200607 School Readiness Allocation Formula

1
2006-07 School Readiness Allocation Formula

• Agency for Workforce Innovation

2
Statutory Requirements for Allocation Formula

• Must be based on
• Equity
• Performance

Section 411.01(9)(c), Florida Statutes
3
Statutory Requirements for Allocation Formula

• AWI shall recommend an allocation formula
• to the Governor, the chair of the Senate Ways and
  Means Committee or its successor, and the chair
  of the House of Representatives Fiscal Council or
  its successor
• no later than January 1 of each year.

The Legislature shall specify in the annual
General Appropriations Act any changes from the
allocation methodology for the prior fiscal year.
Section 411.01(9)(c), Florida Statutes
4
Current Allocation

• Based on
• Prior Year Allocation
• Adjusted for Surplus or Deficit greater than 1.5

5
Allocation Formula Proposal

• Allocation Formula will
• Include an Equity Allocation
• Include a Performance Allocation.
• AWI will address fluctuations through-out the
  year, with the implementation of a
  de-obligation/re-obligation policy. Currently in
  draft

6
Allocation Formula Proposal

• Separate Allocation Formulas will distribute
• Resource and Referral and Inclusion
• Why

This is a separate program within School
Readiness and inclusion deals with a specialized
population.
7
Allocation Formula Proposal

• Separate Allocation Formulas will distribute
• Infant and Toddler Earmark
• Why

This is a specialized population.
8
Funding Available for Equity and Performance
Total Available to Early Learning Coalitions (EL
Cs) 61x,xxx,xxx 6,182,680 Allocated for Res
ource Referral and Inclusion
5,860,850 for Infant and Toddler Earmark
And remaining 94 - 99 Allocated based on Equit
y 6 - 1 Allocated based on Performance
9
Distribution of Equity Dollars
10
Equity Allocations to Children Served
Equity Dollars Available to ELCs
6x,xxx,xxx Children to be Served TANF Prot
ective Services
Working Poor
11
Equity FTEs per Category
Actual Number of Days Paid/260 Days Per Cat
egory

Weighted for Level of Care
Full Time Equivalent Factor for each Unit of C
are
x
x

Weighted FTE for each Category
Of Care
Used 3 year Average
12
FTE per Category

• The FTE is calculated by county by care level for
  2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06.
  
• Care Level includes Infant, Toddler, 2 year
  olds, 3 year olds, 4 year olds, 5 year olds,
  school age, special needs child, special needs
  teen.

13
FTE per Category

• For each Unit of Care a FTE factor is
  calculated
  
• FT Full time 1.0 11 hour day
• FTFT Full time Full time 1.8182 20 hours
  max
  
• FTPT Full time Part time 1.4545 16 hour
  max
  
• FTS Full time sibling 1.0

14
FTE per Category

• For each Unit of Care a FTE factor is
  calculated
  
• FTV Full Time Wrap Around Care for children
  also attending VPK.
  
• Decision Give them a weight of 1.0, because they
  are only in VPK for 540 hours or 300 hours.

15
FTE per Category

• For each Unit of Care a FTE factor is
  calculated
  
• PT Part time .4545 5 hour day
• PTBA Part time Before and After School .5455
  6 hours
  
• PTL Part time Low .2727 3hours
• PTS Part time sibling .4545

16
FTE per Category

• For each Unit of Care a FTE factor is
  calculated
  
• PTV Part Time Wrap Around Care for children
  also attending VPK.
  
• Decision Give them a weight of .4545, because
  they are only in VPK for 540 hours or 300 hours.
  

17
FTE per Category
For Example
(260 days/16 days) x 1.818182 .111888
18
Weighted FTE

• Each Care level is assigned a weight.
• The weight is calculated by determining an
  average cost of care per day.
  
• Average Cost of Care Reimbursement for the year
  was divided by the days paid, for the full time
  unit of care.

19
Average Cost of Care

• For example

Full time Unit of Care
Category
Average Cost of Care
20
Weighted FTE

• The average cost of care per day is calculated
  for the year for each care level.
  
