallen behind in learning
and development. Investments in quality early childhood education can potentially help school
districts to decrease the amount they spend on expensive special education services. Some schools
have redeployed portions of more flexible funding streams, such as Title I, to support early learning
initiatives. It is always politically sensitive to shift investments from one set of services to another,
but it is a viable strategy if the many stakeholders in the school system– teachers, administrators, and
parents – understand the connections between early learning and later school success.

Example: The Caldwell Early Childhood Center is a comprehensive early childhood program
located in an inner city public housing community in Nashville, Tennessee. It was established in
what used to be a middle school facility. In the early 80’s, a group of teachers in the community got
together and lobbied for a quality early childhood program that would engage parents as well as
children. They were concerned by a general lack of school readiness among children, and a lack of
involvement by parents in their children’s education. They succeeded in convincing the Board of
Education of the importance of early childhood education to later academic success. The Board
decided to move the middle school and use its facility to house a comprehensive early childhood
UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities                               - 15 -
Financing Considerations for Early Childhood Initiatives

center, funded in part by a Tennessee Department of Education grant. The strong teacher and Board
of Education support made it politically feasible to access Title I funds to support the center. The
Center serves 235 children in full-day pre-K and kindergarten, offers therapeutic classes, as well as
job training and support services for adults.31

Co-location. Co-location involves the coordination of multiple services and providers in one setting
in order to increase convenience for users and overall efficiency. Co-location may be achieved by
multiple agencies actually setting up offices under one roof or by agencies out posting key personnel
and services in areas of need in the community. Examples of co-located services have become
increasingly evident with the growing popularity of Family Resource Centers (FRC’s), and similar
comprehensive programs. FRC’s vary from simple referral centers to fully integrated and
comprehensive “one-stop” direct service providers.32 As a community hub, the school represents an
ideal accessible site in which to house multiple education, health, and social services.

Co-location offers benefits for both consumers and providers of services. For clients, co-located
services means avoiding burdens such as traveling to separate agencies, undergoing multiple
enrollment and eligibility processes, and being subject to conflicting mandates. Agencies benefit by
avoiding duplication of services and increasing efficiency. Co-location enables small, separate
agencies to achieve economies of scale. Purchases of equipment, supplies, and insurance can be
negotiated on a larger scale for cost savings. Co-locating also enables programs to develop common
systems of training and recruitment of staff, enrollment of families, and marketing/development of
products or services.33

Example: Santa Barbara Early Childhood Healthy Start Project builds upon an established
elementary school-based Healthy Start service network. The multi-partner network, with Santa
Barbara School District as lead agency, began Healthy Start operations in 1994 after a two-year
planning period. Recently (2000) the network has expanded, with new partners and funding support
through the County’s Prop 10 Commission. Currently there are eight school-based Family Resource
Centers, three specifically focused on families with young children. These FRCs offer a variety of
school-based services, including case management, referrals, parenting classes, counseling,
translation, outreach and recruitment, health screenings, as well as linkages to other medical, mental
health, and social service providers. The FRC staff are out posted from the Family Service Agency of
Santa Barbara under contract with the School District. The co-location of service providers at the
FRCs, in addition to the creative blending of funds to support additional staff, helps bring accessible
and convenient early childhood support services, learning resources, and expanded parent education
to an estimated 800 children and their families.34

Streamline administrative and management processes. Another means of optimizing the efficiency
of current resources is to streamline administrative and management processes. Co-location often
facilitates this process because it brings the administrative and service functions of agencies closer
together and forces consideration of how they coordinate. Administrative and management
processes can also be streamlined in the absence of co-location, however. One important step that
local agencies can take is to create a common intake form and establish a single point of entry into
multiple services. Another step is to align data collecting and management information systems so
UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities                             - 16 -
Financing Considerations for Early Childhood Initiatives

that information can more easily be shared among agencies and progress toward results tracked
across a community. Finally, state agencies can streamline and coordinate their regulations and
reporting requirements so they are less burdensome on community-level service providers. For
example, state education and social service agencies might consider whether their preschool and
child care regulations are aligned so that these funding streams can be coordinated at the local level.
Like co-location, the benefit of streamlining administrative processes is two-fold – programs reduce
the resources they need to spend on administrative functions, and children and families benefit from
a more accessible, user-friendly system.

Example: The Children’s Mental Health Service Act (1992) established funding for improved
coordination of care to children with serious emotional problems under the System of Care (SOC)
program. These children typically receive care and have cases open with multiple public agencies.
To decrease the duplication of effort and streamline administrative functions, the Los Angeles
County SOC created an Inter-agency Screening Committee that bridged the services of four distinct
agencies: Department of Children and Family Services, Probation, Mental Health, and local school
districts. This Screening Committee has created a single point of entry system that involves one
screening process, one intake form, one service plan for the individual child, and one interfacing
information system. Through this collaboration, duplication of effort is minimized and children and
families receive services in the most coordinated manner possible.36


Strategy 2: Maximize public revenue

Strategies aimed at maximizing public revenue require leaders to identify relevant funding sources
and draw down the maximum amount of funds that can be obtained from each source. These efforts
can substantially expand the funding base for programs, provide stable revenues, and free up local
funds for other purposes. There are three general types of federal funding streams that can
potentially support school-linked early learning initiatives. Understanding how these funding streams
flow to states and communities is a first step in maximizing them.

    •   Entitlement programs are usually uncapped and guarantee that all people who meet eligibility
        criteria are served. The dollars under entitlement programs generally flow from the federal
        government to states as a match for expenditures that states or localities have made to
        support services for eligible families. Entitlement programs are attractive sources to tap
        because they provide stable funding and because you do not have to compete with others for
        dollars. (Examples include Medicaid, Foster Care, and the federal food programs);

    •   Block grants (or capped entitlements) are fixed or formula–derived grants that are
        administered to states to use for a generally described purpose. Many block grants allow
        states significant discretion to determine how funds will be used. In addition, many block
        grants require some minimum expenditure or maintenance of effort by state governments in
        order to draw the federal funds down. (Examples include TANF, CCDF, Title I, and
        Workforce Investment Act funds); and

UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities                             - 17 -
Financing Considerations for Early Childhood Initiatives

    •   Discretionary or grant-in-aid appropriations are usually awarded by demonstrated need
        through competitive application process. These funds may flow from the federal government
        directly to non-profits, state or local governments, school districts, tribes or other entities,
        depending on the requirements of the individual program. (Examples include the 21st Century
        Community Learning Center Program and Even Start).

Following are four strategies for maximizing public revenue-- some approaches are more applicable
for program leaders; other strategies are best accomplished by school district, county or state level
leaders. It should be noted that these strategies are not exclusively employed to support early
childhood supports and services, and some are currently used primarily to support services for
school-age children; however, they are approaches that schools and communities can potentially use
to support school-linked early learning initiatives. A template of possible funding sources to support
comprehensive early childhood programs is presented in Appendix B along with an example of
funding from a California school. Early childhood advocates are encouraged to explore the various
funding opportunities presented by these programs, as only a few are mentioned specifically in this
text.

Leveraging. Leveraging is a strategy for maximizing revenue from federal and state programs that
provide funding contingent on state, local, or private spending. In order to leverage funds, it is
usually necessary to demonstrate state or local spending (i.e. a “match”) on allowable activities as
defined in federal statutes. This may entail designating current state or local spending as eligible in
order to draw down new federal matching funds or it may involve new expenditures of state or local
funds on allowable activities.

Generally, leveraging is a strategy appropriate to entitlement and block grant funds. The two most
common entitlement programs used to leverage funds are Title IV (Foster Care) and Title XIX
(Medicaid). Both require a match based on the Federal Financial Participation rate, which is
approximately 50% in California. Local funds can be used to leverage block grant monies when the
state does not meet matching or maintenance of effort requirements to secure the full amount
permitted in the allocation formula. Many states fail to spend sufficient state or local dollars to
obtain their maximum federal disbursements under certain block grants (e.g. Title IV-B, Child
Welfare Services and The State Children’s Health Insurance Program). In 1999, California expended
a mere 8% of the federal allotment under SCHIP, leaving $783 million in potential federal matching
funds unexpended.37 California could cover more children’s medical costs by increasing family
income eligibility limits or strategically investing in programs that would allow for greater draw
down of these federal SCHIP funds.

Example: The Local Education Agency (LEA) Billing Option represents a method of refinancing
school health programs using leveraged Medicaid funds. The state of California recognizes that
Medi-Cal services are provided in many different forms to students in schools. Therefore, in 1993
the Department of Health Services allowed Local Education Agencies (i.e. school districts or offices
of education) to bill for health services provided to Medi-Cal enrolled students (and in some cases



UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities                              - 18 -
Financing Considerations for Early Childhood Initiatives

their families) by qualified Medi-Cal providers.* Commonly claimed services include assessments
performed on healthy children and rehabilitative and ongoing nursing services to children with
chronic illnesses and an Individual Education Plan.38 At start-up, LEAs may claim retroactive billing
for services up to a year prior to enrollment. This billing option is a leveraging tool that drew down
$45 million (FY 1999-2000) in federal funds for 414 school districts and education offices
throughout the state.39 These funds can be used to supplement (not supplant) spending on existing
services for all students and their families through programs such as Healthy Start and school-based
health clinics. The LEA Medi-Cal Billing Option is a potentially important leveraging strategy for
the California Healthy Start Programs, although it has not proven effective enough to solely support
and sustain sites beyond grant funding.

Administrative Claiming. Certain entitlement programs (i.e. Medicaid, Foster Care) reimburse for
administrative activities such as case management, outreach and eligibility determination, referrals,
transportation, and interagency planning and coordination.20 Schools and other community agencies
often provide these services to children at risk for foster care or those that are Medi-Cal eligible.
These local non-federally funded activities can be used as a match in administrative claiming,
allowing for reimbursement from federal agencies. The matching rates for some of the activities can
be as high as 75% (federal contribution), making this a very attractive option.

There are some challenges that must be addressed by programs electing to undertake administrative
claiming. One of the major obstacles is the general complexity of California’s Medi-Cal
Administrative claiming program. Reimbursement requires participation as a “claiming unit” in a
contract between a Local Education Consortium and the Department of Health Services. This
contract must include a comprehensive claiming plan for each claiming unit, accurate documentation
of activities rendered, and appropriate discounting based on eligible populations.40 The method of
documenting administrative activities is through a one-month time survey study, which many Local
Education Agencies find too burdensome to implement for the amount of dollars eventually claimed.
Another challenge is reinvesting funds since reimbursement flows through the state and there is no
federal requirement that they be reinvested in specific supports and services for families. Therefore,
when developing an administrative claiming strategy it is critical to agree on exactly how funds will
be channeled from the state back to communities and local programs.

Example: In California, the Medi-Cal Administrative Activities program (MAA) reimburses school
districts and government agencies for costs incurred through the administration of programs for
Medi-Cal eligible populations. Approved activities include marketing (outreach, information and
referral); assisting with access (enrollment, translation, transportation); and health program
planning.41 The State Department of Health maintained 25 contracts for MAA claims in FY 1999-
2000, totaling $23 million.42 With perhaps the largest absolute number of Medi-Cal eligible families
in the state, Los Angeles Unified School District is embarking upon MAA and expects to claim
approximately $4 million in reimbursements in FY 2000-2001.43 This revenue will be reinvested
into various programs through the District’s General Fund.

