ACCESS AND QUALITY FOR ILLINOIS CHILDREN · 2019. 5. 6. · 2 Access and Quality for Illinois...

Illinois Early Childhood Education Needs Assessment

ACCESS AND QUALITYFOR ILLINOIS CHILDREN

Strengthening nonprofits and the communities they serve.

2

Access and Quality for Illinois Children: Illinois Early Childhood Education Needs Assessment was conducted by the IFF Research & Evaluation Department with funding provided by The Pritzker Children’s Initiative.

IFF is a nonprofit organization whose mission is to transform low-income and disinvested communities in the Midwest using the tools of community development finance and expertise, bolstered by data and place-based research. IFF brings capital from many sources, undertakes real estate investment and development, and forms partnerships with local leaders. Using these resources, IFF works to improve decision-making and resource allocation for facilities-intensive programs including community health, affordable housing, and early care and education. In the field of early care and education, IFF has conducted over a dozen needs assessments and, in many cases, has helped to implement the new priorities that have emerged from these studies. In 1992, IFF and the state of Illinois launched the Child Care Facilities Development Program. As part of the program, IFF documented the need for services and designed, financed, built, and owned seven new facilities on behalf of early care and education providers. IFF then transferred ownership to the providers when the debt was retired. In 2000, IFF launched the Chicago Children’s Capital Fund with the City of Chicago, resulting in 14 major expansions of early care and education centers.

These projects established IFF as an expert in the finance and design of state-of-the-art facilities. The early care and education buildings served as family resource centers that strengthened community identity. These special programs, along with IFF’s 30 years of consulting, development, and lending have resulted in the creation of over 15,000 new slots and 1.5 million square feet of new or renovated space for early care and education that serve and support low-income families.

IFF’s early care and education research methodology is distinct in its spatial analysis of supply at a neighborhood level. This localized approach helps early education stakeholders focus investments where they will reach the greatest number of underserved children. IFF’s publications include the history of federal and state legislation and programs for low-income children; the economic impact of the early care and education industry; and statewide, regional, and community needs assessments. In cities where IFF has conducted similar research, the data and analysis have informed decisions, such as comprehensive planning for the early care and education system, investment in facilities modernization, program location, and targeted communication to communities or populations regarding early care and education options.

PREFACE

Access and Quality for Illinois Children:Illinois Early Childhood Education Needs Assessment

1

Funding for this study was provided by The Pritzker Children’s Initiative. IFF would also like to thank the following organizations and individuals who provided valuable assistance in the completion of this report:

IFF PROJECT STAFF Jesse Bakker, Former GIS AnalystCindy Copp, Senior GIS AnalystLisa Doi, Research and Evaluation ManagerNicholas DiRago, Former Research AssociateRachel Gordon, Research and Evaluation ManagerGina Martinez, Former Research and Evaluation ManagerDavid Mieksztyn, GIS AnalystTara N. Townsend, Ph.D., Vice President of Research and Evaluation

IFF ADVISORY STAFF

Kirby Burkholder, President, Social Impact AcceleratorJose Cerda III, Vice President of Public PolicyKatie Coleman, Director of CommunicationsJoe Neri, Chief Executive Officer

Design: IFF © April 2019

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND CONTRIBUTORS

2

ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Livia Bane, Director of Provider Services, YWCA Northwestern IL

Lynn Burgett, Division Supervisor, Early Childhood,Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE)

Paula Corrigan-Halpern, Vice President, Public Policy + Strategic Initiatives Children’s Home + Aid

Jonathan Doster,Policy Manager, Ounce of Prevention

Misty Edwards, Director, Child Care Resource and Referral, Eastern Illinois University

Phyllis Glink,Executive Director, The Irving Harris Foundation

Tasha Green Cruzat,President, Voices for Illinois Children

Cornelia Grumman,Program Director, McCormick Foundation

Dan Harris, Executive Director,Illinois Network of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies (INCCRRA)

Theresa Hawley,Senior Vice President, Policy & Innovation,Illinois Action for Children

Kathryn Kelly,Director, Communications and Community Initiatives, J.B. and M.K. Pritzker Family Foundation

Sophie Milam Consultant, Social Policy Strategies

Janice Moenster, Director Early Childhood Services, Children’s Home + Aid

Cristina Pacione-Zayas,Director of Policy, Erikson Institute

Sylvia Puente, Executive Director, Latino Policy Forum

Charlie Rosemond, Data and Outcomes Manager, Education Systems Center

Cynthia Tate,Executive Director, Governor’s Office of Early Childhood Development

Dawn Thomas,ECAP Director, Special Education, University of Illinois

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................................... 6Background ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 12Brief Methodology ............................................................................................................................................................................... 16Statewide Overview .............................................................................................................................................................................. 22Provider Perspectives ........................................................................................................................................................................... 56Recommedations .................................................................................................................................................................................. 62Appendix ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 68

MAPSMap 1: Focus Group Attendees .......................................................................................................................................................... 19Map 2: Statewide Access to Any ECE Provider, Ages Birth to Five .............................................................................................. 27Map 3: Chicago Metro Region Access to Any ECE Provider, Ages Birth to Five ....................................................................... 28Map 4: Statewide Access to Gold Circle of Quality Providers: Ages Birth to Five ..................................................................... 29Map 5: Chicago Metro Region Access to Gold Circle of Quality Providers, Ages Birth to Five .............................................. 30Map 6: Statewide Access to Any ECE Provider, Ages Birth to Two ............................................................................................. 32Map 7: Chicago Metro Region Access to Any ECE Provider, Ages Birth to Two ...................................................................... 33Map 8: Statewide Access to Gold Circle of Quality Providers, Ages Birth to Two ..................................................................... 35Map 9: Chicago Metro Region Access to Gold Circle of Quality Providers, Ages Birth to Two .............................................. 36Map 10: Statewide Access to Any ECE Provider, Ages Three to Five ........................................................................................... 38Map 11: Chicago Metro Region Access to Any ECE Provider, Ages Three to Five .................................................................... 39Map 12: Statewide Access to Gold Circle of Quality Providers, Ages Three to Five .................................................................. 41Map 13: Chicago Metro Region Access to Gold Circle of Quality Providers, Ages Three to Five ........................................... 42Map 14: Percent of Children Below 200% FPL, Ages Birth to Five .............................................................................................. 45Map 15: Chicago Metro Percent of Children Below 200% FPL, Ages Birth to Five ................................................................... 46Map 16: Statewide African American Population ........................................................................................................................... 47Map 17: Chicago Metro African American Population ................................................................................................................. 48Map 18: Statewide Latinx Population................................................................................................................................................ 49Map 19: Chicago Metro Latinx Population ...................................................................................................................................... 50Map 20: Colleges with ECE Training Programs .............................................................................................................................. 57Map 21: Study Areas by National Center for Health Statistics County Designation ................................................................. 82

4

CHARTSChart 1: Supply by ExceleRate Circle of Quality and Geography Type ........................................................................................ 23Chart 2: Participating Center-Based Providers by ExceleRate Circle of Quality ........................................................................ 24Chart 3: Participating Home-Based Providers by ExceleRate Circle of Quality ......................................................................... 24 Chart 4: Model for Distributing Provider Slots Based on Income and Urbanization Level ...................................................... 83 Chart 5: Number of Slots by National Center for Health Statistics County Designation: Weighted vs. Unweighted .......... 84

TABLESTable 1: Target Areas for Focus Groups ........................................................................................................................................... 17Table 2: Provider Focus Group Attendees by Type ......................................................................................................................... 18Table 3: Illinois Statewide Needs Assessment by Age Group ........................................................................................................ 25Table 4: Illinois Statewide Needs Assessment by Level of Access, Ages Birth to Five ................................................................ 26Table 5: Illinois Statewide Needs Assessment by Provider Quality, Ages Birth to Five ............................................................. 26Table 6: Illinois Statewide Needs Assessment by Level of Access, Ages Birth to Two ............................................................... 31Table 7: Illinois Statewide Needs Assessment by Provider Quality, Ages Birth to Two ............................................................ 34Table 8: Illinois Statewide Needs Assessment by Level of Access, Ages Three to Five ............................................................... 37Table 9: Illinois Statewide Needs Assessment by Provider Quality, Ages Three to Five ............................................................ 40Table 10: Statewide Demographic Snapshot .................................................................................................................................... 44

5

6

IFF’s statewide needs assessment, Access and Quality for Illinois Children, examines access to quality early childhood education (ECE) services across the State of Illinois including both home and center-based care and preschool programs. The goal of this report is to inform stakeholders of the disparities in access across communities in the hopes of serving the greatest number of children in need of care with the highest quality of care. Stakeholders can use the information presented to create a comprehensive, high-quality, equitable strategy for children throughout Illinois as well as reflect on targeted geographic strategies. Given the finite resources available, this report highlights the counties with the most limited access to ECE in order for investments and improvements to reach the areas with the greatest need. An additional report prepared by the Erikson Institute helps to build on the trends in access and quality identified in this needs assessment.

Creating high quality ECE opportunities for children is not only vital but also one of the most cost-effective investments Illinois can make in its future. The following findings and recommendations aim to guide strategic decision-making and promote action-oriented policymaking in Illinois. In order to increase access and improve quality, key stakeholders from across the state must work to understand why the ECE system is working well in some communities in order to address the challenges facing the target communities identified in this study.

RECOMMENDATION #1: INCREASE ACCESS TO INFANT AND TODDLER CARE IN ILLINOIS

Findings: Not all families with children under 2-years-old require access to formal ECE services. However, limited options exist for these young children and families in Illinois, particularly in terms of high-quality care. Infant and toddler care is the most expensive care to provide, mainly due to the required low staff to child ratios. Lack of access to infant and toddler care often results in fewer parents returning to the workforce, which has implications on economic growth statewide. Additionally, the quality of educational experiences during these very early years are crucial to child development and growth.

Strategies: According to the Center for American Progress, the price for basic infant care in Illinois is about $53 per day and $45 per day for basic toddler care. The Illinois Department of Human Services (IDHS) 2016 Market Rate Survey found that across the state providers were charging a median of $50 per day for infants and $48 per day for toddlers. IDHS reimbursement rates vary regionally within the state and for center and home-based providers, but the maximum reimbursement for infants is $48.47 and for toddlers is $40.93. In all counties, Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP) reimbursement rates need to be increased to meet the true costs of high quality care.

Providers also need more options to blend and braid program funding to cover the high cost care—this includes Early Head Start, Prevention Initiative grants, local government dollars, and private philanthropy. To support this, there needs to be better alignment between program goals and objectives so that a provider can truly interweave these sources.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

7

Another factor that potentially impacts infant and toddler care is the push for statewide universal preschool for 4-year-olds. While these younger children would not be served by this expansion, if older children leave community-based homes and centers to receive school-based care, this will shift the overall financial model for providers and make it harder for them to make ends meet. As the state explores universal 4-year-old care, it is crucial to give community-based providers a seat at the table and keep options open for families so the marketplace for infants and toddlers does not collapse.

Finally, the State of Illinois should provide funding for facilities that serve infants and toddlers in the proposed 2019 capital bill or through a policy initiative to help both home-based providers and centers provide high-quality care for this crucial age group.

Recommended Target Areas: Counties in the northwest (i.e. Whiteside, Bureau, Knox) as well as in south central Illinois (i.e. Moultrie, Douglas, Coles, Shelby, Effingham, Fayette) had minimal access to infant and toddler care. Areas in the greater Chicagoland region (i.e. Lake, DuPage, and Cook counties) as well as centrally located counties (i.e. Peoria, Champaign, Sangamon) had relatively high access. However, many low-income families living in these communities are unable to afford this care.

RECOMMENDATION #2: GROW SUPPLY OF QUALITY PROVIDERS IN ILLINOIS’ MORE RURAL COUNTIES

Findings: Illinois residents in rural counties across the state faced limited access to formal ECE services, especially to high-quality care. While rural communities had slightly

below average access to ECE services, they had far less access than urban communities to high-quality ECE providers.

Strategies: Given the low population density of rural communities, it is challenging for center-based providers to serve every community. Therefore, home-based and family, friend, and neighbor care are an important and valued part of rural ECE supply. Local Child Care Resource & Referral (CCR&R) Agencies, Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (IDCFS) licensing representatives, and All Our Kids (AOK) networks should increase provider and parent education to highlight the range of program options.

In addition, per Governor Pritzker’s 2020 budget proposal, CCAP eligibility should be raised to families making up to 200% Federal Poverty Level. This will mean an estimated 19,000 more children in rural counties will be eligible for CCAP. The State of Illinois should also prioritize funding for facilities that serve rural communities to expand access in either the proposed capital bill or through a policy initiative.

Finally, it is not enough to increase the number of slots in rural communities, the quality of care must also be improved. With an increase in the number of CCAP eligible children, more providers might find the CCAP enhancements an incentive to advance in the ExceleRate Circles of Quality. Funding for CCR&R staff in rural communities should also be increased to support providers as they make quality improvements.

Recommended Target Areas: Rural counties with low ECE access include those in southern Illinois (i.e. Massac) as well as parts of north central Illinois (i.e. Douglas, Moultrie, Lasalle, Livingston). The above-mentioned counties in north central Illinois also experience low access

8

to high-quality providers in addition to Knox and Iroquois counties, as well as other counties in south central Illinois (i.e. Effingham, Fayette, Cumberland, Coles, Clinton).

RECOMMENDATION #3: PROMOTE EQUITABLE ECE ACCESS IN LOW-INCOME COMMUNITIES THROUGHOUT METROPOLITAN CHICAGO

Findings: In many of Chicago’s high poverty communities, ECE access falls below the state average. This is especially true in Chicago’s westside neighborhoods, as well as in broader Cook County.

Strategies: As with infant and toddler care, promoting equitable care in metropolitan Chicago requires increasing funding available to providers. CCAP reimbursements need to be raised to meet the true cost of care. A 2017 Illinois Action for Children report found that families in Cook County pay, on average, $41.22 per day for 3-4 year old care at a center-based provider and $33.76 per day for home-based providers. At the same time, IDHS only reimburses $34.11 per day to Cook County centers for the same age children and $29.92 for home-based providers. Providers in Chicagoland need to be able to blend and braid dollars to take advantage of Head Start, Preschool for All grants, local government dollars, and private philanthropy, and these systems need to be better aligned. Providers in metropolitan Chicago need access to capital dollars through a state capital bill and longer-term funding supports to allow for the development and expansion of facilities.

Finally, as these communities move toward universal 4-year-old care, community-based providers need to be

part of this conversation so that the marketplace is not destabilized. For school districts that are already in the process of rolling out universal four-year-old care, it is important to recognize that many families need full day, full year care for 4 and 5-year-olds. Local governments should consider special grant programs, like Indiana’s On My Way to Pre-K, which would provide funds to allow families to choose community-based ECE care.

Recommended Target Areas: Chicago neighborhoods with the largest gap in supply compared to demand include neighborhoods on the north, west and southwest sides of the city. Surrounding Cook County also experienced a large service gap, specifically in parts of Schaumburg, Deer Park, Palatine, Cicero and Chicago Ridge. It is important to note that this analysis identifies communities by their lack of geographic access only. Other risk factors (i.e. affordability, parental education, parental employment, homelessness, etc.) that may help to prioritize investments based on overall need are included in Illinois Risk and Reach report.

RECOMMENDATION #4: EXPAND EXCELERATE PARTICIPATION STATEWIDE Findings: Access to high-quality ECE services was not uniform across Illinois, as certain areas have more Gold Circle of Quality providers. This trend is partially due to limited advancement beyond the Licensing Circle of Quality in ExceleRate, especially for home-based providers. Outreach strategies tailored to center-based or home-based providers are necessary to increase quality improvements. Workforce issues, such as a lack of qualified teachers and challenges offering competitive pay, provide

9

additional obstacles for providers in achieving and/or improving quality.

