Child Care Advisory Council Meeting - May 18, 2022

Child Care Advisory Council Meeting

May 18, 2022


If you are a Council member, please introduce yourself by typing the following into the chat:

  • Name
  • Role
  • Organization
  • Location

UPDATE: OMA Training is unavailable until further notice. Council members will not be penalized for not completing yet.

Allison Perkins Caldwell

Ann Grecek

Ayesha Calhoun

Brenda Eastham

Brynn Siebert

Carie Bires

Carisa Hurley

Casey Craft-Cortes

Cerathel Burgess-Burnett

Charles Montorio Archer

Chris Tokarski

Curtis Peace

Dan Harris

Edie Washington

Jamilah R. Jor`dan

Jenna Kelly

Karen Ross-Williams

Lauri Morrison Frichtl

Laurie Rhodes

Leslie Cully

Lori Longueville

Marcy Mendenhall

Maricela Garcia

Mykela Collins

Nina Duenas

Ruth Kimble

Sandra Cole

Shauna Ejeh

Stacie Ealey

Tamera Fair

Teri Talen

Tina Staley

Tracy Carls

Vanessa Castro

Vicki Hodges

Virtual Meeting Etiquette

  • Please remember to stay on mute if you are not speaking.
  • Please feel welcome to turn on your video!
  • We recommend dialing in via phone and connecting your phone to your video to avoid internet connectivity issues.
  • Send a private chat to Lanette Woodard if you are having technical difficulties.
  • Make sure your Zoom name is your own.
  • There will be time for comments from the public at the end of the meeting.


  • 1:00 - 2:45 pm Full Council
  • Welcome and Introductions
  • Approval of minutes
  • IDHS Updates
  • Child Care Reports
  • Narrow Cost Analysis
  • 2:45-3:00 pm Break
  • 3:00 - 3:40pm Committees
  • 3:40 - 3:55pm Regroup and Discussion
  • 3:55 - 4:00pm Public Comment

Welcome and Introductions

Approval of Minutes

IDHS Update:

MVV Blueprint & Strategic Roadmap

Division of Early Childhood

Strategic Planning Effort Overview

The development of a Mission, Vision, Values (MVV) Blueprint and associated activities laid the foundation for the creation of the Strategic Roadmap.

MVV Blueprint *

*For the MVV Blueprint, please refer to Appendix A.

Strategic Roadmap

DEC Interviews

Interviewed DEC Bureau Chiefs and program leadership to gather perspectives on:

  • DEC current state
  • Future state aspirations
  • Organizational strengths
  • Barriers to achieving goals

Key Outcome: Insights gathered informed Leaders Lab material development

DEC Leaders Lab

Convened DEC leadership to align on a common purpose for DEC and explore avenues to achieve it, including a future state vision

Key Outcome: Lab takeaways informed development of preliminary mission, vision, values, and strategic goals (from which preliminary objectives were developed)

DEC Staff Questionnaire

Engaged DEC staff to gather additional perspectives about the DEC current state, future state aspirations, and DEC mission, vision, values, and goals

Key Outcome: Questionnaire feedback supported refinement and validation of mission, vision, values, and strategic goals

Early Childhood Expert Interviews

Interviewed both governmental IL EC leaders and parents of DEC program participants to gather perspectives on areas for improvement, collect feedback on DEC strategic goals, and identify collaboration opportunities

Key Outcome: Interview synthesis informed refinement of DEC strategic goals and objectives

External Stakeholder Questionnaire

Strategic Planning Effort Overview Continued…

Engaged key external stakeholders, including providers, advocacy groups, and policy and research organizations, to gather feedback on DEC strategic goals and identify opportunities to strengthen engagement

Key Outcome: Questionnaire feedback supported refinement and validation of strategic goals and objectives

DEC Leadership Prioritization

Analyzed and assessed potential objectives associated with each strategic goal, including description and impact, suggested approach and investments required, and other implementation considerations, to identify several key priority objectives

Key Outcome: Finalized objectives for focus in DEC strategic planning efforts

Questionnaire Executive Summary

DEC shared questionnaires with internal staff and external stakeholders to gather their feedback and insights on Division transition efforts, current state feelings, as well as the vision, mission, values, and strategic goals.

Demographic Overview

51% DEC Staff Response Rate

61% Ext. Stakeholder Response Rate

Transition Sentiments

of DEC respondents, on average, strongly

73% agree/agree in the ability of DEC to set keystakeholders up for success.