• A percentage is added for Administration,
  Non-direct, eligibility and quality
  expenditures.
  
• Weights are calculated with PR3 (3 year olds)
  equal to 1.0.

21
Weighted by Care Level
Note The calculated cost is used as a statewide
cost of care. The statewide cost of care is
multiplied by the FTEs in each category. This
will be used to show the amount of funding needed
to provide care to children needing services.
The weighting factor is calculated on a county by
county basis.
22
Weighted FTE for Each Category of Care

• This is calculated for TANF, Working Poor and
  Protective Services.
  
• This is calculated for each county. This is a
  change from prior year formula
  
• All Calculations are completed using a 3-year
  average. The calculation for the Average Cost of
  Care uses only the most current year.

23
Weighted FTE for Each Category of Care

• Why do we calculate the cost of care on a
  statewide level?
  
• Due to past inequities in funding some Coalitions
  may have been able to pay higher reimbursement
  rates.
  

24
Weighted FTE for Each Category of Care

• Why did we decide to calculate the weighting
  factor on a county by county basis?
  
• This will help us capture some service demand
  factors. For example if a county does not have a
  lot of infant providers, they may be paying a
  higher price to secure these services.

25
Weighted FTE for Each Category of Care

• weighting factor by county basis (cont)
• This should not bring out prior inequities
  because it is just a weighting factor. Some
  counties may have to pay 1.5 times the amount of
  a 3 year old to serve infants whereas other
  counties may only have to pay 1.25 times.

26
Equity Inclusion of Demographics
Population of Children Ages 0 to 12 In Famil
ies with
Income Weighted by Care Level Weighted FTE
Convert to FTE
Prior year included Florida Legislature, Division of Economic and
Demographic Research

27
Equity Allocation per Category
Base Allocation by Category
Weighted FTE
District Cost Differential
x
x

Category Allocation
28
Equity Total Allocation
75 of WP Category Allocation
100 of TANF Category Allocation (Required to

serve TCA Clients)
100 of PS Category Allocation (Required to
serve 3 year olds Priority Category)


25 of Demographic Allocation
Total Allocation Calculated Decreased Pro Rata
For Available Funding


29
Equity Total Allocation

• Questions to consider
• Do you want to prorate the total calculation or
  do you want to only prorate the Working Poor?
  
• If you add the fourth category for TANF other and
  have TANF TCA stand alone is the TANF other on
  the same level as Working Poor? Slide 10

30
Equity Total Allocation

• Questions to consider
• Do you give greater weight to current years when
  determining the FTE? slide 22
  
• Should you use 50 of WP served and 50 of EDR
  versus the 75 to 25 split?

31
Equity Total Allocation

• Questions to consider
• The EDR data may include children that are not
  eligible for service or may not seek services,
  what is the best way to determine the demand and
  decrease this population to a service level.

32
Equity Total Allocation

• Questions to consider
• As a change from prior year we considered the
  following (In both prior and current year EDR
  was converted to FTE)
  
• Compare waitlist to EDR population, the highest
  percentage of waitlist to population is 13.66,
  so should we only capture 14 of the EDR
  population? And then would you deduct the FTEs
  you are serving?
• North Carolina pulls in Family Work Status from
  the 2000 census in conjunction with the Income
  status from the 2000 census, is this a more
  reasonable basis to determine demand for
  service.
• OEL will research with Labor Market Statistics,
  AWI, on other available data and provide to
  workgroup if any items become available.

33
Equity Total Allocation

• Questions to consider
• Gold Seal Is this really equity or is it
  performance?
  
• Coalitions with a higher percentage of payments
  to Gold Seal were they able to do this because
  they had more money?
  
• If you give a percentage (statewide average)
  increase to all Coalitions it cancels itself
  out.
  
• Do you give additional funding based on number of
  gold seal providers in county?
  
• Some Coalitions may have made the decision to
  focus on other quality programs instead of Gold
  Seal, if Gold Seal is part of the formula is it
  right that they are penalized? (See spreadsheet
  for percentages of expenditures)

34
Equity Total Allocation

• Recap of principles
• TANF and Protective Services populations Demand
  for services.
  
