FY2011 Discussion
Context
The Department of Early Education and Care (EEC) has received $16M in “9c” cuts and will likely need to
maintain those cuts and others in developing the FY2011 budget while balancing the core values of both
access and quality and forwarding our agenda for children and families. In light of potential fiscal
reductions, our efforts continue to focus on defining and reporting outcomes on our investments while
ensuring the integrity of programmatic models; and aligning all our expenditures to support our
strategic plan. Below are key considerations per initiative for discussion.
1. Coordinated Family and Community Engagement Grants (CFCE)
Primary Shifts in Practice: Link CFCE grant to specific outcomes regarding early literacy and transitions
and consider having each grantee develop a comprehensive provider support team.
Background Information:
FY2010 Funding
 $10.18M; final budget amounts for CFCE grantees for Local Planning and Coordination
(formerly Community Partnerships for Children)
o
Quarterly reports will collect information on grantee progress on the grant’s five
objectives as well as the additional data points outlined below; the reports are due to
EEC in mid-November.
Work with CCR&Rs to support children with and
without disabilities by providing enhanced referrals
where necessary and conducting follow-up
regarding placement and services provided
# of children provided enhanced referrals
# of children who have received follow-up
regarding placement and services provided
Coordinate/administer a locally available set of
resources to provide comprehensive services at
early education and care programs including but
not limited to physical and dental health, early
childhood mental health consultation, support
health care, occupational or speech therapy, etc.
# of resources coordinated to provide
comprehensive services at ECE programs
Support family literacy through research-based
home visiting programs and in group settings in
order to strengthen the quality of parent-child
verbal interactions
# of families receiving family literacy support
through research-based home visiting
programs
# of families receiving family literacy support
through group settings (i.e. child care center,
family child care, public school, etc.)
1
Coordinate community wide activities and
resources which maximize families' access to
supports which promote successful transitions from
home or preschool to Kindergarten
# of activities and resources coordinated
that maximize families' access to supports
which promote successful transitions from
home or preschool to Kindergarten
Partner with public schools to ensure that families
receive information about Kindergarten registration
and screening.
# of families who received information about
Kindergarten registration and screening
Provide family education and support services that
build on and enhance family strengths, support
parental resilience and encourage social
connections
# of families participating in family education
and support services that build on and
enhance family strengths, support parental
resilience and encourage social connections

