Download Minutes - Building Bright Futures

Blue Ribbon Commission
March 17
Minutes
10:00am - Introductions, Charlotte kicked off the meeting and the Commissioners introduced
themselves. Charlotte set objectives for the meeting.
10:10am - Straw poll taken of the group to see where the Commissioners are on the working
definition. A discussion ensued, as some Commissioners who missed last meeting wanted to be
clear about the changes that were made at the February meeting.
StARS Discussion: There was discussion in the group about the elevator pitch definition and the
use of the five star benchmark. There was clarification given to the group about the use of the
five star bench mark as the definition of high quality - for the purposes of our cost-out function,
and then function of the work we are doing.
The group decided that some changes needed to be made to the elevator pitch before there is a
final vote.
Motion for approval: Rebecca
Second: Rachel Hunter
Passed unanimously
Proposed changes:
 clarifying the use of the document ON the document;
 addition of “aspirational” language to the elevator pitch; and
 the addition of language that clarifies that part of high quality is being linked to a system
of quality and ensures access to resources.
10:35am - The sub-committee reported on the work they’ve been doing on organizing the
elements of quality, and how they’ve been working to address them as cost drivers.
- The components were broken up into two groups: cost drivers associated with
individual programs of any size, and cost drivers/quality elements that may be more
achievable/affordable when shared among small programs.
Cost Drivers Associated with Individual Programs of Any Size
- Wages & beneifts classroom staff
- Wages and benefits (management staff)
- Occupancy
- Food & Supplies
- Administration Costs
Cost Drivers/Quality Elements More Achievable/Affordable when Shared
- Wages/benefits other support staff
- Professional Development
- Transportation*
*there are not many programs that offer transportation right now. When you are able to,
however, it increases dosage for the children. But it is an expensive service. CDC spends a little
over $1 million in transportation vendors in regions to eligible children. Kids with special needs,
foster children, children with special needs parents.
The group discussed requiring transportation as a component of quality, and the points that were
made were:
- programs should be aware of existing programs, but that we shouldn’t recreate the
system as one already exists
- the group needs to think broadly about the need for transportation - and ways that we
can collaborate.
- transportation is a systemic issue across the state. public schools have the ability to
- transportation is a barrier - not only to child care, but to appointments and other things
- systemically, how are we transporting children currently, and we can we do to expand
that?
- we should start from a place of where we are now, and how program connect to that.
- aspirational when we think about the system, and not confined our thinking to the
prevalent market model - we should be thinking about other countries.
- what doe san ideal system look like?
- Get to the financing piece when we get to our ideal model of care
The system in countries where early child care is a public good, the tax system supports that
system. The U.S. system is a market-based system - so all of the discussion we have of moving
forward, assumes that we will continue to work within that market-based system. The group
discussed how we would move forward: assuming we would work within a market based system,
or if we are going to discuss options of moving towards a public system.
The When we talk about systems, we have to won the system at some level, because market
don’t support or create systems. We have to figure out to support the networks or we won’t be
able to support the children who need care, but won’t be able to access it because of collapsing
partnerships and networks. In a resource limited environment, under the new act, they have been
a decision over quality of quantity. Requiring states to maybe raise rates, and put children on
waiting lists. Kids who are most vulnerable have the most access, and data shows they show up
in five star programs more often. The families just above them, the band in the middle-income is
so vulnerable and don’t have access at all. What can the Commission do to address that band of
children.
If we could increase access so people in that band (150-340% FPL) had access, it would change
the game. How can we do that so it works so it works for those children? In Vermont we touch
the most vulnerable in a deep way, but the band right above is the most underserved. Capacity
doesn’t grow, because we meet the demand of people who can’t afford to pay. Increasing
capacity of small or larger programs would change a lot of things, including special education
needs.
A discussion about model and delivery occurred:
- should we think about what the ideal model of delivery is - and then finance it later?
If we are going to make a public investment, as we become more willing to invest - how can we
leverage current resources?
The group can utilize existing infrastructure - and models in the K-12 program Somewhere along the line the decision was made to pick up the cost when children got to
kindergarten - we should utilize existing infrastructure an incorporating that into a system we’ve
rethought.
The costs are hire in the 0-3 because of scale. The scale issue is longitudinally. The state’s pre-k
slots have increased in the last 2 years. Because of the investments in pre-school, we’ve been
seeing growth. But not in the infant/toddler arena.
Agenda Items for April
The group was asked to spend two or three minutes writing down ideas for the April 21st
meeting, and agenda topics they would like to hear about. The following were the ideas
generated:
1. Presentation about varied models - presenter around that
1. market based system vs. public
2. how are programs creatively solving system issues currently?
2. What does our ideal system look like?
1. what are we costing out? Are we making the existing system more affordable? or are
we looking at what the optimal system and what THAT costs?
3. Pikus study done of affordability that assumed a full-day model for full-day model - there are
a set of assumptions
4. There are other models that have been done for 0-5 care
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS discussed at meetings
-What is the cost of NOT doing this?
- cost of corrections, cost of other services
-Affordability
- livable wage
-How can we leverage what exists now?
-What does the ideal system look like?
-Who pays now? How much?
-What families thinking?
- helpful to hear from families
-What do current structures cost, and could that look different?
- can we spend the money we do now, in a better way?
-The tension of what parents want vs. what we can afford to deliver to all children
-Public forum discussion
Adjourn: 11:55am
Next meeting: April 28th