* As of July 2001, the Federal Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services will not reimburse for Individual Health
and Support Plan (IHSP) linked services, but has added a number of credentialed service providers eligible for
claiming.
UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities                                        - 19 -
Financing Considerations for Early Childhood Initiatives


Utilize subsidies and reimbursements. Subsidies and reimbursements from block grants,
entitlements and other federal and state funds provide important sources of support for individual
families as well as for service providers. Some subsidies are administered directly to families while
others are administered to programs to pay for services provided to families. If eligible children
and families do not apply for subsidies, they may miss out on needed assistance and/or services, and
programs that serve them may miss out on important financial support. The most obvious, example
of a missed opportunity to take advantage of potential reimbursements is the large number of
children who are not enrolled in Medi-Cal and Healthy Families. In California, an estimated 1.85
million children lacked health insurance in 2000. Almost 70% of these uninsured children were
eligible but not enrolled in public insurance programs.44 The state, counties, schools and other
community programs are investing substantial resources into outreach and enrollment efforts to
ensure these children receive services under the programs for which they are entitled. Continuing
and perhaps expanding these efforts may be an important strategy for leaders hoping to implement
school-linked early learning initiatives, particularly if they want to provide health services to young
children and their families.

Accessing subsidies and reimbursements requires a thorough knowledge of what programs provide
subsidies and who is eligible. Eligibility for many programs is dependent on family income level or
other family characteristics. Once program leaders understand subsidy programs, they can provide
outreach to families they are serving and be alert to instances where eligibility for one program
makes a child automatically eligible for other programs. For example, children whose families
receive Food Stamps or TANF are automatically eligible for free meals under the Child and Adult
Care Food Program. Subsidies and reimbursements that are commonly used to support school-linked
early learning programs include child care subsidies, reimbursements for snacks and meals under the
federal food programs, and reimbursements for health services under Medicaid and the State
Children’s Health Insurance Program.

Example: There are many states that allow for income information from the National School Lunch
Program application to be utilized in the eligibility determination for other means tested programs,
such as public health insurance. This concept of “express lane eligibility” would help maximize
enrollment of eligible children into programs such as Medi-Cal and Healthy Families. California has
recently adopted legislation (AB 59) that would allow for the direct use of School Lunch Program
application information for Medi-Cal enrollment purposes. Until the full implementation of the
express lane eligibility policy, school districts have utilized a Request for Information (RFI) form
attached to the application for purposes of additional information gathering. West Contra Costa
Unified School District has had encouraging success in enrolling children utilizing the RFI form.
Using grant funds secured from the County Department of Health Services and a cadre of trained
parents and volunteers, the school district has succeeded in enrolling over 700 families in health
insurance programs.45 There are a growing number of school districts throughout the state that have
recognized that increased enrollment rates translate into better health services for children and
potential reimbursement mechanisms for health providers.

Grant writing to access public funds. Discretionary grants are available to support a wide array of
UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities                             - 20 -
Financing Considerations for Early Childhood Initiatives

supports and services. The federal Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, Justice,
and Housing and Urban Development all administer grant programs that can potentially support
school-linked early learning initiatives and other supports and services for young children and
families. Although most community agencies, and some schools, are well versed in the art of grant
writing, as a general source it is usually time- and fund-limited. Therefore, program developers
should carefully consider whether potential grants offer a level of funding, degree of flexibility, and
timeframe that make them worthwhile. With these tenets in mind, grant writing can be a useful
strategy to access short-term funding for individual programs and services. Program developers
should also remember that each grant proposal should be tailored to the individual grant, including
the statement of need regarding why the project funding is necessary and the project description that
details how the funded project will be implemented.

Many grants require allocation to particular types of grantees. Some go to Local Education
Agencies, others to state or local government agencies, and others to non-profits. Many also require
evidence of collaboration and coordination of services at the community level. In these instances,
partnerships between schools, counties, community-based organizations and Prop 10 Commissions
will facilitate maximization and effective coordination of grant funds.

Example: The First Step Family Resource Center in the small town of Port Angeles, Washington has
used a creative mix of funding sources, including grants, to thrive as a small, independent non-profit
organization. The manner in which the Director put together funding for a parenting class illustrates
the importance of creativity and partnership to accessing grants. The Washington Department of
Social and Health Services (DSHS) asked the center to organize a parenting class for families in the
child welfare system. The center proposed a 33-session curriculum but found that DSHS did not
have enough clients, making the per-client cost too high. The director realized that other parents
could benefit from the high-quality curriculum and sought other parents and funding. She contacted
the local community college and asked to make this class part of the family life curriculum; the
college agreed and provided an instructor. This gave participating parents the added benefit of a
college credit for the class, but with a small catch; a mandatory $8 tuition charge. The director
arranged to pay some of the tuition through a federal grant to the community college to support
single parents. A local foundation contributed funds for an evening snack for parents and their
children (the class included child care). Finally, once the Director realized the class had grown too
large for the center’s meeting space, a local church donated the classroom space.46


Strategy 3: Increase flexibility in categorical funding

Section IV illustrates that there are a number of funding streams that might be tapped to support
school-linked early learning initiatives, but most of these streams are categorical. They support
programs and services with narrowly defined purposes that provide specific types of assistance to
special categories of children and families deemed eligible under the law. Thus, even if relevant
stakeholders can move beyond political and turf issues and agree to bring their resources together to
support integrated early learning opportunities, they will undoubtedly struggle with managing
varying eligibility, service, and reporting requirements. These challenges are evident when
UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities                             - 21 -
Financing Considerations for Early Childhood Initiatives

initiatives bring together programs specifically targeted to early care and education, such as child
care, Head Start and preschool funding, and are amplified as coordinators attempt to wrap more
comprehensive social supports and services around these early learning programs.

Comparing the services and eligibility regulations of a few of the major programs funding early
learning and other supports and services illustrates the challenges related to categorical funding
streams. Table 1 includes basic eligibility information for five programs that could likely be used to
fund school-linked early learning and care services for young children and families in California.
(Appendix C includes an expanded version of this table that contains additional information about
program regulations and administration for these, as well as other programs). The programs include
the federal CCDF, Head Start, Early Head Start and Preschool Grants Program, as well as the State
Preschool program. It is clear from the table that each of these programs is targeted to specific
populations, for specific purposes and that there are few areas in which the regulations completely
align. For example:

    •   California Preschool, Head Start, and the Preschool Grants Program are targeted to children
        aged 3 to 5, Early Head Start focuses on younger children (0 to 2), while CCDF serves a
        broader age range.

    •   CCDF serves families earning less than 75% of the state median income, Early Head Start
        and Head Start generally serve children below the federal poverty level, and the Preschool
        Grants Program has no income requirement (eligibility is based on the presence of a
        disability).

    •   CCDF provides services to families on a sliding scale, while State Preschool, Early Head
        Start, Head Start, and the Preschool Grants programs are free.

    •   The Preschool Grants Program is only available to children with disabilities, while the other
        programs provide some priority for children with special needs (e.g. 10% of children served
        by Head Start and Early Head Start must have special needs).




UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities                            - 22 -
Financing Considerations for Early Childhood Initiatives

     Table 1: Comparing Eligibility and Fees for Early Care and Education Programs

    Program                  Age                 Income              Special Needs                     Fee

CCDF                 13 and under           Less than 75% state     Priority given first to   Sliding Scale
                                            median income           children receiving
                                            (approximately          protective services,
                                            $39,000 for a family    and second to
                                            of three).              families with the
                                                                    lowest per capita
                                                                    income. Within this
                                                                    group, priority given
                                                                    to children with
                                                                    special needs.

State Preschool      3 - 5 year olds        Families that have      Suggested (but not        Free
                                            “the lowest adjusted    required) that
                                            monthly income” are     children with
                                            given first priority.   “exceptional” needs
                                            The income ceiling      be given priority.
                                            varies with family
                                            size (e.g. $34,600
                                            for a family of
                                            three).
Head Start           3 - 5 year olds        90 % of children        10% of enrollment         Free
                                            must be from            opportunities must
                                            families with income    be for children with
                                            below the federal       disabilities
                                            poverty level (e.g.
                                            $14,630 for a family
                                            of three)
Early Head Start Pregnant women,            90 % of children        10% of enrollment         Free
                     infants and toddlers   must be from            opportunities must
                     (birth to age 3)       families with income    be for children with
                                            below the federal       disabilities
                                            poverty level (e.g.
                                            $14,630 for a family
                                            of three)
Preschool      3 - 5 year olds (and 2       None                    Funding to be used        Free
Grants Program year old who turn 3                                  to provide
                     during the school                              programming to
                     year)                                          children with
                                                                    disabilities




UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities                                         - 23 -
Financing Considerations for Early Childhood Initiatives

Clearly, using these funding streams to provide integrated early learning and care services would
pose significant challenges. Depending on the age of children and family income, some children
would be eligible for services under multiple programs, while others would only be eligible for one.
In the case of a comprehensive program, the result would be that different children might not be able
to receive comparable services (or program administrators would have to find alternative sources of
funding to fill in gaps). Program administrators would have to carefully track eligibility data and tie
services provided back to appropriate funding sources. They would also have to contend with
multiple reporting requirements, often asking for slight variations of similar information or the same
information in different formats and at different times. Some program developers would manage to
overcome these challenges while others would not. In either case, the process would require the use
of scarce staff time and resources.

Addressing these challenges and integrating funding sources and services will require individuals at
the program, county, and state level to take a hard look at these and other funding streams and begin
devising strategies to increase their flexibility. It will also require public and private funders
developing new funding streams to consider how to maximize flexibility and encourage cohesion
with existing sources. This section explores three flexibility strategies– the first is focused on
coordinating funds at the program and community level while the second two actually involve
changing the structure and regulations of funding streams at the state or county level. Prop 10
Commissioners working in partnership with counties, schools, and community agencies can promote
the effective use of these strategies in the unique funding context of California’s counties and
communities. At the program and community level, they can help program developers to understand
the regulations and requirements of various funding streams and implement efficient cost-allocation
procedures. They can also help county and state agencies to understand which regulations pose the
greatest challenges to the integration of services and make recommendations for reform.

A final consideration that is critical to increasing the flexibility of categorical funding streams is
accountability. Restrictive regulations are established to ensure that services reach specified
populations and are implemented in accordance with stated program purposes. Examples of
successful efforts to increase funding flexibility often involve a new commitment to achieving
broader community outcomes. In effect, a focus on process (i.e. who is served with what particular
services?), is replaced with a focus on outcomes (i.e. what are we as a community trying to achieve
for young children and their families?) Within this framework, the use of funding streams can be
organized around what supports and services will most effectively achieve desired results. Forging
clear and agreed upon desired outcomes for young children among the many early care and education
stakeholders in a community can lay the groundwork for increasing funding flexibility.

Coordination. Coordination is a community- and program-level strategy for aligning categorical
funding from a number of agencies to support integrated and coordinated service delivery.
Categorical funding streams can be tapped and used in combination to support individual
components of comprehensive service initiatives. Coordination has also been termed “back office
brokering”47 because it requires a high degree of behind the scenes organization and record keeping.
Critical to the success of this approach is a good plan, a good management information system, and a
good cost accounting system for tracking expenditures by funding source in order to properly
UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities                             - 24 -
Financing Considerations for Early Childhood Initiatives

allocate and report them. This strategy is already successfully employed by skilled and dedicated
program directors in many community agencies offering comprehensive services. In most cases,
effectively coordination requires some additional non-categorical funding, such as Prop 10 funds, to
provide the “glue money” for collaboration and administrative functions and fill the gaps in
categorical streams. Prop 10 Commissions can also facilitate the process by supporting technical
assistance to help community programs understand the regulations and reporting requirements
attached to relevant programs and develop efficient cost-allocation procedures.