$5M; Family Support and Engagement Line Item (supporting PCHP, MFN, JFSP); representing
a decrease of 41% in the final FY2010 budget (post 9C); ~600,000 from this line item
supports Reach Out and Read (also reduced by 41%)
o
PCHP and JFSP programs have cost estimates per child based on a national model.
 This year the PCHP program is expected to serve 473 children and 18 FCC
providers. PCHP has a prescribed model: it costs approximately $2,750 per
child/per year for PCHP (additional cost for programs that serve family child care
providers and children experiencing homelessness as there is an expectation for
enhanced services).
 This year the JFSP funding is expected to support 167 children. For JFSP the cost
uses the PCHP model and adds $300 of MFN funding per child as they provide
additional supports and targeted recruitment.
FY2010 Consolidation - Background
There are currently 120 Coordinated Family and Community Engagement (CFCE) grantees (which
represent 137 CPC Programs, 34 MFN Programs, 22 PCHP Programs, and 11 JFSP Programs. )
Of the 120 coordinated models:
o 45 represent true consolidations of more than one program type collaborating,
o 3 are from CPCs collaborating with another CPC, and
o 71 were from CPCs that did not apply in collaboration with other programs.
Three eligible CPC grantees (Georgetown PS, Pentucket RSD, and Swampscott North Shore YMCA)
serving five towns reported that they were unsuccessful in collaboration efforts and did not apply
for the renewal grant.
Grantees That Did Not Consolidate:
Reasons provided for non-consolidation:
o Lack of partners in their area with whom they could consolidate (PCHP, MFN or JFSP)
o They did not have enough time to determine the specifics of a new consolidated structure,
including identifying a new lead agency.
2
Those grantees made a commitment to continuing to work with their neighboring grantees to
develop a plan for consolidation for FY2011. Further, all grantees have local partners that they are
required to collaborate with as demonstrated on their Council sign-off sheets.
The MFN, PCHP and JFSP programs that did not find it feasible to consolidate were provided an
opportunity to respond to a separate RFR.
o 8 MFN programs (serving 13 towns; Melrose, Springfield, Cambridge, Holyoke, Malden,
Lunenburg, Lawrence and 6 Martha’s Vineyard towns.)
o 3 PCHP programs (Clinton, Springfield and Pittsfield)
o All JFSP programs applied as part of a consolidated grant
Desired / Expected Outcomes:
 Information on early education and care options, parenting education, and community resources is
readily available and accurate; and is available at locations in the community that families frequent
and in languages spoken by families in the community.
 Children experience literacy, language and print rich environments at home, in their early education
and care programs and at school
 Families will be involved in literacy rich activities. For those participating in the Parent Child Home
Program, retention will include the full two years of the PCHP strategy
 Specific strategies and outreach mechanisms are in place to engage hard to reach families including
but not limited to those for who English is a second language, families experiencing homelessness,
families living in isolation and families experiencing multiple risk factors.
 Outreach to all families with newborns or newly adopted infants are conducted by a local,
knowledgeable resource person, offering information about community resources and access to
information about healthy child development.
 In partnership with special education programs, enhanced transition supports are provided for
children in Early Intervention, and those who are eligible, are smoothly transitioned into special
education programs and other community resources and programs.
 In partnership with special education programs, families with preschool children receiving special
education services are provided with options about where to receive special education and related
services in settings with typically developing peers.
 Every community supports and maintains at least one free, child safe, accessible public space (e.g.,
library, community center) where families can take their children to play, find resources on
parenting, support literacy, and network with other families.
 Families and educators have access to comprehensive services to support their children’s healthy
development at home, at their early education and care program and in the community.
 Families have meaningful leadership opportunities in their communities, schools and programs.
Training is available to assist in becoming effective advocates for their children.
 Data, collected locally and aggregated state-wide, is used to measure the need for and effectiveness
of local early education and care strategies and programming.
 Prior to making a transition to a new program, all children and families are contacted by their child’s
school and are invited to visit the classroom/program.
FY2010 Objectives:
Objective #1: Increase knowledge of and accessibility to high-quality early education and care
programs and services for families with children prenatal through school-age.
3
Objective #2: Promote family education, engagement and literacy.
Objective # 3: Facilitate collaboration and community planning between local early education
and care partners and other community stake holders or partners.
Objective #4: Provide support and information to families with children transitioning between
and among early education and care settings, home and school.
Objective #5: Support early education and care programs across the public and private sectors
in delivering high quality services.
Discussion/ Key Considerations:
1. Move out of Quality line item and into Family Engagement line item.
2. All MFN and PCHP should find a Community and Family Engagement Partner for FY11.
3. If funding is limited for CFCE grants, should we refine or reduce objectives for FY2011?
4. Is there a base amount for the grant to communities?
5. Which parts of the system do we want to be accountable for and which parts should we
support or hold others accountable for? i.e. Early Literacy and Local Planning for
Children and Families v.s. providing support services to providers
6. Which objectives or how do the objectives support “Public Information/Consumer
Education/Communication” in the Early Education and Care System? This is required for
our strategic plan and the early learning challenge grant.
7. Which goals support the linkages to the K-12 system and transitions which are essential
for a system which has continuity? Transitions are more than single activities, rather
Target evidence based practice. How do we sustain or maintain PCHP.
8. How do we set expectations for next year that link to children/families served by name?
What is a reasonable cost per person?
9. How do we link CFCE grants to specific children and family outcomes?
2. Early Childhood Mental Health
Primary Shifts in Practice: Combine the funds embedded in supportive with the consultation funds and
provide one RFR for a statewide strategy on early childhood mental health.
Background Information:
FY2010 Funding
Early Childhood Mental Health Consultation Grant
Ten grantees received a total of $900,000 in continuation grants for FY10. The RFR required
grantees to leverage resources through third party billing and new collaborations, in order to
maximize availability and accessibility of these mental health consultation services.


