Aumento de acceso a los programas de aprendizaje y cuidado infantil de California

Introduction

Children and their families deserve access to affordable and reliable early learning and care options that promote whole-child development and support overall family well-being. Families should also have the opportunity to choose early learning and care programs that best meet their needs and goals — families have the expertise on what their children need and know what’s best for them.  

However, inequitable and fragmented funding structures, misaligned programs, workforce challenges, and other barriers in state-funded early learning and care programs prevent children and their families from accessing the benefits of early learning. These barriers limit early learning and care opportunities and leave families with few or no options in their communities. This can have immediate and long-term implications for children’s development and overall well-being.

California’s state leaders can strengthen and expand access to early learning and care opportunities by fully developing a mixed delivery system tailored to the needs and diversity of California families. A mixed delivery system allows families to choose programs for their children that best meet their needs and preferences such as location, hours, and curriculum. Moreover, with a mixed delivery system the state can leverage resources and infrastructure across programs and also strengthen conditions for early learning educators.

This report explores California’s early learning and care system and provides key considerations to designing a mixed delivery system that meets families’ needs. California’s early learning and care system can be revamped by:

• Increasing investments that align with children and family needs.
• Strengthening the entire early learning and care workforce.
• Aligning programs at the state and local level, especially as Transitional Kindergarten (TK) is expanded and becomes universal over the next few years.

Early Learning and Care Options for California Families

The state offers — through a system of early learning providers — several early learning and care programs at reduced or no cost to families based on specific eligibility requirements. These programs aim at supporting families with the lowest incomes. The following table shows the key programs included in California’s current early learning and care system.¹Child care and early learning programs not in this table include: the Migrant Alternative Payment Program, Migrant Child Care and Development Program, Emergency Child Care Bridge Program for Foster Children, and Children with Severe Disabilities. Key points from this table include:

No or Reduced Cost Child Care and Early Learning Options

As shown in the table, the state’s early learning and care system is complex. Families seeking early learning and care programs confront a complicated set of options and requirements that can be challenging to navigate.

Early learning and care providers have to follow rules and regulations from different programs and contracts and compete for enrollment and funding.³Prior to 2020, early learning programs were administered by CDE. The 2020-21 budget act transitioned most programs, except for CSPP, to CDSS. The expansion of TK that began in 2021-22 and that will be available to all four-year-olds by 2025, free of charge, adds additional complexity to the system. Alignment with other programs is crucial to ensure the system as whole works toward a mixed delivery system that centers the needs of children and families.  

Programs can be revamped into a mixed delivery system tailored to the needs of California’s families and children that takes into account the diversity in background, household structure, as well as the inequities many of these children and families face. Some key facts that highlight the diversity of children and families include:

• Nearly a quarter of children live in a single-parent household.
• Approximately 20% of children ages 0-5 live in a multigenerational household.
• More than 50% of children ages 0-5 live in a home that speaks a language other than English.
• A higher proportion of Black and Latinx children ages 0-5 live in lower income households, as detailed in the chart below.

A mixed delivery system is also attentive to children’s needs across all ages. The chart below shows the population of children ages 0-3 and ages 4-5 across time. As shown, there are millions of infants, toddlers, and preschool-age children. Notably, while the population of 0-3 year olds has declined over the past decade, there are still over one million non-preschool-aged children in California with early learning and care needs.

Given the variety of early learning options offered by thousands of early learning providers across various settings (including centers, family child care homes, and schools), California has an opportunity to create a mixed delivery system that attends to the diversity of children and families. By developing this system, the state can also leverage resources and infrastructure to strengthen opportunities for the workforce to expand and grow their career and businesses.

Program Examples

The following examples highlight ways in which communities are utilizing current early learning programs to resemble a mixed delivery system that meets families’ needs. These examples illustrate how providers design programs, how programs benefit families, as well as some implementation challenges.

Community Based Preschool and Care

Early Childhood Discovery Centers, Inc. (ECDC), an organization that runs early learning programs in Selma, California, serves multiple age groups in school-based and non-school-based settings using a variety of funding sources. ECDC programs receive most of their funding from the state through contracts with CDE and CDSS. They also receive funding from a federal program specifically to provide meals. ECDC offers part-day and full-day preschool programs for children ages 3 to 5, and they offer a full-day toddler program. ECDC serves around 250 families from diverse backgrounds, needs, and preferences. Families want safe and enriching spaces where their children can learn. ECDC strives to offer programs designed along those overarching goals.