74% of DEC respondents strongly agree/agree with the statement "I am excited about the transition of EC programs to DEC".

70% of external stakeholder respondents prefer more frequent email communications.

55% of external stakeholder respondents prefer more frequent town halls/webinars.

Current State Snapshot

DEC respondents most frequent collaborators:


DCFS 36%

Other 30%

ISBE 28%

DEC respondents most chosen enablers of success for DEC:

Strong Leadership 63%

Passionate Staff 67%

DEC respondents most chosen gaps in completing DEC support/service:

Tech Capabilities 43%

Staffing Shortages 78%

Questionnaire Executive Summary Continued…

92% of external stakeholder respondents, on average,

strongly agree or agree that the services and/or resources DEC provides are beneficial to their organizations and to IL children and families.

Vision, Mission, Values Alignment

Staff Insight: DEC staff respondents expressed clear preferences for vision and mission phrases that centered children and services rather than using language about DEC or Illinois.

Inclusion: The most popular phrases selected by staff were directly incorporated into the finalized DEC vision and mission statements.

Goals Review & Insights

94% of DEC staff and external stakeholder respondents, on average, strongly agree or agree with the 5 potential strategic goals that DEC has identified for the Division.

Ext. Stakeholder respondents provided 4 potential hurdles for goal implementation:

Staffing Shortages

Fragmented Services / Supports for Customers

Allocating Funding Effectively

Engaging Community & Stakeholders

DEC staff and external stakeholder respondent sentiments and insights will help inform the way DEC supports children and families in the state of Illinois and shape the future state of the Division within the larger Early Childhood (EC) ecosystem.

Mission, Vision, Values

Vision & Mission

Vision: Illinois' young children and families have the supports they need to achieve their full potential

Mission: DEC enhances access to programs and services that support whole child development

North Star Aspiration

The Division of Early Childhood equips young children and families with the supports they need to achieve their full potential by providing whole child development programs and services.

Division Early Childhood:


Quality Service Delivery

Deliver reliable, responsive, and compassionate programs and services for the children and families we serve, rooted in science-based best practices.

Relentless Pursuit of Mission

Tirelessly commit to driving improved access to and quality in DEC's early childhood education and care programs by approaching our mission thoughtfully, efficiently,

proactively, and flexibly.

Stability & Sustainability

Develop and implement reliable services and supports that provide children, families, and providers continuity across social and political changes while remaining flexible enough to meet emerging needs.

Whole Child Focus

Support children and their families through their formative years by enriching a child's environment through family, childcare, education and community engaged-efforts to promote critical brain development of the early years.


Design and maintain programs that center equity, cultural humility, and anti-racism in service design and delivery, committing to transparent accountability policies/measures and honoring and respecting the beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors of children and their families; DEC prioritizes serving children and families with access to fewer resources and opportunities.

Respect & Dignity

Prioritize kindness, and care by building family, provider, and DEC staff trust through responsible and empathetic programs and services that understand and consider each individual and family's unique needs, experiences and life- decisions.

Strategic Roadmap

Strategic Goals

DEC has identified 5 interconnected strategic goals to help drive systemic change.


Improve family access and enrollment in DEC programs and help connect families to other programs that foster child and family wellbeing in order to maximize program reach for all eligible children and families.


Strengthen DEC mechanisms to augment, enhance, and transform provider education and care delivery, including investments in measurement and evaluation, workforce, and knowledge sharing.


Enhance technology and analytics infrastructure and capabilities to enable innovation, data-informed decision making, and modernized, reliable user experiences for families and providers.


Empower and invest in DEC's workforce, promote employee growth, cultivate positive workplace culture, foster collaboration across IDHS, to enhance DEC's ability optimize service delivery.


Assess funding allocation and distribution mechanisms to drive improved quality and access to ECEC and work to ensure adequate and equitable funding levels for families and providers while remaining adaptive to evolving federal and state environments.

Prioritized Objectives

DEC has identified objectives across all 5 goals, prioritizing the following for immediate action. In addition to these prioritized objectives, authentic and robust stakeholder engagement and continued focus on equity will be vital moving forward as cross-cutting priorities.

