Early Childhood Governance in Florida: Evolving Ideas and Practice

1
Early Childhood Governance in FloridaEvolving
Ideas and Practice

• Final Presentation of the Policy Matters Project
• Sharon Lynn Kagan, Ed.D.
• Tampa, Florida
• October, 2007

2
Presentation Overview

• Policy Matters How We Got to Governance
• Governance Past and Present
• Contemporary Governance Models
• Where is Florida on Governance?
• Future Evolution Next Steps

3
Part IPolicy Matters How We Got to Governance
4
PM How We Got to Governance

• POLICY MATTERS
• Project goal to assist states as they take stock
  of their current early childhood policies and
  plan for the development of an early childhood
  system.
• Represents a partnership between the National
  Center for Children and Families at Teachers
  College, Columbia University and the Florida
  Policy Matters team.

5
PM How We Got to Governance

• Policy Matters has taken place in Ohio,
  Mississippi, North Carolina, Colorado, Utah, West
  Virginia, and Florida

6
PM How We Got to Governance

• The Policy Matters process three phases
• I. Taking Stockthe policy audit
• II. Political Contextsurvey analyses
• III. Setting Prioritiesgoal setting

Phase I Taking Stock
Phase II Political Context
Phase III Setting Priorities
7
PM How We Got to Governance

• At each phase of Florida Policy Matters,
  governance was a central focus
• I. Taking Stockthe policy audit
• Revealed governance to need improvement
• II. Political Contextsurvey analyses
• Survey says governance is one of Floridas top
  issues
• Survey says governance is a strength of the
  political context
• III. Setting Prioritiesgoal setting
• Wide separation between current policy and goal
  levels, suggesting a need for durable change

8
Phase I Taking Stock A Need for Radical Change
9
Phase II Survey Analyses

• Changes in leadership
• New Governor
• New climate of openness and bi-partisanship
• Governance
• Childrens Services Councils
• Early Learning Coalitions
• Children and Youth Cabinet
• Greater collaboration
• Greater awareness of the importance of early
  childhood
• Strong advocates

10
Phase III Goal Setting

• Top Issues Generating Momentum
• Voluntary Pre-K
• Quality and Quality Rating Improvement System
• Childrens Cabinet
• Health/Mental Health
• Preferred Priorities
• Funding
• Quality and Quality Rating Improvement System
• Childrens Cabinet

11
PM How We Got to Governance

• For these reasons,
• governance became the focus of
• Floridas Policy Matters.
• But what is governance,
• and where does it come from?

12
Part IIGovernance Past and Present
13
Governance Past and Present

• Our national governance history begins with
  ambiguity
• On the one hand, the early pioneers came to this
  land explicitly to escape the tyrannies of
  oppressive governments individual initiative and
  self-sufficiency were valued.
• On the other hand, democracy itself demanded some
  government involvement to assure an educated
  populace, giving rise to the most comprehensive
  system of compulsory public education in the
  world.

14
Governance Past and Present

• The social history of early childhood education
  in the U.S. reflects this duality
• Policy orientation hands-off
• Democratic ethos government involvement as
  necessary for the greater social good
• Resulting tension comprehensive commitments to
  young children came only during times of national
  crisis
• World War I, World War II, Great Depression, War
  on Poverty

15
Governance Past and Present

• There was also great ambiguity on two cornerstone
  issues
• WHO GOVERNED
• and
• WHAT GOVERNANCE IS/DOES

16
Governance Past and Present

• WHO GOVERNED
• What emerged over time was he who paid, seemed to
  govern, with the result that ECE
• had lots of different governors

17
Governance Past and Present

• WHAT GOVERNANCE IS/DOES
• Lots of different ideasits a slippery term.
• Means by which actors use purposeful efforts to
  guide, steer, control, or manage sectors or
  facets of society (Kooiman, 1993)
• Process where a collective group makes important
  decisions, determines whom to involve in decision
  making, and establishes how it will account for
  its efforts (Institute on Governance, 2005)

18
Governance Past and Present

• One thing is clear governance is different from
  government!
• Government public, hierarchical decision making
  structure.
• Governance the process of decision-making that
  may be non-hierarchical, may include both
  governmental and non-governmental players, and is
  characterized by specific functions.