School Based Preschool

Lindsay Unified, in Tulare county, offers a combination of programs for preschool-age children for families who prefer services through a school district. In addition to the TK program, the district also holds a CSPP contract, which allows them to stack UTK classrooms with CSPP classrooms to create a more seamless preschool experience for families. For example, TK can be offered in the morning for 3 hours and CSPP in the afternoon for another 3 hours. This approach to deliver programs prioritizes families and helps break down the silos that exist between these early programs due to funding, rules, and various other aspects.

State Spending and Enrollment for California’s Early Learning and Care Programs

As mentioned, there are a variety of early learning programs available to children and families in California. Each of these programs, except for Head Start which is federally funded, receives funding from the state to provide care at reduced or no cost to families. Generally, funding for General Child Care, voucher programs, and non-school-based CSPP come from the state’s General Fund. Funding for TK and school-based CSPP comes from the Proposition 98 General Fund — Prop. 98 guarantees a minimum level of funding specifically for TK-12 schools, the CSPP program, and the state’s community colleges. 

State spending on early learning has varied over time, as shown in the chart above. Since 2014-15, funding for voucher programs, CSPP, General Child Care, and TK has increased greatly. The largest increases have been in the CSPP and TK programs, with those two programs receiving 3.5 times and 3 times more funding in 2022-23 than they did in 2014-15, respectively.

From 2014-15 until 2021-22, enrollment for early learning programs has remained relatively steady, or even decreased, as shown in the enrollment chart above.⁵Enrollment data for 2022-23 was not not available for most programs at the time of publishing. Enrollment in voucher programs has grown slightly since 2014-15, but the other programs are at enrollment levels almost identical to 2014-15 or even slightly less. Spending on General Child Care, for example, is 2.5 times higher than what it was in 2014-15, but enrollment is below 2014-15 levels. While there are many reasons for changes (or lack thereof) in enrollment across programs — ranging from COVID-19 challenges, administrative challenges, public awareness, etc. — trends do provide insight into family preferences and needs.

A mixed delivery system requires spending and investments in programs that align with the needs of California’s diverse families. However, currently funding is not matching enrollment levels, such as in UTK where spending has tripled since 2014-15, while enrollment has decreased over a similar time period. As further detailed in the implications that follow, significant and ongoing state investments are necessary to address key aspects of a mixed delivery system, including a well-compensated and trained workforce, outreach and family inclusion, and well-coordinated structures for collaboration.

Implications for Children, Families, and the Early Learning and Care Workforce

With the ongoing expansion of TK and the integral role of child care for supporting families recovering from economic hardships experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic, the state faces an urgent need to work toward a mixed delivery system that supports the needs of all of California’s children and families. As the state and local governments move forward with planning for a mixed delivery system — through mechanisms such as the UPK Mixed-Delivery Quality and Access Workgroup and the UPK Mixed-Delivery Planning Grants — the following implications will be important for consideration.

Implications for equitable and accessible care

Overall, the unmet need for early learning and care in California is high. Earlier analyses show that eight out of nine children eligible for subsidized early learning and care in California do not receive services. Within this context, the funding and enrollment trends highlighted previously point to key implications for families’ ability to access child care.

Funding for early learning and care and programs does not align with family preferences and needs.

Although funding trends show the highest increase in funds for TK and CSPP, enrollment trends do not match. Specifically, enrollment trends show that voucher programs have the highest positive change in enrollment in recent years. This misalignment suggests that programs are not being funded in a way that matches the preferences and needs of families. Moreover, funding trends show that investments in early learning have increased the most for four-year-olds, even though infants and toddlers have historically faced higher costs of care.

TK expansion has left families confused on how to enroll and if they are eligible.

While funding for TK has increased, enrollment has not kept pace. This may be explained by the challenges families face when navigating the early learning and care system, as explained further in the subsequent bullets. Although TK is free, TK enrollment requirements (i.e., which four-year-olds are eligible and when) have been confusing for families.⁶Ana Powell and Tobi Adejumo, Why is Transitional Kindergarten Enrollment Lagging? A Look at Parent Survey Data (Center for the Study of Child Care Employment, June 2023).