Strategies: As the focus groups with providers indicated, ExceleRate provides consistent guidelines for quality, but the benefits for making quality improvements may not always outweigh the costs. ExceleRate should provide a direct benefit to program staff through education and retention awards given to staff for program quality. Through Pennsylvania’s Keystone STARS, a teacher can earn up to $3,090/year and a director can earn up to $4,120/year as a bonus at center or home-based providers that receive a 4 STAR rating. Across the state, providers pointed to the importance of CCR&R agencies in ExceleRate and quality writ-large. Grant funding for these services should be increased to help recruit and retain quality specialists and expand services. Especially in rural communities and with home-based providers, CCR&R agency staff serve as the front-line for quality improvement efforts. With the expanded grant dollars, local CCR&Rs should also increase provider and parent education around ExceleRate, support the advancement of more home-based providers in the Circles of Quality, and help parents better understand their ECE options.

Finally, and most importantly, as Illinois Network of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies (INCCRRA) and other stakeholders work to improve ExceleRate, providers from across the state must have a seat at the table to ensure that the quality rating and improvement system (QRIS) aligns with the daily realities of providing ECE care.

Recommended Target Areas: Portions of Knox, Iroquois and Vermilion counties in north central Illinois as well as Cumberland, Effingham, Fayette, Clinton and Massac counties in south central Illinois have effectively no

Gold Circle of Quality providers. In addition, in most of Moultrie and Douglas counties, there are no high-quality providers for infants and toddlers.

RECOMMENDATION #5: SUPPORT EFFORTS FOR STATEWIDE COLLABORATION ACROSS THE ECE SYSTEM

Findings: Many efforts exist across Illinois to support knowledge-sharing and funding, yet programs and investments are oftentimes uncoordinated with only regional concerns or a specific issue area in mind. Additionally, while many statewide data sources exist, including INCCRRA, Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) and Illinois Early Childhood Asset Map (IECAM), these entities are highly disjointed. This lack of integration in statewide data sources limits the ability to obtain a complete picture of the ECE landscape in Illinois. This creates challenges with accurately determining the capacity and utilization of different ECE services providers across the state.

Strategies: In response, stakeholders should promote coordination at the state-level, such as through the Governor’s Office of Early Childhood Development (OECD), to ensure more integrated ECE data is available to support data-driven investment decisions and policy-making. To improve the utility of ECE data, stakeholders should first prioritize data needs by articulating key strategic questions in order to identify the gaps in existing data sources. Investments should then be made in technology, human capital, and organizational practices that strengthen data collection and management and support linkages statewide.

10

NEXT STEPS These findings and recommendations serve as a starting point for both discussion and action to increase access to quality ECE services statewide. This report, in conjunction with the Erikson report, provides the foundation for evidence-based decision-making among policymakers, non-profit partners, and other key stakeholders. Additional research also needs to be conducted to enable more targeted strategic investments in rural communities, smaller geographies, and with different age groups.

11

12

Illinois is home to nearly one million children under the compulsory school age of six. In the first few years of life, the brain forms up to one million new neural connections per second. The formation of these connections is driven by a child’s environment and experiences. These interactions in a child’s early years of life impact his or her cognitive, social, and physical development. Furthermore, these experiences have demonstrated long-term benefits on education, health, and employment outcomes, all of which affect social and economic mobility.

By the time children enter kindergarten, socioeconomic disparities already exist. In fact, this gap in academic performance among school-age children is often formulated prior to the age of three. Therefore, high-quality early learning environments are especially important for children from birth to two years of age with continuing linkages to high-quality preschool environments for children three to five years of age. Oftentimes, as is the case in Illinois, the largest gap in accessibility to high quality care exists precisely for children birth to two years of age. Therefore, access to high quality early childhood education (ECE) services for infants and toddlers is identified as a priority in this report.

Due to the substantial body of research demonstrating its positive impact on youth outcomes, ECE remains a prominent policy issue in Illinois. From the proposed rollout of a universal preschool program for 4-year-olds living in Chicago to advancements in available data, such as the Illinois State Board of Education’s kindergarten readiness survey, policies and practices in this space are constantly evolving. While many state-funded ECE programs were reduced during the previous decade, the 2019 state budget has reinstated much of this funding as well as provided an additional $50 million for the Early

Childhood Block Grant. An additional $200 million in funding will be provided over the next four years as well.

Even with increased public funding, less than half of Illinois children 5-years-old and younger have access to an ECE provider close to home. ECE services provide extensive benefits for children, families, and communities by offering healthy environments for the youngest members of society to learn and grow. Given the importance of these services, it is imperative for state policymakers to understand how the needs of children and families are and are not being met.

This report identifies statewide trends related to ECE access and quality for Illinois children from birth to five years of age. By comparing the availability of ECE services at high quality providers to the level of need by age, income, race, and other demographic considerations, this report identifies areas in Illinois where children lack access to high quality ECE services.

Access and Quality for Illinois Children was informed by IFF’s prior research in the state. In 2011, IFF released Early Care and Education in Illinois which revealed a slight increase in the ability of some ECE providers in the state to meet demand for care, yet significant gaps persisted in rural and urban communities alike throughout the state. Ultimately, the 2011 report recommended developing and expanding of ECE facilities in order to best support working families and young children as they prepare to enter kindergarten. The current study re-examines the ECE landscape nearly ten years later.

In addition, this study was completed in conjunction with the Erikson Institute’s Illinois Risk and Reach Project, an analysis of indicators of child well-being and development

BACKGROUND

13

(i.e., risk factors) in relation to the availability of and investment in state-funded services related to family stability, health, and early care and education (i.e., reach). The Risk and Reach Project, in combination with this report, is designed to inform governmental and nongovernmental early childhood stakeholders who make policy and funding decisions. This body of work is intended to be a catalyst for transformative change that advances greater equity for Illinois children and promotes a more effective distribution of state resources.

14

16

This report examines the early childhood education (ECE) landscape across the state of Illinois. To assist in understanding the terminology and data presented in this report, a brief overview of the methodology is provided here. A more detailed description of the methodology can be found in the appendix.

NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Access and Quality for Illinois Children is designed to provide geographically specific data about access to high quality ECE services. For the purposes of this analysis, geographic study areas were derived from Illinois counties based on community type (i.e. urban vs. rural) and relative population of children. To allow for standardized comparisons, each study area contains a roughly equal number of children. So, the study areas ultimately do not completely correspond to the county boundaries.

This report identifies communities (as defined by the study areas) with the greatest need for ECE services. Need is determined by comparing ECE supply, which is the

capacity of licensed and license-exempt ECE providers at centers, home and school-based facilities, against the demand for ECE services, which is the total number of young children (from birth to five years of age) living in a defined geography. Supply is examined with the understanding that neighborhood, city, and county boundaries are porous, and families are likely to use nearby, qualified providers. Additionally, in calculating supply, provider capacity was weighted based upon the provider’s days of operation to determine the number of year-round slots available to families. Supply and demand are examined for children from birth to 5-years-old and by age group (i.e., birth to two years of age and three to five years of age). Within each age group, access to quality providers is defined as those with a Gold Circle of Quality rating in ExceleRate, which is the statewide quality recognition and improvement system (QRIS).

The primary unit of analysis in this study is the ECE access rate, or the number of slots available per 100 children in each study area. The access rate is calculated by dividing the supply for each study area by the demand in each study area. In addition to the ECE access rate, an ECE service

BRIEF METHODOLOGY

Identify Preliminary Focus Counties

Examine Demographic Trends

Select Countiesfor Focus Groups

Counties identified based on access to ECE services(overall & high-quality):

1. High access overall, but lowaccess to high quality ECE services and vice versa

2. High access, both overall tohigh quality ECE services

3. Low access, both overalland to high

• Poverty rate

• Race/ethnicity

• Ensure mix of urban andrural counties

• Ensure mix of countiesacross the state

17

gap is also calculated for each service area. The service gap is the difference between the supply of ECE slots offered by providers and the demand placed on the ECE system by children birth to five years of age.

PROVIDER LANDSCAPE

This study examines the formal ECE system which consists of licensed and license-exempt center, home and school-based providers. However, children often access ECE services through an informal system of family, friend and neighbor care. These informal systems are especially robust in rural communities where the lower population density creates challenges for center-based providers in developing a financially sustainable business model. These slots exist

throughout Illinois but are not factored into this analysis due a lack of available data on this type of care.

UNDERSTANDING ACCESS TO QUALITY

In addition to the needs assessment, focus groups were conducted with ECE providers in communities across the state to identify effective strategies for, as well as barriers to, increasing access to high quality ECE services. Communities were selected using the following approach: Based on this approach, the communities listed in Table 1 (above) were selected.

Table 1: Target Areas for Focus Groups

Location Access to ECE Access to High Quality ECE

Urban-Rural Classifi-cation

Poverty & Race/Ethnicity

Addison, DuPage County Low Low Large Fringe Metro Low Poverty

Carterville, Williamson County High Highest Small Metro Average Poverty, Low

Black/Latino

Champaign, Champaign County High High Small Metro Average Poverty

Chicago (South Side), Cook County High High Large Central Metro High Poverty, High Black/

Latino

Cicero, Cook County Mixed Mixed Large Central Metro High Poverty, High Black/Latino

Fairview Heights, St. Clair County High Mixed Large Fringe Metro High Poverty, Average

Black/Low Latino

Mt. Vernon, Jefferson County High Highest Micropolitan High Poverty

East Peoria, Tazewell County Low Low Medium Metro Low Poverty

Rockford, Winnebago County Mixed Mixed Medium Metro High Poverty

18

After the communities were selected, IFF conducted focus groups between October and December 2018. In all communities, IFF emailed licensed child care centers, licensed family/group child care homes, school-based preschool programs, and Head Start/Early Head Start programs with email addresses available on the ExceleRate website. In many communities, IFF also worked with local community partners to invite providers directly. In addition to these provider focus groups, in January 2019, IFF conducted focus groups with staff from Children’s Home + Aid, the Child Care Resource & Referral (CCR&R) agency in Granite City; John Logan College, the CCR&R in Carterville; and the Illinois Department of Children & Family Services (DCFS) Marion Area Field Office. Across the 12 focus groups, IFF spoke with 80 respondents. The breakdown of affiliation is noted in Table 2 (above).

Table 2: Provider Focus Group Attendees by Type

Attendee Type Number

Licensed Child Care Center Provider 48

Licensed Family/Group Child Care Home Provider 2

School Based Preschool Program Teacher 7

Head Start/Early Head Start Provider 4

CCR&R/DCFS Staff 17

Other 2

TOTAL 80

19

Map 1: Focus Group Attendees

20

21

22

Early childhood education (ECE) provides extensive benefits for children, families and communities in Illinois. The needs assessment portion of this report examines ECE access across the state and identifies trends by age group (i.e., birth to two years of age and three to five years of age) for different demographic groups and geographic areas (i.e., urban vs. rural). To enable standardized comparisons, the primary unit of analysis is the ECE access rate, which provides an estimate of the number of slots available per 100 children in each study area. The ECE service gap, which is an estimate of the number of ECE slots needed to meet demand for ECE, is also reported for each study area. Key findings for overall access, high-quality care access, and access by age group are outlined below.

EMPHASIS ON PROVIDER QUALITY

All early childcare services are not created equal and, in order to reap its many benefits, Illinois children must have access to high-quality providers. Widespread evidence has found that high-quality early childhood education programs provide long-term educational and social benefits for children. Specifically, children who attended high-quality ECE programs had better outcomes once they entered the school system based on both their performance academically and socially.

These positive impacts are compounded for children living in low-income households who achieve far-reaching improvements in educational outcomes over their peers who did not receive high-quality ECE services. With 22% of Illinois children living below the federal poverty level, high-quality early childhood education experiences are integral to improving outcomes and social mobility

for this population. Furthermore, research has further demonstrated that the benefits from ECE are highest when children have access to high-quality, full-day, full-year programs beginning at birth. Providers in Illinois are offering vital services, but oftentimes missing the mark for the most vulnerable families.

The benefits of ECE extend beyond the children served to their families. Research shows that families who have access to high-quality ECE care perform better at work, attain a higher education, and increase their salary in the long-term. Increased access to high-quality ECE services will enable parents throughout the state to improve their economic prospects.

ExceleRate, Illinois’ statewide quality rating and improvement system (QRIS), recognizes center and home-based providers for their efforts to improve the quality of their services by awarding Circle of Quality designations. Providers participating in ExceleRate are designated as either Licensed, Bronze, Silver, or Gold Circle of Quality. At a minimum, providers that meet state licensing standards also meet the Licensed Circle of Quality rating. For the purpose of this analysis, high-quality providers were defined as those at the Gold Circle of Quality. The Gold Circle of Quality recognizes providers that meet or exceed the highest quality benchmarks in the areas of learning environment and teaching quality, administrative standards, and training and education.

Overall, few providers across the state have advanced to the Bronze Circle of Quality or beyond in ExceleRate. While over 87% of providers received a Licensed rating or greater (i.e. Bronze, Silver or Gold) by ExceleRate, just one in ten received a Gold Circle of Quality designation in 2017. Access to high-quality ECE services was fairly

STATEWIDE OVERVIEW

23

consistent across geography types. On average, 10% of providers and 22% of slots in both urban and rural counties achieved Gold Circle of Quality (Graph 1).

When examining quality by facility type, 42% of center-based providers and only 6% of home-based providers participated in ExceleRate at the Bronze, Silver or Gold Circle of Quality (Graph 2 & 3).

Urban Counties

•••

Rural Counties

--- 20%

9%

23%

10%

15%

7%

12%

6%

7%

3%

8%

4%

45%

71%

44%

66%

14%

11%

14%

14%

Chart 1: Supply by ExceleRate Circle of Quality and Geography Type

Gold Silver Bronze Licensed License-Exempt

24

SECTION CONTINUES

Gold Silver Bronze

Licensed License-Exempt

31%27%

25%11%

7%

Chart 2: Participating Center-Based Providers by ExceleRate Circle of Quality

Gold Silver Bronze

Licensed License-Exempt

2%3%

1%

90%

4%

Chart 3: Participating Home-Based Providers by ExceleRate Circle of Quality

25

ACCESS TO ECE SERVICES, AGES BIRTH TO FIVE

Approximately 845,000 children between the ages of birth to 5-years-old live in Illinois. In contrast, licensed and license-exempt providers throughout the state offer just under 415,000 ECE slots to children.

Therefore, only about 50 slots exist for every 100 children in Illinois. As a result, approximately 430,000 children are left without access to ECE services across the state (Table 3). When it comes to quality, access to Gold Circle of Quality slots drops to 10 slots for every 100 children (Table 5).

When analyzed by age group, the greatest need for additional ECE slots exists for children between birth to 2-years-old where just 24 slots exist for every 100 children. This trend is common across the United States, as 36 percent of families with 1-year-olds noted that a lack of available slots serves as their primary difficulty in finding childcare. For 3 to 5-year-olds, the rate of access is higher with 63 slots existing for every 100 children statewide.

About 465,000 children live in a community where the ECE Access Rate is lower than the state average. In these communities, anywhere from 41 to as few as 25 slots per 100 children are available (Table 4). Even those communities with higher than average access still fail to meet the full demand for ECE services.

Where it Matters Most. Rural counties across the state consistently have lower than average access for children birth to 5-years-old relative to urban counties. Specifically, Massac, Douglas and Moultrie counties have an average of 27 slots per 100 children. Counties in north central Illinois, such as Grundy, LaSalle, Livingston, Marshall and Woodford, as well as counties along the southeastern border of Illinois all have lower than average access (Map 2). These counties are also primarily rural and experience higher rates of poverty.

In general, access is greatest for children living in small metropolitan areas, such as Champaign and Springfield, where about 60 full-year ECE slots are available for every 100 children. The highest rates of ECE access exist in communities along Illinois’ northern border, such as portions of Ogle, Stephenson and Winnebago counties, and along the western border in Adams and Hancock counties (Map 2). These more rural, micropolitan areas have populations less than 40,000 with less than 20% of families living below 200% Federal Poverty Level (FPL). Additionally, pockets of high rates of ECE access also exist in counties surrounding Chicago (Map 3).