19
Governance in ECE Phase I

• Phase IProgram Governance
• Funders or sponsors set the parameters.
• Period of program performance standards
• Different approaches to governance, with Head
  Start being the most stringent
• Different expectations
• Different values
• Different criteria for excellence

20
Governance in ECE Phase I

• Result of the program era of governance
• No system
• Chaos
• Fragmentation
• No infrastructure
• No quality
• A mess

21
Governance in ECE Phase II

• Phase IICoordination and Collaboration
• Reaction to the mess
• New resolution to bring programs and services
  together took five different forms
• Within government cabinets
• Within government management teams
• State level collaborations
• Managing partnerships
• State-local partnerships

22
Governance in ECE Phase II

• Within government models of governance
• Cabinets
• Very popular currently in 16 states
• Involve a broad range of executive, legislative,
  and judicial leaders and can move an agenda
  swiftly, develop shared visions, and foster
  public awareness, but most Cabinets lack
  authority and accountability to implement real
  change.
• Management teams
• Provide a forum for administrators with direct
  management oversight of various programs,
  initiatives, and funding streams, but often lack
  authority and accountability to implement and
  sustain meaningful, system-level policy change.

23
Governance in ECE Phase II

• Public-private models of governance
• State level collaborations
• Meet one-time needs effectively, but are not
  durable and often do not have authority or
  accountability to implement and oversee
  meaningful system change.
• Managing partnerships
• Oversee large-scale and long-term new programs
  possess the authority to manage funds, set
  policies, and oversee service delivery, but lack
  the authority to implementand enforcepriorities.
  
• State-local partnerships
• Imbue local entities with geographically specific
  responsibilities coordinate them within the
  state entity.

24
Governance in ECE Phase II

• Phase II efforts were vibrant, but had serious
  shortcomings
• Not really governance.
• Lacked durability, authority, accountability.
• Not based in legislation.
• Had planning and recommending powers, but not
  administrative authority.

25
Governance in ECE Phase II

• Nevertheless, Phase II approaches were absolutely
  critical to the field
• Alerted us all to the problems we had.
• Began to make us think systemically.
• Set up some really good pioneering models
• Set the stage for Phase IIIwhere we are moving.

26
Governance in ECE Phase III

• Phase IIIResponsibility and Accountability
• Realized that the press for efficiency, equity,
  and accountability were great.
• Also realized growing role of private sector and
  private-public sector linkages.
• Phase II vehicles could not match these demands.
• Needed a newer, more robust approach to
  governance.

27
Contemporary ECE Governance

• Two dimensions to contemporary governance
• FUNCTIONAL ELEMENTS (WHAT)
• Accountability
• Authority
• STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS (WHO/HOW)
• Administrative integration
• Decentralization
• Privatization

28
FUNCTIONAL ELEMENTS

• Authority the power to act
• Developing and enforcing regulations
• Budgeting, allocating, and managing fiscal
  resources
• Collecting, interpreting, and releasing data
• Accountability the power to know
• Fiscal accountability
• Program accountability
• Workforce accountability
• Child/student accountability

29
STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS
Administrative Integration
30
STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS

• Administrative integration the degree to which a
  single administrative agency is responsible for
  early care and education
• Stand-alone administrative integration, or,
• the entirely new state agency approach
• Blended administrative integration
• Subsumed administrative integration, or, the new
  unit approach

31
STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS

• Decentralization the mechanism whereby states
  empower local communities or regions to initiate,
  implement, and monitor efforts that integrate
  care and education.
• Differs from collaboration and partnerships in
  that the control moves downward from the state.

