DPP Operations Evaluation 2023-2024

.

Denver Preschool Program Year 2 Evaluation Report December 2024 APA Consulting Mariana Enríquez, Dale DeCesare, and Brianna Sailor

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... i Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1 Participant Sample ....................................................................................................................................... 2 Providers ................................................................................................................................................... 2 Families ..................................................................................................................................................... 4 Families of 4-year-old students............................................................................................................. 4 Families of 3-year-old students........................................................................................................... 10 Section Highlights.................................................................................................................................... 13 Findings ....................................................................................................................................................... 14 1. Impact of UPK on DPP Operations ...................................................................................................... 14 Provider Input ..................................................................................................................................... 14 Families Input ...................................................................................................................................... 23 Awareness of DPP because of media on UPK ..................................................................................... 30 Impact of UPK on DPP enrollment: The providers’ perspective ......................................................... 32 Impact of UPK on DPP enrollment: The families’ perspective ............................................................ 35 Challenges to program enrollment ..................................................................................................... 36 Providers’ suggestions to better communicate the DPP-UPK relationship ........................................ 38 Section Highlights................................................................................................................................ 39 2. Family and Provider Interactions with DPP ......................................................................................... 43 Families and DPP: Learning about DPP ............................................................................................... 43 Additional Information Parents Said Would Help the Application Process ........................................ 45 Why families do not enroll in DPP ...................................................................................................... 47 Knowledge of DPP tuition support...................................................................................................... 48 Preschool providers and DPP .............................................................................................................. 51 Impact of providers’ requirements on DPP participation ................................................................... 52 Section Highlights................................................................................................................................ 58 3. Tuition Credit System .......................................................................................................................... 61 Section Highlights................................................................................................................................ 68 4. Factors Influencing Family Preschool Choices and Access .................................................................. 69 Family Survey Findings: Factors Pertaining to Preschool Quality ....................................................... 70 Family Survey Findings: Rating the Importance of Other Preschool Characteristics.......................... 72 Provider Survey Findings: Challenges Meeting Current Demand ....................................................... 73

Provider Focus Groups: Corroborating Survey Findings on Challenges Meeting Denver’s Childcare Demand ............................................................................................................................................... 76 Provider Focus Groups: Ideas for DPP and policymakers to increase preschool supply .................... 79 Family Survey Results: Preschool Affordability, Supply, and Accessibility ......................................... 81 Section Highlights................................................................................................................................ 88 5. DPP Impacts on Parents and Providers ............................................................................................... 91 Parent Focus Group Input Corroborates Family Survey Data on DPP Impacts .................................. 98 Provider Perceptions on the Sufficiency and Impact of DPP’s Tuition Credits ................................. 101 Provider Perceptions on the Impacts of DPP’s Quality Improvement (QI) funds ............................. 103 Section Highlights.............................................................................................................................. 108 Summary of Findings ................................................................................................................................ 110 Highlights of Participants Sample Section ........................................................................................ 110 Highlights of Section 1: Impact of UPK on DPP Operations .............................................................. 111 Highlights of Section 2: Family and Provider Interactions with DPP ................................................ 115 Highlights of Section 3: Tuition Credit System .................................................................................. 117 Highlights of Section 4: Factors Influencing Family Preschool Choices and Access.......................... 118 Highlights of Section 5: DPP Impacts on Parents and Providers ....................................................... 121 Appendix A: List of evaluation and research questions.......................................................................... 123

Executive Summary The Denver Preschool Program (DPP) engaged APA Consulting (APA) to conduct an ongoing evaluation of DPP operations. This report summarizes findings from the second evaluation year, covering the 2023-24 school year. The evaluation addressed five key topic areas, including: 1. Impact of UPK on DPP Operations 2. Family and Provider Interactions with DPP 3. DPP’s Tuition Credit System 4. Factors Influencing Family Preschool Choices and Access 5. DPP Impacts on Parents and Providers.

The evaluation used a variety of tools to gather data to answer key research questions in each of the five areas listed above. Such tools included city-wide surveys of preschool providers, of families with 4-year-olds in DPP, and families with 3-year-olds also served by DPP. In addition, the evaluation held numerous focus groups to gather qualitative feedback from families, from providers currently served by DPP (including community-based and school-based providers), and providers not currently participating in DPP. These data gathering efforts produced a rich array of data and findings to help inform the program’s current and future operations.