Example: Elizabeth Learning Center (ELC) in the Los Angeles Unified School District houses a pre-
K - 12 grade school with multiple health and human services on-site for over 3000 students, their
families and the community of Cudahy, California. Over the years ELC has partnered with multiple
agencies and received several grants to support their array of services which include: student and
family health services, mental health services, family literacy, adult education, parenting classes,
pregnancy prevention programs, crisis intervention services, and early care and education programs.
Administrators now coordinate close to 20 funding streams, including, LAUSD funds, LA County
Office of Education, California State University (Dominguez Hills and Los Angeles), Head Start,
State Pre-school, Medi-Cal, CHDP, Healthy Start, City of Cudahy, as well as cash and in-kind
support from individuals, community organizations, and businesses. Coordination fosters a model of
seamless services that have resulted in increased school attendance rates, decreased attrition, 94%
high school graduation, and substantial parent and community involvement through volunteer
services.48 The funding stream coordination of ELC is illustrated in Appendix B.

Example: In El Dorado County, the Office of Education is able to offer early childhood services in
rural locations because of county-level coordination of multiple federal and state programs. The
county Office of Education coordinates federal programs such as Head Start and Early Head Start,
and state programs such as general child care and State Preschool. The multiple programs benefit
from joint training of staff and shared resources. For example, comprehensive Head Start training is
offered to preschool and child care providers to decrease costs and facilitate integrated curriculum
development. The smaller school districts or single sites would probably not be able to conduct such
comprehensive training on their own. Another benefit of the collaboration has been in the
purchasing of playground equipment. Head Start grants have been used to purchase equipment and
renovate playground space at school sites, where preschool and early elementary school aged
children also benefit from the investment.49

Pooling. Another strategy for increasing the flexibility of funds involves pooling monies across
traditional agency or service sector lines.20 This allows increased local program discretion in the
combined money use. Pooling typically occurs in state agencies where state funding or the more
flexible funding streams from the federal government may be combined and handed down to
counties and communities as local “block grants.” It can also happen at a county level or even at a
sub-county level when a county provides “blocks” of funding for certain programs to specific school
districts. Ultimately, pooling of funds fosters opportunities for greater collaboration and integration;
it also requires a great deal of trust, and explicit and detailed accountability.

Example: Connecticut’s School Readiness and Child Day Care Program was enacted in 1997 to
UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities                              - 25 -
Financing Considerations for Early Childhood Initiatives

expand and enhance access to early childhood education programs, including integrated and linked
health care, literacy, employment and job training with extended hours at the school sites. The
program pools funds from the State Departments of Social Services and Education to provide over
$40 million annually to 16 priority school districts and other schools labeled as “severe-need.”
These funds are distributed to municipalities through their designated School Readiness Council,
which assesses needs and develops a plan to expand and enhance pre-school opportunities for three
and four year-olds in the community. In 1997, there was an estimated need for 15,000 school
readiness slots statewide; the program has succeeded in creating over 6,500 slots and continues to
grow in funding and effectiveness.50

Example: In 1999, the Florida State Legislature passed the “School Readiness Act” creating the
Florida Partnership for School Readiness. Under the act, each county is responsible for creating a
School Readiness Coalition to develop a plan for integrated early care and education services in the
community. What is unique about this initiative is that the state gives the local School Readiness
Coalitions authority over funds from the various early care and education programs. Programs
include but are not limited to: Florida First Start, Even Start literacy programs, pre-kindergarten early
intervention, migrant pre-kindergarten, Head Start, Title I, subsidized child care, teen parent
programs, and others. Once a county coalition has developed a plan, the state develops a contract
with them that essentially includes pooled funds from the above-mentioned programs, and this may
also include some health and welfare (TANF) dollars. The Florida counties have formed 57 School
Readiness Coalitions, 52 had fully approved work plans and the state has contracted with 33
coalitions as of September 2001. State officials estimate that the value of the contracts for these
early childhood services will reach $645 million when all participating coalitions have contracts.51

Master Contracting. Most examples of pooling are instances where states use pooled funds to
support broad, statewide reform efforts. A variation of pooling that may be implemented on a
smaller scale and tailored to individual program or community needs is master contracting. A few
innovative programs and jurisdictions have pioneered this strategy that involves replacing a number
of separate contracts from different state or county agencies with one master contract. It is a strategy
that requires state or county approval and cooperation but might be initiated at the request of a
comprehensive program. Master contracting allows programs and communities greater flexibility to
tailor their services to community needs, but also builds in accountability mechanisms to assure that
desired outcomes are achieved. Another important benefit of master contracting is that the
administrative burden of negotiations, payments, and reporting are streamlined under one contracting
state body.

Example: In Monroe County (Rochester), New York, eight state health programs focused on early
childhood, including immunizations, IDEA, lead screening, child development, Maternal and Child
Health Block Grant, nutrition and others have been included into a master contract between the
county and the state. State officials were willing to trade off separate and detailed budgets for each
of the programs for the establishment of overall goals and the tracking and reporting of outcome
data. The master contract has facilitated integration of services– the Health Department has co-
located staff, established a single point of entry and common intake form, and created teams to
deliver coordinated services to clients. The administrative benefits are also significant– the county is
UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities                               - 26 -
Financing Considerations for Early Childhood Initiatives

now responsible for one annual workplan and budget (rather than seven), provides five program and
fiscal reports annually (compared to over 20 program reports and 30 fiscal reports generated
previously), and uses a single fiscal year for all funding.

Decategorization. Decategorization goes one step beyond pooling by essentially removing
restrictive eligibility requirements and programmatic boundaries that separate funding streams. The
end result is maximized spending flexibility by locally driven initiatives without the narrow
limitations and accountability restrictions of traditional government programs. This strategy usually
requires state legislative action, and therefore is often a major undertaking. While there are many
regulations attached to federal funding streams that states do not have the authority to alter, there are
also many decisions made at the state level regarding eligibility and breadth of services. This is
particularly true of block grants, over which states frequently have significant discretion. In addition,
within some federal programs, states may make requests to the federal government to waive certain
federal requirements. As more latitude is given to the states through devolution and block grant
funding, policy makers can foster comprehensive, community-driven, early childhood services by
crafting authorizing legislation and state plans with maximum flexibility.

It is important to stress, however, that this financing strategy does not stand alone. It is part of a
broader vision about how supports for children and families should be developed and delivered that
is focused on comprehensive, community-based decision-making. Decategorization in the absence
of such a vision can jeopardize families’ access to basic supports and services by removing narrow
accountability requirements without putting structures and processes in place to ensure that local
leaders are accountable for assessing and responding to community needs.

Example: In Colorado, the state legislature created the Community Consolidated Child Care Pilot
Program to encourage communities to design consolidated early care and education programs. Pilot
communities were required to consolidate funding from the Colorado Preschool Program, operated
by local school districts and child care dollars administered by local boards of county commissioners.
 The legislature authorized the state Department of Human Services to waive state laws or rules that
were obstacles to successful collaboration. Waivers included requiring only a single application for
multiple programs and broadening program eligibility to meet specific community needs. For
example, two communities raised the income eligibility level for the state child care subsidy so that
low income parents’ child care expenses would not increase substantially as their incomes
increased.52


Strategy 4: Building public-private partnerships

All of the financing strategies discussed in this paper are predicated on the existence of strong
partnerships. Interagency partnerships at the state and county level are essential if policymakers wish
to increase the efficient use of resources and increase the flexibility of funding through strategies
such as pooling. Likewise, community-level partnerships enable leaders from public agencies,
school districts, community organizations, businesses, and foundations to effectively assess local
needs, understand the landscape of funding and services present in a community, and devise
UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities                               - 27 -
Financing Considerations for Early Childhood Initiatives

strategies that optimize and increase investments. Finally, connections between community and
state-level partnerships set the stage for leveraging new dollars based on local investments and foster
state policymaking that is responsive to local needs.

Most of the financing strategies presented focus on public sector investments, and require partnership
among public sector leaders at the state, county, and school district level. It is also critical, however
to engage a range of private sector partners from foundations, corporations, faith-based
organizations, universities and community organizations. In the past, partnerships between the
public and private sectors often amounted to government or the non-profit community going to
business leaders with an agenda and seeking financing support. Increasingly, however, partnerships
are much more mutual, active and ambitious.53 Engaging private sector leaders early in the planning
process and in meaningful ways can broaden the base of support and provide new leadership for
school-linked early learning initiatives.

Partner to leverage funds. Through public-private partnerships, community leaders have significant
opportunities to expand the fiscal base for family and children’s services. Increasingly, many
community-based foundations and business leaders, as well as large national corporations and
foundations, see early learning as an important and productive investment – one that has significant
pay-off in the quality of life in their communities and in businesses’ bottom lines. At the national,
state, and local level, private sector leaders are making new investments in early learning initiatives.
In many cases, initiatives sponsored by corporations and foundations require a local match. Just as
strategic investments of Prop 10 dollars can leverage public funding, they can also help to leverage
private dollars. Likewise, private investments and involvement can help to meet the local matching
and collaboration requirements included in many federal and state discretionary grants.

Example: The Florida Child Care Executive Partnership Program was created in 1996 as part of the
state’s welfare reform legislation. The program engages employers in efforts to serve more low-
income working families who are eligible for subsidized child care. Monies invested by a business,
employer or local agencies are matched dollar-for-dollar by the state using appropriations from the
Child Care and Development Fund (federal funds could not cover all those eligible for subsidies in
the state). Funds are used directly for the employees’ subsidized child care, or are contributed to a
community child care purchasing pool. The Executive Partnership Program operates in over two-
thirds of Florida counties and has over 35 participating businesses contributing to purchasing pools.
More than $12 million in local funds have been invested to assist an additional 8000 low-income
children receive needed child care.54

Partner to maximize non-monetary resources. Partnerships offer the opportunity to share not only
monetary resources, but also information, technical skill, and other resources. Partners derive mutual
benefit by exchanging their unique strengths. For instance, schools have a long history of
educational curriculum development that may translate directly into the development of effective
early childhood educational tools. Counties have considerable experiences in multi-agency
arrangements, and may have well-developed information exchange and tracking systems. Private
corporate partners might share administrative and managerial principles that could translate into
increased efficiency and effectiveness in partnership’s efforts to integrate services.
UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities                               - 28 -
Financing Considerations for Early Childhood Initiatives



Example: The Santa Ynez Valley Healthy Start Collaborative is a partnership of many local agencies
which offer school-based family support services in their community located north of Santa Barbara,
California. One component of their initiative has been to promote early childhood education and
care. The Collaborative offers comprehensive services to young children and families at five local
school-based sites. One of the key collaborators includes the private, non-profit People Helping
People (PHP) agency. PHP is well known in the Santa Ynez Valley for its direct service provision to
needy families. However, in the partnership PHP lends its administrative capabilities to the school
districts and Collaborative in the form of grant writing and program administration. The school-
based services for children started in 1999 with the receipt of a Healthy Start planning grant and the
program relies on the continued administrative support of the PHP organization.55


Partner to foster leadership and champions. One of the most important non-financial resources
garnered through public-private partnerships is leadership and the ability to heighten awareness of
the importance of quality early learning opportunities. Private and public sector leaders, whether
they are from businesses, foundations, or grassroots organizations, can influence political decisions
and the community at large. There can be little economic or political support for a program if there
is no public notice of its merits or achievements. Successful initiatives systematically identify those
individuals from the public and private sectors who have influence over needed resources and engage
them in their work. These champions are critical in the mobilization of new investments, as well as
establishing and maintaining a broad base of public and political support.

