Ways & Means committee hears analysis showing mixed family savings and higher provider revenue under proposed full-day pre-K payment
Loading...
Summary
A fiscal presentation showed scenarios where a full-day universal pre-K payment reduces some families' school-year costs but, because of interactions with the state childcare subsidy (CCFAP) and afterschool needs, can raise total annual costs for others; private providers often stand to gain revenue under the modeled rates.
A fiscal presenter reviewed detailed scenarios showing how a proposed change to universal pre-K payments would affect families and private providers, and how those payments interact with the state childcare subsidy program.
The presenter said the analysis modeled two family cases (market-rate payers and families with an estimated $225 weekly family share) and two provider cases (providers whose families pay market rate and providers with families covered 100% by the subsidy program). For families paying market rate in the presenter’s example, the market-rate preschool was $325 per week and the blended model left a family paying about $211 per week during the 35-week school year; under a full-day universal pre-K payment the same family could pay $0 during the school year but may still pay for afterschool and summer care.
The analysis showed that outcomes depend on the provider’s chosen model. In a blended model (where the UPK payment reduces the family share), the family’s school-year costs fell in the examples presented. In a separated model (where UPK tuition is accounted for separately and families do not see the UPK payment), the presenter calculated substantially higher family costs in the same examples.
On the provider side, converting the foundation formula amount (the presenter used an annual placeholder of $15,033, converted to roughly $430 per week) to a weekly payment for private providers produced higher annual revenue under many scenarios. Examples in the presentation showed provider annual revenues rising from current-year baselines to figures of $20,000–$28,500 per child depending on afterschool provision and subsidy status.
The presenter repeatedly cautioned that the calculations depend on many assumptions: whether universal pre-K is treated as an education program (which would classify some hours as school-age for subsidy calculations), which classes and licensing categories apply, whether private providers opt for blended or separated models, and how afterschool hours are funded and regulated.
Committee members pressed for up-to-date enrollment and subsidy data. The presenter cited preliminary figures—roughly 11,600 children enrolled in the state childcare subsidy program (about 33% with a $0 family share) and about 7,600 children in UPK with roughly half in private settings—but asked to follow up by email with exact counts and data tables.
The committee did not take a vote. Members scheduled follow-up testimony from education staff to supply enrollment, cost and program-design details before the group resumes work on statutory language next week.