Table 3 Illinois Statewide Needs Assessment by Age Group

Age Group Demand Supply ECE Service Gap ECE Access Rate

Ages 0–2 469,922 116,982 (352,940) 24%

Ages 3–5 374,187 232,559 (141,629) 63%

Total 844,109 412,387 (431,722) 49%

26

When examining ECE access to high-quality providers, the supply of Gold Circle of Quality providers drops dramatically. On average, only 10 high-quality ECE slots exist for every 100 children across the state (Table 5).

Where it Matters Most. Predominantly rural counties consistently experience lower than average access to high-quality ECE services, with portions of Effingham, Fayette, Cumberland, and Knox counties having effectively no high-quality slots available to families living there. With the exception of Champaign and Sangamon counties, small metropolitan areas located in central and eastern Illinois also experience lower than average access to high-quality ECE services (Map 4). In contrast, the rural counties located at the southern tip of Illinois experience a higher than average rate of access to high-quality ECE slots.

Portions of Chicago, as well as its surrounding suburban areas, such as Lake and DuPage counties, have higher than average access to high-quality ECE with around 58 slots per every 100 children living there, on average (Map 5).

SECTION CONTINUES

Table 4: Illinois Statewide Needs Assessment by Level of Access, Ages Birth to Five

Access to Full-Year Slots per 100 Children Demand Supply ECE Service Gap ECE Access Rate

Highest (78 slots or more) 33,101 32,019 (1,082) 96%

Near Highest (61 to 78 slots) 97,024 71,797 (25,226) 75%

Above Average (44 to 61 slots) 248,149 141,245 (106,904) 57%

Below Average (28 to 44 slots) 321,932 130,741 (191,191) 41%

Near Lowest (11 to 28 slots) 143,903 36,584 (107,318) 25%

Lowest (11 slots or less) - - - -

Total 844,109 412,387 (431,722) 49%

Note: Both overall access and access to gold-rated providers utilized the same scale grouping slots per 100 children.

Table 5: Illinois Statewide Needs Assessment by Provider Quality, Ages Birth to Five

Provider Type Demand Supply ECE Service Gap ECE Access Rate

All Providers 844,109

412,387 (431,722) 49%

ExceleRate Gold Providers 81,073 (763,037) 10%

27

Map 3: Chicago Metro Region Access to Any ECE Provider, Ages Birth to Five

Will

Lee

Pike

Cook

Ogle

LaSalle

McLeanFulton

Knox

Iroquois

Henry

Adams

Bureau

Shelby

Ford

Clay

Edgar

Wayne

Livingston

Kane

Logan

Piatt

Vermilion

Peoria

Fayette

Lake

Clark

Hancock

Macoupin

Coles

White

Madison

Champaign

Macon

DeKalb

St. Clair

Marion

Mason

Perry

Mercer

Christian

Sangamon

Tazewell

Morgan

Cass

Warren

Jasper

Jackson

Bond

Greene

Clinton

Union

Pope

Whiteside

Carroll

Kankakee

McHenry

Jefferson

Randolph

Saline

Grundy

Jersey

Montgomery

Jo Daviess

Woodford

Stark

De Witt

Franklin

Monroe

Douglas

Schuyler

Scott

Hamilton

Crawford

McDonough

Brown

Washington

Effingham

Stephenson

Marshall

Winnebago Boone

Moultrie

Gallatin

Kendall

Menard

DuPage

Richland

Johnson

Williamson

Rock Island

Lawrence

Henderson

Calhoun

Massac

Cumberland

Pulaski

Wabash

Hardin

Edwards

Alexander

Putnam

§̈¦57

§̈¦72

§̈¦55

§̈¦88

§̈¦70

§̈¦74

§̈¦64

§̈¦39

§̈¦80

§̈¦90

§̈¦24

§̈¦155

§̈¦94

§̈¦294

§̈¦255

§̈¦180

§̈¦355

§̈¦280

§̈¦270

§̈¦190

Highest (78 or higher)

Near Highest (61 to 78)

Above Average (44 to 61)

Below Average (28 to 44)

Near Lowest (11 to 28)

Lowest (11 or fewer)

Study Area Weighted Slotsper 100 Childen

Map 2: Statewide Access to Any ECE Provider, Ages Birth to Five

28

Will

Cook

Kane

Lake

DeKalb

McHenry

Grundy

DuPage

Kendall

§̈¦90

§̈¦88

§̈¦80

§̈¦57

§̈¦55

§̈¦94

§̈¦294

§̈¦355

§̈¦190








Map 3: Chicago Metro Region Access to Any ECE Provider, Ages Birth to FiveMap 2: Statewide Access to Any ECE Provider, Ages Birth to Five

29

Will

Lee

Pike

Cook

Ogle

LaSalle

McLeanFulton

Knox

Iroquois

Henry

Adams

Bureau

Shelby

Ford

Clay

Edgar

Wayne

Livingston

Kane

Logan

Piatt

Vermilion

Peoria

Fayette

Lake

Clark

Hancock

Macoupin

Coles

White

Madison

Champaign

Macon

DeKalb

St. Clair

Marion

Mason

Perry

Mercer

Christian

Sangamon

Tazewell

Morgan

Cass

Warren

Jasper

Jackson

Bond

Greene

Clinton

Union

Pope

Whiteside

Carroll

Kankakee

McHenry

Jefferson

Randolph

Saline

Grundy

Jersey

Montgomery

Jo Daviess

Woodford

Stark

De Witt

Franklin

Monroe

Douglas

Schuyler

Scott

Hamilton

Crawford

McDonough

Brown

Washington

Effingham

Stephenson

Marshall

Winnebago Boone

Moultrie

Gallatin

Kendall

Menard

DuPage

Richland

Johnson

Williamson

Rock Island

Lawrence

Henderson

Calhoun

Massac

Cumberland

Pulaski

Wabash

Hardin

Edwards

Alexander

Putnam

§̈¦57

§̈¦72

§̈¦55

§̈¦88

§̈¦70

§̈¦74

§̈¦64

§̈¦39

§̈¦80

§̈¦90

§̈¦24

§̈¦155

§̈¦94

§̈¦294

§̈¦255

§̈¦180

§̈¦355

§̈¦280

§̈¦270

§̈¦190






Lowest (0)


Map 4: Statewide Access to Gold Circle of Quality Providers: Ages Birth to Five

30

Will

Cook

Kane

Lake

DeKalb

McHenry

Grundy

DuPage

Kendall

§̈¦90

§̈¦88

§̈¦80

§̈¦57

§̈¦55

§̈¦94

§̈¦294

§̈¦355

§̈¦190






Lowest (0)


Map 5: Chicago Metro Region Access to Gold Circle of Quality Providers, Ages Birth to Five

31

ACCESS TO ECE SERVICES, AGES BIRTH TO TWO

In general, there are significantly fewer ECE slots for infants and toddler across the state compared to their 3 to 5-year-old peers. Specifically, less than 120,000 slots are available for the approximately 470,000 children birth to two years of age living in Illinois. In other words, just under 25 ECE slots per 100 children are available for infants and toddlers. To address this gap in ECE services for infants and toddlers, about 350,000 additional slots are needed at licensed and license-exempt facilities (Table 6). When it comes to quality, access to Gold Circle of Quality slots further drops by to 5 slots per 100 infants and toddlers statewide (Table 7).

Approximately two in three Illinois children age two or younger live in a community where their access to ECE services is lower than the state average (Table 6). In these communities, anywhere from 20 to as few as 12 slots per 100 children exist.

Where it Matters Most. Rural counties along Illinois’ southeastern border consistently have lower than average

access to ECE services for infants and toddlers, with Massac and Randolph counties most notably having less than 12 slots available for every 100 children birth to two years of age. These counties also have higher concentrations of poverty. Slightly larger rural counties with populations less than 40,000 residents also experience lower than average ECE access for children birth to two. This is especially true for a pocket of north central counties located just outside of the Chicagoland region including Lasalle, Livingston, Grundy, and Marshall (Map 6).

In contrast, families living in the Chicago suburbs; counties along the Wisconsin border, such as Stephenson and Winnebago; and other small metropolitan counties, such as in Champaign and Sangamon, have the highest rates of access to infant and toddler care with 47 or more ECE slots for every 100 children (Map 6 & 7). Adams and Hancock counties also stand out as rural, micropolitan areas with high levels of ECE access for infants and toddlers.

SECTION CONTINUES

Table 6: Illinois Statewide Needs Assessment by Level of Access, Ages Birth to Two


Highest (47 slots or more) 20,825 10,811 (10,014) 52%





Total 469,922 116,982 (352,940) 24%

32

Will

Lee

Pike

Cook

Ogle

LaSalle

McLeanFulton

Knox

Iroquois

Henry

Adams

Bureau

Shelby

Ford

Clay

Edgar

Wayne

Livingston

Kane

Logan

Piatt

Vermilion

Peoria

Fayette

Lake

Clark

Hancock

Macoupin

Coles

White

Madison

Champaign

Macon

DeKalb

St. Clair

Marion

Mason

Perry

Mercer

Christian

Sangamon

Tazewell

Morgan

Cass

Warren

Jasper

Jackson

Bond

Greene

Clinton

Union

Pope

Whiteside

Carroll

Kankakee

McHenry

Jefferson

Randolph

Saline

Grundy

Jersey

Montgomery

Jo Daviess

Woodford

Stark

De Witt

Franklin

Monroe

Douglas

Schuyler

Scott

Hamilton

Crawford

McDonough

Brown

Washington

Effingham

Stephenson

Marshall

Winnebago Boone

Moultrie

Gallatin

Kendall

Menard

DuPage

Richland

Johnson

Williamson

Rock Island

Lawrence

Henderson

Calhoun

Massac

Cumberland

Pulaski

Wabash

Hardin

Edwards

Alexander

Putnam

§̈¦57

§̈¦72

§̈¦55

§̈¦88

§̈¦70

§̈¦74

§̈¦64

§̈¦39

§̈¦80

§̈¦90

§̈¦24

§̈¦155

§̈¦94

§̈¦294

§̈¦255

§̈¦180

§̈¦355

§̈¦280

§̈¦270

§̈¦190







Lowest (6 or fewer)

Map 6: Statewide Access to Any ECE Provider, Ages Birth to Two

33

Will

Cook

Kane

Lake

DeKalb

McHenry

Grundy

DuPage

Kendall

§̈¦90

§̈¦88

§̈¦80

§̈¦57

§̈¦55

§̈¦94

§̈¦294

§̈¦355

§̈¦190







Lowest (6 or fewer)

Map 7: Chicago Metro Region Access to Any ECE Provider, Ages Birth to Two

34

When examining access to high-quality ECE providers, access for infants and toddlers drops significantly. Only 5 in every 100 children between birth and two years of age have access to a Gold Circle of Quality ECE provider (Table 7). With under 22,000 slots available statewide, approximately 448,000 infants and toddlers throughout Illinois lack access to high-quality ECE services.

Where it Matters Most. Children living in communities in Effingham, Fayette, Clinton, Knox, Cumberland, Massac, Vermilion, and Moultrie counties have effectively no access to Gold Circle of Quality providers. These communities are geographically dispersed throughout the state, but all are primarily located in rural areas (Map 8).

The Chicagoland region, including portions of Cook county as well as Lake, DuPage and McHenry counties, generally have the highest level of access to Gold Circle of Quality providers compared to the rest of the state (Map 9). Other counties with high access to quality providers include Stephenson, Mercer and Rock Island to the northwest; Union, Johnson, Williamson and Jefferson to the south; and McLean in central Illinois (Map 8).

SECTION CONTINUES

KEY THEME: GEOGRAPHIC DISPARITIES

Stakeholders should address access to ECE Services within the geographic context. For example, rural communities often have less supply of ECE providers due to smaller and more dispersed populations of children relative to urban communities. Therefore, stakeholders should identify and invest in innovative models to better serve rural families or expand home-based care options, as these facility types are more likely to reach financial sustainability and retain stability in rural communities compared to larger, center-based facilities.

Table 7: Illinois Statewide Needs Assessment by Provider Quality, Ages Birth to Two



116,982 (352,940) 25%


35

Will

Lee

Pike

Cook

Ogle

LaSalle

McLeanFulton

Knox

Iroquois

Henry

Adams

Bureau

Shelby

Ford

Clay

Edgar

Wayne

Livingston

Kane

Logan

Piatt

Vermilion

Peoria

Fayette

Lake

Clark

Hancock

Macoupin

Coles

White

Madison

Champaign

Macon

DeKalb

St. Clair

Marion

Mason

Perry

Mercer

Christian

Sangamon

Tazewell

Morgan

Cass

Warren

Jasper

Jackson

Bond

Greene

Clinton

Union

Pope

Whiteside

Carroll

Kankakee

McHenry

Jefferson

Randolph

Saline

Grundy

Jersey

Montgomery

Jo Daviess

Woodford

Stark

De Witt

Franklin

Monroe

Douglas

Schuyler

Scott

Hamilton

Crawford

McDonough

Brown

Washington

Effingham

Stephenson

Marshall

Winnebago Boone

Moultrie

Gallatin

Kendall

Menard

DuPage

Richland

Johnson

Williamson

Rock Island

Lawrence

Henderson

Calhoun

Massac

Cumberland

Pulaski

Wabash

Hardin

Edwards

Alexander

Putnam

§̈¦57

§̈¦72

§̈¦55

§̈¦88

§̈¦70

§̈¦74

§̈¦64

§̈¦39

§̈¦80

§̈¦90

§̈¦24

§̈¦155

§̈¦94

§̈¦294

§̈¦255

§̈¦180

§̈¦355

§̈¦280

§̈¦270

§̈¦190






Lowest (0)


Map 8: Statewide Access to Gold Circle of Quality Providers, Ages Birth to Two

36

Will

Cook

Kane

Lake

DeKalb

McHenry

Grundy

DuPage

Kendall

§̈¦90

§̈¦88

§̈¦80

§̈¦57

§̈¦55

§̈¦94

§̈¦294

§̈¦355

§̈¦190






Lowest (0)


Map 9: Chicago Metro Region Access to Gold Circle of Quality Providers, Ages Birth to Two

37

ACCESS TO ECE SERVICES, AGES THREE TO FIVE

The available ECE supply for three to five-year-old children across the state is approximately twice that of infants and toddlers. However, very few communities in the state have adequate access to high-quality childcare. In Illinois, approximately 230,000 ECE slots exist for children ages three to five. This equates to 63 slots for every 100 children. An additional 140,000 slots are needed at licensed and license-exempt providers to meet the demand for ECE services for three to five-year old children in Illinois (Table 8). When it comes to quality, access to Gold rated slots further drops to 13 slots for every 100 children in this age group (Table 9).

Where it Matters Most. Access to ECE services for three to five-year old children is less defined by the urban-rural divide than it was for infants and toddlers. Low access counties include some along the fringe of the Chicagoland region, such as Grundy, Will, Kane, and Kendall counties (Map 11). This trend continues with more rural counties in nearby north central Illinois including Livingston and

Lasalle counties. Other rural areas in southern Illinois had the lowest rates of ECE access for children age three to five, with an average of 30 slots per 100 children in Douglas and Massac counties.

Similar to infant and toddlers, small metropolitan counties in central Illinois have higher ECE access for three to five-year-olds, with Menard, Sangamon, and Champaign counties having 95 slots per 100 children, on average. More rural, micropolitan counties, such as Morgan, Adams, and Jefferson located in central and southern Illinois as well as Stephenson, Lee and Ogle to the northwest also have higher than average ECE access for children in this age group (Map 10).

SECTION CONTINUES

Table 8: Illinois Statewide Needs Assessment by Level of Access, Ages Three to Five


Highest (90 slots or more) 12,083 15,066 2,983 122%





Lowest (11 slots or less) - - - -

Total 374,187 232,559 (141,629) 63%

Note: Both overall access and access to gold-rated providers utilized the same scale grouping slots per 100 children.

