200607 School Readiness Allocation Formula - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


PPT – 200607 School Readiness Allocation Formula PowerPoint presentation | free to view - id: bc42-ZGU0M


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation

200607 School Readiness Allocation Formula


2006-07 School Readiness Allocation Formula. Agency for Workforce Innovation ... AWI shall recommend an ... FTV Full Time Wrap Around Care for children ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:62
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 63
Provided by: gehr


Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: 200607 School Readiness Allocation Formula

2006-07 School Readiness Allocation Formula
  • Agency for Workforce Innovation

Statutory Requirements for Allocation Formula
  • Must be based on
  • Equity
  • Performance

Section 411.01(9)(c), Florida Statutes
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
Current Allocation
  • Based on
  • Prior Year Allocation
  • Adjusted for Surplus or Deficit greater than 1.5

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

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

This is a specialized population.
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
Distribution of Equity Dollars
Equity Allocations to Children Served
Equity Dollars Available to ELCs
6x,xxx,xxx Children to be Served TANF Prot
ective Services
Working Poor
Equity FTEs per Category
Actual Number of Days Paid/260 Days Per Cat

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

Weighted FTE for each Category
Of Care
Used 3 year Average
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

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

FTE per Category
  • For each Unit of Care a FTE factor is
  • 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.

FTE per Category
  • For each Unit of Care a FTE factor is
  • 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

FTE per Category
  • For each Unit of Care a FTE factor is
  • 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.

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

Average Cost of Care
  • For example

Full time Unit of Care
Average Cost of Care
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
  • Weights are calculated with PR3 (3 year olds)
    equal to 1.0.

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.
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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

Category Allocation
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

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

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?

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.

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
  • OEL will research with Labor Market Statistics,
    AWI, on other available data and provide to
    workgroup if any items become available.

Equity Total Allocation
  • Questions to consider
  • Gold Seal Is this really equity or is it
  • 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
  • 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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Distribution of Performance Dollars
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
  • Distribution may not take place until September
    of Funding Year.

Allocation Formula Proposal
  • Performance Requirement
  • Each Coalition will receive a rating based on the
  • 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.

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

Performance Allocation
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.

  • Infant and Toddler Allocation

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.

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

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.

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

  • Resource and Referral
  • and
  • Inclusion Allocation

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.

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.

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

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

R R and Inclusion
  • Weighted allocation criteria for Resource and
  • 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

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

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

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

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

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
  • Adjust Allocations to ensure no Coalition is
    reduced by more that 10 in each fiscal year.

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