APA used several different lenses to examine the data, and these lenses are referred to throughout this report. These included a focus on responses received by family income tier (with families in DPP income tiers 1-2 identified as low-income families, families in income tiers 3-4 identified as middle-income families, and families in tier 5 as high-income families); geographic location (with GIS mapping of survey responses by neighborhood and region of Denver broken into Southwest, Southeast, Northwest, Northeast, and Far Northeast regions); by age of child served (families with 4-year-olds in DPP and those with 3-year-olds in the program); and by type of provider (including DPP community-based, DPP school-based, and non-DPP providers).

To facilitate use of this report, a list of highlights is provided at the end of each of the five main sections. All these listed highlights are combined together in the Summary of Findings section at the end of the report which has an added brief summary for each section. This Executive Summary identifies a selection of top findings from among the multitude of highlights provided in the Summary of Findings section of this report.

Key Findings 1. Impact of UPK on DPP Operations As in year 1 of the evaluation, family and provider focus groups in year 2 corroborated the finding that providers are the primary source of information for families regarding the benefits, requirements, and key components of DPP as well as UPK. Providers therefore play a central i

role in helping educate the community about these programs. This highlights the importance of: 1) understanding existing gaps in provider understanding of DPP and UPK; and 2) ensuring providers fully understand DPP, as they are essential spokespersons.

However, data found that average provider understanding of five key topics associated with DPP and UPK operations has room to improve. For instance, 65% of providers indicated either low or average understanding of the amount of funding parents can receive from UPK and 55% were either low or average in understanding whether families can qualify for DPP and UPK funding simultaneously. Given that families consistently say providers are their main source of information about these programs, DPP should consider providing added training or information to providers to boost both provider and family understanding of DPP and UPK. Data also found high percentages of parents of 4-year-old children do not understand many key aspects of the relationship between UPK and DPP and the funding these programs provide.

Additional efforts are needed to help educate families about these aspects. Low levels of parent understanding were found regarding what the qualifications are for children to receive DPP and UPK funding, the relationship between DPP and UPK, whether all preschool providers in Denver are providers in both DPP and UPK, and the amount of funding families can receive.

Families receiving DPP tuition credits would therefore benefit from learning more about these topics. Parents not currently in DPP are likely even less knowledgeable about the programs.

As discussed further in section 2 findings, having two distinct programs, applications, and enrollment processes was also reported to be a barrier to families participating. Information was reported to be lacking about what order parents needed to complete the applications and make their school selections. Some providers reported significant parent frustration with having to provide application information multiple times.

2. Family and Provider Interactions with DPP A top identified reason families may choose not to enroll in DPP is that they do not know DPP exists. This finding was consistent from Year 1 of the evaluation and was true both for families with 4-year-olds, and those with 3-year-olds in DPP. Another notable finding was that large percentages of parents of 3- and 4-year-old children believe families do not enroll in DPP because they think their income is too high to qualify. These gaps in parent understanding of DPP highlight the need for the program to continue expanding its efforts to provide information that providers can share with parents, as well as to ensure parents can easily find answers to their questions about the program and dispel current misinformation.

As was found in the first section above on UPK and DPP operations, evaluation data highlighted the need to take additional steps to address parent confusion and frustration around current program enrollment processes. Parents were confused about documentation needed, required timelines, why documentation was needed multiple times for DPP and UPK, what months of the ii

year were covered by UPK or DPP, whether they were approved to participate, how much tuition support they received, and if they still owed money even after receiving the tuition credits. Some potential recommendations DPP could pursue to help address these challenges include: • Collaborate with UPK to streamline existing application processes. It would be beneficial to refining existing processes so that common data or information is automatically entered into both systems or to create a universal, single application form that can be used by any type of provider (community based, school based) so families can apply simultaneously to both programs.

• Establish a clear point of contact for parent and provider questions about DPP and UPK enrollment processes.

• Track the most frequently asked enrollment questions from parents and providers for each program, including questions about how the two programs interact, why parents should apply, and tips for streamlining the process of applying to both.

• Create and annually revise responses to the most frequently asked questions to be posted on the DPP web site and distributed to providers to share with parents interested in enrolling their children in one or both programs.

• Create a one pager that graphically shows the application process (e.g., flowchart) for both programs with the specific actions/tasks parents must complete, deadlines, timelines, dates by which families can expect a determination of the tuition credit they will receive and contact information and web links for further information.