38

Will

Lee

Pike

Cook

Ogle

LaSalle

McLeanFulton

Knox

Iroquois

Henry

Adams

Bureau

Shelby

Ford

Clay

Edgar

Wayne

Livingston

Kane

Logan

Piatt

Vermilion

Peoria

Fayette

Lake

Clark

Hancock

Macoupin

Coles

White

Madison

Champaign

Macon

DeKalb

St. Clair

Marion

Mason

Perry

Mercer

Christian

Sangamon

Tazewell

Morgan

Cass

Warren

Jasper

Jackson

Bond

Greene

Clinton

Union

Pope

Whiteside

Carroll

Kankakee

McHenry

Jefferson

Randolph

Saline

Grundy

Jersey

Montgomery

Jo Daviess

Woodford

Stark

De Witt

Franklin

Monroe

Douglas

Schuyler

Scott

Hamilton

Crawford

McDonough

Brown

Washington

Effingham

Stephenson

Marshall

Winnebago Boone

Moultrie

Gallatin

Kendall

Menard

DuPage

Richland

Johnson

Williamson

Rock Island

Lawrence

Henderson

Calhoun

Massac

Cumberland

Pulaski

Wabash

Hardin

Edwards

Alexander

Putnam

§̈¦57

§̈¦72

§̈¦55

§̈¦88

§̈¦70

§̈¦74

§̈¦64

§̈¦39

§̈¦80

§̈¦90

§̈¦24

§̈¦155

§̈¦94

§̈¦294

§̈¦255

§̈¦180

§̈¦355

§̈¦280

§̈¦270

§̈¦190








Map 10: Statewide Access to Any ECE Provider, Ages Three to Five

39

Will

Cook

Kane

Lake

DeKalb

McHenry

Grundy

DuPage

Kendall

§̈¦90

§̈¦88

§̈¦80

§̈¦57

§̈¦55

§̈¦94

§̈¦294

§̈¦355

§̈¦190








Map 11: Chicago Metro Region Access to Any ECE Provider, Ages Three to Five

40

Map 11: Chicago Metro Region Access to Any ECE Provider, Ages Three to Five

There are approximately 48,000 ECE slots at Gold Circle of Quality providers for children age three to five. Specifically, only 13 out of every 100 children between the ages of three and five-years-old have access to a Gold Circle of Quality provider in Illinois (Table 9). In order to address this service gap, approximately 327,000 slots are needed at high-quality ECE providers for children age three to five.

Where it Matters Most. Rural counties along the southeastern edge and south-central Illinois have areas with very low access to Gold Circle of Quality providers. Effingham, Clinton, Knox, Fayette, Vermilion, Cumberland and Massac counties each have on average less than five slots available per every 100 children ages three to five. Overall, access to high-quality providers is significantly lower compared to access in general for this age group.

Access to high-quality providers for children age three to five can be found in pockets throughout the state. The primarily rural areas located in the southern tip of Illinois consistently have above average access to high-quality providers with 22 slots per 100 three to five-year-old children. These counties include Union, Williamson, Jefferson, Franklin, and Jasper. Counties along the fringe of St. Louis in southwestern Illinois, such as Monroe and St. Clair, and Stephenson to the northwest also have high rates of high-quality ECE access for this age group (Map 12).

SECTION CONTINUES

Table 9: Illinois Statewide Needs Assessment by Provider Quality, Ages Three to Five



232,559 (141,628) 62%


41

Will

Lee

Pike

Cook

Ogle

LaSalle

McLeanFulton

Knox

Iroquois

Henry

Adams

Bureau

Shelby

Ford

Clay

Edgar

Wayne

Livingston

Kane

Logan

Piatt

Vermilion

Peoria

Fayette

Lake

Clark

Hancock

Macoupin

Coles

White

Madison

Champaign

Macon

DeKalb

St. Clair

Marion

Mason

Perry

Mercer

Christian

Sangamon

Tazewell

Morgan

Cass

Warren

Jasper

Jackson

Bond

Greene

Clinton

Union

Pope

Whiteside

Carroll

Kankakee

McHenry

Jefferson

Randolph

Saline

Grundy

Jersey

Montgomery

Jo Daviess

Woodford

Stark

De Witt

Franklin

Monroe

Douglas

Schuyler

Scott

Hamilton

Crawford

McDonough

Brown

Washington

Effingham

Stephenson

Marshall

Winnebago Boone

Moultrie

Gallatin

Kendall

Menard

DuPage

Richland

Johnson

Williamson

Rock Island

Lawrence

Henderson

Calhoun

Massac

Cumberland

Pulaski

Wabash

Hardin

Edwards

Alexander

Putnam

§̈¦57

§̈¦72

§̈¦55

§̈¦88

§̈¦70

§̈¦74

§̈¦64

§̈¦39

§̈¦80

§̈¦90

§̈¦24

§̈¦155

§̈¦94

§̈¦294

§̈¦255

§̈¦180

§̈¦355

§̈¦280

§̈¦270

§̈¦190






Lowest (0)


Map 12: Statewide Access to Gold Circle of Quality Providers, Ages Three to Five

42

Map 12: Statewide Access to Gold Circle of Quality Providers, Ages Three to Five

Will

Cook

Kane

Lake

DeKalb

McHenry

Grundy

DuPage

Kendall

§̈¦90

§̈¦88

§̈¦80

§̈¦57

§̈¦55

§̈¦94

§̈¦294

§̈¦355

§̈¦190






Lowest (0)


Map 13: Chicago Metro Region Access to Gold Circle of Quality Providers, Ages Three to Five

43

DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS ACROSS ILLINOIS

In order to most effectively meet the needs of young children throughout Illinois, a clear understanding of demographic trends in each region is essential. Recognizing the influence of poverty, race, ethnicity, household structure and other characteristics strengthens the impact of ECE services, as it enables stakeholders to better understand challenges and serve diverse communities.

The high-level social and economic trends highlighted below supplement the needs assessment analysis. Local stakeholders should review the following demographic-based information alongside other key findings in this report to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of ECE access and quality as well as use this information to inform future policy and programmatic decision-making. In addition, the Erikson Institute’s Illinois Risk and Reach Report dives deeper into demographic factors and assesses the relationship between various risk factors and access to high-quality ECE services.

Poverty. Need for early childhood education is oftentimes linked to both child population and rates of poverty. In Illinois, one in five children live below the federal poverty level (FPL). Additionally, just under half of all children statewide are living below 200% FPL and likely face challenges accessing affordable ECE service. Poverty rates vary greatly across the state, with average rates as high as 50% in rural counties and as low as 32% in suburban counties within the Chicagoland region. Generally, rural counties with high levels of poverty also have limited access to ECE services (Maps 14-15).

Race and Ethnicity. Higher populations of African American and Latinx residents are concentrated in urban areas, while rural areas have a higher population of white residents. The Chicago Metro region has more racial and ethnic diversity than the state as a whole. Looking outside of the Chicagoland region, most Illinois counties are home to upwards of 90% white, non-Latinx residents. African-American residents are primarily concentrated in the City of Chicago, its southern bordering communities and East St. Louis. Similarly, Latinx residents primarily reside in Chicago as well as in communities to the city’s west (Maps 16 - 19).

Household Type. Family structure also significantly impacts a household’s need for ECE services. In Illinois, almost 70% of households have two working parents or a single working parent (Table 10). These families are likely to need access to full-day, full-year services for their children.

KEY THEME: INCOME EQUITY

Illinois has not achieved its stated policy goal of providing equitable access to ECE services for all children, as high-access areas are generally located in higher income communities. This increase in access for high-earning families also translates to greater access to high-quality care, as the most desirable full-day and full-year slots are accessed by families who are able to pay market-rate cost for childcare. Affordability presents a tremendous barrier to access which impacts the socio-economic mobility of low-income families in both urban and rural communities statewide.

44

SECTION CONTINUES

Table 10: Statewide Demographic Snapshot

Child Population

0 to 2-Years-Old 469,922

3 to 5-Years-Old 374,187

Poverty, Child Population

% Below 125% FPL 28%

% Between 125% - 400% FPL 46%

% Above 200% FPL 26%

Race, Total Population

% White (non-Hispanic) 67%

% African American (non-Hispanic) 12%

% Hispanic 15%

% Asian (non-Hispanic) 4%

% Other (non-Hispanic) 2%

Household Composition & Parental Work Status

Two Parents, Both Working 40%

Two Parents, One Working 23%

Two Parents, Neither Working 1%

One Parent, One Working 29%

One Parent, Not Working 7%

45

Will

Lee

Pike

Cook

Ogle

LaSalle

McLeanFulton

Knox

Iroquois

Henry

Adams

Bureau

Shelby

Ford

Clay

Edgar

Livingston

Wayne

Kane

Logan

Piatt

Vermilion

Peoria

Fayette

Lake

Clark

Hancock

Macoupin

Coles

White

Madison

Champaign

Macon

DeKalb

St. Clair

Marion

Mason

Perry

Mercer

Christian

Sangamon

Tazewell

Morgan

Cass

Warren

Jasper

Jackson

Bond

Greene

Clinton

UnionPope

Whiteside

Carroll

Kankakee

McHenry

Jefferson

Randolph

Saline

Grundy

JerseyMontgomery

Jo Daviess

Woodford

De Witt

Stark

Franklin

Monroe

Douglas

Schuyler

Scott

Hamilton

Crawford

McDonough

Brown

Washington

Effingham

Stephenson

Marshall

Winnebago Boone

Moultrie

Gallatin

Kendall

Menard

DuPage

Richland

Johnson

Williamson

Rock Island

Lawrence

Massac

Cumberland

Hardin

Putnam

Henderson

Calhoun

Pulaski

WabashEdwards

Alexander

§̈¦57

§̈¦72

§̈¦55

§̈¦88

§̈¦70

§̈¦74

§̈¦64

§̈¦39

§̈¦80

§̈¦90

§̈¦24

§̈¦155

§̈¦94

§̈¦294

§̈¦255

§̈¦180

§̈¦355

§̈¦190

Study Area Boundaries

Age 0-5, Percent Below 200% FPL

0% - 10%

11% - 20%

21% - 30%

31% - 40%

41% - 50%

51% - 60%

61% - 70%

71% - 80%

81% - 90%

91% - 100%

Map 14: Percent of Children Below 200% FPL, Ages Birth to Five

46

Will

Cook

Kane

Lake

DeKalb

McHenry

Grundy

Kendall

DuPage§̈¦88

§̈¦90

§̈¦55

§̈¦80 §̈¦57

§̈¦94

§̈¦294

§̈¦290

§̈¦355

§̈¦83

§̈¦190


Age 0-5, Percent Below 200% FPL

0% - 10%

11% - 20%

21% - 30%

31% - 40%

41% - 50%

51% - 60%

61% - 70%

71% - 80%

81% - 90%

91% - 100%

Map 15: Chicago Metro Percent of Children Below 200% FPL, Ages Birth to Five

47

Will

Lee

Pike

Cook

Ogle

LaSalle

McLeanFulton

Knox

Iroquois

Henry

Adams

Bureau

Shelby

Ford

Clay

Edgar

Livingston

Wayne

Kane

Logan

Piatt

Vermilion

Peoria

Fayette

Lake

Clark

Hancock

Macoupin

Coles

White

Madison

Champaign

Macon

DeKalb

St. Clair

Marion

Mason

Perry

Mercer

Christian

Sangamon

Tazewell

Morgan

Cass

Warren

Jasper

Jackson

Bond

Greene

Clinton

UnionPope

Whiteside

Carroll

Kankakee

McHenry

Jefferson

Randolph

Saline

Grundy

JerseyMontgomery

Jo Daviess

Woodford

De Witt

Stark

Franklin

Monroe

Douglas

Schuyler

Scott

Hamilton

Crawford

McDonough

Brown

Washington

Effingham

Stephenson

Marshall

Winnebago Boone

Moultrie

Gallatin

Kendall

Menard

DuPage

Richland

Johnson

Williamson

Rock Island

Lawrence

Massac

Cumberland

Hardin

Putnam

Henderson

Calhoun

Pulaski

WabashEdwards

Alexander

§̈¦57

§̈¦72

§̈¦55

§̈¦88

§̈¦70

§̈¦74

§̈¦64

§̈¦39

§̈¦80

§̈¦90

§̈¦24

§̈¦155

§̈¦94

§̈¦294

§̈¦255

§̈¦180

§̈¦355

§̈¦190


Percent Black

0% - 10%

11% - 20%

21% - 30%

31% - 40%

41% - 50%

51% - 60%

61% - 70%

71% - 80%

81% - 90%

91% - 100%

Map 16: Statewide African American Population

48

Map 16: Statewide African American Population

Will

Cook

Kane

Lake

DeKalb

McHenry

Grundy

Kendall

DuPage§̈¦88

§̈¦90

§̈¦55

§̈¦80 §̈¦57

§̈¦94

§̈¦294

§̈¦290

§̈¦355

§̈¦83

§̈¦190


Percent Black

0% - 10%

11% - 20%

21% - 30%

31% - 40%

41% - 50%

51% - 60%

61% - 70%

71% - 80%

81% - 90%

91% - 100%

Map 17: Chicago Metro African American Population

49

Will

Lee

Pike

Cook

Ogle

LaSalle

McLeanFulton

Knox

Iroquois

Henry

Adams

Bureau

Shelby

Ford

Clay

Edgar

Livingston

Wayne

Kane

Logan

Piatt

Vermilion

Peoria

Fayette

Lake

Clark

Hancock

Macoupin

Coles

White

Madison

Champaign

Macon

DeKalb

St. Clair

Marion

Mason

Perry

Mercer

Christian

Sangamon

Tazewell

Morgan

Cass

Warren

Jasper

Jackson

Bond

Greene

Clinton

UnionPope

Whiteside

Carroll

Kankakee

McHenry

Jefferson

Randolph

Saline

Grundy

JerseyMontgomery

Jo Daviess

Woodford

De Witt

Stark

Franklin

Monroe

Douglas

Schuyler

Scott

Hamilton

Crawford

McDonough

Brown

Washington

Effingham

Stephenson

Marshall

Winnebago Boone

Moultrie

Gallatin

Kendall

Menard

DuPage

Richland

Johnson

Williamson

Rock Island

Lawrence

Massac

Cumberland

Hardin

Putnam

Henderson

Calhoun

Pulaski

WabashEdwards

Alexander

§̈¦57

§̈¦72

§̈¦55

§̈¦88

§̈¦70

§̈¦74

§̈¦64

§̈¦39

§̈¦80

§̈¦90

§̈¦24

§̈¦155

§̈¦94

§̈¦294

§̈¦255

§̈¦180

§̈¦355

§̈¦190


Percent Hispanic/Latino

0% - 10%

11% - 20%

21% - 30%

31% - 40%

41% - 50%

51% - 60%

61% - 70%

71% - 80%

81% - 90%

91% - 100%

Map 18: Statewide Latinx Population

50

Map 18: Statewide Latinx Population

Will

Cook

Kane

Lake

DeKalb

McHenry

Grundy

Kendall

DuPage§̈¦88

§̈¦90

§̈¦55

§̈¦80 §̈¦57

§̈¦94

§̈¦294

§̈¦290

§̈¦355

§̈¦83

§̈¦190


Percent Hispanic/Latino

0% - 10%

11% - 20%

21% - 30%

31% - 40%

41% - 50%

51% - 60%

61% - 70%

71% - 80%

81% - 90%

91% - 100%

Map 19: Chicago Metro Latinx Population

51

A CLOSER LOOK AT EXCELERATE

The Illinois Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS), ExceleRate, was designed in 2012 through a Federal Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge grant coordinated between the Illinois Governor’s Office of Early Childhood Development, the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE), the Illinois Department of Human Services (IDHS), and the Illinois Department of Child and Family Services (IDCFS). ExceleRate was implemented in 2013 and is administered by the Illinois Network of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies (INCCRRA).

Participation in ExceleRate is required for all licensed childcare centers, licensed family child care, Preschool for All, and Head Start and Early Head Start providers. ExceleRate categorizes providers into four Circles of Quality:

• Licensed Circle of Quality: This level is achieved by complying with the IDCFS licensing standards, therefore all licensed early childhood providers in the state have achieved at least this level within ExceleRate.