32
STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS

• Privatization allows the state to transfer
  provision, financial, and/or regulatory
  responsibility to actors outside the public
  sector
• Includes both non-profit and for-profit
  organizations

Source Neuman, M. J. (2007). Governance of early
care and education Politics and policy in France
and Sweden. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Columbia University.
33
STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS

• Designing a governance approach demands that all
  three issues are addressed
• Administrative integration
• Decentralization
• Privatization
• None of the following examples is a pure,
  one-vector example they highlight the part that
  is most critical within each.

34
Part IIIContemporary Governance Models
35
Contemporary Governance Models

• Administrative integration
• Massachusetts Department and Board of Early
  Education and Care
• Georgia Bright from the Start Dept. of Early
  Care and Learning
• Pennsylvania Office of Child Development and
  Early Learning
• Maryland Division of Early Childhood Development
• Decentralization
• Colorado Local Early Childhood Councils
• Privatization
• Washington Early Learning Council

36
Administrative Integration Massachusetts

• Massachusetts Department and Board of Early
  Education and Care
• Example of stand-alone administrative
  integration, or, the entirely new state agency
  approach
• Created by the states General Assembly in July,
  2005 and situated within the P-16 continuum
• Combines the authority and functions of the
  Office of Child Care Services with those of the
  Early Learning Services Division at the
  Department of Education

37
Administrative Integration Massachusetts

• Goal to provide universal access to voluntary,
  high-quality early childhood education for all
• Fiscal accountability by administering child care
  subsidies
• Program accountability by licensing more than
  12,000 facilities that serve over 220,000
  children statewide
• Child/student accountability by developing a
  kindergarten readiness assessment system and
  comprehensive evaluation of early education and
  care programs
• Teacher accountability by supporting the
  education, training, and compensation of all
  center-based, family child care, and infant,
  toddler, preschool, and school-age providers

38
Administrative Integration Georgia

• Georgia Bright from the Start Georgia Department
  of Early Care and Learning
• Another example of the stand-alone administrative
  integration, or, the entirely new state agency
  approach
• Outgrowth of Governors Office of School
  Readiness,
• Links the OSR and the Georgia Child Care Council,
  and the Child Care Licensing Division of the
  Office of Regulatory Services in the Department
  of Human Resources
• Oversees child care and educational services for
  Georgias children ages birth through 4 and their
  families and to administer nutrition programs for
  children and adults

39
Administrative Integration Georgia

• Accountability and administration functions
• Oversees Georgia's Pre-K Program for 4-year-olds
• Licenses approximately 3,000 child care centers
  and group child care homes and registers over
  5,000 family child care homes
• Implements the Standards of Care Program and
  Homes of Quality Program to enhance the quality
  of child care
• Administers two federal nutrition programs and
  the federal Even Start family literacy program
• Houses the Head Start State Collaboration Office
• Funds/partners with the child care resource and
  referral agencies
• Collaborates with Smart Start Georgia and other
  entities to blend federal, state, and private
  monies
• Distributes federal Child Care Development Funds.

40
Administrative Integration Pennsylvania

• Pennsylvania Office of Child Development and
  Early Learning
• Example of blended administrative integration
• Established in December, 2006 to coordinate
  initiatives formerly housed in the Department of
  Education (Head Start, pre-kindergarten, full-day
  kindergarten, and pre-school intervention
  programs for children ages 3-5) and in the
  Department of Public Welfare (child care, early
  intervention for children ages 0-3, and family
  support)

41
Administrative Integration Pennsylvania

• Four bureaus
• Bureau of Certification Services regulates all
  child care centers, group homes, and family child
  care homes through regional offices
• Bureau of Early Learning Services supports
  public-private sector collaborations and
  administers pre-k, Keystone STARS, state-funded
  Head Start, the Childrens Trust Fund, Nurse
  Family Partnership, Parent Child-Home Program,
  and T.E.A.C.H.
• Bureau of Subsidy Child Care Services organizes
  the subsidized child care and parent counseling
  services
• Bureau of Early Intervention Services oversees
  the early intervention programs for children
  birth to 5.
• A finance, planning, and evaluation unit