• Working Poor is the population in which demand
  for services is a factor. Determining the demand
  is the wild card.
  
• All coalitions must be put on an equal footing,
  the past inequities created by availability of
  funding for reimbursement rate increases or gold
  seal payments or serving a higher percentage of
  working poor clients should be leveled out or be
  moving in that direction with this formula.
• Every working poor client throughout the state
  should have the same chance of being served
  regardless of where they live.

35
Prior Rebuttals

• The formula bases each Coalitions allocation
  almost entirely on quantity of slots (FTEs)
  provided to children through OEL School Readiness
  dollars. It does not take into account the
  dollars that are allocated by a Coalition to
  increase the quality of early care and education,
  which are focused on the legislative intent of
  getting children ready for school, nor does it
  take into account the impact of the Coalitions
  service system on actual readiness outcomes.
• The statute charges us with developing an equity
  and performance allocation formula. Equity
  should be the first priority, inequities in
  previous funding should be corrected. Coalitions
  are required to expend a minimum of 70 on slots,
  and should not decrease the minimum number of
  children served. Additionally, we do not have a
  baseline established for readiness outcomes.
  January 2007, we will have uniform scores and
  this will be considered as part of the
  performance allocation.

36
Prior Rebuttals

• The formula penalizes Coalitions that incent
  quality by providing an increased rate to child
  care providers that have met nationally accepted
  accreditation standards and become Gold Seal
  accredited, as is legislatively allowed, and, in
  fact, penalizes Coalitions that have worked to
  increase the number of providers who have reached
  Gold Seal status.
• Some Coalitions may believe that Gold Seal is
  not the best method of increasing quality within
  their communities. Again quality measures are
  best addressed in the performance piece of the
  allocation, equity should be priority. See prior
  discussion on Gold Seal, this is an area that the
  Workgroup will need to make a decision on.
  Review the percentages spreadsheet provided.

37
Prior Rebuttals

• The formula penalizes communities that work
  cooperatively to secure and coordinate additional
  local funds to better serve School Readiness
  children, by not taking into account that other
  local funding sources may have provided FTE slot
  dollars for TANF, At-Risk, and/or Income Eligible
  children, allowing Coalitions to devote
  additional dollars to increasing quality.
• Many coalitions do not have the available
  resources in their communities to coordinate
  with. Currently there are approximately 10
  counties with Children Service Boards. Those
  Coalitions with these partners available have an
  advantage in serving their communities. CCEP is
  a separate allocation.

38
Prior Rebuttals

• The current and prior years School Readiness
  funding has been based on an historic underlying
  funding formula, dating to when DCF held these
  dollars. Each year Coalitions are told to use
  historical allocations for planning purposes, as
  was the case this year.
• OEL has chosen to account for TANF and
  Protective Services based on prior year history,
  because Coalitions were required to serve all
  TANF TCA clients and Protective Services clients,
  all TANF clients are also a priority. The
  waitlists around the state include working poor
  clients, any TANF clients or Protective services
  clients on the list are due to a cross over from
  eligibility determination to enrollment. Prior
  funding did effect these categories of service.
  For Working Poor clients, a mix between
  historical and current population was used. In
  many communities it would not be reasonable to
  use the current population below 150 of FPL
  because individuals in this population may not be
  eligible or may not want services. l

39
Prior Rebuttals

• The data used in calculating the currently
  proposed funding formula is not equitable,
  accurate, nor based on consistent business rules
  across the State.
• The data used is the data which reimbursements
  are based on. Inaccurate data would imply that
  Coalitions are not being reimbursed based on
  actual costs. OEL IT is currently working on a
  data quality initiative to ensure current
  business rules across the State.

40
Distribution of Performance Dollars
41
Allocation Formula Proposal

• Performance Requirement
• Approximately 1 to 6 of School Readiness funding
  is earmarked for Quality and Quality Expansion.
  
• This portion of the funds available for
  distribution will be allocated based on
  performance.
  