• Bronze Circle of Quality: This level is achieved by having administrators and staff complete additional professional development. Providers that receive Preschool for All funding must, at a minimum be Bronze Circle of Quality.

• Silver Circle of Quality: This level is achieved by demonstrating the implementation of quality improvement that is verified by an independent assessor or through accreditation. Due to the federal requirements for these programs, Head Start and Early Head Start providers are presumed eligible for at least the Silver Circle of Quality.

• Gold Circle of Quality: This level is achieved by demonstrating best practice that is verified by an independent assessor or through accreditation.

ExceleRate has offered Awards of Excellence in Preschool Teaching and Learning, Infant and Toddler Services, Family and Community Engagement, Inclusion of Children with Special Needs, and Linguistically and Culturally Appropriate Practice. However, these awards are currently suspended. The state is currently conducting a validation study to determine next steps for the Awards of Excellence.

Benefits. ExceleRate offers consistent standards for program quality and improvement. This was echoed by providers across the state, as one provider said:

“[ExceleRate Illinois] sets a standard, right, so [it] let’s you know if you’re doing industry best practices…For us it’s just more of a level set to ensure that we are living up to the expectations of licensing standards and industry standards across the state.”

Another provider talked about the way it provides frameworks for staff:

“[ExceleRate Illinois] provides guidelines to staff so when you’re doing observations, or you’re providing feedback, you have some really great guidelines where you can kind of pinpoint and benchmark where they are compared to where the requirements were.”

Providers who are designated Silver or Gold Circle of Quality receive increased reimbursements for children in the state subsidy program, Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP). This increase is 10% for Silver Circle of

52

Quality and 15% for Gold Circle of Quality. This was by far the most important driver for a center to pursue quality improvements. A provider in Champaign said:

“The main reason we participate [in Excelerate] is because we get the 10% [add on for the CCAP] subsidy kids. For us that can be huge. It can be [an additional] $10,000 a year.”

Finally, ExceleRate also offers a crosswalk for providers that are accredited by a national organization, where the quality efforts made to acquire national accreditation through the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) expedite the ExceleRate review process. As a provider explained:

“There’s a pathway if you are NAEYC accredited, so…if you’re really committed to quality [you] just continue down that path.”

Challenges. While providers across the state recognize the benefits of participating in ExceleRate, there was noticeable and consistent confusion with the program. First, providers feel that parents do not understand ExceleRate. As a provider in Southern Illinois said:

“I don’t think families even know what it is. Families have no idea.”

Another provider said: “[INCCRRA was] going to do all this promoting of quality and advertising and all these things, but that never came to fruition.”

Furthermore, the concept of parents choosing an ECE provider based on a quality rating is in conflict with the reality of the child care landscape in communities with the largest gap in access. A provider in White County said:

“There are two childcare centers where I live, I’m not sure if the other one participates or not, but I don’t think so. I have more children on my waitlist than I can enroll...there’s no incentive [for us to advance in the Circles of Quality].”

As this provider points out, when parents do not have adequate access to any childcare options, providers will continue to stay full, regardless of their circle of quality in ExceleRate.

Providers expressed dissatisfaction with the costs of participation. Although there are no fees charged by INCCRRA to advance in ExceleRate, each additional level of training and implementation has associated costs as well as a time commitment for providers. Across the state of Illinois, ECE providers are operating on very slim margins and many are understaffed—even small increases in cost or time requirements can have a large impact on practice. In particular, providers who do not accept children receiving a CCAP subsidy, do not feel that there is a reason to advance in Circles of Quality. One provider said:

“If you’re not getting the CCAP money, it really is a lot of hoops to jump through.”

Providers also found the cost of trainings challenging. While ExceleRate offers professional development funds to cover the cost of staff training, the reimbursement recently went down from 100% to 80%. Given low staff retention rates, those small fees add up. More significantly, providers noted the time burden it puts on staff who they feel are already underpaid and overstressed:

“It’s very hard to motivate [our staff] because they are being paid on average about $9.50 an hour and we’re asking them to go to college. We’re asking them to get credentials. We’re

53

asking them to have these degrees. [To spend a lot of time at home doing online or evening training]…but yet they get nothing for it because there is no money to give them raises.”

For many providers, choosing not to advance in ExceleRate does not mean that providers are not committed to providing quality care. Rather, it reflects a conflict between their aspirations to meet the recognized quality standards of ExceleRate and the constraints providers face in the daily operations of their programs.

Providers also expressed that ExceleRate works best when it feels like a partnership, not a penalty, and acknowledged that best practice may not always be possible in a state with some of the most stringent requirements on provider quality. As a provider said:

“I’m trying to say this politically correctly, [They]…have a lot of people and a lot of research from…prestigious universities and professors and everything and that’s great. And so they’ll put the like, ‘In the perfect [world] this is what it should be’ versus having really people who live it everyday…I feel like the people who live it every day don’t have as strong a voice when they do these type of things. And it kind of gets overrided [sic], right? So, I’m never going to say, ‘Oh it’s better just to have a high school degree’ and not, you know pursue your master’s or bachelor’s and have early childhood classes. Absolutely, that’s great, but it also has to be in the reality of the world that we live in. And so, what’s more important is that we provide consistent staff to children who will stay, that we are able to hire people who are passionate about what they’re doing, who really want to be there and so, I think that there needs to be some kind of balance with that because it’s really creating a struggle.”

54

55

56

Conversations with providers across the state focused on a series of interlinked factors that they face on a daily basis. They noted issues related to workforce and staffing, the ECE business model challenges, and supports they find helpful.

WORKFORCE

The most consistent theme in the focus groups were workforce challenges. Providers can only afford to pay teachers relatively low wages and the state has some of the highest educational standards for early childhood education teachers in the country. These, and other workforce challenges, lead to an incredibly high rate of turnover for ECE teachers. According to a 2017 IDHS study, 70% of surveyed centers had at least one early childhood education teacher leave in the past two years, nearly 60% had lost at least one assistant teacher in the past two years, and almost 27% had at least one director/teacher leave in the past two years. The most common reason staff left was because of salaries and benefits.

Across the state, the average teacher makes $13.14 per hour and the average assistant teacher makes $10.67 per hour. At these average wages, an ECE teacher or assistant teacher who is a single parent of even one child would be income eligible to participate in CCAP. Providers in Cook County empathized with their workers who left because of wages:

Provider 1: “Some universities have actually closed down their early childhood programs because people don’t want to go and get their bachelor’s degree and [make] $15 an hour.”

Provider 2: “Absolutely…I just heard on the news that Amazon is now gonna pay their [employees] $15 [an hour]…You have ECE teachers making maybe $15-16 and

assistant teachers [making] $13-14, so [they’re saying,] ‘Hey, I’m going to Amazon.’”

Providers outside of Cook County also focused on the lack of training programs. While there is a fair amount of distribution of ECE training opportunities across the state (Map 17), there are few schools that offer a bachelor’s or master’s degree, which are required for teachers to have in order for a provider to advance in ExceleRate Circles of Quality.

Providers in Southern Illinois also expressed deep concerns about staffing:

Provider 1: “…high staff turnover effects your quality of education because they can’t develop those relationships with their teachers because they leave every 8-9 months.”

Provider 2: “Yes, I mean, it’s, it’s hard, I have over, I’m licensed for 80 and I have 200 kids on my waiting list…And I could build on, but I cannot find the quality staff…And I cannot bring myself to do it. I don’t want the stress of it. At this point, I just want to survive...And I’m tired of surviving, I want to thrive.”

BUSINESS MODELS

It is impossible to discuss workforce challenges without also considering the difficulties providers face trying to create financially sustainable business models. As the state considers universal pre-school options and as Chicago Public Schools rolls this program out in 2019-2020, it is important to recognize how community-based providers are impacted by school districts entering the ECE ecosystem. In Chicago, one provider with multiple locations said:

PROVIDER PERSPECTIVES

57

Map 20: Colleges with ECE Training Programs

58

“CPS is a big challenge…because they are pushing into the preschool sector so hard which puts a lot of pressure on community-based providers because they want us to serve younger children, which everybody knows is high demand, narrow margin. And it’s not fair.”

Another multi-site director said:

“This year’s been the hardest year for enrolling three and four-year-olds…We’ve never had a problem filling our preschool slots and this year we have a ton of preschool slots available.”

It is important to consider community-based providers in the landscape of preschool care so as not to destabilize the entire ECE marketplace when universal preschool is implemented within school districts. These providers can fill needs that traditional school districts cannot, like the need for care beyond traditional school hours and over the summer. It is important that community-based providers are engaged early in the planning process for universal preschool and that families who cannot use district-based options have support to remain in community-based care. Home based providers also face specific financial challenges due to their program size. For example, these providers expressed additional challenges in being able to afford advancement in ExceleRate. As one owner said:

“I was Gold [Circle of Quality]…I had an assistant that had a master’s degree in early childhood, so that’s really easy to reach Gold when you have two people that have early childhood educations. But my new assistant…was working on an associate’s…There’s no way in one year can she meet Gold.”

Given their small staff, long hours, and narrow operating margins, for many providers advancing in ExceleRate does not to make business sense. As one provider explained:

“[Maybe you’re getting] $600 more [a month in CCAP subsidy]…but now you have that assistant who got a bachelor’s because you want to do Silver [Circle of Quality] and you have to pay her $15 or $18 an hour so now [you’ve spent the additional CCAP subsidy].”

Additionally, home based providers feared funding the education of potential future competitors. As one owner said:

“I can’t afford to send her through college so she can then turn around and open up her own business.”

Across Southern Illinois, providers, IDCFS licensing representatives, and CCR&R staff painted a fairly bleak picture of the ECE landscape in terms of the lack of options for families and the additional shortage of resources to operate ECE centers. As provider discussed:

Provider 1: “[Down here in Southern Illinois] we have lost 46 centers…since 2015…All of us right here are two staff away from closing.”

Provider 2: “Two staff? How [do] you get two? I’m thinking one.”

A staff person at a CCR&R said:

“We lost two centers in our backyard and we’re concerned about that…We’re having whole communities suffer for childcare and it’s not as easy…if you don’t have the proper transportation and you live in that area [that has a lost a center].”

59

Finally, providers in Southern Illinois talked about how the increase to the state minimum wage would affect their businesses:

Provider 1: “[If the state] gets $15 an hour minimum wage, we’ll all be closed”

Provider 2: “Our employees don’t make minimum wage…so if minimum wage goes to $15, what does my person making $10 now want? They want $17.”

Across the state, these constraints around staff wages are not based on undervaluing teachers or increasing profits, they are driven by the challenge between balancing income from provider earnings from private pay and subsidy income with the cost of care, especially given low teacher to student ratios and high teacher qualification requirements. Providers in Southern Illinois will not be able to increase staff wages to $15 or more per hour without increases to their CCAP reimbursement.

PROVIDER SUPPORTS

Provider supports vary across the state, but typically fell into four categories:

1. Programmatic supports that enhanced what was happening in the classroom

2. Administrative practice groups that help providers succeed

3. Statewide resources like CCAP and Gateways

4. Supports provided by the local CCR&R

First, programmatic supports typically provide supplemental curricular resources in areas like foreign language, reading, or art and often are partnerships with a non-profit organization that provides the service. One provider in DuPage explained:

“We got a connection to the DuPage Children’s Museum, so they actually came in and did art [with] the children and then that art was posted in the gallery and they had a gallery opening for the families and that was really cool.”

Second, providers across the state participate in regional practice groups. These groups tend to provide administrative resources, for example sharing policies, navigating licensing challenges, or just a sympathetic ear in a high stress industry. One provider explained why she participates in the Southern Illinois Early Childhood Action Team (SIECAT):

“When you’re going through whatever and you’re like ‘Oh, shoot, I need a policy on this or I need a form for the parents to fill out on this” you can send an email out to the entire [group] and you’ll get 10 or 15 of them to look at…I remember the first time that happened, I was like, ‘What you’re going to share your policy book?’”

At times, these groups may either be formal political organizations, like the statewide Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Child Care & Early Learning union, or even if they are not explicitly political, other groups have traveled to City Hall or Springfield to lobby local or state governments. A provider described her experience in Cook County:

“We collaborated…we shared. So I knew providers from the west side, the south side…but most importantly we came

60

in out in droves…We have to voice for us…we went to Springfield [with] Illinois Action for Children…we took a bus, we were no joke.”

Additionally, providers talked about the support the local CCR&R’s provided in navigating licensing and ExceleRate, providing professional development for staff, and connecting them to niche resources, like early childhood mental health consultants. Many providers applauded their local CCR&Rs. As one provider explained:

“Our CCR&R [provides us] with the trainings. And we can call them up and they can come and help us out with issues and help us fix things and help with [coaching] teachers…really just helping…so we do have those supports.”

A provider in Tazewell county said:

“[Our early childhood mental health consultant] has been wonderful. [She] has helped us a lot identify [interventions to try while waiting for an appointment] 6 or 8 weeks from now and that has helped us an awful lot. And she’s available to staff, emailing and calling and, you know, talking us off a cliff and just things like that.”

The CCR&R staff in Granite City and Carterville also emphasized the way they support providers, explaining that much of their time was focused on relationship building to be able to meet the needs of providers in their area.

Finally, there are state-wide programs like Gateways to Opportunity, a professional development system run through INCCRRA. Center owners and directors spoke about online and in person credentialing opportunities and trainings, as well as scholarship programs. Providers also talked about two scholarship programs through

Gateways to Opportunity, Great START (Strategy to Attract and Retain Teachers) and the Gateways Scholarship Program. Both programs are intended to provide additional financial incentives to retain workers at their childcare centers. This seems to work, but at the same time, in a market with a very limited supply of qualified staff, the financial incentives Gateways to Opportunities scholarships offer also make it harder for centers to recruit qualified staff. As one provider explained:

“The last person I hired I had to pay her [the equivalent to what she would have gotten in] Great START for the year [she worked for me before she was eligible to re-enroll in the program]…That’s the only reason I got her to come to my center. She’s great, she’s the teacher we all want…but she wouldn’t leave because of Great START and [so I had to supplement her salary].”

61

62

Creating high quality ECE opportunities for children is not only vital but also one of the most cost-effective investments Illinois can make in its future. The following findings and recommendations aim to guide strategic decision-making and promote action-oriented policymaking in Illinois. In order to increase access and improve quality, key stakeholders from across the state must work to understand why the ECE system is working well in some communities in order to address the challenges facing the target communities identified in this study.

RECOMMENDATION #1:INCREASE ACCESS TO INFANT AND TODDLER CARE IN ILLINOIS

Findings: Not all families with children under 2-years-old require access to formal ECE services. However, limited options exist for these young children and families in Illinois, particularly in terms of high-quality care. Infant and toddler care is the most expensive care to provide, mainly due to the required low staff to child ratios. Lack of access to infant and toddler care often results in fewer parents returning to the workforce, which has implications on economic growth statewide. Additionally, the quality of educational experiences during these very early years are crucial to child development and growth.

Strategies: According to the Center for American Progress, the price for basic infant care in Illinois is about $53 per day and $45 per day for basic toddler care. The Illinois Department of Human Services (IDHS) 2016 Market Rate Survey found that across the state providers were charging a median of $50 per day for infants and $48 per day for toddlers. IDHS reimbursement rates vary

regionally within the state and for center and home-based providers, but the maximum reimbursement for infants is $48.47 and for toddlers is $40.93. In all counties, Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP) reimbursement rates need to be increased to meet the true costs of high quality care.

Providers also need more options to blend and braid program funding to cover the high cost care—this includes Early Head Start, Prevention Initiative grants, local government dollars, and private philanthropy. To support this, there needs to be better alignment between program goals and objectives so that a provider can truly interweave these sources.

