Tweet
The legislature will be discussing Youngstar and state subsidy programs tommorow. DCF reports that they have had no complaints or negative commentary on Youngstar. Conversations I've had with countless providers and parents tell me otherwise. Specifically, we would like to see less weight given to formal education (and some given to experience and informal education), and we would like reimbursement rates for family childcare to go back to enrollment based pay as it was before.
If you have a little time at nap today to give your input, please send an email to Representative Johnson @ rep.johnson@legis.wi.gov
She is ready to "go to bat" for us. Here is the letter I wrote. Please feel free to do use any of it for your own, and send your letter as an attachment to her. Thank you!
_____________________________________
my name
my dc name
address
address
RE: Wisconsin Childcare Policies
March 26, 2013
Dear Committee on Children and Families,
I am writing you today regarding the Youngstar Initiative and reimbursement system for childcare assistance in Wisconsin.
I have approximately 20 years’ experience providing high-quality childcare to the children in our area. As a provider in Madison for many years, and now in (my county) County, I have always prided myself in giving the children entrusted to me a safe, nurturing, environment where they could thrive and learn.
In 2011, Wisconsin adopted a Quality Rating System known as Youngstar. This system rates programs on a 2-5 star system (1 start programs are only those programs that are in the process of being shut down). Programs are rated in four areas: Provider Qualifications, Learning Environment and Curriculum, Business and Professional Practices, and Health and Wellness. Unfortunately, the main focus of these ratings is the college credits a provider/program can display. While education is certainly important, this system does not reflect the real quality of care, because it weighs too heavily on the formal education component, and not enough on the program’s environment and provider interactions. Providers who have scored the highest ratings in all other areas, and who have years of experience and informal training (continuing education) under their belts can never be above a 2-star rating.
Millions of taxpayer dollars have been spent on creating Youngstar. Unfortunately, instead of helping families be able to afford high quality care, the bulk of the money is being used for administration and very little goes into the programs; directly benefiting the children. The system is overly complex; requiring each program to work with first a technical consultant, then a formal rater. Not enough money is actually being invested to increase the quality of the programs with training opportunities, grants for equipment, and increased subsidies for low-income families using those programs.
Dane County Providers who are accredited through the City of Madison or those providers who are nationally accredited are automatically given a 4 or 5 star rating (a college degree is still required for a 5 star program). While this is unfair to providers who do not have access to City of Madison programs, it does demonstrate that a teacher/provider’s formal education does not alone represent quality child care.
I propose:
Many tax dollars could be saved by helping providers become nationally accredited, or using the national accreditation model as a tool for rating programs. As with City of Madison Accreditation, * NAEYC and *NAFCC are proven models of high-quality care. Once accredited, a program must reapply only every 2 years vs. each year under the current Youngstar system. Because both NAEYC and NFCA have been accrediting programs for many years, they have “worked out the bugs”, so to speak. This would allow more programs to become 4 or 5-star rated, while saving the state money in administrative costs.
The majority of all child care programs rate at a 2* level. Current policy has cut governmental assisted child care payments to these programs by 5%. It is very hard to invest and increase the quality of care for children when cuts are made. Low income families can not afford to pay the difference.
I propose:
Give the 5% back to 2-star programs if they are working towards quality improvement with their technical consultants, so that we can increase the number of quality programs across the state.
During the past 6 years child care reimbursement rates for low income families have been frozen. Families have been expected to pay a higher portion for care or child care programs have had to make devastating cuts. Then, in August of 2011 families were faced with an even bigger challenge: if you chose to place your child in a family child care program you must cover the cost of any absent days, and the subsidy was capped at 35 hours per week ( Group centers remained at a weekly tuition rate, but are also capped at 35 hours).
So, if a parent stays home with their sick child, they are now expected to pay additional money for child care on that day or, the program must forgo the tuition. If a child is in care 45-hours per week (which is standard for a 40 hour work week), the provider must absorb the additional hours.
Ironically, this poor business practice would lose a program points under the quality rating system. This creates a situation where high-quality programs are now forced to turn away low income families in order to make their budgets.
Most providers in the state work 45-60 hours per week, and make less than minimum wage. We are asking more and more of providers; college degrees, written curriculums, increased documentation, and more outside observation. Yet, we are decreasing their earning potential.
I propose:
Increase to reimbursement rates to reflect the current market rates and reinstate enrollment based authorizations so that families can choose the care that best meets their needs and family child care programs can afford to care for low income children. All children deserve the best start in life.