Additionally, while TK will become universal for all four-year-olds by 2025, some families will still choose other programs, or a combination of programs, due to families having a diverse set of child care needs.⁷Powell and Adejumo, A Look at Parent Survey Data. With this in mind, California must equitably invest in all of their early learning and care programs to meet the needs of all California families and children.

Current efforts to expand TK do not align with the diversity of California’s children and families.

TK teachers are predominantly white (71%) and only approximately one-fifth of teachers are multilingual.⁸Elena Montoya et al., Teaching Transitional Kindergarten: A Snapshot of the Teacher Experience Before UTK Expansion (Center for the Study of Child Care Employment, December 2022), 2. However, as shown previously, California’s children and families are diverse; thus, their racial/ethnic and linguistic backgrounds do not match the TK teacher demographics — a trend that mirrors the K-12 system. The state’s investments in early learning and care should promote options that meet the cultural and linguistic needs of all California families. As TK continues to expand, ensuring alignment in cultural and linguistic diversity will promote a successful mixed delivery system.

Systems Coordination

California’s early learning and care programs are fragmented. Each program has specific rules and requirements that can create barriers for providers enrolling children and families trying to access services. Moreover, programs are administered by two different state agencies, which makes it difficult to coordinate implementation through a 0-5 lens.

Early learning and care programs are misaligned.

Many programs have the same income eligibility, schedule, payment structure for families, and serve similar age groups. However, they also differ slightly in terms of setting, funding mechanism, and the overall intent of each program (see table above). This fragmentation has implications for both families and providers. Providers, for example, are required to hold various contracts with state agencies, which impacts the design and delivery of programs.

With the development of a more equitable and unified funding mechanism already underway, the state could consolidate and streamline — as proposed by the Master Plan for Early Learning and Care  and the Blue Ribbon Commission on Early Childhood Education Report — several of these programs to remove barriers for providers as well as families navigating the system and still offer families choice in terms of setting and other preferences.

Furthermore, the expansion of TK does provide more options for families. However, it must be well aligned and coordinated with other early learning and care programs that also serve four-year-olds to meet the needs of children and families. This includes access to a full day of early learning and care services. 

Data on early learning at the state level are not centralized.

Data needed to track program participation, funding, and other key measures are fragmented or unavailable. This has significant implications for the entire system. For example, enrollment data are split between two state departments and it’s difficult to find the unduplicated number of children participating in each of the programs. Moreover, the state doesn’t maintain a centralized list on the number of families waiting for a child care voucher.

As a result, the state does not know how many families are waiting to receive child care assistance. Additionally, the state not have the reliable data needed to assess where to invest additional resources to improve services.

A more centralized data system can support a mixed delivery system by helping to:

• Streamline eligibility for families.
• Track progress in key developmental measures for children with disabilities for developmental delays.
• Inform policy decisions, among other benefits.

Administration and governance at the local level is uncoordinated.

There are various entities at the local level that provide early learning and care services, administer funding, provide professional development or technical assistance, and other responsibilities. Each of these entities, such as school districts or Family Child Care Home Education Networks, serve similar communities but are not set up to work in partnership.

The state has implemented several efforts to coordinate early learning programs at a more local level. One example is the Local Planning Councils, which are tasked with supporting access to programs at the county level. Another example is the UPK efforts led by CDE to support localities in implementing a mixed delivery system for preschool-age children. These efforts are an initial step in developing collaborative relationships, however, it is not clear what entity is accountable and has the authority to ensure programs are well coordinated to make services available to families.

As a result, a robust mixed delivery system may be challenged by local coordination issues as families may not have clarity on all the programs they can access and how to access them.

Workforce Implications

California’s child care system includes 116,800 members of the early learning and care workforce. Funding and enrollment trends hold direct implications for the workforce. This, in turn, impacts the ability for California to develop a true mixed delivery system.

The increased investment in TK may result in K-12 teachers transitioning to TK, as opposed to staffing TK classrooms with educators who have a background in early learning.