Another factor that potentially impacts infant and toddler care is the push for statewide universal preschool for 4-year-olds. While these younger children would not be served by this expansion, if older children leave community-based homes and centers to receive school-based care, this will shift the overall financial model for providers and make it harder for them to make ends meet. As the state explores universal 4-year-old care, it is crucial to give community-based providers a seat at the table and keep options open for families so the marketplace for infants and toddlers does not collapse.

Finally, the State of Illinois should provide funding for facilities that serve infants and toddlers in the proposed 2019 capital bill or through a policy initiative to help both home-based providers and centers provide high-quality care for this crucial age group.

Recommended Target Areas: Counties in the northwest (i.e. Whiteside, Bureau, Knox) as well as in south central Illinois (i.e. Moultrie, Douglas, Coles, Shelby, Effingham,

RECOMMENDATIONS

63

Fayette) had minimal access to infant and toddler care. Areas in the greater Chicagoland region (i.e. Lake, DuPage, and Cook counties) as well as centrally located counties (i.e. Peoria, Champaign, Sangamon) had relatively high access. However, many low-income families living in these communities are unable to afford this care.

RECOMMENDATION #2: GROW SUPPLY OF QUALITY PROVIDERS IN ILLINOIS’ MORE RURAL COUNTIES

Findings: Illinois residents in rural counties across the state faced limited access to formal ECE services, especially to high-quality care. While rural communities had slightly below average access to ECE services, they had far less access than urban communities to high-quality ECE providers.

Strategies: Given the low population density of rural communities, it is challenging for center-based providers to serve every community. Therefore, home-based and family, friend, and neighbor care are an important and valued part of rural ECE supply. Local Child Care Resource & Referral (CCR&R) Agencies, Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (IDCFS) licensing representatives, and All Our Kids (AOK) networks should increase provider and parent education to highlight the range of program options.

In addition, per Governor Pritzker’s 2020 budget proposal, CCAP eligibility should be raised to families making up to 200% Federal Poverty Level. This will mean an estimated 19,000 more children in rural counties will be eligible for CCAP. The State of Illinois should also prioritize funding for facilities that serve rural communities to expand access in

either the proposed capital bill or through a policy initiative. Finally, it is not enough to increase the number of slots in rural communities, the quality of care must also be improved. With an increase in the number of CCAP eligible children, more providers might find the CCAP enhancements an incentive to advance in the ExceleRate Circles of Quality. Funding for CCR&R staff in rural communities should also be increased to support providers as they make quality improvements.

Recommended Target Areas: Rural counties with low ECE access include those in southern Illinois (i.e. Massac) as well as parts of north central Illinois (i.e. Douglas, Moultrie, Lasalle, Livingston). The above-mentioned counties in north central Illinois also experience low access to high-quality providers in addition to Knox and Iroquois counties, as well as other counties in south central Illinois (i.e. Effingham, Fayette, Cumberland, Coles, Clinton).

RECOMMENDATION #3: PROMOTE EQUITABLE ECE ACCESS IN LOW-INCOME COMMUNITIES THROUGHOUT METROPOLITAN CHICAGO

Findings: In many of Chicago’s high poverty communities, ECE access falls below the state average. This is especially true in Chicago’s westside neighborhoods, as well as in broader Cook County.

Strategies: As with infant and toddler care, promoting equitable care in metropolitan Chicago requires increasing funding available to providers. CCAP reimbursements need to be raised to meet the true cost of care. A 2017 Illinois Action for Children report found that families in Cook

64

County pay, on average, $41.22 per day for 3-4 year old care at a center-based provider and $33.76 per day for home-based providers. At the same time, IDHS only reimburses $34.11 per day to Cook County centers for the same age children and $29.92 for home-based providers. Providers in Chicagoland need to be able to blend and braid dollars to take advantage of Head Start, Preschool for All grants, local government dollars, and private philanthropy, and these systems need to be better aligned. Providers in metropolitan Chicago need access to capital dollars through a state capital bill and longer-term funding supports to allow for the development and expansion of facilities.

Finally, as these communities move toward universal 4-year-old care, community-based providers need to be part of this conversation so that the marketplace is not destabilized. For school districts that are already in the process of rolling out universal four-year-old care, it is important to recognize that many families need full day, full year care for 4 and 5-year-olds. Local governments should consider special grant programs, like Indiana’s On My Way to Pre-K, which would provide funds to allow families to choose community-based ECE care.

Recommended Target Areas: Chicago neighborhoods with the largest gap in supply compared to demand include neighborhoods on the north, west and southwest sides of the city. Surrounding Cook County also experienced a large service gap, specifically in parts of Schaumburg, Deer Park, Palatine, Cicero and Chicago Ridge. It is important to note that this analysis identifies communities by their lack of geographic access only. Other risk factors (i.e. affordability, parental education, parental employment, homelessness, etc.) that may help to prioritize investments based on overall need are included in Illinois Risk and Reach report.

RECOMMENDATION #4:EXPAND EXCELERATE PARTICIPATION STATEWIDE

Findings: Access to high-quality ECE services was not uniform across Illinois, as certain areas have more Gold Circle of Quality providers. This trend is partially due to limited advancement beyond the Licensing Circle of Quality in ExceleRate, especially for home-based providers. Outreach strategies tailored to center-based or home-based providers are necessary to increase quality improvements. Workforce issues, such as a lack of qualified teachers and challenges offering competitive pay, provide additional obstacles for providers in achieving and/or improving quality.

Strategies: As the focus groups with providers indicated, ExceleRate provides consistent guidelines for quality, but the benefits for making quality improvements may not always outweigh the costs. ExceleRate should provide a direct benefit to program staff through education and retention awards given to staff for program quality. Through Pennsylvania’s Keystone STARS, a teacher can earn up to $3,090/year and a director can earn up to $4,120/year as a bonus at center or home-based providers that receive a 4 STAR rating.

Across the state, providers pointed to the importance of CCR&R agencies in ExceleRate and quality writ-large. Grant funding for these services should be increased to help recruit and retain quality specialists and expand services. Especially in rural communities and with home-based providers, CCR&R agency staff serve as the front-line for quality improvement efforts. With the expanded grant dollars, local CCR&Rs should also increase provider

65

and parent education around ExceleRate, support the advancement of more home-based providers in the Circles of Quality, and help parents better understand their ECE options. Finally, and most importantly, as Illinois Network of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies (INCCRRA) and other stakeholders work to improve ExceleRate, providers from across the state must have a seat at the table to ensure that the quality rating and improvement system (QRIS) aligns with the daily realities of providing ECE care.

Recommended Target Areas: Portions of Knox, Iroquois and Vermilion counties in north central Illinois as well as Cumberland, Effingham, Fayette, Clinton and Massac counties in south central Illinois have effectively no Gold Circle of Quality providers. In addition, in most of Moultrie and Douglas counties, there are no high-quality providers for infants and toddlers.

RECOMMENDATION #5:SUPPORT EFFORTS FOR STATEWIDE COLLABORATION ACROSS THE ECE SYSTEM

Findings: Many efforts exist across Illinois to support knowledge-sharing and funding, yet programs and investments are oftentimes uncoordinated with only regional concerns or a specific issue area in mind. Additionally, while many statewide data sources exist, including INCCRRA, Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) and Illinois Early Childhood Asset Map (IECAM), these entities are highly disjointed. This lack of integration in statewide data sources limits the ability to obtain a complete picture of the ECE landscape in Illinois. This creates challenges with accurately determining the capacity and utilization of different ECE services providers across the state.

Strategies: In response, stakeholders should promote coordination at the state-level, such as through the Governor’s Office of Early Childhood Development (OECD), to ensure more integrated ECE data is available to support data-driven investment decisions and policy-making. To improve the utility of ECE data, stakeholders should first prioritize data needs by articulating key strategic questions in order to identify the gaps in existing data sources. Investments should then be made in technology, human capital, and organizational practices that strengthen data collection and management and support linkages statewide.

66

67

68

APPENDIX

County IFF Study Area Access to ECE, 0-5

Access to Gold Rated ECE, 0-5

Access to ECE, 0-2


Access to ECE, 3-5


Adams Adams Hickory-Quincy 0.47 0.09 0.24 0.03 0.57 0.13

Adams Adams Southeast 1.00 0.15 0.60 0.05 1.10 0.22

Adams Adams Southwest 0.90 0.20 0.47 0.06 1.12 0.31

Adams Adams West 0.62 0.24 0.30 0.07 0.81 0.38

Hancock Adams-Hancock 0.76 0.06 0.48 0.02 0.81 0.08

DuPage Addison-Itasca-Wood Dale 0.48 0.10 0.22 0.05 0.63 0.14

Cook Albany Park 0.21 0.05 0.13 0.03 0.24 0.06

Alexander Alexander-Jackson 0.47 0.04 0.20 0.01 0.61 0.05

McHenry Algonquin-Crystal Lake-Fox River Grove 0.51 0.07 0.24 0.03 0.67 0.10

Cook Alsip-Crestwood-Palos Heights-Palos Park-Worth 0.50 0.08 0.24 0.04 0.68 0.09

Madison Alton 0.38 0.07 0.18 0.03 0.49 0.10

Cook Archer Heights-West Elsdon 0.38 0.08 0.22 0.04 0.46 0.10

DuPage Argonne National Laboratory 0.56 0.12 0.26 0.06 0.74 0.16

Cook Arlington Heights North-Buffalo Grove South 0.47 0.09 0.23 0.05 0.62 0.12

Cook Arlington Heights South-Rolling Meadows 0.29 0.05 0.12 0.03 0.44 0.06

Cook Armour Square-Douglas-Near South Side-Oakland 0.69 0.20 0.35 0.10 0.93 0.28

Cook Ashburn 0.55 0.10 0.36 0.06 0.61 0.12

Cook Auburn Gresham-Washing-ton Heights North 0.68 0.12 0.45 0.07 0.76 0.15

Kane Aurora East 0.19 0.04 0.09 0.02 0.26 0.06

Kane Aurora North 0.25 0.06 0.11 0.03 0.35 0.08

ACCESS TO ECE SUMMARY TABLE

Access to ECE is based on the number of slots available per 100 children in a given study area. For example, 47 slots per 100 children ages 0-5 exist in the Adams Hickory Quincy community area in Adams County, Illinois. Therefore, just under half of children living there have access to ECE services.

69



Access to ECE, 0-2


Access to ECE, 3-5


Kane Aurora West 0.28 0.07 0.13 0.03 0.39 0.10

Cook Austin North 0.55 0.09 0.34 0.05 0.63 0.12

Cook Austin South 0.51 0.11 0.32 0.06 0.59 0.14

Cook Avalon Park-Burnside-Calu-met Heights-South Chicago 0.74 0.14 0.49 0.07 0.82 0.17

Cook Avondale 0.37 0.08 0.22 0.05 0.43 0.11

Cook Barrington-Inverness-South Barrington-Palatine South 0.96 0.26 0.51 0.15 1.17 0.31

Cook Bartlett North-Streamwood East 0.24 0.06 0.13 0.03 0.31 0.08

Kane Batavia-North Aurora 0.56 0.09 0.27 0.04 0.73 0.12

Lake Beach Park-Grandwood Park 0.49 0.07 0.29 0.03 0.57 0.09

Cook Bedford Park-Bridgeview-Bur-bank-Summit 0.39 0.08 0.20 0.05 0.51 0.10

St. Clair Belleville 0.36 0.08 0.17 0.04 0.48 0.11

Cook Bellwood-Berkeley-Hillside-La Grange Park-Westchester 0.57 0.06 0.31 0.03 0.73 0.08

Cook Belmont Cragin East 0.34 0.08 0.20 0.04 0.41 0.10

Cook Belmont Cragin West 0.34 0.07 0.21 0.04 0.39 0.09

Cook Berwyn North-Cicero West 0.23 0.04 0.14 0.02 0.28 0.05

Cook Berwyn South-cicero South-Stickney-Forest View 0.43 0.10 0.24 0.06 0.54 0.12

Cook Berwyn-Cicero 0.27 0.07 0.15 0.04 0.35 0.09

Cook Beverly-Morgan Park-Mount Greenwood 0.65 0.11 0.40 0.06 0.73 0.14

DuPage Bloomingdale 0.61 0.13 0.28 0.06 0.83 0.16

McLean Bloomington City 0.50 0.16 0.21 0.06 0.66 0.23

McLean Bloomington South 0.51 0.23 0.22 0.08 0.65 0.31

Cook Blue Island-Calumet Park-Dixmoor-Riverdale 0.59 0.12 0.35 0.06 0.71 0.14

Will Bolingbrook North 0.35 0.09 0.19 0.04 0.43 0.13

Will Bolingbrook Quarry 0.42 0.04 0.23 0.02 0.49 0.05

70



Access to ECE, 0-2


Access to ECE, 3-5


Will Bolingbrook South 0.41 0.12 0.22 0.06 0.51 0.17

Macoupin Bond-Macoupin-Madison 0.60 0.07 0.27 0.03 0.80 0.09

Boone Boon Central 0.45 0.10 0.22 0.04 0.56 0.13

Boone Boon South-Winnebago South 0.60 0.08 0.29 0.03 0.74 0.10

Kankakee Bradley City 0.44 0.09 0.19 0.03 0.54 0.11

Cook Bridgeport-McKinley Park 0.61 0.18 0.33 0.10 0.78 0.24

CookBridgeview South-Chicago Ridge-Hickory Hills-Palos Hills

0.30 0.08 0.13 0.04 0.44 0.09

Cook Brighton Park 0.24 0.08 0.14 0.04 0.29 0.10

Cook Broadview-Forest Park-Maywood-Riverside 0.70 0.11 0.41 0.06 0.84 0.14

Cook Brookfield-Countryside-La Grange-Lyons 0.36 0.05 0.18 0.03 0.46 0.06

Pike Brown-Pike 0.66 0.13 0.38 0.04 0.74 0.19

Kane Brunner Family Forest Pre-serve 0.19 0.07 0.08 0.03 0.26 0.10

Lake Buffalo Grove-Vernon Hills 0.66 0.13 0.32 0.06 0.85 0.16

Bureau Bureau North 0.40 0.13 0.18 0.04 0.53 0.18

Bureau Bureau-LaSalle 0.34 0.06 0.12 0.02 0.51 0.10

Bureau Bureau-Putnam 0.54 0.14 0.21 0.05 0.75 0.21

Kane Burlington-Pingree Grove 0.47 0.09 0.22 0.04 0.60 0.12

Cook Burnham-Calumet City-Dolton 0.75 0.20 0.44 0.11 0.92 0.25

Cook Burr Ridge-Hodgkins-Lemont-Justice 0.72 0.13 0.35 0.07 0.94 0.15

St. Clair Cahokia-Centreville 0.70 0.12 0.38 0.05 0.87 0.17

Jersey Calhoune-Jersey-Macoupin 0.45 0.08 0.23 0.04 0.56 0.11

DuPage Carol Stream 0.46 0.08 0.21 0.04 0.62 0.11

Carroll Carrol 0.47 0.13 0.21 0.04 0.63 0.21

Mason Cass-Mason 0.51 0.08 0.18 0.02 0.73 0.11

71



Access to ECE, 0-2


Access to ECE, 3-5


Cass Cass-Schuyler 0.52 0.12 0.23 0.04 0.69 0.18

Champaign Champaign City 0.41 0.04 0.20 0.01 0.49 0.05

Champaign Champaign Fisher 0.77 0.14 0.39 0.05 0.94 0.19

Champaign Champaign Southwest 0.98 0.14 0.45 0.05 1.23 0.19

Champaign Champaign-Urbana 0.47 0.07 0.22 0.02 0.60 0.10

Champaign Champaign-Vermilion 0.73 0.10 0.36 0.04 0.87 0.13

Cook Chatham-Greater Grand Crossing 0.79 0.15 0.51 0.08 0.87 0.19

Cook Chicago Heights-Ford Heights-Sauk Village 0.45 0.06 0.24 0.03 0.60 0.08

Cook Chicago Lawn North 0.39 0.08 0.25 0.04 0.46 0.10

Cook Chicago Lawn-West Englewood 0.66 0.14 0.41 0.07 0.76 0.17

Christian Christian 0.64 0.07 0.25 0.02 0.91 0.10

Christian Christian Northwest 0.43 0.07 0.15 0.02 0.63 0.11

Cook Cicero North 0.24 0.06 0.14 0.03 0.29 0.07

DuPage Claredon Hills 0.71 0.13 0.34 0.06 0.91 0.17

Clark Clark-Grawford 0.42 0.11 0.21 0.03 0.54 0.16

Richland Clay-Richland 0.35 0.07 0.16 0.02 0.45 0.11

Clay Clay-Wayne 0.35 0.06 0.17 0.02 0.45 0.08

Cook Clearing-Garfield Ridge 0.31 0.09 0.18 0.05 0.37 0.11

Clinton Clinton-Madison 0.59 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.74 0.00