Thank you for your consideration. Please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have.
Sincerely,
*NAEYC: National Association for the Education of Young Children
*NAFCC: National Association for Family Child Care
If you have a little time at nap today to give your input, please send an email to Representative Johnson @ rep.johnson@legis.wi.gov
She is ready to "go to bat" for us. Here is the letter I wrote. Please feel free to do use any of it for your own, and send your letter as an attachment to her. Thank you!
_____________________________________
my name
my dc name
address
address
RE: Wisconsin Childcare Policies
March 26, 2013
Dear Committee on Children and Families,
I am writing you today regarding the Youngstar Initiative and reimbursement system for childcare assistance in Wisconsin.
I have approximately 20 years’ experience providing high-quality childcare to the children in our area. As a provider in Madison for many years, and now in (my county) County, I have always prided myself in giving the children entrusted to me a safe, nurturing, environment where they could thrive and learn.
In 2011, Wisconsin adopted a Quality Rating System known as Youngstar. This system rates programs on a 2-5 star system (1 start programs are only those programs that are in the process of being shut down). Programs are rated in four areas: Provider Qualifications, Learning Environment and Curriculum, Business and Professional Practices, and Health and Wellness. Unfortunately, the main focus of these ratings is the college credits a provider/program can display. While education is certainly important, this system does not reflect the real quality of care, because it weighs too heavily on the formal education component, and not enough on the program’s environment and provider interactions. Providers who have scored the highest ratings in all other areas, and who have years of experience and informal training (continuing education) under their belts can never be above a 2-star rating.
Millions of taxpayer dollars have been spent on creating Youngstar. Unfortunately, instead of helping families be able to afford high quality care, the bulk of the money is being used for administration and very little goes into the programs; directly benefiting the children. The system is overly complex; requiring each program to work with first a technical consultant, then a formal rater. Not enough money is actually being invested to increase the quality of the programs with training opportunities, grants for equipment, and increased subsidies for low-income families using those programs.
Dane County Providers who are accredited through the City of Madison or those providers who are nationally accredited are automatically given a 4 or 5 star rating (a college degree is still required for a 5 star program). While this is unfair to providers who do not have access to City of Madison programs, it does demonstrate that a teacher/provider’s formal education does not alone represent quality child care.
I propose:
Many tax dollars could be saved by helping providers become nationally accredited, or using the national accreditation model as a tool for rating programs. As with City of Madison Accreditation, * NAEYC and *NAFCC are proven models of high-quality care. Once accredited, a program must reapply only every 2 years vs. each year under the current Youngstar system. Because both NAEYC and NFCA have been accrediting programs for many years, they have “worked out the bugs”, so to speak. This would allow more programs to become 4 or 5-star rated, while saving the state money in administrative costs.
The majority of all child care programs rate at a 2* level. Current policy has cut governmental assisted child care payments to these programs by 5%. It is very hard to invest and increase the quality of care for children when cuts are made. Low income families can not afford to pay the difference.
I propose:
Give the 5% back to 2-star programs if they are working towards quality improvement with their technical consultants, so that we can increase the number of quality programs across the state.
During the past 6 years child care reimbursement rates for low income families have been frozen. Families have been expected to pay a higher portion for care or child care programs have had to make devastating cuts. Then, in August of 2011 families were faced with an even bigger challenge: if you chose to place your child in a family child care program you must cover the cost of any absent days, and the subsidy was capped at 35 hours per week ( Group centers remained at a weekly tuition rate, but are also capped at 35 hours).
So, if a parent stays home with their sick child, they are now expected to pay additional money for child care on that day or, the program must forgo the tuition. If a child is in care 45-hours per week (which is standard for a 40 hour work week), the provider must absorb the additional hours.
Ironically, this poor business practice would lose a program points under the quality rating system. This creates a situation where high-quality programs are now forced to turn away low income families in order to make their budgets.
Most providers in the state work 45-60 hours per week, and make less than minimum wage. We are asking more and more of providers; college degrees, written curriculums, increased documentation, and more outside observation. Yet, we are decreasing their earning potential.
I propose:
Increase to reimbursement rates to reflect the current market rates and reinstate enrollment based authorizations so that families can choose the care that best meets their needs and family child care programs can afford to care for low income children. All children deserve the best start in life.
Thank you for your consideration. Please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have.
Sincerely,
*NAEYC: National Association for the Education of Young Children
*NAFCC: National Association for Family Child Care
Comment