Louisiana task force reviews draft funding formula to expand early childhood access, address childcare deserts and special-needs supports

The Early Childhood Care and Education Commission task force met to review a draft funding model intended to guide long‑term expansion of early childhood services in Louisiana.

“I am Karen Howe, deputy assistant superintendent for the office of early childhood care and education here at the Louisiana Department of Education,” said Karen Howe as she opened the meeting. Abby McCartney, senior director at Affton Partners, presented an early Excel tool the firm developed with the Department to test scenarios for a funding formula.

The draft is modeled in part on the state’s K‑12 Minimum Foundation Program (MFP) approach — starting from a base per‑child cost, applying weights for higher needs and then estimating local and state shares — but the presenters and task force members emphasized early childhood differs substantially from K‑12 in delivery, hours of care and funding recipients. “We’ve been working with the department and, other folks in you all, across the state for a little over a year, working through this idea of a funding formula for early childhood,” McCartney said.

Why it matters: the tool is meant to produce a statewide funding target and to identify where a next dollar should go — for example, whether to prioritize infants, rural “childcare deserts,” children with disabilities, or educator compensation. Task force members repeatedly raised questions about how the model treats part‑time versus full‑time slots, how it would detect children using multiple programs, and how to pair formula funding with start‑up grants or employer and parish contributions to build supply.

Key features of the draft tool shown to the task force include: a parish‑by‑age inventory of children and slots using census and program data; selectable base cost inputs (two cost models were included as options); user‑entered targets for the percentage of children to serve by age and income band; and editable weights for special populations such as children with disabilities, English learners and children experiencing homelessness. McCartney walked members through scenario analysis such as raising the share of infants served or increasing the weight for children with disabilities and showed the resulting statewide funding gap.

The presentation included rough scale figures from the model as demonstrated in the meeting: a sample “status quo” run produced an estimated total sector cost of about $564,000,000 and counted roughly $336,000,000 in federal funds in the base scenario; McCartney noted roughly $20,000,000–$23,000,000 of state funds in that same illustrative view. At the parish level, the demonstration showed examples such as Acadia Parish with an illustrative funding gap of about $3,700,000 and 234 slots under one scenario, and Washington Parish reported roughly 771 current slots and about $8,300,000 in current funding in the model’s status‑quo view. McCartney cautioned these are early estimates and that the tool currently counts slots rather than unique children because program data do not reliably de‑duplicate children across Head Start, CCAP and other programs.

Members asked for several refinements before broader use: adjust for part‑time vs full‑time slots (members suggested budgeting for additional slots to reflect part‑time use), break current funding and slots down by age group, and improve sources for special‑needs estimates — McCartney said the team may shift toward using Early Steps data for disability prevalence. The task force discussed a 60 percent access target referenced in prior commission work; McCartney said the commission’s historical target has been to serve two‑thirds of economically disadvantaged children, and that the 60 percent figure reflected an earlier, pre‑existing target for broader planning.

Policy levers discussed: contracted seats and payment in advance to stabilize provider revenue; local matching to incentivize parish contributions; employer contributions as an additional revenue source; and differentiated base amounts to reflect higher compensation scenarios. “One thing we could think about … is different levels of base amounts that reflect different amounts of compensation,” McCartney said when members raised educator pay and parity concerns. Task force members pushed for pairing formulaic allocations with grant or start‑up programs that can seed supply in areas that lack sufficient demand to sustain centers.

Data and process limitations: presenters and members flagged significant data gaps, including inconsistent reporting across programs, limited availability of part‑time/full‑time slot detail, and the inability to de‑duplicate children enrolled in multiple programs. McCartney urged cautious use: “A model is not going to tell you what to do. It’s a tool that you can use to evaluate different ideas, but it’s not a replacement for judgment, values and insight of people in the field.” The team recommended further provider engagement and outreach to economic development, workforce and Ready Start network partners to align incentives and support local start‑ups.

Outcome and next steps: no formal votes or policy decisions were taken at the meeting. Task force members asked the Department and Affton Partners to refine the tool (clarify slot vs child counts, add age‑group breakdowns of current funding, incorporate Early Steps data for special‑needs prevalence, and add options for part‑time slot assumptions), and to engage additional stakeholders including workforce and economic development partners. The Department announced the broader Early Childhood Care and Education Commission would meet March 25 to hear an outside presentation on a tri‑share model that includes employer, employee and state contributions.

Members said they want more parish‑level, user‑friendly views that local leaders can take to economic development and workforce meetings to show concrete gaps and potential funding options. Presenters and members agreed the draft model is a discussion tool and asked colleagues to provide additional data sources and feedback before the model is used to make or publicize firm policy recommendations.