Coles Coles Northeast 0.62 0.05 0.24 0.02 0.89 0.08

Coles Coles West 0.54 0.03 0.21 0.01 0.76 0.05

Coles Coles-Cumberland 0.50 0.04 0.22 0.01 0.67 0.06

Madison Collinsville-Maryville 0.44 0.09 0.21 0.04 0.59 0.12

Cook Country Club Hills-Flossmoor-Homewood 0.76 0.06 0.43 0.04 0.94 0.08

Will Crystal-Lawns-Joliet West 0.38 0.09 0.18 0.04 0.49 0.13

Cumberland Cumbekrland-Effingham 0.55 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.71 0.00

72



Access to ECE, 0-2


Access to ECE, 3-5


Macon De Witt-Macon 0.58 0.05 0.25 0.02 0.74 0.07

De Witt De Witt-Macon-Sangamon 0.86 0.10 0.38 0.04 1.08 0.13

Cook Deer Park South-Palatine North 0.24 0.06 0.12 0.03 0.32 0.07

Lake Deerfield-Highland Park 0.69 0.09 0.36 0.04 0.83 0.10

DeKalb DeKalb North 0.43 0.10 0.23 0.04 0.52 0.14

DeKalb DeKalb South 0.42 0.19 0.22 0.08 0.53 0.26

Cook Des Plaines 0.41 0.09 0.20 0.05 0.58 0.11

Cook Des Plaines West-Mount Prospect-Prospect Heights 0.42 0.08 0.21 0.04 0.56 0.09

Douglas Douglas 0.26 0.02 0.17 0.01 0.27 0.02

Moultrie Douglas-Moultrie 0.31 0.02 0.13 0.00 0.45 0.02

DuPage Downers Grove 0.53 0.11 0.25 0.05 0.70 0.15

Cook Dunning-Montclare-O'Hare 0.54 0.10 0.31 0.05 0.65 0.13

DuPage DuPage Northwest 0.59 0.14 0.29 0.07 0.76 0.18

DuPage DuPage Southwest 0.69 0.12 0.29 0.05 0.98 0.16

Rock Island East Moline 0.39 0.10 0.19 0.04 0.47 0.14

Cook East Side-Hegwisch-South Deering 0.82 0.20 0.51 0.11 0.94 0.25

St. Clair East St. Louis 0.55 0.10 0.24 0.04 0.79 0.14

Edgar Edgar 0.53 0.16 0.26 0.05 0.68 0.25

Cook Edgewater-Uptown North 0.30 0.09 0.16 0.04 0.40 0.12

Cook Edison Park-Norwood Park 0.29 0.06 0.16 0.03 0.36 0.08

White Edwards-White 0.41 0.03 0.14 0.01 0.58 0.04

Effingham Effingham 0.49 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.62 0.00

Effingham Effingham City 0.67 - 0.30 - 0.90 -

Peoria El Vista 0.28 0.05 0.12 0.02 0.37 0.06

Cook Elgin East-Hoffman Estates West-Streamwood West 0.26 0.05 0.14 0.03 0.32 0.06

Kane Elgin-West Highland Acres 0.21 0.05 0.09 0.02 0.31 0.07

73



Access to ECE, 0-2


Access to ECE, 3-5


Cook Elk Grove Village-Roselle-Schaumburg South 0.65 0.17 0.32 0.09 0.86 0.21

DuPage Elmhurst 0.37 0.06 0.17 0.03 0.48 0.07

Cook Elmwood Park-Northlake-River Grove 0.43 0.07 0.23 0.04 0.56 0.09

Cook Englewood-New City South 0.57 0.15 0.34 0.08 0.67 0.19

Cook Evanston 0.59 0.14 0.32 0.08 0.74 0.18

Cook Evergreen Park-Hometown-Oak Lawn 0.47 0.09 0.26 0.05 0.60 0.11

St. Clair Fairview Hights-Hollywood Heights 0.50 0.13 0.27 0.06 0.61 0.17

Fayette Fayette East 0.45 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.69 0.00

Montgomery Fayette-Montgomery 0.71 0.23 0.30 0.08 0.97 0.34

DuPage Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory 0.49 0.10 0.22 0.05 0.68 0.14

Champaign Ford South-McLean 0.72 0.10 0.35 0.04 0.87 0.13

Ford Ford-McLean-Vermilion 0.57 0.04 0.30 0.02 0.67 0.06

Cook Forest Glen-Jefferson Park-North Park 0.61 0.12 0.36 0.06 0.73 0.15

Lake Fox Lake 0.28 0.04 0.16 0.02 0.33 0.05

Will Frankfort-Mokena 0.46 0.06 0.22 0.03 0.59 0.07

Franklin Franklin Northwest 0.40 0.13 0.15 0.04 0.59 0.20

Cook Franklin Park-Norridge-Rosemont-Schiller Park 0.43 0.08 0.22 0.04 0.56 0.10

Franklin Franklin South 0.50 0.08 0.21 0.03 0.68 0.11

Franklin Franklin-Hamilton-White 0.59 0.30 0.22 0.09 0.83 0.45

Cook Fuller Park-Grand Boulevard-Hyde Park-Kenwood 0.57 0.16 0.32 0.08 0.71 0.21

Fulton Fulton Northeast 0.41 0.01 0.13 0.00 0.60 0.01

Fulton Fulton-McDonough 0.62 0.10 0.22 0.03 0.90 0.15

Cook Gage Park 0.25 0.07 0.14 0.04 0.30 0.09

Saline Gallatin-Hardin-Saline-White 0.40 0.05 0.15 0.02 0.57 0.08

74



Access to ECE, 0-2


Access to ECE, 3-5


Cook Garfield Park 0.60 0.20 0.35 0.11 0.74 0.27

DuPage Glen Ellyn-Lombard-Morton Arboretum 0.52 0.08 0.25 0.04 0.68 0.11

Cook Glencoe-Northbrook-Northfield 1.12 0.17 0.61 0.10 1.36 0.21

DuPage Glendale Heights 0.37 0.08 0.17 0.04 0.51 0.11

Cook Glenview-Morton Grove 0.80 0.15 0.44 0.08 0.95 0.16

Cook Glenwood-Lansing-Lynwood-Thorton 0.70 0.14 0.41 0.08 0.83 0.17

Lawrence Grawford-Lawrence 0.42 0.02 0.20 0.01 0.55 0.03

Tazewell Greater Pekin Lake 0.32 0.07 0.14 0.03 0.42 0.10

Greene Greene-Pike 0.46 0.04 0.22 0.01 0.59 0.05

Grundy Grundy 0.25 0.07 0.11 0.03 0.34 0.10

Lake Hainesville-Ivanhoe 0.43 0.07 0.23 0.03 0.53 0.10

Hancock Hancock-Henderson 0.59 0.02 0.31 0.01 0.75 0.04

McDonough Hancock-McDonough 0.52 0.13 0.20 0.04 0.73 0.20

Cook Hanover Park North-Schaumburg Southwest 0.25 0.05 0.13 0.02 0.31 0.06

Johnson Hardin-Johnson-Saline-Pope 0.50 0.20 0.22 0.07 0.65 0.28

Peoria Harvard Hills-Peoria-Robin 0.39 0.04 0.17 0.01 0.51 0.05

Cook Harvey-Phoenix-Posen-South Holland 0.89 0.12 0.54 0.07 1.04 0.14

Henry Henry 0.47 0.06 0.24 0.02 0.56 0.08

Henry Henry-Rock Island 0.75 0.13 0.36 0.05 0.92 0.17

Cook Hermosa South-Humboldt Park West 0.43 0.10 0.26 0.05 0.50 0.12

Cook Hermosa-Logan Square West 0.34 0.07 0.20 0.04 0.41 0.09

Cook Hoffman Estates South-Schaumburg North 0.59 0.11 0.29 0.06 0.81 0.14

Will Homer Glen 0.31 0.04 0.14 0.02 0.41 0.04

Cook Humboldt Park East-West Town West 0.43 0.12 0.25 0.06 0.52 0.16

75



Access to ECE, 0-2


Access to ECE, 3-5


McHenry Huntley East-Lake in the Hills West 0.28 0.08 0.14 0.04 0.36 0.10

Cook Iriving Park 0.43 0.11 0.26 0.06 0.51 0.14

Iroquois Iroquois North 0.52 0.06 0.25 0.02 0.65 0.09

Iroquois Iroquois South 0.44 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.54 0.00

Jackson Jackson East 0.59 0.26 0.23 0.09 0.83 0.37

Jasper Jasper-Grawford 0.62 0.17 0.32 0.06 0.74 0.25

Jefferson Jefferson Southeast 0.63 0.29 0.24 0.09 0.89 0.44

Jefferson Jefferson Southwest 0.72 0.31 0.26 0.09 1.05 0.47

Marion Jefferson-Marion 0.65 0.12 0.27 0.04 0.90 0.17

Jo Daviess Jo Daviess 0.49 0.13 0.29 0.04 0.54 0.19

Union Johnson-Union 0.57 0.33 0.19 0.10 0.84 0.50

Will Joliet East 0.23 0.03 0.10 0.01 0.31 0.04

Will Joliet-Preston Heights-Rockdale 0.30 0.07 0.15 0.03 0.39 0.10

Kane Kane Southeast 0.47 0.06 0.23 0.03 0.60 0.07

Kankakee Kankakee 0.68 0.08 0.29 0.03 0.85 0.11

Kankakee Kankakee City 0.28 0.03 0.11 0.01 0.38 0.05

Kankakee Kankakee Northeast 0.47 0.08 0.19 0.03 0.62 0.10

Kendall Kendall 0.42 0.05 0.21 0.02 0.54 0.06

Knox Knox Galesburg 0.28 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.38 0.00

Knox Knox North 0.52 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.64 0.00

Fulton Knox South 0.39 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.50 0.01

Lake Lake Barrington-Lake Zurich-Wauconda 0.57 0.06 0.27 0.03 0.72 0.08

Lake Lake Forest 0.72 0.14 0.37 0.07 0.88 0.17

Lake Lake Northeast 0.52 0.03 0.32 0.02 0.57 0.04

Lake Lake Northwest 0.50 0.06 0.26 0.03 0.61 0.07

Cook Lake View North-Uptown South 0.47 0.12 0.23 0.06 0.70 0.18

76



Access to ECE, 0-2


Access to ECE, 3-5


Cook Lake View Southeast-Lincoln Park 0.58 0.15 0.28 0.07 0.84 0.22

Cook Lake View West-North Center 0.38 0.08 0.19 0.04 0.56 0.12

McHenry Lakewood-Woodstock 0.46 0.07 0.23 0.03 0.59 0.09

Wabash Larence-Wabash 0.36 0.06 0.16 0.02 0.49 0.09

LaSalle LaSalle North 0.34 0.11 0.13 0.03 0.47 0.15

LaSalle Lasalle Northeast 0.25 0.06 0.10 0.02 0.34 0.08

LaSalle LaSalle Ottawa 0.17 0.09 0.06 0.03 0.25 0.14

LaSalle LaSalle Peru 0.17 0.06 0.06 0.02 0.25 0.09

LaSalle LaSalle Southeast 0.49 0.13 0.15 0.04 0.76 0.20

LaSalle LaSalle Southwest 0.31 0.04 0.12 0.01 0.43 0.07

Lee Lee Meadows Park 0.29 0.12 0.12 0.04 0.39 0.18

Lee Lee-Ogle-Whiteside 0.86 0.10 0.39 0.03 1.13 0.16

Lee Lee-Whiteside 0.79 0.15 0.40 0.05 0.98 0.23

Will Lewis University Airport 0.34 0.05 0.17 0.02 0.44 0.06

Lake Libertyville-Maundelein 0.49 0.05 0.24 0.02 0.64 0.07

Cook Lincoln Square North-West Ridge South 0.39 0.07 0.22 0.04 0.48 0.09

Cook Lincoln Square-North Center 0.37 0.08 0.20 0.04 0.48 0.11

Cook Lincolnwood-Skokie 0.74 0.18 0.41 0.10 0.92 0.22

Livingston Livingston East 0.30 0.05 0.13 0.01 0.42 0.07

LaSalle Livingston Northwest 0.19 0.05 0.08 0.01 0.28 0.07

Livingston Livingston Southwest/Southeast 0.46 0.06 0.23 0.02 0.55 0.09

Logan Logan North 0.43 0.04 0.18 0.01 0.57 0.05

Logan Logan South 0.42 0.04 0.18 0.02 0.58 0.04

Cook Logan Square 0.44 0.10 0.24 0.05 0.59 0.13

Cook Lower West Side 0.58 0.23 0.32 0.12 0.73 0.30

Winnebago Machesney Park 0.29 0.06 0.14 0.02 0.37 0.08

Macon Macon Decatur 0.33 0.06 0.14 0.02 0.44 0.08

77



Access to ECE, 0-2


Access to ECE, 3-5


Macon Macon South 0.52 0.02 0.22 0.01 0.68 0.03

Madison Madison West 0.53 0.12 0.25 0.06 0.71 0.16

Marion Marion Northwest 0.48 0.03 0.18 0.01 0.70 0.05

Marion Marion Southwest 0.46 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.67 0.00

Cook Markham-Midlothian-Po-sen-Robbins 0.53 0.06 0.28 0.03 0.69 0.07

Henry Marshall-Peoria-Stark 0.61 0.04 0.27 0.01 0.78 0.05

Peoria Marshall-Woodford 0.27 0.02 0.13 0.01 0.34 0.02

Massac Massac 0.24 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.32 0.00

Cook Matteson-Olympia Fields-Park Forest-Richton Park 0.59 0.09 0.36 0.05 0.69 0.12