Comprehensive Mental Health in Child Care (CMHCC) Program
Initiated in 2001
FY 10 contract total - $600,000
4

13 programs funded include: Associated Early Care and Education, Inc.; Child Care of the
Berkshires; Catholic Charities; Community Day Care Center of Lawrence; Gregg House;
Montachusett Opportunity Council Child Care and Head Start; Guild of Saint Agnes; Northstar
Learning Center; Pathways for Children; South Shore Day Care Services; SPARK Center Boston
Medical Center; Square One; Valley Opportunity Council
This long-standing collaboration between MassHealth/Mass. Behavioral Health Partnership and EEC
partners early education and care providers with mental health clinics to locate clinicians on-site at
programs that have supportive child care contracts with EEC. The mental health clinicians provide
support and training to staff at the child care program and link families with needed clinical services
through the partnering clinic. Goals include reducing expulsions or suspensions of children due to
behavioral issues; preventing repeat psychiatric hospitalizations of children; improving the quality of
child, parent, and family relationships; and reducing the risk factors that impact children’s emotional
development and their acquisition of knowledge and skills necessary for success in school.
In FY08, approximately 550 children (infants/toddlers, preschool and school-age) received individual
therapeutic services through the CMHCC program. EEC funds approximately 2/3 of the clinician’s
salary to support non-billable services like home visits, classroom observations, service coordination
and collateral contacts, training and travel costs. The remaining 1/3 is funded by billing insurances
for the clinical services that are provided.
Desired / Expected Outcomes:
 Promote the healthy social and emotional development of all children
 Build the capacity of early education and care program staff to enhance children’s learning through
positive, nurturing interactions with children and with their families
 Reduce the number of children who are suspended or expelled from EEC-funded programs
 Promote collaboration for better access to services for children and their families
Discussion/ Key Considerations:
 Are there strategies that would allow this program to expand into a statewide effort in the future
(without expanded funds)? Could FY2011 be a planning year on how to move initiative statewide?
 Change in model to realize efficiencies and go statewide (e.g. limited on-site consultation with
access to a consultant over the phone/web).
 How long do we consider a program a pilot before we move to scale?
 How do we ensure we are providing a support service to early education and care and not services
which should be covered by Mental Health?
3. CCR&R Re-Procurement
Primary Shifts in Practice: Realize efficiencies while maintaining access for children and their families.
Desired / Expected Outcomes:
 Identify key business practices and realize efficiencies while maintaining access for children and
their families
Discussion/Key Considerations:
 Additional information needed before November 10th Board vote
5

Purchase voucher management only? Purchase information and referral as a separate service and
support families by other systems (e.g. telephone/web)?
____________________________________________________________________________________
4. Universal Preschool
Primary Shifts in Practice: Provide access for preschoolers while holding programs accountable to
increased quality criteria; shift resources to support the QRIS system.
a. Moving Funds From Access Account to the Universal Pre-Kindergarten Account to Support
Access to Universal Pre-Kindergarten
Discussion/Key Considerations:
Move funds that serve preschoolers (3 and 4 year olds) from the access account into the Universal PreKindergarten account; serving up to 20,000 subsidized preschool children would cost $156,422,400*
(*based on September numbers: actual preschooler count 17,258; monthly cost: $11,248,158; avg.
monthly cost per child: $651.76; yearly cost: $134,977,893 -- added funding for 2,742 more kids).
Recognizing the importance of continuity for children in early education and care programs, EEC is
looking into the cost of maintaining preschoolers in care if their parent eligibility status changes, due to
unemployment (and other criteria?), and deems them ineligible for continuation of their child care
voucher for financial assistance (per federal funding constraints). EEC is collecting data on the number
of preschoolers in this situation for FY2010 in order to cost out potential options for consideration in FY
2011.
Providers that receive these subsidized preschool children will be held accountable for providing a
developmentally appropriate program as evidenced by use of Early Childhood Program Standards for
Three and Four Year Olds (does not apply to family child care providers) and Guidelines for Preschool
Learning Experiences; using one of four EEC approved assessment tools to improve instructional
practice, and having a career plan for each staff member that includes a compensation trajectory.
Connecting this funding to assessment, as one quality criteria, is key as EEC continues to establish a
comprehensive system for measuring the performance and effectiveness of programs providing early
education and care and services. EEC also continues to recognize the unique challenges of assessing
preschool-aged children.
The future system will measure the performance and effectiveness of programs and the extent to which
every preschool-aged child receiving early education and care in the Commonwealth through the
Massachusetts Universal Pre-Kindergarten program has a fair and full opportunity to reach such child’s
full developmental potential and shall maximize every child’s capacity and opportunity to enter
kindergarten ready to learn.
Funding Proposal:
Use ARRA quality funds to provide targeted training to this cohort of preschool programs; the initial
cohort would be required to be serving 50% or more subsidized children (preschool children or any
age?). Future cohorts serving subsidized 3 and 4 year old preschool children would also be held to the
requirements listed above.
6
b. Use of UPK and Head Start Funds to Provide Fiscal and Other Incentives for Programs that
Improve Quality and Move Up on the QRIS