42
Administrative Integration Maryland

• Maryland Division of Early Childhood Development
• Example of subsumed administrative integration,
  or, the new unit /subsumed approach
• Established by 2004 General Assembly legislation
  as a new division within the Maryland State
  Department of Education, moving programs from the
  Office for Children, Youth, and Families and from
  the Department of Human Services to the
  Department of Education
• Early Childhood Development Advisory Council,
  established in state law to guide the Division,
  does not have direct policy-making authority but
  suggests priorities to the State Superintendent
  of Education

43
Administrative Integration Maryland

• Authorities
• Licenses, registers, and monitors family child
  care homes and child care centers
• Oversees the Child Care Resource Network, the
  Family Support Centers Network, and the Child
  Care Credential
• Ensures educational achievement for all children
  under the No Child Left Behind Act, and aims to
  align early childhood programs with K-12
  education goals
• But, the Child Care subsidy program remains in
  the Department of Human Resources, leaving fiscal
  accountability for early childhood services
  divided across state agencies

44
Approach to Decentralization Colorado

• Colorado local early childhood councils
• Local early childhood councils in 12 communities
  authorized in 1997 by the Colorado General
  Assembly
• By 2007, additional legislation increased the
  number of communities to 31, serving 60 of the
  states 64 counties
• Goal to create laboratories for exploring,
  defining, and implementing the critical
  components of a system of early care and
  education

45
Approach to Decentralization Colorado

• Council responsibilities
• Improve coordination between local, county, state
  and, where possible, federal resources
• Ensure collaboration among public and private
  stakeholders in the delivery of services
• Partner with K-12 education stakeholders to link
  early childhood education, kindergarten, and
  grades 1 to 3
• Enhance the quality of early care and education
  programs
• Be responsive to the needs of working parents
• Assess and address community needs to meet local
  needs, but also inform the states overall
  system-building efforts.
• May request waivers to any state law, rule, or
  regulation that hinders their efforts to provide
  comprehensive services for children and their
  families.

46
Approach to Privatization Washington

• Washington Early Learning Council
• Establish by the state legislature in 2005 to
  create an adequately financed, high-quality,
  accessible, and comprehensive system of ECE
• Recommended two major new entities
• An entirely new state agency devoted to early
  care and education, the Department of Early
  Learning (DEL)established in statute
• A public-private partnership, Thrive by Five
  Washingtonestablished by a memorandum of
  understanding signed by business, philanthropic,
  and government leaders.
• This model recognizes that private organizations
  can undertake specific activities more
  efficiently and effectively than can state
  government.

47
Approach to Privatization Washington

• Thrive by Fives market-based priorities
• Supporting two demonstration communities
• Identifying promising models of collaboration
  across the state that are developing coordinated
  approaches to ECE that can inform and shape
  state-level policy
• Encouraging statewide system-building through
  public education and advocacy efforts
• Providing parents and community members with
  information about the quality of care they should
  expect and demand for their children

48
Part IVWhere is Florida on Governance?
49
Where is Florida on Governance?

• Florida has been a leader in ECE governance for a
  long time
• Interagency coordination since the 1980s
• Councils to provide special education services
  for very young children under the Department of
  Health and Rehabilitative Services
• Collaboration among agencies and community
  services at the program level, spurred by the
  Florida Prekindergarten Early Intervention
  Program, to promote school readiness among
  low-income preschoolers

50
Where is Florida on Governance?

• Today, that tradition of leadership in governance
  continues with the establishment of a Children
  and Youth Cabinet that will
• Invest in the education and skills or our
  children youth,
• Develop a cohesive vision and plan that ensures a
  long-term commitment to children and youth
  issues,
• Align public resources service children and youth
  to support their health growth and development,
  and
• Promote increased efficiency and improved service
  delivery by all governmental agencies that
  provide services for children, youth, and their
  families.

Source Childrens Campaign. (2007). Cabinet to
focus on childrens needs. Retrieved October 16,
2007 from http//www.iamforkids.org/newsdata/view_
ind/3803
51
Where is Florida on Governance?