McHenry McHenry Northeast 0.37 0.03 0.19 0.01 0.46 0.04

McHenry McHenry West 0.35 0.09 0.18 0.04 0.44 0.12

McLean McLean North-Central 0.75 0.19 0.33 0.07 0.93 0.25

McLean McLean South-Central 0.74 0.21 0.33 0.08 0.93 0.28

McLean McLean West 0.78 0.21 0.34 0.08 0.98 0.28

Cook Melrose Park-River Forest -Stone Park 0.39 0.07 0.22 0.04 0.49 0.08

Menard Menard-Sangamon 0.93 0.08 0.43 0.03 1.14 0.11

Mercer Mercer-Rock Island 0.58 0.13 0.28 0.05 0.73 0.17

Rock Island Moline 0.24 0.02 0.12 0.01 0.29 0.03

Rock Island Moline-Rock Island 0.50 0.07 0.24 0.03 0.61 0.10

Monroe Monroe-St. Clair South 0.74 0.06 0.34 0.03 0.97 0.08

Montgomery Montgomery Southwest 0.46 0.08 0.19 0.03 0.61 0.12

Morgan Morgan-Scott North 0.83 0.15 0.35 0.04 1.16 0.23

Morgan Morgan-Scott South 0.73 0.08 0.35 0.03 0.93 0.12

Shelby Moultrie-Shelby 0.40 0.06 0.17 0.02 0.52 0.08

DuPage Naperville 0.61 0.10 0.29 0.05 0.79 0.14

DuPage Naperville East 0.96 0.15 0.46 0.07 1.22 0.19

Cook Near North Side-Loop 0.63 0.16 0.29 0.07 1.01 0.26

Cook Near West Side 1.01 0.35 0.48 0.16 1.55 0.54

78



Access to ECE, 0-2


Access to ECE, 3-5


Cook New City West 0.28 0.11 0.16 0.06 0.34 0.14

Cook Niles-Park Ridge 0.48 0.10 0.27 0.06 0.57 0.12

Cook North Lawndale 0.60 0.22 0.35 0.11 0.74 0.28

Cook Oak Forest-Orland Park 0.33 0.09 0.16 0.05 0.45 0.10

Cook Oak Park 0.64 0.10 0.38 0.06 0.75 0.13

Ogle Ogle East 0.87 0.13 0.44 0.04 1.08 0.18

Ogle Ogle Northwest 0.58 0.05 0.32 0.02 0.69 0.07

Ogle Ogle Southeast 0.27 0.10 0.13 0.03 0.34 0.15

Cook Orland Hills-Tinley Park 0.34 0.08 0.17 0.04 0.46 0.09

Kendall Oswego East 0.49 0.08 0.25 0.04 0.60 0.10

Kendall Oswego West-Yorkville North 0.39 0.03 0.20 0.01 0.50 0.03

Lake Park City 0.29 0.02 0.18 0.01 0.33 0.02

Peoria Peoria City Central 0.23 0.03 0.10 0.01 0.31 0.04

Peoria Peoria City Northwest 0.38 0.02 0.16 0.01 0.52 0.03

Peoria Peoria Heights-Germantown Hills 0.68 0.03 0.29 0.01 0.87 0.04

Peoria Peoria Lake 0.54 0.13 0.22 0.05 0.73 0.18

Peoria Peoria South 0.85 0.12 0.38 0.05 1.07 0.16

Tazewell Pekin City 0.17 0.06 0.07 0.03 0.22 0.09

Perry Perry Southwest 0.40 0.14 0.14 0.04 0.60 0.22

Randolph Perry-Randolph 0.36 0.09 0.15 0.03 0.51 0.15

Washington Perry-Washington 0.39 0.09 0.16 0.03 0.53 0.13

Piatt Piatt 0.40 0.07 0.21 0.03 0.46 0.10

Will Plainfield 0.43 0.09 0.22 0.04 0.53 0.12

Cook Portage Park 0.35 0.08 0.21 0.04 0.42 0.10

Cook Prospect Heights-Wheeling 0.39 0.08 0.18 0.04 0.54 0.10

Pulaski Pulaski-Union 0.46 0.16 0.18 0.05 0.64 0.24

Cook Pullman-Roseland-Washington Heights South 0.89 0.18 0.58 0.10 0.98 0.22

Randolph Randolph Northwest 0.38 0.06 0.14 0.02 0.55 0.10

79



Access to ECE, 0-2


Access to ECE, 3-5


Richland Richland-Wayne 0.72 0.23 0.26 0.07 1.07 0.35

Cook Riverdale-West Pullman 0.63 0.13 0.40 0.07 0.72 0.16

Rock Island Rock Island Southeast 0.78 0.23 0.37 0.09 0.98 0.31

Winnebago Rockford East 0.38 0.18 0.18 0.07 0.48 0.24

Winnebago Rockford River East 0.40 0.09 0.20 0.04 0.48 0.12

Winnebago Rockford River South 0.40 0.09 0.18 0.03 0.52 0.12

Winnebago Rockford River West 0.17 0.03 0.08 0.01 0.21 0.04

Winnebago Rockford Southeast 0.46 0.07 0.18 0.03 0.65 0.09

Winnebago Rockford West 0.42 0.16 0.21 0.06 0.51 0.23

Cook Rogers Park 0.22 0.08 0.12 0.04 0.29 0.10

Sangamon Sangamon South Central 0.76 0.10 0.36 0.04 0.90 0.12

Sangamon Sangamon Southeast 0.97 0.12 0.42 0.05 1.24 0.16

Montgomery Shelby 0.32 0.08 0.16 0.02 0.40 0.12

Cook Skokie North-Wilmette-Winnetka 0.66 0.15 0.38 0.09 0.75 0.16

Kane Sleepy Hollow 0.56 0.17 0.24 0.08 0.77 0.22

Kane South Elgin 0.36 0.11 0.17 0.05 0.49 0.15

Cook South Lawndale North 0.20 0.08 0.11 0.05 0.24 0.11

Cook South Lawndale South 0.26 0.08 0.16 0.04 0.31 0.10

Cook South Shore 0.42 0.10 0.27 0.05 0.46 0.12

Sangamon Springfield Central 0.43 0.02 0.18 0.01 0.57 0.03

Sangamon Springfield Northeast 0.39 0.02 0.18 0.01 0.49 0.02

Sangamon Springfield West 0.44 0.03 0.18 0.01 0.58 0.04

Kane St. Charles 0.51 0.06 0.24 0.03 0.66 0.07

St. Clair St. Clair Northeast 0.62 0.12 0.29 0.05 0.82 0.16

Stephenson Pullman-Roseland-Washington Heights South 0.89 0.18 0.58 0.10 0.98 0.22

Stephenson Stephenson 0.38 0.06 0.14 0.02 0.55 0.10

Stephenson Stephenson Freeport West 0.72 0.23 0.26 0.07 1.07 0.35

Stephenson Stephenson Southeast 0.63 0.13 0.40 0.07 0.72 0.16

80



Access to ECE, 0-2


Access to ECE, 3-5


Tazewell Tazewell 0.46 0.14 0.19 0.05 0.61 0.18

Tazewell Tazewell Central 0.44 0.05 0.19 0.02 0.57 0.07

Tazewell Tazewell-Woodford 0.36 0.01 0.16 0.01 0.46 0.02

Vermilion Vermilion Central 0.42 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.50 0.00

Vermilion Vermilion South 0.36 0.01 0.19 0.00 0.42 0.01

DuPage Villa Park 0.37 0.05 0.18 0.03 0.47 0.07

Warren Warren 0.66 0.03 0.31 0.01 0.84 0.04

DuPage Warrenville-Wheaton 0.55 0.08 0.27 0.04 0.70 0.10

Cook Washington Park-Woodlawn 0.61 0.16 0.37 0.09 0.72 0.20

Lake Waukegan 0.33 0.01 0.19 0.00 0.39 0.01

Cook West Lawn 0.29 0.05 0.18 0.03 0.35 0.07

Cook West Ridge North 0.26 0.08 0.15 0.04 0.32 0.10

Cook West Town East 0.50 0.14 0.23 0.06 0.80 0.23

Whiteside Whiteside Rock Falls 0.37 0.01 0.18 0.00 0.47 0.01

Whiteside Whiteside Sterling City 0.25 0.02 0.11 0.01 0.33 0.03

Whiteside Whiteside West 0.37 0.07 0.16 0.02 0.50 0.11

Lake Wildwood 0.64 0.12 0.34 0.06 0.76 0.16

Will Will Central-Southwest 0.34 0.04 0.16 0.02 0.43 0.05

Will Will East 0.50 0.12 0.28 0.06 0.59 0.15

Will Will Northwest 0.50 0.04 0.26 0.02 0.61 0.05

Will Will West 0.44 0.08 0.22 0.04 0.57 0.11

Williamson Williamson 0.72 0.30 0.28 0.11 0.99 0.41

Williamson Williamson Northwest 0.45 0.19 0.19 0.07 0.58 0.27

Winnebago Winnebago East-Boon West 0.39 0.11 0.20 0.04 0.47 0.14

Winnebago Winnebago Northeast-Boone North 0.39 0.03 0.20 0.01 0.47 0.03

Winnebago Winnebago West 0.99 0.22 0.51 0.09 1.19 0.29

81

DETAILED METHODOLOGY

Needs Assessment. At its core, this study is a supply and demand needs assessment for the State of Illinois. The demand for early childhood education (ECE) services is subtracted from the number of ECE slots within each study area. The difference between supply and demand is called the service gap. The larger the service gap, the greater the need for early care and education openings in a community.

This analysis primarily focuses on the ECE access rate or service level, which estimates the number of ECE slots available per 100 children in a given study area, to measure the level of ECE access. For each study area, the supply or capacity is divided by the number of children from birth to five-years-old.

Based on the service level, a unique Z-Score, or the number of standard deviations from the mean level of access, is calculated to measure access in a given study area compared to state-wide peers. The resulting Z-Scores are then grouped into the following categories to compare ECE access across the state on a normalized basis.

• Highest • Near Highest • Above Average • Below Average • Near Lowest • Lowest

The spatial analysis of supply and demand makes IFF’s ECE methodology distinctive. To clarify the type of ECE services needed, the analysis is further divided into two age groups: birth to two-year-olds (also referred to

as infants and toddlers) and three to five-year-olds. In Illinois, children born before September 1st are eligible for Kindergarten, which equates to approximately 66% of all five-year-olds each year. Therefore, for the purpose of this analysis, this portion of five-year-old children likely to be enrolled in Kindergarten were subtracted out from the total population. Additionally, access to quality is measured across providers based on their ExceleRate Circle of Quality.

Study Areas. For this analysis, study areas are derived from counties but may slightly overlap county lines. Additionally, they are further grouped by census tract to create a normalized comparison of ECE access based on population of children and urbanization level of the geography (i.e. NCHS County Designation). However, densely populated counties, such as Cook, are split into smaller study areas to identify disparate trends in access across neighboring communities. Overall, urban study areas tend to have smaller populations of children (i.e. 1,000 children) while rural study areas tend to have larger populations of children (i.e. 2,000 children). However, since the report uses service level to assess ECE access, findings are normalized across study areas regardless of their population.

Demand Estimation. Within this analysis, demand is the number of children living in a community who are between the ages of birth to five-years-old. However, this method may overestimate demand, as every single child in the state likely does not require formal ECE services. Outside of the decennial census years, IFF prefers not to rely on U.S. Census ACS data to accurately count the birth to five population. Instead, this analysis uses demographic projections from Esri. Esri uses Experian, the US Postal Service (USPS), Metrostudy, a Hanley Wood company, and

82

Will

Lee

Pike

Cook

Ogle

LaSalle

McLeanFulton

Knox

Iroquois

Henry

Adams

Bureau

Shelby

Ford

Clay

Edgar

Livingston

Wayne

Kane

Logan

Piatt

Vermilion

Peoria

Fayette

Lake

Clark

Hancock

Macoupin

Coles

White

Madison

Champaign

Macon

DeKalb

St. Clair

Marion

Mason

Perry

Mercer

Christian

Sangamon

Tazewell

Morgan

Cass

Warren

Jasper

Jackson

Bond

Greene

Clinton

UnionPope

Whiteside

Carroll

Kankakee

McHenry

Jefferson

Randolph

Saline

Grundy

JerseyMontgomery

Jo Daviess

Woodford

De Witt

Stark

Franklin

Monroe

Douglas

Schuyler

Scott

Hamilton

Crawford

McDonough

Brown

Washington

Effingham

Stephenson

Marshall

Winnebago Boone

Moultrie

Gallatin

Kendall

Menard

DuPage

Richland

Johnson

Williamson

Rock Island

Lawrence

Massac

Cumberland

Hardin

Putnam

Henderson

Calhoun

Pulaski

WabashEdwards

Alexander

§̈¦57

§̈¦72

§̈¦55

§̈¦88

§̈¦70

§̈¦74

§̈¦64

§̈¦39

§̈¦80

§̈¦90

§̈¦24

§̈¦155

§̈¦94

§̈¦294

§̈¦255

§̈¦180

§̈¦355

§̈¦190


NCHS County Designation

Large central metro

Large fringe metro

Medium metro

Small metro

Micropolitan

Noncore

Map 21: Study Areas by National Center for Health Statistics County Designation

83

several ancillary sources to provide what is considered the most accurate population count in the industry.

Provider Capacity. Estimates of capacity by age grouping are based on self-reported data from a subset of providers. In addition to age group served, providers are also grouped by facility type (i.e. center-based vs. home-based) and location (i.e. urban vs. rural). Total capacity of children from birth to five-years-old may overestimate the true volume due to the inclusion of slots for 5-year-olds who may actually be enrolled in Kindergarten.

Additionally, IFF primarily used data from the Illinois Network of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies (INCCRRA) to determine provider capacity. However, this dataset excluded some school-based providers of ECE services, which would likely underestimate the capacity

of providers. Therefore, data from the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) was also used to ensure capacity of school-based providers were reflected in the total capacity. INCCRRA also centrally tracks the ExceleRate Circle of Quality ratings for each provider yet these are only updated every three years in the database.

Supply Distribution. Supply is the capacity of licensed and license-exempt early care and education providers - both early learning centers and homes. The capacity of these providers is distributed throughout the State of Illinois based on the income level (i.e. low-income vs. not low-income) and urbanization level of the geography. The urbanization level is determined based on the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) Urban-Rural Classification Scheme for counties. The NCHS County Designations fall into the following categories:

Low Income

Not Low Income

Cook County Other Chicagoland+St. Louis Suburbs

Elsewhere Downstate

Chart 4: Model for Distributing Provider Slots Based on Income and Urbanization Level

55%

23%

22%

45%

25%

30%

42%

51%

27%

22%

40%

28%

32%

43%

30%

27%

28%

30%

2 Miles

84

• Urban o Large Central Metro o Large Fringe Metro o Medium Metro o Small Metro

• Rural o Micropolitan o Non-Core

The diagram below outlines IFF’s approach for distributing provider slots by household income and urbanization level. For example, providers located in Cook County’s more populated study areas serving low-income communities have 55% of their available slots distributed within a 1-mile radius, 23% within a 3-mile radius, and 22% within a 6-mile radius of the provider location. In contrast,

providers in less populated rural areas downstate serving not low-income populations have 27% of available slots distributed within a 1-mile radius, 30% within a 3-mile radius, and 43% within a 10-mile radius of the provider location. Rural providers have slots distributed at varying percentages and at a wider radius to account for the lower population density in these areas while factoring in community need.

By calculating supply using this method, this report considers that families often seek care from the nearest ECE provider of high-quality services and families in rural areas may need to travel farther to access such a provider. To assess each program’s quality ratings and, in turn, the supply of high-quality care, this report uses ExceleRate, Illinois’ Quality Rating and Improvement System.

Urban Large Central Metro Urban Large Fringe Metro Urban Small Metro

Urban Medium Metro Rural Micropolitan

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

Chart 5: Number of Slots by National Center for Health Statistics County Designation: Weighted vs. Unweighted

Unweighted Supply Weighted Supply

Rural Noncore

18,137

16,25329,58030,64045,374

145,586

208,650

26,62127,99339,046

129,551

172,924

85

ExceleRate measures the quality of participating providers with the rating scale from highest to lowest being Gold, Silver, Bronze, and Licensed.

Weighted Slot Approach. Early care and education slots in this study are weighted based on time of year availability of the ECE service offering. For example, capacity for providers offering slots for year-round care received a weight of 1.0 (i.e. Weighted Capacity = Capacity * 1.0). Providers offering ECE slots for only a portion of the year received a smaller weight. For example, ECE slots offered during the school year only received a weight of .75 and ECE slots offered during the summer months only receive a weight of .25. Overall, there were approximately 480,000 unweighted slots and 415,000 weighted slots in Illinois in 2017. However, slots did not receive a weight by time a day. Therefore, a slot that may be filled by one child in the morning and a different child in the afternoon is only counted as a single slot.

DATA SOURCES

The primary data used to prepare this report were collected from the following sources:

Esri Demographics2017 Population by Single Year Age and Sex

U.S. Census Bureau2012-2016 American Community Survey

Illinois Network of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies (INCCRRA)2017 Licensed & License-Exempt Providers2017 & 2018 ExceleRate Ratings

Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE)2017 School-Based Programs

86

87

88

333 South Wabash Avenue

Suite 2800

Chicago, IL 60604

iff.org

Strengthening nonprofits and the communities they serve.

Date post:	24-Sep-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

ACCESS AND QUALITY FOR ILLINOIS CHILDREN · 2019. 5. 6. · 2 Access and Quality for Illinois...

Documents