With the increase in funding for TK and the anticipated increase in enrollment, school districts will need more teachers to lead and support TK classrooms. As a result, many schools may move teachers with the needed credentials into teaching TK, even if they lack experience with appropriate age groups. A TK instructor currently needs a Multiple Subject Teaching Credential and 24 credits in early childhood education. However, this requirement is not mandated until 2025. Thus, as TK continues to expand, classrooms are likely to be filled with K-12 teachers and not early educators with specific child development experience.

Focusing state resources on preschool-age children leaves out key parts of the workforce and exacerbates pay inequities.

Pathways to teaching TK require early educators to obtain higher education units and credentials. Specifically, the PK-3 credential mandates a bachelor’s degree and the completion of a PK-3 ECE Specialist Instruction Credential preparation program.⁹More information about the PK-3 credential and its requirements can be found here: https://www.ctc.ca.gov/docs/default-source/commission/agendas/2022-04/2022-04-3h.pdf?sfvrsn=5afb27b1_3 Current providers — such as family child care providers and center-based providers — often do not have the time or resources to enter into the higher education system. Their years of experience cannot support a transition to a TK lead teacher without obtaining a degree, thus presenting barriers for many providers with accessing these opportunities.

Family child care providers and center-based providers (who also teach four-year-olds) earn lower wages than a TK lead teacher and have faced enduring challenges with receiving a fair and just wage.¹⁰Detailed analyses on the pay gap between TK teachers and child care providers was produced by the Center for the Study of Child Care Employment: https://cscce.berkeley.edu/publications/data-snapshot/double-or-nothing-potential-tk-wages-for-californias-early-educators/. Moreover, recent efforts to reform the amount child care providers are paid have been met with one-time funding increases, as opposed to an ongoing funding commitment similar to TK. Thus, creating narrow pathways to becoming a TK provider may contribute to inequities in the early learning workforce with regards to compensation.

State leaders continue to fail in making significant investments in linguistically and racially diverse educators working in 0-5 settings.

While early data shows that TK lead teachers are majority white and monolingual English speakers, family child care providers are predominantly people of color (71%) and over half (52%) speak non-English languages.¹¹Early data on the TK workforce was collected and analyzed by the Center for the Study of Child Care Employment: https://cscce.berkeley.edu/publications/report/teaching-transitional-kindergarten/. However, as mentioned previously, family child care providers face barriers to becoming TK lead teachers. By narrowing investments in TK, the state is inherently disinvesting in promoting and developing more diverse parts of the early learning workforce that better match the demographics of California’s children.

Conclusion

California can strengthen and expand access to early learning opportunities by investing in and fully developing a mixed delivery system that prioritizes the unique needs and preferences of children and their families. These needs and preferences include non-traditional hours, multilingual environments, preferred learning settings, among others. Current funding, especially for programs outside of schools, is not sufficient to fully realize a mixed delivery system. Inadequate funding to support California’s youngest learners has significant drawbacks that impact families’ access — particularly for those with lower incomes and from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds — to programs in their communities as well as early learning providers and educators trying to make a living wage in this field. As the state continues to focus on efforts to create a stronger mixed delivery system, state leaders should consider:

This report highlighted that the early learning system is complex and in many ways does not meet families’ needs and preferences — as shown through misalignment in spending and enrollment. The expansion of TK adds another layer of complexity to the system that can serve as an opportunity to align and redesign programs that serve children 0-5 and move toward a universal mixed delivery system equipped to serve millions of children and families who have little or no opportunity to enroll in a program.

Support for this report was provided by the Ballmer Group.

Despite providers’ critical role in nurturing children and assisting families, state leaders have failed to consistently and adequately increase provider payment rates in recent years. Without sufficient payments, child care providers are unable to offer early educators fair wages, struggle to keep pace with the rising statewide minimum wage, and can’t afford the increasing price of food and supplies. Ultimately, California providers and families suffer when affordable child care is limited in their communities because of policymakers’ lack of investment.

How Are Subsidized Child Care Providers Paid in California?