Goal: Enhance and Access Enrollment

Priority Objective: Conduct a mixed-methods assessment to identify root causes and develop a response to address declining enrollment

Goal: Strengthen Quality ECEC Delivery

Priority Objective: Align on a definition and strategy for quality evaluation and continuous quality improvement

Goal: Optimize Data and Technology

Priority Objective: Develop and enhance DEC's data and analytics capabilities and supporting IT infrastructure to promote measurement and improve key outcomes

Goal: Build The Division's Capacity

Priority Objective: Conduct a comprehensive workforce assessment to support Division growth and capacity building

Goal: Evaluate and Adjust Funding

Priority Objective: Review and adjust provider payment mechanisms to promote accessible, high-quality services for all eligible Illinois children and families

What's Next?

What's to Come

As we move forward with the implementation of our strategic plan, we will share information and opportunities for increased collaboration

We are excited to invest in increasing access and quality for Illinois families while we also support further development of the Division's capabilities and people

We heard that its important we share information and learn from stakeholder expertise to drive how we do work--a key part of how we are planning to move forward is centering community voices

We're currently developing tactical ways implementation will occur and increased opportunities for collaboration


Child Care Reports

Salary and Staffing Survey Market Rate Survey

Illinois Salary and Staffing Survey

Survey and Report Background

  • Why we do the report:
    • The Illinois Department of Human Services (IDHS) is mandated by legislative rule 20 ILCS 505/5.15 to conduct a survey of the workforce in licensed child care facilities every two years.
    • IDHS contracts with Illinois Network of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies (INCCRRA) to conduct a survey of licensed child care providers to meet this mandate.
  • Where we get the data:
    • Survey licensed child care providers
    • Use Gateways to Opportunity Registry (Registry) for staff qualification and salary data
  • Programs included:
    • Total of 9,027 licensed child care programs in Illinois
  • 2,779 licensed child care centers
  • 6,248 licensed family child care homes
    • Total of 1,838 surveys were returned
  • 559 child care centers (response rate = 20.1%)
  • 1,279 family child care homes (response rate = 20.5%)

Licensed Child Care Centers: Salary and Benefits


* Wages generally have not kept up with inflation, except for Early Childhood Teachers whose wages have been seen to grow beyond inflation


  • Just over half of centers reported offering health insurance for staff
  • Centers offering paid sick leave increased by nearly 10% from FY 2015 to FY 2021
  • Centers offering retirement/pensions increased just over 7% from FY 2015 to FY 2021

Licensed Child Care Centers: Turnover


  • Overall higher levels of center turnover since FY 2015
  • Steady increase in turnover rate for all positions except Administrative Directors and Director/Teachers, which show a slight decline since FY 2017
  • More than two-thirds of licensed centers lost at least one teacher or assistant in the last two years (70% lost a teacher; 68% lost an assistant)

Reasons for Leaving

Licensed Child Care Centers: Hiring


  • Directors most often reported that all positions took more than 4 weeks to fill
  • Majority of Directors reported that the time to fill a vacancy for all positions has increased by more than 2 weeks compared to prior fiscal years

Licensed Family Child Care Homes: Education

  • Generally, these numbers have stayed the same since FY 2015
  • The percentage of providers with education higher than High School/GED increased by almost 7% from FY 2019

Licensed Family Child Care Homes: Hours

  • Hours worked outside of business hours have increased by 3 since FY 2019. This may be a result of the enhanced cleaning protocols due to COVID-19.
  • Activities performed before/after business hours included food prep, shopping, cleaning, record keeping, and lesson planning

Licensed Family Child Care Homes: Benefits

  • 90.4% of providers reported having health care coverage
  • This is a significant increase over previous years and may be a result of the Affordable Care Act requirements.

Licensed Family Child Care Homes: Assistants

  • Almost half of the respondents (46.9%) indicated hiring paid assistants.
  • Additionally, 23.8% reported using unpaid assistants.
  • Paid family child care assistants average wage is $12.31 per hour
  • Typical work week averaged
    1. 0 hours

Licensed Family Child Care Homes: Turnover

Three top reasons for leaving:

  • Economic stresses from pandemic
  • Too little respect for child care practitioners
  • Dissatisfaction with benefits

Illinois Market Rate Survey

The Market Rate Survey and Sample Selection

  • Why we do the report:
    • The Child Care and Development Block (CCDBG) grant requires states to perform an analysis of child care market rates in their state in order to maintain eligibility for the grant.
  • Where we get the data:
    • CCR&R administrative data
  • How many programs are included:
    • Total of 4,606 licensed child care programs serving children ages 6 weeks to 5 years old
  • 1,333 licensed child care centers
  • 2,854 licensed family child care homes
  • 419 licensed family group child care homes
    • Total of 2,712 licensed child care programs serving children ages 6 to 12 years old
  • 730 child care centers
  • 1,701 family child care homes
  • 282 family group child care homes