Regarding provider participation in DPP, data indicated that, while the current quality rating system could keep some providers from participating, providers on average did not think the rating process was a significant discouraging factor. Instead, providers leaned towards agreeing with the statement that the quality rating system accurately reflected the quality of childcare offered. This suggests a general acceptance amongst providers that the rating process has merit.

3. DPP’s Tuition Credit System DPP tuition credits are having a high level of positive impact on most participating Denver families across the city. Large majorities indicated they would either not be able to afford preschool or would struggle to afford it without DPP tuition credit support, and the percentage who indicated this increased from Year 1 findings.

Large percentages of families also said that DPP tuition credits encouraged them to send their child to preschool. With the ever-growing body of literature extolling the value and positive impacts of attending preschool on later child outcomes, this finding alone suggests the possibility of a massive return on investment from DPP’s tuition credit program.

Survey data did reveal some variations in regional impact of the tuition credits. For instance, most families in Far Northeast and Southwest Denver reported DPP tuition credits encouraged them to send their children to preschool. These same regions of the city showed survey responses iii

that almost unanimously indicated families would either not be able to afford paying for preschool without DPP or that it would be financially difficult. In the Northeast region family responses were roughly half and half, and the Northwest region showed response variety by neighborhood, likely driven by income level variations. These data can and should be used to help inform targeted future DPP communication strategies by region or even by neighborhood.

4. Factors Influencing Family Preschool Choices and Access Almost all families indicated that the preschool director and the teachers having the appropriate training, certificate, or license was an important or the most important aspect of a quality preschool. This was true across all income levels and these quality aspects were also rated the most important qualities in year one of this evaluation. Data also showed that most families were unaware of their child’s preschool quality rating, and the preschool’s quality rating was middle of the pack in terms of importance to families when choosing a preschool.

Parents’ feedback in general indicated that preschool decisions often came down to availability and affordability. But they also indicated affordable, high-quality schools usually had long waitlists, while expensive schools had openings but were not affordable. Parents suggested that, if possible, families should visit prospective sites in person and come prepared with questions to ask teachers and staff. To help support families in this regard, DPP could consider developing a list of research-backed questions parents can ask when visiting preschools to better inform their decision making.

Survey results also showed more than a quarter of providers did not have enough slots to meet parent demand for preschool. The top three existing barriers to increasing the number of available childcare slots were identified as: 1) Inability to pay a high enough salary to attract and retain qualified teachers; 2) Inability to cover the gap between the full cost of providing care and the tuition support provided to families; and 3) Inability to find adequate space to expand their childcare facility. In addition, nearly two-thirds of surveyed providers did not offer infant care.

This is particularly critical since providers reported having long waitlists for both infant and toddler care. Overall, childcare demand, especially for infants and toddlers, appears to far outpace current capacity, with some providers describing it as a "crisis."

Evaluation data yielded several suggestions which DPP could explore to help expand preschool supply. Some selected recommendations include: 1) Offering additional professional development for preschool administrators to help them develop their management credentials and grant writing skills; 2) Distribute a monthly newsletter that includes a list of available ECE grants that school administrators could pursue; 3) Encourage state policymakers to pass legislation supporting rent or mortgage assistance for childcare providers to reduce their facility costs; 4) Increase communications to unlicensed providers of the financial benefits of becoming licensed, including the benefit of participating in DPP; and 5) Offer monthly workshops and oneon-one support to help unlicensed providers going through the licensing process. iv

5. DPP Impacts on Parents and Providers Evaluation findings identified a multitude of clear and powerful impacts which DPP is having on both parents and providers throughout the city. Large majorities of surveyed families across the city credited their ability to afford more childcare to DPP tuition credits, and this response was consistent across income tiers. GIS mapping of survey data for families of 4-year-olds in response to the question of whether DPP tuition credits afforded them more hours of childcare, revealed the highest proportion of “yes” versus “no” responses in the Far Northeast (about 2.5 times more yes than no responses) and Southwest (nearly 4 times more yes than no responses) indicating an even higher level of DPP tuition credit impact in these regions.

Data also indicated that the increased access to preschool that DPP provides helped parents stay employed or increase their income. GIS mapping of data showed that these reported economic benefits from increased preschool accessibility accrued to families across Denver’s distinct regions and neighborhoods.