Example: Connecticut’s state School Readiness Legislation (PA 97-259) requires the creation of
local School Readiness Councils through which state money is distributed to high priority school
districts. These School Readiness Councils include a variety of leaders, including the mayor of the
city or municipality, the Superintendent of schools, representatives from Head Start, Pre-school,
child care and family day care, parents and other stakeholders. Leadership is felt to be so critical,
that the mayor and Superintendent (or their designees) are required to be familiar with all proposals
and must sign-off prior to implementation. Connecticut’s School Readiness Councils control
anywhere from $600,000 to $6 million in annual funds and are based on firm partnerships that work
toward optimizing early childhood opportunities.56




UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities                             - 29 -
Financing Considerations for Early Childhood Initiatives

VI.     CONCLUSION

Schools find themselves in the middle of the turmoil that surrounds today’s children and youth.
Increasing emphasis has been placed on accountability and academic achievement as measured
through standardized test scores. When testing begins as early as kindergarten, school readiness and
interventions prior to school entry take on greater significance. Parents, teachers, administrators and
communities are beginning to recognize the need to include early childhood supports in their vision
of educational reform.

Although schools have been called upon to take a more active role in young children’s lives, they can
not shoulder the burden alone. The community agencies dedicated to early childhood care, county
departments, and the new Prop 10 Commissions represent ideal partners. Effective collaboration
between these entities can help to establish schools as a hub around which more integrated early
learning and other supports and services can be built. There has never been a better opportunity for
public education to “reach back” and support young children as there is in the current social, political
and economic climate.

Financing early learning services in the context of schools will certainly not be easy. However, Prop
10 funds represent a catalyst for embarking upon major financing reform. The funds from Prop 10
are flexible and intended to serve children zero to five years old as determined by county
commissions and their constituents. Strategic approaches to using funds have been presented with
examples geared toward early learning initiatives that can be implemented in school settings.
Understanding the landscape of existing resources and optimizing these investments is an important
initial step. Maximizing revenue through new and established sources represents a critical financing
component for any planned reform. Working toward a more flexible financing system underlines the
current desire for comprehensive services driven by community need. Finally, partnering with other
agencies opens the door to additional funds, non-monetary resources and invaluable leadership.
Ultimately, cooperative financing strategies require innovation, communication and effective,
meaningful partnerships. In the words of Henry Ford:
                                  “Coming together is a beginning;
                                    keeping together is progress;
                                    working together is success.”




UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities                              - 30 -
 Financing Considerations for Early Childhood Initiatives

          Appendix A: Approaches to Financing Early Childhood Services

     Approach                             Definition                       Examples (see text)
Optimize efficiency
Redeployment                   Shifting resources from higher-       •   Using Title I to fund a
                               cost, more remedial services, to          comprehensive early childhood
                               lower-cost, more preventive               education center.
                               services.

Co-location                    Strategic placement of key staff in   •   Family Resource Centers
                               areas of high need or at sites        •   Family Service Agency of Santa
                               alongside staff from other                Barbara staff out posted at schools.
                               agencies.
Streamline administrative      Decreasing the administrative         •   Inter-agency Screening Committee
and management processes       burden associated with managing           for the System of Care program
                               multiple programs by aligning and         participants.
                               coordinating enrollment,
                               reporting, data tracking and other
                               administrative functions.

Maximize public revenue
Leveraging                     Strategy to draw down funds from      •   LEA Medi-Cal Billing Option
                               federal and state programs that
                               provides funding contingent on
                               state or local matching dollars.

Administrative Claiming        Accessing reimbursement for state     •   Medi-Cal Administrative Activities
                               and local funds expended on               Program
                               certain administrative activities
                               related to federal programs
                               (Medicaid and Foster Care).

Utilize subsidies and          Recognizing and helping families      •   Use of the National School Lunch
reimbursements                 and programs pursue the subsidies         Program application to streamline
                               and reimbursements for which              the enrollment of children and
                               they are eligible.                        families in public health insurance
                                                                         programs.
Grant Writing                  A strategy focused on identifying     •   Use of grant funding to create a
                               and applying to receive funding           parent education program at a
                               from relevant discretionary grant         family resource center.
                               programs.




 UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities                                 - 31 -
 Financing Considerations for Early Childhood Initiatives



Increase flexibility of funding
Coordination                   Aligning categorical funds at the     •   Elizabeth Learning Center, Los
                               program level to support                  Angeles
                               comprehensive services.               •   County-level coordination that has
                                                                         led shared resources among early
                                                                         childhood programs and grade
                                                                         schools.

Pooling                        Combining funds across (state)        •   Connecticut’s School Readiness
                               agency lines to allow less                Act pooling state education and
                               restrictive and more                      social services funding
                               comprehensive funding.                •   Florida School Readiness
                                                                         Partnership

Master contracting             Negotiating a single contract from    •   Monroe County, New York
                               multiple funding agencies to
                               create efficiency and allow greater
                               response to local need.

Decategorization               Elimination of strict categorical     •   Colorado Consolidated Child Care
                               eligibility and accountability tied       Project
                               to funding, allowing maximum
                               flexibility for local initiative
                               financing.

Public- private partnerships
Partner to access funds        Accessing fiscal support from         •   Florida Child Care Executive
                               private-sector partners; public           Partnership
                               sector support may be helpful to
                               matching and leveraging private
                               support and vice-versa.

Partner to maximize non-       Tapping into the unique strengths     •   Administrative and grant writing
monetary resources             and resources that public and             resources of People Helping People
                               private sector partners bring such        in the Santa Ynez Valley Healthy
                               as information, and technical             Start Collaboration
                               expertise.

Partner to foster leadership   Partners can bring increased          •   Connecticut’s School Readiness
and champions                  leadership and heighten attention         Councils which include mayors,
                               and support from policy makers            superintendents and other key
                               and the public.                           stakeholders




 UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities                                - 32 -
Financing Considerations for Early Childhood Initiatives

Appendix B: Template for Funding Comprehensive Early Childhood Services

Function/Activities                   Possible Funding Sources
Information and Referral              • Medicaid (Title XIX)
                                      • Community Outreach Partnership Center Program
                                      • Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,
                                         Infants, and Children (WIC)
                                      • Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF)
                                      • Social Services Block Grant (Title XX of SSA)
Child Care and Preschool              • Child Care and Development Block Grant
Education                             • Head Start
                                      • Early Head Start
                                      • Even Start
                                      • Migrant Education
                                      • Special Education: Grants for Infants and Families with
                                         Disabilities and Preschool Grants
                                      • State Preschool
                                      • Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF)
                                      • Title I Grants to Local Education Agencies
Parent Education/                     • Adult Education (Federal and State)
Family Support                        • Even Start
                                      • Goals 2000: Parental Assistance Program
                                      • Social Services Block Grant (Title XX of SSA)
                                      • Welfare to Work Grants
Health and Mental Health              • Medicaid (Title XIX)
                                      • State Children’s Health Insurance Program
                                      • Maternal and Child Health Block Grant
                                      • WIC
                                      • Head Start
                                      • Comprehensive Community Mental Health Services
Infrastructure/                       • 21st Century Community Learning Centers
Administrative*                       • Healthy Start
                                      • Medicaid (Title XIX)




* Note: Most of the listed programs are not focused directly on infrastructure support and development; some will,
however, allow a certain amount of funding to be directed to administrative costs and activities such as case
management. Consult the individual programs for greater detail.
UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities                                         - 33 -
Financing Considerations for Early Childhood Initiatives

 Appendix B: Example of Funding Comprehensive Early Childhood Services
            at Elizabeth Learning Center (Cudahy, California)

Function/Activities                Funding Sources
Information and Referral          • Los Angeles Unified School District
                                  • Los Angeles County Head Start

Child Care and Preschool          •   Head Start
Education                         •   Early Head Start (pending)
                                  •   State Pre-School
                                  •   School District Integration Funds
                                  •   Title I Grants to Local Education Agencies

Parent Education/                 •   Adult Education Classes (Huntington Park/Bell)
Family Support                    •   Title I School Funds
                                  •   Title I Parent Education Classes
                                  •   Bilingual School Fund
                                  •   California State University, Los Angeles
                                  •   California State University, Dominguez Hills
                                  •   Toyota Family Literacy Grant

Health and Mental Health          •   St. Francis Medical Center
                                  •   Medicaid (Title XIX)
                                  •   State Children’s Health Insurance Program
                                  •   Healthy Start
                                  •   Head Start
                                  •   California State University, Dominguez Hills
                                  •   Kellogg Grant (original funder)
                                  •   Kaiser Permanente “Best Friends” Program

Infrastructure/ Administrative •      Los Angeles Unified School District
                               •      Los Angeles Educational Partnership
                               •      United Teachers of Los Angeles
                               •      University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)




UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities                           - 34 -
Financing Considerations for Early Childhood Initiatives

Appendix C: Comparing Regulations and Requirements for Early Care, Education, and Collaborative Programs

                       CCDF                 State Preschool              State Healthy Start                 Head Start             Preschool               Early
                                                                                                                                    Grants                  Intervention
                                                                                                                                    Program
 Eligibility
 • Age            13 and under            3 – 5 Year Olds               Elementary, middle and           3-5 year olds (Early       3-5 year olds (and 2    Birth to 2 years
                                                                        secondary schools can apply.     Head Start, a much         year old who turn 3     old
                                                                         K-12 students and their         smaller federal program,   during the school
                                                                        families can receive             provides services to       year)
                                                                        services.                        pregnant women and
                                                                                                         children up to age 3)
 •   Income       Less than 75% state     Families that have “the       For Elementary schools,          90 % of children must      N/A                     N/A
                  median income –         lowest adjusted monthly       50% or more of enrolled          be from families with
                  approximately           income” are given first       pupils must be either from       income below the federal
                  $39,000 for a family    priority. Income ceilings     families that receive TANF       poverty level (e.g.
                  of three.               are based on family size      or have limited English          $14,630 for a family of
                                          (e.g. $34,600 for a family    proficiency or are eligible to   three)
                                          of three).                    receive free or reduced price
                                                                        meals.
 • Work           Must be employed,       None                          None                             None                       N/A                     N/A
                  seeking employment
 Requireme        (eligibility for this
 nt               purpose limited to
                  60 days), in
                  vocational training,
                  or homeless and
                  searching for
                  housing.1
 • Special        Employment              Suggested, but not            None                             10% of enrollment must     Funding to be used to   Funding to be
                  requirement does        required that children with                                    be children with           provide programming     used to provide
 Needs            not apply to the        “exceptional” needs be                                         disabilities               to children with        programming to
                  caretakers of           given priority.                                                                           disabilities
                                                                                                                                                            children with
                  children with
                                                                                                                                                            disabilities