Background Information
In order to fully implement QRIS or to test the model, we need to have resources available to both
support quality programs and help programs move to the next level.
Implementation of QRIS, which allows us to measure the quality of programs and show
improvement over time, is essential to apply for the Early Learning Challenge Grant.
Desired / Expected Outcomes:
EEC will support programs moving up the QRIS
Programs are incentivized (fiscally or otherwise) to continue to improve quality
EEC will be able to measure the quality of programs and improvement over time: position EEC for
eligibility for the Early Challenge Grant
Families will be aware of quality indicators
Discussion/ Key Considerations:
 Use of a portion of UPK and Head Start Supplemental Grants, as they are designed to support
quality, in FY2011 for supporting incentives for programs reaching a certain level on the QRIS:
o Incentives could:
 be tied to program numbers of subsidized children (e.g. 50% or more)
 come in the form of differentiated rates (other states have implemented ~$.25$1.00) or prioritization for program resources etc.
o Ensure a portion of incentives go toward staff compensation
o Rethink funding formula that UPK uses ($500 classroom enrollment/$1500 subsidized
children for full day/full year programs)
 Recommend existing UPK/HS grantees would maintain 50% of their funding level in FY2010 and the
other 50% would be dependent on their placement of the QRIS.
 What type of fiscal reward would we want to give a program for being at a certain level?
Options include:
a. Quality Grants, Bonuses and Awards (recommendation: based on a tiered subsidy and it
requirement that program commits to enhanced compensation for staff)
b. Tiered Subsidy Reimbursement
c. Loans linked to QRIS
d. Scholarships
e. Wage Supplements
 How could we link these to increasing compensation?
 Are these one-time or annual or with each reassessment?
 What type of Program and Practitioner Supports do we want to offer to programs?
Options include:
a) Professional Development – priority access - addressing currently through the PD RFR, but would
need to link with programs in this pilot
b) Grants for programs at level 3 to get accreditation
c) Technical Assistance
7
5. Professional Development
Primary Shift in Practice: Single RFR for all Professional Development funds that link and align to QRIS.
In FY2011, EEC plans to put out one competitive RFR that identifies professional development
opportunities EEC would like to buy.
Background Information
 In FY2010, $173,850 in admin was charged out of the $3,560,450 total funding for Professional
Development which were disseminated through three mechanisms:
A. Program and Practioner Supports Grant ($1,985,914 in funding was issued to 94 grantees)

Fund Use: This grant also covered costs associated with accreditation -- funds could be used for
costs associated with accreditation (consultants, 50% fees), instructional materials, books for
students, salaries, CEU related expenses, advertising for courses, subscriptions, admin, and
related travel.

Eligibility: Only existing CPC programs that received Accreditation and/or Professional
Development grants in FY2009 were eligible to apply for this grant.

Administrative costs (budget indicated grantees are not to exceed 8% of total award; 58
grantees charged no admin; 36 grantees charged $86,640 for admin, representing 4.36% of the
total funding through this grant (~1/4 of the admin went to Boston).
B. Professional Development through the Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies
 $703,678 in funding was issued to 13 CCR&Rs with 15 contracts—2 CCR&Rs maintain contracts
in more than one region.