More than half of low-income families and over 40% of all families of 4-year-olds indicated DPP tuition credits made their families better able to meet additional basic needs, such as affording groceries, housing, and health insurance. For low-income families, the most consistently indicated need they were better able to afford was food.

In addition, the vast majority of families indicated that the added hours of childcare they could afford because of DPP helped reduce their stress and improved their mental health and self-care.

Findings on DPP’s positive impacts on reducing family stress, improving mental health, and improving economic conditions transcended income differences and were consistent across family income tiers.

For providers, a key positive DPP impact that was most often cited was that teacher training and coaching paid for with support of DPP’s QI funds was the DPP support that had the greatest impact on child outcomes. Compensation and stipends to recognize teacher time spent in training were greatly appreciated and highly impactful in encouraging teachers to participate in such training. Providers also expressed appreciation for the availability of QI funds to purchase needed classroom supplies and materials, and great appreciation for DPP’s tuition credit system, consistently citing its positive impact on families and the childcare community.

Overall, this Year 2 evaluation underscores the continued importance of clarity, equity, and accessibility in enhancing the impact of DPP and its collaboration with UPK, and in ensuring all Denver families benefit from a high-quality preschool education.

v

Introduction Augenblick, Palaich and Associates (APA) was contracted by the Denver Preschool Program (DPP) to conduct a 3-year evaluation of its operations. This report covers the 2023-24 evaluation year, and presents findings in the following five major topic areas: 1. Impact of UPK on DPP Operations 2. Family and Provider Interactions with DPP 3. DPP’s Tuition Credit System 4. Factors Influencing Family Preschool Choices and Access 5. DPP Impacts on Parents and Providers These areas were selected to address a set of evaluation research questions listed in Appendix A. The APA evaluation team (Evaluation Team) utilized feedback from the Expert Advisory Group (EAG) to establish the priorities regarding DPP’s operations that should be addressed during each year of the evaluation. Dr. Cristal Cisneros, DPP’s Senior Director of Evaluation and Impact, also provided feedback on the design of data collection instruments and data collection activities. The evaluation team wishes to thank the EAG and Dr. Cisneros for their support.

Data were collected from English and Spanish speaking families of 4-year-olds and families of 3year-olds enrolled in DPP who received tuition credits during the 2023-24 school year, from schoolbased and non-school-based 1 childcare providers active in DPP, as well as childcare providers who were not participating in DPP during the 2023-24 school year. Data were analyzed based on families’ income tiers as identified by DPP, by geographic region where they live, and by type of childcare provider, school-based or non-school-based. Based on the results of the analyses conducted on evaluation data from the 2022-23 school year, the evaluation team decided to split the city into five regions (far northeast, northeast, northwest, southeast, and southwest) using Broadway and Alameda Avenue as the primary axes of this geographic division and separating far northeast neighborhoods 2 from the northeast region. These analyses were conducted with the purpose of supporting DPP in promoting equity and ensuring equitable access to high-quality preschool.

It is expected that this disaggregation of data will help DPP and the evaluation team understand families’ different lived experiences as they relate to accessing preschool for their children, as well as availability of services. Findings are presented broken down by the five major topic areas listed above. Key findings are highlighted at the end of each of these five sections and are presented in bulleted form as “Section Highlights.” The overall set of these highlights is also presented in Section IV, along with recommendations from the APA evaluation team in Section V.

1

School-based providers who participated in the data collection include Denver Public Schools and Charter school providers. Non-school-based providers include faith-based and community-based providers and are interchangeably referred to as community-based providers or non-school-based providers.

2 The Far Northeast Region includes the Montbello, Gateway-Green Valley Ranch, and DIA neighborhoods.

1

Participant Sample Quantitative and qualitative data were collected from childcare providers and families via a mix of online surveys and virtual focus groups. Data were collected in English and Spanish according to participants’ preference. This section describes both groups of participants and the process used to engage them in the evaluation.

Providers A list of 272 preschool providers registered with DPP for the 2023-24 school year 3 was used as the primary source of contact information of preschool center directors to be invited to participate in the evaluation data collection activities, including online surveys and focus groups.

This list included 88 school-based (DPS and charter schools) and 184 community-based (community- and home-based) preschool centers. A total of 241 of these providers were located in the City and County of Denver, while the remaining 31 providers were based in other cities in the Denver metro area 4. An additional 21 non-DPP preschool providers were identified through a search of Colorado licensed childcare facilities. Contact information of principals and/or assistant principals of DPS and non-DPP providers was obtained from the websites of each individual school.