1 The employment requirement does not apply to the caretakers of children in protective custody, to parents who are incapacitated, or to children with special
medical or psychiatric needs.
UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families, and Communities                                                                                               - 36 -
Financing Considerations for Early Childhood Initiatives

                     CCDF                 State Preschool    State Healthy Start               Head Start               Preschool   Early
                                                                                                                        Grants      Intervention
                                                                                                                        Program
                special needs.                                                                                                      disabilities

                Priority given first
                to children receiving
                protective services,
                and second to
                families with the
                lowest per capita
                income. Within this
                group, priority
                given to children
                with special needs.
 Program Regulations
 • Child/     Infants – 0-18mos         1:8 Adult           Site specific, depending on   Each class must have 2
                 1:3 Adult              1:24 Teacher        services being provided and   staff members (2 teachers
 Staff ratios    1:18 Teacher                               partners                      or 1 teacher and 1 aide) a
                Toddlers – 18-36                                                          3rd adult volunteer is
                mos                                                                       preferred.
                   1:4 Adult                                                              For 3 year olds preferred
                    1:16 Teacher                                                          class size is 15-17
                Preschool – 36 mos                                                        children. In double
                – kindergarten                                                            session programs the
                   1:8 Adult                                                              maximum is 15.
                   1:24 Teacher                                                           For 4 and 5 year olds
                Kindergarten – 14                                                         preferred class size is 17-
                Years                                                                     20 children. In double
                   1:14 Adult                                                             session programs the
                   1: 28 Teacher                                                          maximum is 17.
 •   Hours                              A minimum of        None specified                A minimum of 3½
                                        3 hours/day,                                      hours/day, 4 to 5
                                        175 days/year                                     days/week. If 4
                                                                                          days/week, program year
                                                                                          must include 128 days, if
                                                                                          5 days/week year must
                                                                                          include 160 days.

UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities                                                                        - 37 -
Financing Considerations for Early Childhood Initiatives

                    CCDF                State Preschool             State Healthy Start                 Head Start            Preschool            Early
                                                                                                                              Grants               Intervention
                                                                                                                              Program
 • Teacher     Teachers are           Site supervisors and         Site specific                   By 2003 not less than      State specific       State specific
               required to have       teachers must meet                                           50% of Head Start
 Credentials   completed 6 units of   minimum credentialing                                        teachers must have ECE
               postsecondary          qualifications established                                   Associates, Bachelors or
               coursework in early    by the California                                            other advanced degree or
               childhood education    Commission on Teaching                                       meet certification
               or development (12     Credentials.                                                 requirements by
               units are required                                                                  alternative means.
               for fully qualified
               teachers); or obtain
               a Child
               Development
               Assistant Permit
               form the California
               Commission on
               Teaching
               Credentials.
 •  Service                                                        Comprehensive school-                                                           To provide direct
                                                                   integrated services for                                                         services to
    s                                                              Healthy Start children, youth                                                   disabled infants
 Provided                                                          and families. Family
                                                                                                                                                   and toddlers. To
                                                                   support, including parenting
                                                                   education and child care is
                                                                                                                                                   expand and
                                                                   one of many allowable                                                           improve those
                                                                   activities.                                                                     services.
 Administration
 • Admin. California                  California Department of     California Department of        U.S. Department of         US Department of     US Department
             Department of            Education                    Education                       Health and Social          Education            of Education
 Agency      Education                                                                             Services
 • Flow of Contracts, through a       Annual contracts             Two types of grants awarded     HHS awards grants to       Through State        Through States
             competitive                                           to Local Education              approved Head Start        education agencies   to lead agency
 Funds       application process                                   Agencies:                       Agencies (non- or for-     (which may keep up   designated in
               based on the                                        1. Collaborative Planning       profit community           to 25% for
                                                                                                                                                   proposal.
               priorities                                          Grants (maximum $50,000)        agencies) on a             administration and
               established by local                                2. Operational grants           competitive basis for no   other state level

UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities                                                                                       - 38 -
Financing Considerations for Early Childhood Initiatives

                    CCDF               State Preschool             State Healthy Start              Head Start             Preschool         Early
                                                                                                                           Grants            Intervention
                                                                                                                           Program
               child care planning                                 (maximum of $400,000 total   more than 80% of the       programming) to
               councils.                                           for five years)              total program costs.       local education
                                                                                                                           agencies
 • Fiscal      Over 800 public and   School districts,             Local Education Agencies     Head Start Agencies –
               private agencies      community college                                          community non-profit or
 Agent         statewide have        districts, universities,                                   for-profit organizations
               2,000 contracts to    county superintendent of                                   which were
               provide services to   schools, county or city                                    competitively awarded a
               over 311,000          agencies, public or private                                Head Start grant—may
               children.             non-profit agencies, or                                    provide programming or
                                     private for-profit agencies                                contract with other
                                     may operate programs.                                      organizations to provide
                                                                                                programming.



Sources: CCDF – California CCDF State Plan 10/1/01-9/30-03; State-Pre-K – California Code of Regulations, Title 5, California
Education Code Sections 8360, 8261, 8235, 8265; Healthy Start – Healthy Start RFA 2000-01; Head Start-- Title 45 of the Federal
Code Parts 1310-1311; Preschool Grants Program-- Section 301 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; Early Intervention
Services for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities— Section 303 of IDEA.




UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities                                                                                 - 39 -
Financing Considerations for Early Childhood Initiatives

                                                 REFERENCES

1
   Ochshorn, S. (2000) Partnering for Success- Community Approaches to Early Learning. Child Care Action Campaign.
[Available: http://www.childcareaction.org/docs/pfs.pdf].
2
   Halfon, N, Sutherland, C, View-Schneider, M, Guardiani, M, Kloppenburg, A, Wright, J, Uyeda, K, Kuo, A, and
Shulman, E. (2001) Reaching Back to Create A Brighter Future: The Role of Schools in Promoting School Readiness.
UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities.
3
   Hayes, C. (2000) Financing Early Childhood Initiatives: Making the Most of Proposition 10. In N Halfon, E.
Schulman, M. Shannon and M. Hochstein (eds.), Building Community Systems for Young Children, UCLA Center for
Healthier Children, Families and Communities.
4
  See Riley, B. (2001) Fiscal Leveraging. A Decision-making Primer for Prop 10 Commissions. Center for Health
Improvement. Prop 10 Technical Assistance Service Center.
School Readiness and Fiscal Sustainability Guide. (2001) Center for Health Improvement. Prop 10 Technical Assistance
Service Center.
5
    Quality Childcare is Key to School Readiness (2000) Children’s Defense Fund. [Available:
http://www.childrensdefense.org/childcare/].
6
  Reynolds, A and Temple, J. (1998) Extended Early Childhood Intervention and School Achievement: Age 13 Findings
from the Chicago Longitudinal Study. Child Development; 69: 231-246.
Reynolds, A, Chang, H. & Temple, J. (1998) Early Childhood Intervention and Juvenile Delinquency: An Exploratory
Analysis of the Chicago Child-Parent Centers. Evaluation Review; 22: 341-372.
7
  Commissioner’s Office of Research and Evaluation and the Head Start Bureau. ACF, DHHS. (2001) Building Their
Futures: How Early Head Start Programs Are Enhancing the Lives of Infants and Toddlers in Low-Income Families.
Summary Report. [Available: http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/news/press/2001/ehs112.htm].
8
  Peisner-Feinberg, E, Burchinal, M, Clifford, TR, Culkin, M, Howes, C, Kagan, S, Yazejian, N, Byler, P, Rustici, J, and
Zelazo, J. (2000) The Children of the Cost, Quality, and Outcomes Study Go to School: Technical Report. Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center.
9
  Karoly L, Greenwood PW, Everingham SS, et al. (1997) Investing in our children: What we know and don't know
about the costs and benefits of early childhood interventions. RAND. Santa Monica: CA.
Olds DL, Eckenrode J, Henderson CR, et al. (1997) “Long-term effects of home visitation on maternal life course, child
abuse and neglect, and children's arrests: fifteen year follow-up of a randomized trial.” JAMA, 278(8):637-43.
Ramey CT, Bryant DM, Wasik BH, et al. (1992) “Infant health and development program for low birth weight,
premature infants: program elements, family participation, and child intelligence.” Pediatrics, 3:454-65.
10
   Education and Care: Early Childhood Programs and Services for Low-Income Families. (1999) United States
General Accounting Office.
11
   Ochshorn, S. (2000) Partnering for Success- Community Approaches to Early Learning. Child Care Action Campaign.
[Available: http://www.childcareaction.org/docs/pfs.pdf].
12
   Watson, S., Westheimer, M. (2000) Financing Family Resource Centers: A Guide to Sources and Strategies.
Carnegie Corporation of New York & The Finance Project.
13
       Proposition    10    Facts.          California     Children     and   Families      Commission.   [Available:
http://www.ccfc.ca.gov/prop10facts.htm].
14
   Hayes, C. (2000) Financing Early Childhood Initiatives: Making the Most of Proposition 10. In N Halfon, E.
Schulman, M. Shannon and M. Hochstein (eds.) Building Community Systems for Young Children. UCLA Center for
Healthier Children, Families and Communities.
15
   Hinkle, D. (2000) School Involvement in Early Childhood. National Institute of Early Childhood and Education, U.S.
Department of Education. Washington, D.C.
16
   Adams, G and Schulman, K. (1998) California: Child Care Challenges. Children’s Defense Fund. [Available:
http://www.childrensdefense.org].
17
   Seeds of Success: State Pre-Kindergarten Initiatives 1998-1999. (1999) Children’s Defense Fund. [Available:
http://www.childrensdefense.org].




UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families, and Communities                                                 - 40 -
Financing Considerations for Early Childhood Initiatives


18
   Stoney, L and Greenberg, M. (1996) “The Financing of Child Care: Current and Emerging Trends.” The Future of
Children. Summer/Fall 1996. 6 (2); 83-102.
19
   Stoney, L and Greenberg, M. (1996) The Financing of Child Care: Current and Emerging Trends. The Future of
Children, 6 (2).
20
   Fisher, H, Cohen, C, Flynn, M. (2000) Federal Funding for Early Childhood Supports and Services: A Guide to
Sources and Strategies. The Finance Project. Washington, D.C.
21
     “An Overview of Head Start.” California Head Start State Collaboration Office[Available:
http://goldmine.cde.ca.gov/cyfsbranch/chssco/CHSSCO2.htm].
22
   Child Care: States Increased Spending on Low-Income Families. (2001) United States General Accounting Office.
23
   CalWORKs County Allocations for FY 2000/01 (Table). [Available: http://www.cpb.org].
24
   Blank, H., Poersch, N. (2000) State Developments in Child Care and Early Education. Children’s Defense Fund.
[Available: http://www.childrensdefense.org/childcare].
25
   Child Care: States Increased Spending on Low-Income Families. (2001) United States General Accounting Office.
26
   Education and Care: Early Childhood Programs and Services for Low-Income Families. (1999) United States
General Accounting Office.
27
   Ochshorn, S. (2000) Partnering for Success- Community Approaches to Early Learning. Child Care Action Campaign.
[Available: http://www.childcareaction.org/docs/pfs.pdf].
28
    Seeds of Success: State Pre-Kindergarten Initiatives 1998-1999. (1999) Children’s Defense Fund. [Available:
http://www.childrensdefense.org].
29
   Adams, G and Schulman, K. (1998) “California: Child Care Challenges.” Children’s Defense Fund. [Available:
http://www.childrensdefense.org].
30
   California School Age Families Education (CalSAFE) Program, Frequently Asked Questions; and Continued Funding
Application (FY 2001-2002). [Available: http://www.cde.ca.gov/calsafe/].
31
   Ochshorn, Susan. (2000) Partnering for Success: Community Approaches to Early Learning. Child Care Action
Campaign. [Available: http://www.childcareaction.org/docs/pfs/pdf].
32
   Waddel, B, Shannon, M, Durr, R. (2001) Using Family Resource Centers to Support Young Children and Their
Families. in N Halfon, E. Schulman, M. Shannon and M. Hochstein (eds.) Building Community Systems for Young
Children. UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities.
33
    “Looking Into New Mirrors: Lessons for early childhood finance and system-building.” [Available:
http://nccic.org/pubs/mirrors/].
34
   Theresa Weissglass, Director of Healthy Start, Santa Barbara School District. Personal communication, Jan. 19, 2001.
35
    Long-Term Self-Sufficiency Plan. (1999) Los Angeles County New Directions Task Force. [Available:
http://dpss.co.la.ca.us/ltfss/plan/plan.cfm].
36
   “System of Care” brochure. (1999)Los Angeles County Inter-Departmental and Local School District Collaborative.
37
   Kenney, G, Ullman, F, Weil, A. (2000) Three Years into SCHIP: What States Are and Are Not Spending. Assessing the
New Federalism. The Urban Institute. [Available: http://newfederalism.urban.org].
38
   LEA Medi-Cal Billing Option (handout). LAUSD training material.
39
   Leanna Pace, Office of School District Links (LEA Medi-Cal Billing Option), California Department of Health
Services. Personal communication, Jan. 17, 2001.
40
   Medi-Cal Administrative Activities Overview (Section 4) (2001) in Local Educational Consortia (LEC) Provider
Manual. [Available: http://www.dhs.ca.gov/mcs/mcpd/MBB/ACSS/LECManual.htm]
41
   Medi-Cal Administrative Activities, Time Survey Training, 1999-2000. Paradigm Healthcare Services.
42
   Leanna Pace, Office of School District Links (LEA Medi-Cal Billing Option), California Department of Health
Services. Personal communication, Jan. 17, 2001.
43
   Pam Wagner, LAUSD Medi-Cal Billing Office. Personal Communication, Aug. 18, 2000.
44
   The State of Health Insurance in California: Recent Trends, Future Prospects. (2001) The UCLA Center for Health
Policy Research. [Available: http://www.healthpolicy.ucla.edu/FullReport.html].
45
   Cohen Ross, D. (2001) “Enrolling Children in Health Coverage: It Can Start With School Lunch.” Center on Budget
and Policy Priorities. [Available: http://www.cbpp.org].
46
   Watson, S, Westheimer, M. (2000) Financing Family Resource Centers: A Guide to Sources and Strategies.
Carnegie Corporation of New York & The Finance Project.



UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities                                                 -41-
Financing Considerations for Early Childhood Initiatives


47
   Halfon, N, Shannon, M, Schneider, M. (2000) Finance Task Force Report. (Draft) UCLA Program for Integrated
School and Community Solutions.
48
   Elizabeth Learning Center LAUSD, Collaborative Partners. (1997)
49
   Lynn Lucas, Executive Director, El Dorado County Child Development Programs. Personal communication, Dec. 18,
2000.
50
   Joyce Staples, Early Childhood Programs and Instruction Unit, Bureau of Early Childhood Education and Social
Services, Connecticut. Personal communication, Jan. 24, 2001.
51
   Joe Christopher, Contract Manager, Florida Partnership for School Readiness. Personal communication, Jan. 5, 2001.
Molly Jones, Policy Director, Florida Partnership for School Readiness. Personal communication, Sept. 27 2001.
52
   Education and Care: Early Childhood Programs and Services for Low-Income Families. (1999) United States
General Accounting Office.
53
   Hayes, C. (2000) Financing Early Childhood Initiatives: Making the Most of Proposition 10. In N Halfon, E.
Schulman, M. Shannon and M. Hochstein (eds.) Building Community Systems for Young Children. UCLA Center for
Healthier Children, Families and Communities.
54
   Child Care Executive Partnership. [Available: http://www.fcforum.org/programs/ccepp.htm].
55
   Georgene Lowe, Director, Santa Ynez Valley Healthy Start. Personal communication, Jan. 12, 2001.
56
   School Readiness and Early Reading Success (1999) The Connecticut Commission on Children, 2 (1). [Available:
http://www.cga.state.ct.us/coc/update.htm#1].




UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities                                               -42-
Financing Considerations for Early Childhood Initiatives




     Compendium of Federal and State Aid for
       Early Childhood Support Programs




The UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families, and Communities   - 43 -
Financing Considerations for Early Childhood Initiatives



 Adult Education: Basic Grants to States
 (Adult Education and Family Literacy Act of 1998)
 Administering           U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education
 Agencies                California Department of Education, Adult Education Program

 Type of Program         Formula Grant to States
                         Competitive Grants to agencies
 Description             This program provides grants to states to fund local programs of adult
                         education and literacy services, including workplace literacy services, family
                         literacy services, and English literacy programs. Participation in these
                         programs consists of adults and out of school youth at least 16 years of age.
 Possible LEA            Programs include:
 Utilization                 Adult Literacy
                             Workplace Literacy
                             Family Literacy
                             English As a Second Language
                             Elementary Basic Skills
                             High School Basic Skills
                             Citizenship
                             Literacy for Homeless Adults
                             Literacy for Incarcerated Adults

 Amount of Funding       FY 00: $450,000,000; FY 01: est $540,000,000
                         For FY 1999-00 California’s received $41,465,645.

 Restrictions, if any    Benefits out of school adults who are 16 years of age and older, who are not
                         enrolled in secondary school, and who lack sufficient mastery of basic
                         educational skills (including speaking, reading and writing English) to enable
                         them to function effectively in society.
                         Formula grants are made to designated eligible State agencies.
                         Client agencies are limited to the following by the Education Codes:
                         Unified School Districts; High School Districts; and County Offices of
                         Education
 Contact information     Dr. Carroll F. Towey
 (National)              U.S. Department of Education
                         OVAE, Division of Adult Education and Literacy
                         330 C Street, SW
                         Mary E. Switzer Building, Room 4428
                         Washington, DC 20202-7240
                         Telephone: (202) 205-9791
                         Email Address: carroll_towey@ed.gov

 Contact information     Mary Tobias Weaver
 (State)                 Acting Adult Education Administrator
                         California Department of Education
                         660 J Street, Suite 400
                         Sacramento, CA 95814
                         Telephone: (916) 323-1117
                         Email: mweaver@cde.ca.gov
                         Website: http://www.cde.ca.gov/adulteducation




The UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families, and Communities                                    - 44 -
Financing Considerations for Early Childhood Initiatives



    Bilingual Education: Program Development and Implementation Grants1
    (Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act)
    Administering           U.S. Department of Education, Office of Bilingual Education and Minority
    Agency                  Languages Affairs


    Type of Program         Project Grants

    Description             To develop and implement new comprehensive, coherent, and successful
                            bilingual education or special alternative instructional programs for limited
                            English proficient students and families, including programs of early
                            childhood education, family education programs and parent outreach and
                            training activities designed to assist parents to become active participants in
                            the education of their children.

    Possible LEA            Bilingual education programs, family education programs, outreach and
    Utilization             training activities; may be used to improve the instructional program, and
                            compensate personnel.

    Amount of Funding       FY 00: $31,959,000; FY 01: est $26,375,000
                            In fiscal year 2000, 208 projects were funded.
                            Average Award: $150,000

    Restrictions, if any    One or more local education agencies may apply alone or in collaboration with
                            an institution of higher education, community-based organization, or state
                            education agency. A community-based organization or an institution of higher
                            education must have its application approved by a local education agency.
                            Children with limited proficiency in understanding, speaking, reading, and
                            writing English will benefit.

    Contact information     John Ovard
    (National)              U.S. Department of Education, OBEMLA
                            400 Maryland Ave., SW
                            Switzer Building, Room 5082
                            Washington, DC 20202-6510
                            Telephone: (202) 205-5576
                            Website: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OBEMLA/

    Contact information     Terry Delgado or Judy Lambert
    (State)                 California Department of Education
                            Language Policy and Leadership Office
                            721 Capital Mall
                            Sacramento, CA. 95814
                            Telephone: (916) 657-3830
                            Email Address: tdelgado@cde.ca.gov
                            Email Address: jlambert@cde.ca.gov
                            Website: http://www.cde.ca.gov/cilbranch/bien/titlevii.html




1
    The Bilingual Education Program has many different sub-programs, this is only one example


The UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families, and Communities                                         - 45 -
Financing Considerations for Early Childhood Initiatives



 California School Age Families Education (Cal-SAFE) Program
 Administering           California Department of Education,
 Agency                  Youth and Educational Partnership Office

 Type of Program         Contracts established with LEAs

 Description             CalSAFE is designed to increase the availability of support services necessary
                         for enrolled pregnant/parenting students to improve academic achievement and
                         parenting skills and to provide a quality child care/development program for
                         their children.
                         It is the intent of the Legislature that school districts and county office of
                         education implementing the Cal-SAFE Program connect with existing program
                         strategies and, whenever possible, build upon existing local collaboratives to
                         provide a unified integrated system of services to children, youth, and families.

 Possible LEA            The Cal-SAFE Program builds upon education reform initiatives, assures a
 Utilization             quality education program with high standards for enrolled students, and
                         mandates accountability of local educational agencies (LEAs) for performance
                         of students and their children in meeting program goals. The Cal-SAFE
                         Program provides the first opportunity for schools to leverage sufficient
                         resources to support systemic reform, sustainability, and a seamless, cost-
                         effective service delivery system from point of entry into the program until
                         graduation.
                         Program activities may include: parenting education, health and nutrition
                         services, transportation, case management, academic and career support, child
                         care and development services, community outreach and education.

 Amount of Funding       FY 01: $83,200,000

 Restrictions, if any    A male or female pupil, 18 years of age or younger, may
                         enroll in the Cal-SAFE program if he or she is an expectant parent, the
                         custodial parent, or the noncustodial parent taking an active role in the care and
                         supervision of the child, and has not earned a high school diploma or its
                         equivalent. A pupil having an active special education IEP shall be eligible
                         until age 22.
                         The funded agency shall provide child care and development program services
                         located on or near the school-site for the children of teen parents enrolled in
                         the Cal-SAFE program. There is no minimum age for enrollment, but the
                         child shall be eligible until the age of five years or the child is enrolled in
                         kindergarten, as long as the teen parent is enrolled in the Cal-SAFE program.
                         A developmental profile shall be maintained for each infant, toddler, and child.
                         This development profile shall be utilized by the program staff to design a
                         program that meets the infant's, toddler's, or child's developmental needs.

