The overwhelming majority (98%) of child care centers currently operating under contracts with the New York City Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) are planning to apply for new contracts through the City’s Early Learn Request for Proposals (RFP), according to a survey conducted by the Day Care Council of New York (DCC).  However, nearly two-thirds of those centers (63%) feel that they need help in preparing the proposal due to the complexity of the RFP and serious concerns over implications of the new Early Learn program model.   

Significantly, over one-third of responding agencies (37%) are considering the necessity of a merger or strategic alliance as a means of continuing their operation under the new Early Learn model.   A vast majority of agencies (84%) also expressed interest in participating in a group health insurance if one were offered by the Day Care Council as a way of replacing health insurance now provided by City under the current program model.

These were the findings of a telephone survey of DCC member organizations conducted between June 29th and July 19th 2011.  A total of 150 agencies responded, representing two-thirds (67%) of ACS contracted providers.  In total, these organizations care for 30,897 children through 362 child care centers and 318 networked family child care providers.   

“Our members were very forthcoming on the issues surrounding the Early Learn RFP,” said Andrea Anthony, Executive Director of the Day Care Council.  “It was disturbing that our members are being confronted with such a serious mandate in the wake of the recent city budget decreases.  We can’t get a break!”

The top concerns listed by respondents with respect to both the RFP and the underlying Early Learn program model included:

• Health insurance and how it will be covered;
• How having no Head Start will affect the application;
• Resources and mandated provider contributions;
• General questions of budgeting given the limited funding.
• Inadequate information in the RFP regarding issues such as salary, unions, and inflation;
• The differential in salary if integrating Head Start;
• Parental leadership and participation.

“These findings showed that the sample group was, for the most part, finding holes in how to propose for the RFP,” said DCC. “Comments showed a lack of specificity over what ACS was truly looking for in this proposal, and frustration over an inability to present their centers impact and longevity in given localities.   General concern over inflation and budgeting was thematic as well.  Many centers were concerned about budgeting incorrectly and being stuck with what they were funded for the next four years.  At the same time, they were concerned that if their budget was too high they may not get chosen in the competitive bidding process… The general mood of the sample ranged from confusion, anger, panic and despondence to amusement at times over what at least 5 centers referred to as a “joke” when discussing the RFP itself.  Many centers were eager to hear if there would be a delay or rescinding of the RFP or an extension of time for the application process.”

Comments

B

i

u

Quote

Code

List

List item

URL

Name *
Email (For verification & Replies)
URL
Code   
ChronoComments by Joomla Professional Solutions

Submit Comment