• Distribution may not take place until September
  of Funding Year.

42
Allocation Formula Proposal

• Performance Requirement
• Each Coalition will receive a rating based on the
  following
  
• Adherence to Earmarks and Restrictions.
  penalties for not meeting earmarks and
  restrictions, additional points for exceeding
  
• Monitoring results a baseline will be
  established with the 2005-06 Monitoring results.

43
Allocation Formula Proposal

• Performance Requirement (cont)
• Baseline for eligibility monitoring results will
  be established in 2007-08, future results will be
  included in Coalition Rating. (Development of
  Eligibility Monitoring tool and reporting
  mechanism will be completed in 2006-07)
• Timeliness of invoice, match reporting and annual
  reports.

44
Performance Allocation
45
Performance Allocation

• AWI will reserve the right to include Readiness
  Scores and/or QRS measures in the future if an
  equitable measurement system is developed.

46

• Infant and Toddler Allocation

47
Infant and Toddler

• AWI is required to spend a minimum amount of
  funds for infant and toddler quality activities.
  
• This earmark is passed to the Coalitions.

48
Infant and Toddler

• The Infant and Toddler earmark allocated based
  on
  
• Minimum to each Coalition of 63,647
• 0 to 2 population

49
Infant and Toddler

• The 0 to 2 population is adjustment by county for
  RCMA children.
  
• The minimum is provided at the Coalition level
  and not the county level to resolve the
  inequities created by multi-county coalitions.

50
Infant and Toddler

• With this new proposal all Coalitions with
  similar 0 to 2 populations received similar
  funding.
  
• Do you want to include the DCD in this
  calculation?
  
• Do you want to adjust this allocation in
  subsequent years for Coalitions that do not meet
  this earmark?

51

• Resource and Referral
• and
• Inclusion Allocation

52
R R and Inclusion

• AWI is required to spend a minimum amount of
  funds for Resource and Referral
  
• The OEL has allocated additional discretionary
  funding for Inclusion and an increase to the
  federal earmark for Resource and Referral.

53
R R and Inclusion

• Previously R R and Inclusion funding was based
  on the old Department of Children and Family
  districts. When the coalitions were formed each
  county received an equal percentage of the
  original distribution.

54
R R and Inclusion

• The Resource and Referral and Referral funds are
  allocated
  
• Minimum base to each Coalition for Resource and
  Referral and Inclusion
  

55
R R and Inclusion

• RR BASE
• 100,000 children or less 75,000
• More than 100,000 children 100,000
• Inclusion BASE
• 25,000 for each Coalition

56
R R and Inclusion

• Weighted allocation criteria for Resource and
  Referral
  
• 0-5 child population per County (40)
• Primary customers
• 6-12 child population per County (20)
• School-age services are in high need in some
  communities
  

57
R R and Inclusion

• Weighted allocation criteria for Resource and
  Referral
  
• Providers per County (30)
• Number of providers is proportional to the need
  of care within communities
  
• DCD per County (10)
• Cost of Living adjustment

58
R R and Inclusion

• Weighted allocation criteria for Inclusion
• 0-5 child population per County (20)
• Recognizing the relationship between population
  and the percent of children identified with
  disabilities and special health care need.
  
• 6-12 child population per County (10)
• See above

59
R R and Inclusion

• Weighted allocation criteria for Inclusion
• Providers per County (60)
• Primary recipients of services
• DCD per County (10)
• Cost of living adjustment

60
R R and Inclusion

• Additionally RCMA will receive 50,000 per their
  statewide contract.

61
Phase In

• Do you want a Phase in of all Allocation
  Formulas or just main formula?
  
• Possible Phase In solutions
• 2 year period.
• Each coalition will only receive 50 of their
  increase/decrease in the 1st year.
  
• Each Coalition will be at full funding in the 2nd
  year.
  
• Adjust Allocations to ensure no Coalition is
  reduced by more that 10 in each fiscal year.

62

• Questions?
• Contact Stephanie Gehres _at_
• stephanie.gehres_at_awi.state.fl.us