Of that funding, $52,918 was pulled aside into a separate contract amendment to the lead
CCR&R of the Network to coordinate professional development offerings statewide by reducing
duplication among CCR&Rs and encouraging collaboration to maximize the use of the available
resources; assure that professional development resources are distributed equitably across the
state, taking into account programs in underserved geographic areas; and address professional
development needs that were not anticipated in the FY 2010 contract amendment.

Fund Use: The specific goals of the Professional Development CCR&R Contract Amendment are
for CCR&Rs to conduct outreach to programs and collaborate with local partners to:
o Support the promulgation of new child care regulations.
o Increase the number of well trained practitioners by providing developmentally
appropriate learning experiences as defined by core competency areas as well as the
resources needed to achieve related credentials, associate, and bachelor degrees.

Funds could be used for costs associated with instructional materials, books, textbooks, or
readers for students, salaries, stipends, and contractual services for contract administration,
instruction, course development of EEC mandated trainings, administrative support, mentoring,
counseling, and advising, expenses for CEU approval and payment of fees for issuance of CEU
8
certificates to students, travel expenses for staff to attend conferences that offer CEUs or
meetings, advertising of courses, trainings, counseling/advising services;

Eligibility: Only CCR&Rs that were funded through procurement in 1998 were eligible for
funding. Allocations were based on a formula from the original procurement and have remained
static since that time.

Administrative costs: (budget indicated grantees are not to exceed 8% of total award) $38,196
or 6% of the award ($605,760) that was allocated to CCR&Rs directly (excluding the $52,918
allocated for a separate contract to the Network). Two contracts charged no admin; 13 contracts
included admin.
C. Building Careers
 In FY2010, 21 two and four year institutions of higher education across Massachusetts have
received grants totaling $923,776 (this represents a 20% reduction over FY2009 funding); (19 of
these colleges and universities also opted to offer additional special needs courses to the early
childhood community using $239,888 of the special needs funds EEC receives from ESE – not
professional development funds)

In 2009 there were 717 Building Careers Cohort students. Of the 717 students, 430 took course
work at a Community College. The total number of students for 2010 is 697; 567 of those are
continuing students and 119 are expected to graduate this school year.

Fund Use: This grant funds college courses and academic advising for early education and care
and out-of-school time educators who are seeking a degree in early childhood education or a
related field. The program is designed to help non-traditional students succeed academically
and professionally by providing career and academic advising, using a cohort model, and
scheduling courses at times that are convenient for working adults.

Objectives:
Objective 1: Increase the number of educators with a degree in early childhood or related field.
Objective 2: Provide necessary supports to early education and care and out of school time
educators seeking a degree in early childhood or a related field.
Objective 3: Increased number of “working” articulation agreements among institutions of
higher education, allowing for smoother transition from associate’s to bachelor’s degree level;
increased agreements with vocational technical high schools to promote a smoother transition
from high school to college; and acceptance of credit for prior learning.
Objective 4: Maximize resources through local, regional, and statewide collaborations with
other institutions of higher education, school districts, community organizations such as
Community Partnerships for Children programs and Child Care Resource and Referral agencies,
and others.

Eligibility: Only Building Careers grantees that were awarded funding in Fiscal Year 2009 were
eligible for renewal funding in FY2010.
9

Administrative costs: Building Careers grantees charged $49,014.31 for administration;
representing 5.3% of the overall budget for this program.
Desired / Expected Outcomes:
 Improved outcomes for children through increased quality of programs and educator’s increased
skills
 Alignment of resources with QRIS
 A coordinated system of professional development that strategically maximizes resources and
reduces duplication
Discussion/Key Considerations:
 Planning may be on a multi-year cycle; focusing on one or more core element/initiative each year.
 Targeted focus on alignment with the QRIS.
 Tracks for both programmatic and educator focus; tracks for each age group (infant/toddler,
preschool, school age); tracks that ensure inclusion of all target populations (center based/family
child care)
 Move towards a workforce development system that supports high quality professional
development for educators within the mixed-delivery system that includes child care centers, outof-school time programs, family child care homes, public preschool programs, private schools,
preschool and kindergarten programs, and Head Start programs.
 EEC envisions a workforce development system comprised of interconnected state-wide, regional,
and local levels. The workforce system recognizes the need to support degrees, credentialing,
competency development and support for reflective practice.
10