Page 59

59 | P a g e FFY 2025–2027 CCDF State Plan

participate but is not typically a provider that would market themselves for services or otherwise collect a fee for services. Including these unlicensed providers would ultimately skew analysis in a way that would negatively impact license providers and their markets. Also, licensed-exempt providers that participate are reimbursed at the same level as child care centers and informal caregivers are reimbursed at the same level as family child care learning homes. b. In the Lead Agency’s analysis, were there any relevant variations by geographic location, category of provider, or age of child? In the subsequent analysis of the internal and external data collected, provider measurements were grouped according to child age (classroom), geography (Market Rate Zone), provider type (CCLC versus FCCLH), and quality rating￿as well as by facility size, type of care, and whether the provider served children on subsidies. The distribution of measurement values for each group was examined, and selected statistics were compared between relevant groups. If the difference in observed mean values between groups was found to be statistically significant, then this increased the Lead Agency’s confidence in assuming variations in the cost model. Provider type, geography, and child age were all relevant in the variations observed in the data by the Lead Agency. The Lead Agency observed several interesting variations in its analysis: higher wages among CCLC staff possessing higher education credentials but not among FCCLH providers possessing higher education credentials; higher wages among FCCLH providers rated at higher quality levels but not among CCLC staff (controlling for education credentials); higher wages among CCLC and FCCLH staff at providers who did not care for children on subsidies and for providers in more urban areas; increasing class size for older age groups at CCLCs (consistent with licensing) but smaller class sizes than state licensing guidelines would suggest (i.e., well below the maximum group sizes allowable); higher annual training hours for staff at providers with higher quality ratings and higher at all quality levels than Quality Rated guidelines suggest; higher mortgage/lease costs per square foot in more urban areas but not higher utilities, insurance, and maintenance/repair costs per square foot. The Lead Agency also observed many interesting lack of variations in its analysis: Calculated effective hourly wages for FCCLH providers were not universally lower than hourly wages paid to CCLC lead teachers. Non-teaching staff counts at CCLCs did not, in general, change as a function of facility size or quality rating. Class sizes at FCCLHs were, in general, close to the state licensing guidelines (i.e., their maximum allowable group size). Class size reductions by quality level were smaller than expected for both CCLCs and FCCLHs. Staff education credentials by quality rating varied less than expected. Very few providers were observed to provide additional benefits to their employees, regardless of their quality rating or participation in child care subsidies. Mortgage/lease, utilities, building insurance, and maintenance/repair costs per square foot, in general, did not change as a function of facility size. Usable classroom square footage per child decreased with increasing child age less than expected and did not change as function of quality rating. Facility shared space factors (allowances for hallways, bathrooms, offices, etc.) did not change as a function of facility size. Providers did not spend more on child meals than current CACFP rates, regardless of their quality rating, participation in child care subsidies, and geographic location.

While licensed-exempt and informal caregivers are allowed to participate in the subsidy program under certain conditions, their availability as an option to families should not mean that they should be considered an influential part of the total cost study. These