Per Day Market Rates by Facility Type/Geographic Region/Age

Percent of Slots in Each Market Covered by Current CCAP Rates

CCAP Rate Percentile Coverage Over Time for All Facility Types

Additional Fees Charged by Providers

Narrow Cost Analysis

Introduction to and Status Update on the Federal Reporting Requirement

Goals for Today's Discussion

  • Understand the purpose of the Narrow Cost Analysis ("NCA")
  • What is the NCA and what is required?
  • What is the intended use?
  • Align on the State's vision for the NCA
  • Share past and ongoing work toward completing the State's first NCA
  • Discuss approach for major cost input and output assumptions
  • Understand key dates and upcoming milestones


Illinois currently utilizes the market rate survey ("MRS") to analyze whether child care subsidies adequately allow child care subsidy recipients equitable choice and access among child care providers. This is required by law in order to receive CCDF funds.

"Regardless of whether Lead Agencies conduct a market rate survey or an [approved] alternative methodology, they are required to analyze the estimated cost of care…

ACF recognizes that states conducting a market rate survey will focus their analytical efforts primarily on examining prices rather than costs… these states may conduct a cost analysis that is narrowly focused rather than a full alternative methodology… that looks more broadly at cost. Such an analysis is referred to as a "narrow cost analysis."" - Administration for Children and Families (ACF)

Source: Program Instruction CCDF-ACF-PI-2018-04


The purpose of the NCA is to provide additional information for states to consider when setting payment rates, but states should determine how much weight to assign these results in the rate-setting process

"While we do not expect Lead Agencies in all cases to immediately set rates to cover the full cost to provide care, we expect Lead Agencies to use information from their cost analyses…. to evaluate the gap between costs and payment rates as part of their strategic, long-term approach to setting rates that support equal access."

- Administration for Children and Families (ACF)

Source: Program Instruction CCDF-ACF-PI-2018-04


1. Determine providers' cost of care across varying levels of "quality":

  1. Base Quality - implementation of health safety, quality, and staffing requirements
  2. Higher Quality - the cost of higher-quality care, as defined by the Lead Agency

2. Determine providers' cost of care across relevant variation by:

  1. geographic location,
  2. category of provider,
  3. age of child
  4. Report submitted to the Feds by June 30


  1. States should determine how much weight to assign these results in the rate-setting process
  2. Advance ACF approval is not required
  3. States have significant flexibility in determining approach and methodology
  4. Use information from existing studies
  5. Develop a cost model using the PCQC
  6. Conduct a limited cost survey or study
  7. Examine cost differentials for higher-quality care
  8. Use information from market rate survey data

Source: Program Instruction CCDF-ACF-PI-2018-04

Example Output for Licensed Centers

Our Vision for NCA

This federal requirement aligns with the State's direction. It is the beginning of a journey to better understand the cost of care and how to fund it.

Short-term (this year)

  1. Understand differences between CCAP subsidy rates today and NCA costs
  2. Investigate cost drivers - and their impact on provider/program financial sustainability - more deeply
  3. Assess options for funding for quality (including contracts, similar to Strengthen & Grow)


  1. Improve our understanding of the "true cost" of higher quality care
  2. Move toward setting rates by cost of care (in the context of the overall ECEC funding system)
  3. Help map future funding for higher quality through certificates and/or contracts
  4. Utilize the cost model engine to understand overall financial impact of evolving costs, including compensation increases

Past work that can inform the NCA

Existing Models, Data, and Studies

Illinois ECEC Cost Models

  • Analysis and modeling to understand the impact of increasing minimum wage
  • Adequacy Cost Model

2021 Market Rate Survey INCCRRA 2021 Salary Survey Data

Strengthen and Grow Child Care Grant Data NCA submissions from other states

Ongoing Work

  1. Developed a dynamic cost model engine
    • Compares calculated cost of care to CCAP rates by geography, type of care, and age of child
    • Structured to account for wage differentiation by quality tier and by geography
    • Aligned to NCA requirements
    • Allows for scenario analysis, based on varying input assumptions
  2. Reviewed and researched other states' NCA submissions
  3. Analyzed INCCRRA 2021 Salary Survey Data to better inform NCA inputs on wages
    • By CCAP geography
    • By quality tier (Base licensing vs. Excelerate Bronze, Silver, and Gold)
    • By varying levels of staff credentials
  4. Leveraged past work to refine inputs on non-personnel expenditures
    • CCAP Minimum Wage Cost Model cost inputs
    • Adequacy Model cost inputs
  5. Wrestling with philosophical approaches to major cost input assumptions (next slide)