• Created in the Executive Office of the Governor,
  who serves as or appoints a chair
• 15 Board Members
• Executive agency representatives
• Legislative leadership
• Judicial leadership
• Youth advocacy organization representatives
• Advisory board may be appointed by the Governor
  to provide technical and professional research
  and assistance

Source CS/HB 509, Engrossed 2. The Children and
Youth Cabinet Act.
52
Where is Florida on Governance?

• Duties and responsibilities
• To develop and implement
• A cohesive vision for integrated children, youth,
  and family services
• A strategic plan for aligning public resources
  for children, from prenatal care to the
  transition to adulthood, and building public will
  
• Measurable outcomes for each department, agency,
  and program to define progress on the strategic
  plan
• An impact statement to evaluate proposed
  legislation, appropriated funds, and programs
• Actions to promote collaboration, creativity, and
  increased fiscal efficiency

Source CS/HB 509, Engrossed 2. The Children and
Youth Cabinet Act.
53
Where is Florida on Governance?

• Florida has worked for a long time
• to get kids a seat at the table
• Today, were giving them the table
• heres a whole cabinet that will be working for
• their needs.
• - Bill sponsor, Rep. Loranne Ausley

Source Childrens Campaign. (2007). Cabinet to
focus on childrens needs. Retrieved October 16,
2007 from http//www.iamforkids.org/newsdata/view_
ind/3803
54
Part VFuture Evolution Next Steps
55
Future Evolution

• Time for honest stock taking
• The Cabinet is a great launching pad
• Actual functions of the cabinet are more planning
  and accountability
• But somewhat less attention has been accorded to
  administrative, decentralized, and privatization
  issues.
• A comprehensive governance plan must attend to
  these elements.

56
Future Evolution

• With regard to each, here are some
• GENERAL COMMENTS
• QUESTIONS
• POSSIBLE NEXT STEPS

57
Administrative Integration

• GENERAL COMMENTS
• Should begin here it is the framing element
• Some consolidation is good makes for greater
  efficiency and better quality
• QUESTIONS
• How much change can the state tolerate?
• What are precedents for integration?
• What are the pros/cons of administrative
  integration?
• Which form, if any, suits Florida stand-alone,
  blended, or subsumed?

58
Administrative Integration

• NEXT STEPS
• What is the correct mechanism for
  considering some integration?
• Who could take the lead in doing this?
• Who/what entity is perceived as neutral?
• What functions could/should be accorded such an
  entity?

59
Decentralization

• GENERAL COMMENTS
• Can really accelerate involvement in ECE
• Provides a great vehicle for incentivizing
  diverse and inventive efforts (Palm Beach County
  tax)
• QUESTIONS
• What safeguards must be in place to deter
  increased differences in service provision and
  quality among the counties?
• What mechanisms should be put in place to foster
  communication/sharing among counties/localities?

60
Decentralization

• NEXT STEPS
• What, if any, structures currently exist that
  could be used at the sub-state level?
• How effectively are they functioning?
• Are they in need of supports to enhance capacity?
• What functions would such entities undertake?
• What waivers or protections would need to be put
  in place?

61
Privatization

• GENERAL COMMENTS
• Some degree of ECE privatization already exists
• Need to rethink the private sector as a
  value-added ally
• QUESTIONS
• What functions can the private sector can
  undertake well?
• What is an appropriate balance between public and
  private sector provision?
• What safeguards need to be in place (e.g.,
  monitoring)?
• What is the states experience with privatization
  thus far?

62
Privatization

• NEXT STEPS
• Review state successes with privatization
• Understand the liabilities of privatization
• Identify leaders who can help design a
  privatization strategy
• Start small and consider whether this should be a
  state or county strategy

63
Future Evolution

• FLORIDA is WELL POSITIONED
• Executive and legislative support
• Examples from other states
• Fabulous advocacy/ECE community
• Framework for thinking about governance
  systematically

64
Good luck, Florida!