 Contact information     CalSAFE Program, Youth and Education Partnership Office
 (State)                 California Department of Education
                         721 Capitol Mall, 3rd Floor
                         Sacramento, CA 95814
                         Telephone: (916) 654-3898
                         Website: http://www.cde.ca.gov/calsafe/




The UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families, and Communities                                      - 46 -
Financing Considerations for Early Childhood Initiatives



 Child Care and Development Block Grant
 (Discretionary Fund of the Child Care and Development Fund)
 Administering           U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children
 Agencies                and Families
                         California Department of Education, Child Development Division

 Type of Program         Formula Grants to States
                         Contracts to agencies based on competitive application process

 Description             To make grants to States to assist low- income families with child care and to:
                         (1) Allow each State maximum flexibility in developing child care programs
                         and policies that best suit the needs of children and parents within the State; (2)
                         promote parental choice to empower working parents to make their own
                         decisions on the child care that best suits their family's needs; (3) encourage
                         States to provide consumer education information to help parents make
                         informed choices about child care; (4) assist States to provide child care to
                         parents trying to achieve independence from public assistance; and (5) assist
                         States in implementing the health, safety, licensing, and registration standards
                         established in State regulations.

 Possible LEA            Provision of child care for low-income families; in addition, certain amounts of
 Utilization             the discretionary funds may be used for quality expansion; infant and toddler
                         quality improvement; and child care resource and referral and school-age child
                         care activities.

 Amount of Funding       FY 00: $1,182,672,000; FY 01: est $1,999,987,000.
                         California received $375,797,850 in federal funding from the CCDF in FY
                         2000, and estimated $401,560,461 in FY 2001.

 Restrictions, if any    Not more than 5% of the aggregate amount of funds may be expended for
                         administrative costs incurred by the State to carry out all of its functions and
                         duties.
                         Beneficiaries are children under age 13 (or up to age 19, if disabled or under
                         court supervision), who reside with a family whose income does not exceed 85
                         percent (75% in California) of the State median income for a family of the
                         same size, and who reside with a parent (or parents) who is working or
                         attending job training or educational program; or are in need of, or are
                         receiving protective services.

 Contact information     Child Care Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth, and Families
 (National)              Administration for Children and Families, DHHS
                         330 "C" Street, SW., Washington, DC 20447
                         Telephone: (202) 690-6782.
                         Website: http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/ccb/

 Contact information     California Department of Education
 (State)                 Child Development Division
                         560 J Street, Room 220
                         Sacramento, CA 95814
                         Telephone: (916) 322-6233
                         Website: http://www.cde.ca.gov/cyfsbranch/child_development




The UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families, and Communities                                       - 47 -
Financing Considerations for Early Childhood Initiatives



 Community Outreach Partnership Center Program
 Administering           U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,
 Agency                  Policy Development and Research


 Type of Program         Project Grants

 Description             This program funds partnerships among institutions of higher education and
                         communities to solve urban problems through research, outreach and
                         exchange of information. Research and outreach activities funded under this
                         program must focus on problems associated with housing, economic
                         development, neighborhood revitalization, infrastructure, health care, job
                         training, education, crime prevention, planning, community organizing and
                         other areas deemed appropriate by the Secretary.

 Possible LEA            Each year approximately 18 new grants are awarded to colleges, community
 Utilization             colleges, and universities to accomplish a wide range of objectives including
                         creating new businesses, providing health care to patients, offering job training
                         and counseling among other things. Partnership with these institutions would
                         afford potential opportunities.

 Amount of Funding       FY 00 $8,000,000; FY 01 est $7,982,400.
                         Range and Average of Financial Assistance: $150,000 to $400,000.

 Restrictions, if any    Applicant Eligibility: Institutions of higher education with demonstrated
                         ability to carry out eligible activities. Applicants must provide at least 25
                         percent of the total budget for proposed outreach activities and at least
                         50 percent of the total budget for proposed research activities. Higher
                         percentages are required for renewal grants.

 Contact information     For application kits:
                         Super NOFA Information Center at 1-800-HUD-8929 or
                         Office of University Partnerships Clearinghouse/HUD USER
                         P.O. Box 6091
                         Rockville, MD 20849
                         Phone: 1-800-245-2691
                         E-mail: oup@oup.org
                         Website: http://www.oup.org/about/copc.html

                         For answers to technical questions, contact:
                         Jane Karadbil in the Office of University Partnerships, Office of Policy
                         Development and Research,
                         451 7th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20410
                         Telephone: (202) 708-1537, extension 5918




The UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families, and Communities                                        - 48 -
Financing Considerations for Early Childhood Initiatives



 Comprehensive Community Mental Health Services for Children with Serious
 Emotional Disturbances (SED)
 (CMHS Child Mental Health Service Initiative)
 Administering           U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
 Agency                  Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)


 Type of Program         Project Grants

 Description             To provide community-based systems of care for seriously emotionally
                         disturbed children, adolescents, and their families. The program will ensure
                         that collaborative services are provided across child-serving systems, and that
                         each child or adolescent served through the program receives an individualized
                         service plan developed with the participation of the family (and, where
                         appropriate, the child). The individualized plan designates a case manager to
                         assist the child and family. In addition, all necessary funding is provided to
                         meet the mental health needs of the children and adolescents in these systems.

 Possible LEA            The California counties of Ventura, Riverside, Santa Cruz, San Mateo, and
 Utilization             Solano collaborate agencies that serve children, including local schools and
                         districts, on behalf of children with serious emotional disturbances and their
                         families. In the transition to managed care services, the five counties
                         encourage early intervention for young children and their families. Following
                         the Ventura County System of Care Planning Model, the five counties are
                         evaluating intervention outcomes and costs.
                         There are also programs in Napa, Sonoma, and Santa Barbara Counties.

 Amount of Funding       FY 00: $64,714,539; FY 01: est $86,271,069; and FY 02: est $87,996,490.
                         Range and Average of Financial Assistance: $200,064 to $3,500,000;
                         $1,850,000.
                         In fiscal year 2000, it is anticipated that 44 continuation awards and 10 new
                         awards will be funded. In fiscal year 2001, it is anticipated that 54 awards will
                         be funded.

 Restrictions, if any    This program requires that the applicant provides nonfederal contributions
                         towards such costs in an amount not less than $1 for each $3 of Federal funds
                         provided in the first, second and third years of the grant; applicant contribution
                         increases in the fourth and fifth years.

 Contact information     Gary DeCarolis
 (National)              Chief, Child Adolescent and Family Branch,
                         Division of Knowledge Development and Systems Change,
                         Center for Mental Health Services
                         SAMHSA, DHHS
                         Room 18-49, Parklawn Building 11C-16
                         5600 Fishers Lane
                         Rockville, MD 20857
                         Telephone: (301) 443-1333
                         E- mail: gdecarol@samhsa.gov
 Contact information     Website with examples of state programs and contacts:
 (State)                 http://www.mentalhealth.org/publications//allpubs/CA-0013/ccmhse.htm




The UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families, and Communities                                      - 49 -
Financing Considerations for Early Childhood Initiatives



 Early Head Start
 Administering           U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
 Agency                  Administration for Children and Families


 Type of Program         Project Grants

 Description             Early Head Start (EHS) is a federally funded community-based program for
                         low-income families with infants and toddlers and pregnant women. Its
                         mission is to promote healthy prenatal outcomes for pregnant women, enhance
                         the development of very young children, and promote healthy family
                         functioning. EHS evolved out of Head Start's long history of providing
                         services to infants and toddlers through activities geared toward child
                         development, family development and community building. Early Head Start
                         was established by the Congress with reauthorization of the Head Start Act in
                         1994.

 Possible LEA            Funds may be used for early education, home visitation, parent education,
 Utilization             health services for children and pregnant women, nutritional education, case
                         management and peer support groups.

 Amount of Funding       FY 00 $421,000,000; FY 01: $558,000,000
                         California houses 39 Early Head Start grantees.

 Restrictions, if any    Early Head Start is a child development program for low-income families
                         (who earn less than the federal poverty level), targeting pregnant women,
                         infants, and toddlers up to age three. At least 10% of the enrollment is reserved
                         for children with disabilities. Individual sites determine more detailed
                         eligibility requirements. Early Head Start sites are held accountable for the
                         regular Head Start standards and requirements, including a 20% non-Federal
                         match of program expenses.

 Contact information     Tammy Mann
 (National)              Director, Early Head Start National Resource Center
                         2000 M. St., NW Suite 200
                         Washington, DC 20036
                         Telephone: (202) 638-1144
                         Email: t.mann@zerotothree.org
                         Website: http://www.ehsnrc.org/

 Contact information     Louise Coleman, Regional Office EHS Liaison
 (State)                 50 United Nations Plaza, Room 450
                         San Francisco, CA 94102
                         Telephone: (415) 437-8400




The UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families, and Communities                                     - 50 -
Financing Considerations for Early Childhood Initiatives



 Even Start-- Family Literacy Program
 (Title I, Part B of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act)
 Administering           U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
 Agency                  (OESE)
                         California Department of Education, Family Literacy Programs

 Type of Program         Formula Grants to States
                         Competitive sub-grants to Local Education Agencies and partners

 Description             This program is designed to addresses the basic educational needs of parents
                         and children up to age eight from low-income families by providing a unified
                         program of the following: (1) adult basic or secondary education and literacy
                         programs for parents; (2) assistance for parents to effectively promote their
                         children's educational development; and (3) early childhood education.
                         Projects provide some services directly, and build on existing community
                         resources by collaborating with other service providers.
 Possible LEA            Subgrants are used for activities such as recruitment and screening of children
 Utilization             and parents, design of programs, instruction of children and parents, support
                         services, staff training, evaluation, and coordination with other programs.
                         Funds may not be used for indirect costs.
 Amount of Funding       FY 00: $139,500,000; FY 01: est $141,250,000
                         Range and Average of Awards: $697,000 to $17,635,000; $2,683,000
                         Funding for the 74 projects in California ranges from $75,000 to $250,000
                         annually.
 Restrictions, if any    Applicant Eligibility: State educational agencies (SEAs). The subgrantees are
                         partnerships of a local educational agency (LEA) and a nonprofit community-
                         based organization, a public agency other than an LEA, an institution of higher
                         education or other public or private nonprofit organizations. Any of the latter,
                         with demonstrated quality, may apply in collaboration with a LEA.
                         Beneficiary Eligibility: Parents eligible for participation under the Adult
                         Education Act and their children aged birth through seven. Families must be in
                         need of Even Start services, as indicated by a low income level and low level
                         of adult literacy or English language proficiency, or other need-related
                         indicators.

 Contact information     Patricia McKee
 (National)              U.S. Department of Education
                         OESE, Compensatory Education Programs
                         400 Maryland Avenue, SW
                         Washington DC 20202-6132
                         Telephone: (202) 260-0826
                         Website: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE
 Contact information     Policy and Program Coordination Office
 (State)                 California Department of Education
                         721 Capital Mall 2nd Floor
                         Sacramento, CA 94244-2720
                         Gloria Guzmán-Walker                  Sal Arriaga
                         Telephone: (916) 657-3034             Telephone: (916) 657-4770
                         Website: http://www.cde.ca.gov/iasa/es.html




The UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families, and Communities                                    - 51 -
Financing Considerations for Early Childhood Initiatives



 Goals 2000: Parental Assistance Program
 Administering           U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
 Agency                  (OESE)


 Type of Program         Project Grants

 Description             Parent information and resource centers provide parents with training,
                         information, and support to help them better understand their children's
                         developmental and educational needs, and strengthen partnerships between
                         parents and schools to enable children to achieve high standards.