Approaches to major assumptions (summary)

Approaches to major assumptions

  1. Settings, Geographies, and Age Groups
    • Settings (3) - Licensed Centers, Licensed Homes, Licensed Group Homes
    • Geographies (3) - CCAP county groupings: Regions 1A, 1B, and 2
    • Age Groups (4) - Infants and Toddlers, Two-Year-Olds, Preschool Eligible, School-aged
    • Topics we're wresting with:
    • While CCAP subsidy rates are different for regions 1B and 2 (balance of the state), cost difference may be minimal as State-wide minimum wage is the same. As minimum wage increases, are there meaningful differences in costs experienced across regions 1b and 2?
    • While the CCAP subsidy rate is the same for Infants and Toddlers, licensing standards require smaller group sizes for Infants. In the report, should we show the cost difference breakout between Infants vs. Toddlers?

Approaches to major assumptions (cont'd)

  1. Staffing and Wages Across Quality Tiers
    • Largest expenditure category; staffing variable and formulaically generated by assumed count of children and classrooms by age group
    • Worked to differentiate group size, staffing, and staff credential requirements by Excelerate quality tier
    • Assuming employee benefits
    • Analyzing INCCRRA salary survey data to understand wage differential by credential level, by quality tier, by geography
    • Contemplated the impact of credential requirement waivers for higher quality settings in light of staffing shortages (next slide)

Approaches to major assumptions - wages

We will leverage salary survey data for wages in base quality settings and assume increased wages for higher credentialed staff in higher quality settings.

Approaches to major assumptions (cont'd)

  1. Accounting for Varying Provider Sizes
    • Requested INCCRRA provider enrollment and capacity data to better understand the range of setting size and children served, by age group, across the state
    • Provider sizes vary substantially across the state, while the model is set up to calculate the cost per child of the "average" setting size. The model can be updated/used to change setting size assumptions, by age group.
    • We will run the model for different provider sizes, and we'll use data on existing provider sizes across the state to set a final "average" cost
  2. Homes and Group Homes Staffing Models
    • Homes can be staffed multiple different ways - single Caretaker vs. Caretaker + Full- and/or Part-time assistants. Homes also range in size (and age of children served).
    • We will also use child count data to set a final "average" cost
    • Homes typically serve all children in a single setting (or "classroom" for comparison to centers).
    • Topic we're wresting with - CCAP subsidy rates for homes are different for different age groups. Do you think that in a home, costs should be different for different age groups?

Approaches to major assumptions (cont'd)

  1. Modeling for School-aged Children
    • School-aged child CCAP rates are currently set to equal Preschool Eligible aged child CCAP rates, though provider services for this age group can look quite different
    • Enrollment by provider can range substantially - providers may serve no school-aged children, some school-aged children, or all school-aged children.
    • Providers may or may not utilize "blended" classrooms of school-aged children and non- school-aged children
    • Services for school-aged children look quite different at different points of the year (summer care vs. before/after care)
    • We will be running the model with and without school-aged children to understand the impact of inclusion on other age groups
    • Intend to have a working group next year to better understand the cost of school-aged children

What's Next?

1. Next two weeks

  1. Continued review and incorporation of INCCRRA data
  2. Finalize approach to various major assumptions
  1. End of May - Finalize model inputs and internal review of findings
  2. Early June - Finalize draft of submission-ready NCA report
  3. Mid June - Circulate NCA report for agency review, prior to submission to the Feds
  1. Review by Division Director, IDHS Secretary, and Governor's Office
  2. Incorporate feedback from agency reviews into updated report
  1. June 30, 2022 - Submission of Narrow Cost Analysis report to the Feds
    • the report will be published and shared

Remember - this year's report will be a milestone on a journey to better understand the cost of care and how to fund it

Thank You!



Please return by 3:00 pm


Regroup and Discussion

Public Comment

Thank you!

Next meeting:

July 20, 2022 from 1:00-4:00pm