Subsidized child care providers are paid in one of two ways in California: 1) by accepting vouchers from families or 2) by contracting directly with the state. Providers who accept vouchers are reimbursed by the state based on the Regional Market Rate (RMR) Survey. The RMR survey — administered every two to three years — provides “rate ceilings” based on provider setting and the age of the child for all 58 California counties. The rate ceiling is the highest payment a provider can receive from the state for the care of a child. Providers who contract directly with the state are paid based on a Standard Reimbursement Rate (SRR). The SRR is adjusted to reflect the additional cost of serving certain children.¹In 2018-19, policymakers also increased the Standard Reimbursement Rate adjustment factors for certain higher-cost groups of children, such as infants and children with disabilities. However, some (but not all) of these adjustment factors were eliminated in the 2021-22 budget agreement as part of the transition to a single reimbursement rate system for subsidized child care providers. See Assembly Bill 1808 (Committee on Budget, Chapter 32, Statutes of 2018), https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB1808; and Assembly Bill 131 (Committee on Budget, Chapter 116, Statutes of 2021), https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB131. Moreover, beginning in 2022-23, state law requires an annual cost-of-living adjustment to the SRR, although the Legislature may suspend it for a given fiscal year.

Payment Rates for Voucher-Based Child Care Providers Are Not Keeping Pace Across 58 Counties

State leaders have updated voucher-based payment rates for child care providers just twice since the 2016-17 state fiscal year. During this same period, the state law requiring annual increases to the statewide minimum wage went into effect, raising the wage by 55% from 2016-17 to 2022-23 and increasing costs for providers.²Calculations are based on the minimum wage for employers with 25 employees or less. Senate Bill 3 (Leno, Chapter 4, Statutes of 2016), https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB3.

The rate ceilings for child care providers across all 58 counties generally have not kept pace with the rising minimum wage even after the most recent increase to payment rates enacted in 2021-22. In the state’s most populous county — Los Angeles — payment rates for licensed centers caring for preschool-age children increased by less than half as much as the statewide minimum wage. Providers in some counties, such as Riverside County, saw miniscule rate increases of less than 5%. And in 27 counties, due to weaknesses in the rate-setting methodology, licensed centers have not received a single rate increase for care for preschool-age children since 2016-17.³Market rate surveys collect data on the tuition and fees that families can afford to pay for child care in a geographic area. These rates typically do not cover the true cost of care, as many providers supplement tuition and fees with other sources of revenue, such as grants or donations. See Bipartisan Policy Center, The Limitations of Using Market Rates for Setting Child Care Subsidy Rates (May 2020), 4-6, https://bipartisanpolicy.org/report/the-limitations-of-using-market-rates-for-setting-child-care-subsidy-rates/

State Rate for Contract Providers Doesn’t Match Rising Child Care Business Costs

Policymakers have not consistently updated the SRR each year so that contract providers can keep pace with rising staff costs and the increasing price of food and supplies. From 2016-17 to 2022-23, the SRR increased by 36.6%, falling short of the 55% increase in the state minimum wage.

Even though contract-based providers are required to meet more program standards than voucher-based providers do, the payment rate is lower than the RMR ceiling in many counties, illustrating a key problem with the state’s bifurcated rate system. To correct for this, policymakers included a provision in the 2021-22 budget agreement to reimburse contract-based providers with either the SRR or the rate for voucher-based providers, whichever is higher.⁴Assembly Bill 131 (Committee on Budget).

Child Care Providers Urgently Need a Substantial Pay Raise

Child care provider rates are inadequate and further destabilize the state’s early care and learning system. Policymakers should significantly increase rates in 2023-24 to ensure child care providers can keep up with costs and continue to offer invaluable care to children and families. Doing so would offer needed relief to providers and support the longer-term implementation of a new rate system that will reflect the actual cost of providing care, including paying educators fair wages.

To fully and consistently fund these critical investments in child care, state leaders will have to develop solutions that raise ongoing revenues. One option is to scale back or eliminate costly tax breaks that provide outsize benefits to wealthy people and profitable corporations. Each dollar that goes to these poorly targeted tax breaks is a dollar that is not available to bolster core state services — such as subsidized child care. Moreover, the State Appropriations Limit (“Gann Limit”) may be a barrier to boost investments in child care and other public services. Policymakers should work to remove or significantly reform this spending cap so the state can plan and make bold investments that help families be healthy and thrive.