 Possible LEA            Centers use funds to: (1) coordinate with existing programs that support
 Utilization             parents in helping their children get ready for school and reach high standards;
                         (2) develop resource materials and provide information about high-quality
                         family involvement programs to families, schools, school districts, and others
                         through conferences, workshops, and dissemination of materials; and (3)
                         support a variety of promising models of family involvement programs
                         including Parents as Teachers programs (PAT) or Home Instruction for
                         Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY).

 Amount of Funding       FY 00: $33,000,000; FY 01: est $33,000,000
                         Range and Average of Awards: $200,000 to $500,000; $350,000
                         California’s Ahmium Education, Inc. received $339,104.

 Restrictions, if any    Nonprofit organizations and nonprofit organizations in consortia with
                         LEAs may apply.
                         Preschool and school-aged children and their parents will benefit. Each
                         grantee receiving funds under this program must use at least 50 % of the funds
                         provided to serve areas with high concentrations of low-income families in
                         order to serve parents that are severely educationally or economically
                         disadvantaged. (Part of the funds must also be used to establish, expand, or
                         operate a Parents As Teachers Program or a Home Instruction Program for
                         Preschool youngsters.) Other requirements include the establishment of a
                         special advisory committee and design requirements.

 Contact information     Patricia Gore
 (National)              U.S. Department of Education, OESE, Goals 2000
                         400 Maryland Avenue, SW
                         Room 3E231, FOB6
                         Washington DC 20202-6100
                         Telephone: (202) 401-0039
                         Email Address: Patricia_Gore@ed.gov
                         Website: http://www.ed.gov/G2K/

 Contact information     Enrie Salgado
 (State)                 Executive Director, Ahmium Education, Inc.
                         P.O. Box 366
                         San Jacinto, CA 92383
                         Telephone: (909) 654-2781 Ext. 230




The UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families, and Communities                                     - 52 -
Financing Considerations for Early Childhood Initiatives



 Head Start
 Administering           U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children
 Agency                  and Families


 Type of Program         Project Grants

 Description             To provide comprehensive health, educational, nutritional, social and other
                         services primarily to economically disadvantaged preschool children, including
                         Native American children on federally-recognized reservations, and children
                         of migratory workers and their families. In addition, Head Start to involves
                         parents in activities with their children so that the children will attain overall
                         social competence.

 Possible LEA            Programs include full-year and full-day Head Start; and full-year and part-day
 Utilization             Head Start programs. California’s Head Start programs are administered
                         through a system of 57 grantees and 83 delegate agencies. 52 of these agencies
                         also have contracts with the California Department of Education (CDE) to
                         administer General Child Care and/or State Preschool programs. Many of the
                         programs are located on the same site.

 Amount of Funding       FY 00: $3,866,210,858; FY 01: est $6,199,812,000; and FY 02: est
                         $6,324,812,000
                         Range and Average of Financial Assistance: From $120,000 to $157,000,000;
                         $3,900,000.
                         It is estimated 2,015 grants will be awarded in fiscal year 2001.
                         California’s Head Start program is the largest in the nation. In 1998, over
                         86,000 children were served by Head Start with a program budget of $528
                         million.
 Restrictions, if any    Any local government, Indian tribe, or public or private nonprofit or for profit
                         agency which meets the requirements may apply for a grant. Head Start
                         programs serve 3 and 4 year olds, and at least 90 % of the enrollees must come
                         from families whose income is at or below the poverty guidelines. No less than
                         10 % of the total enrollment opportunities in each program shall be available
                         for children with disabilities. Head Start grantees are required to provide 20 %
                         of the total cost of the program, although this may be waived in part or wholly
                         if certain conditions pertain. The matching share may be in cash or by a fairly
                         evaluated in-kind donation.
 Contact information     Head Start Bureau, DHHS
 (National)              330 C Street, SW., Room 2018
                         Washington, DC 20447
                         Telephone: (202) 205-8572.
                         Website: http://www2.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/hsb/

 Contact information     Michael Zito, Coordinator
 (State)                 California Department of Education
                         Head Start State Collaboration Office
                         560 J Street, Suite 220
                         Sacramento, CA 95814
                         Telephone: (916) 323-9727
                         E-mail: mzito@cde.ca.gov
                         Website: http://www.cde.ca.gov/cyfsbranch/chssco/




The UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families, and Communities                                      - 53 -
Financing Considerations for Early Childhood Initiatives



 Healthy Start Support Service For Children Act
 (SB 620 Presley, 1991)
 Administering           California Department of Education
 Agency                  Interagency Children and Youth Services Division


 Type of Program         Competitive Grants

 Description             Healthy Start goals include: (1) Ensuring that each child receives the physical,
                         emotional, and intellectual support that he or she needs in school, at home, and
                         in the community in order to learn well; (2) Building the capacity of students
                         and parents to be participants, leaders, and decision makers in their
                         communities; (3) Helping schools and other child and family-serving agencies
                         to recognize, streamline, and integrate their programs to provide more effective
                         support to children and their families.

 Possible LEA            Each local Healthy Start initiative provides comprehensive school-integrated
 Utilization             services and activities to meet the desired results identified for Healthy Start
                         children, youth, and families. These services and activities may include:
                         Education (tutoring, mentoring, dropout prevention, adult education, and staff
                         training); Youth Development Services (community services, recreation, and
                         sports); Family Support (child protection, parenting education, English as a
                         Second Language (ESL), citizenship classes, child care, case management, and
                         family advocacy; Basic Needs; Medical/Health Care; Mental Health Care and
                         Counseling; and Employment (career counseling, job placement, job
                         preparation and development).
                         Note: Healthy Start does not necessarily pay for these services. Rather,
                         Healthy Start coordinates integrated service delivery which links children and
                         families to needed supports and services.

 Amount of Funding       Grantees are awarded $50,000 for planning grants for one or two years. Three-
                         year operational projects may be funded for up to $300,000, plus a one-time
                         start-up amount of $100,000. In FY 2000 there were 80 operational grants and
                         93 collaborative planning grants awarded throughout California.

 Restrictions, if any    Elementary, middle, and secondary schools are eligible; there are no
                         restrictions as to grade level. Qualified elementary schools are defined as
                         having 50% or more enrolled pupils whose families utilize TANF, have
                         limited English proficiency or are eligible for free or reduced price lunch.
                         These qualifications vary for middle and secondary schools.

 Contact information     Healthy Start and After School Partnerships Office
                         721 Capital Mall 3rd Floor
                         Sacramento, CA 95814
                         Telephone: (916) 657-3558
                         Website: http://www.cde.ca.gov/healthystart/




The UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families, and Communities                                       - 54 -
Financing Considerations for Early Childhood Initiatives



 Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grant
 (Title V of the Social Security Act)
 Administering           U.S. Department of Health and Human Services , Health Resources and
 Agencies                Services Administration
                         California Department of Health Services, Maternal and Child Health

 Type of Program         Formula Grants to States
                         State distributes funds to County MCH service delivery systems

 Description             To enable States to maintain and strengthen their leadership in planning,
                         promoting, coordinating and evaluating health care for pregnant women,
                         mothers, infants, children, and children with special health care needs. In
                         addition, they provide health services for mothers and children who do not
                         have access to adequate health care.

 Possible LEA            Certain programs overlap with LEA missions of early childhood health and
 Utilization             development. A large proportion of the state’s funds goes toward children
                         with special health care needs and decreasing high risk pregnancies.

 Amount of Funding       FY 00: $586,781,920; FY 01: est $587,193,251; and FY 02: est $587,193,251
                         Range and Average of Grants: $155,128 to $41,903,121; $9,738,077
                         California received $41,012,621 in 1999 Federal MCH allocations.

 Restrictions, if any    States must use at least 30 % of their Federal allotment for preventive and
                         primary care services for children, and at least 30 % for services for children
                         with special health care needs. In addition, each State must establish and
                         maintain a toll-free information number for parents on maternal and child
                         health (MCH) and Medicaid providers. No more than 10 % of each State's
                         allotment may be used for administration.
                         States must assure that $3 of State or local funds will be expended for Maternal
                         and Child Health purposes for every $4 of Federal funds allotted through the
                         formula mechanism.

 Contact information     Maternal and Child Health Bureau
 (National)              HRSA, DHHS
                         Room 18-31, Parklawn Building
                         5600 Fishers Lane
                         Rockville, MD 20857
                         Telephone: (301) 443-2204.
                         Website: http://www.mchb.hrsa.gov/html/bureau_information.html

 Contact information     Gilberto Chavez, M.D.
 (State)                 Chief, Maternal and Child Health Branch
                         714 P Street, Room 750
                         Sacramento , CA 95814
                         Telephone: (916) 657-1347
                         Website: http://www.dhs.ca.gov/pcfh/mchb/about.htm




The UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families, and Communities                                      - 55 -
Financing Considerations for Early Childhood Initiatives



 Medicaid (Title XIX of the Social Security Act)
 Administering           U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Care Financing
 Agencies                Administration
                         California Department of Health Services, Medical Care Services

 Type of Program         Formula Entitlement Grants

 Description             To provide financial assistance to States for payments of medical assistance on
                         behalf of children, pregnant women, and the aged who meet income and
                         resource requirements, and other categorically-eligible groups.
                         States must provide in- and out-patient hospital services; rural health clinic
                         services; federally-qualified health center services; other laboratory and x-ray
                         services; family planning services; physicians' services; early and periodic
                         screening, diagnosis, and treatment (EPSDT Program) for individuals under
                         age 21; pediatric or family nurse practitioner services; and services furnished
                         by a nurse-midwife as licensed by the States.

 Possible LEA            LEAs often provide direct medical services through programs such as the
 Utilization             Child Health and Disability Prevention program (California’s EPSDT) and
                         may bill through the LEA Medi-Cal Billing Option. Any LEA performing
                         administrative activities such as outreach, enrollment and case management to
                         eligible populations may also be reimbursed under the Medi-Cal
                         Administrative Activities program as designated under the state plan and /or
                         waivers.

 Amount of Funding       FY 00: $121,808,711,000; FY 01: est $130,202,133,000; and FY 02: est
                         $143,029,433,000
                         Range and Average of Financial Assistance: (FY 2000) $1,930,000 to
                         $15,900,897,000; $2,046,254,000.

 Restrictions, if any    In California, eligible beneficiaries according to age and family income
                         include: infants and pregnant women (at or below 185% FPL); children under
                         age 6 (at or below 133% FPL); children and adolescents age 6 and over (at or
                         below 100% FPL).
                         Federal funds are available to match State expenditures for medical care the
                         Federal share ranges from 50 percent to 83 percent. California’s Federal
                         match rate is approximately 51 percent.
 Contact information     R. Thompson
 (National)              Director, Center for Medicaid and State Operations, HCFA
                         Room C4-25-02, 7500 Security Boulevard,
                         Baltimore, MD 21244
                         Telephone: (410) 786-3870.
                         Website: http://www.hcfa.gov/pubforms/actuary/ormedmed/default4.htm

 Contact information     Linda Minamoto
 (State)                 Associate Regional Administrator, Division of Medicaid
                         Region IX- San Francisco Regional Office, HCFA
                         75 Hawthorne Street, 4th and 5th Floors
                         San Francisco, California 94105-3901




The UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families, and Communities                                    - 56 -

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:5
posted:9/7/2011
language:English
pages:56