All 272 DPP preschool providers were sent an email invitation to complete an online survey on the topics of the impact of UPK on DPP operations, customer service/interaction with DPP, choosing preschool, and maximizing DPP impacts and access to childcare. The survey included a question asking providers if they were interested in participating in a virtual, 60-minute focus group to talk about their experiences with DPP. An email invitation to participate in focus groups was sent to all providers who, in the survey, indicated they were interested, or did not answer the question. Table 1 shows the distribution of providers invited to participate in the data collection, broken down by type of center and region. Figure 1 presents the distribution of all invited providers broken down by region. The northeast region had the highest representation at 33%, followed by the southeast with 22%, the northwest with 20%, the southwest with 16%, and the far northeast with 9%. Community-based preschools were represented by 63% of providers, while the remaining 37% were school-based (mainly DPS) providers

3

This list of active DPP providers was secured from MetrixIQ in late November of 2023. Per MetrixIQ classification, provider type included Denver Public Schools and Community providers.

4 Providers outside of the City and County of Denver included 11 in Aurora, 4 in Littleton, and between 1 and 2 in Centennial, Cherry Hills Village, Commerce City, Englewood, Greenwood Village, Lakewood, Sheridan, Westminster, and Wheat Ridge. These preschool centers provided services to families living in Denver, therefore, qualifying for DPP tuition credits.

2

Table 1. Region distribution of providers invited to participate in data collection (n and %) Invitation sent to all active DPP FNE NE NW SE SW Total providers, spring 2024: School-based providers (DPS & 14 24 19 12 19 88 charter) (32%) 16% 27% 22% 14% 22% 100% Community- & home-based providers (68%) Total (community-, home-, & schoolbased)

11

66

36

47

24

184

6%

36%

20%

26%

13%

100%

25

90

55

59

43

272

9%

33%

20%

22%

16%

100%

Figure 1 shows these data graphically, again showing that there were relatively similar proportions for the NW, SE and SW regions. The FNE had about half the number of any of these three regions, while the NE region had the highest number of providers. Even when FNE was separated from NE into its own region, the NE continues to have the largest response compared to the other regions as shown in Figure 2.

Providers’ overall response rate to the survey was 31%. Figures 1 and 2 combined show a similar regional distribution of DPP survey providers who were invited to complete the survey compared to those who completed the survey (e.g. 22% of invited providers were from the SE region and 21% of those responding to the survey were from the SE region). This indicates a proportional regional response to the survey from across the city.

3

Providers’ interest in participating in the evaluation team’s focus groups was low in spite of encouragement to participate from DPP personnel and the evaluation team. Twenty community providers representing the five Denver regions participated in five one-hour virtual focus groups, one per region, while four school-based providers representing three Denver regions participated in a one-hour virtual focus group. The 21 non-DPP preschool providers were also invited to participate in one-hour virtual focus groups, with only two of them, representing two regions, accepting the invitation. Individual virtual interviews were conducted with the two non-DPP providers to accommodate their schedules. All sessions were conducted in English and participating providers received a $40 Amazon gift card in appreciation for their time and input in the data collection.

Families Families of 4-year-old students During the 2023-24 school year, 2,642 four-year-old students were identified as receiving preschool tuition credits from DPP 5. Figure 3 shows the distribution of these students’ families 5

The number of families included in the data collection reflects one moment in time in November of 2023, when many students were still pending school assignment/matching through the new enrollment process implemented

by UPK. With the purpose of using the most reliable list of DPP participants, the evaluation team removed from the list students who had no school assigned, duplicate cases (e.g., students listed as enrolled in two different DPS schools), families without email addresses, and students listed as inactive, as well as parents of students with more than one student enrolled in different schools. Parents of twins or siblings attending the same preschool were included in the data collection efforts.

4

by income tier and city region as of fall 2023. Data indicates that families from the NE region had the highest participation in DPP (32%), while all four of the other regions had similar participation levels of between 16% and 19%. The data also show that Tier 1 had the highest participation in DPP, followed by lower participation levels of families in Tiers 5 and 2. Tiers 3 and 4 had the lowest participation levels in DPP at the time these data were secured.

It is important to note that patterns of participation and responses of families in middle income tiers (Tiers 3 and 4) tend to be very similar and distinct from families in lower and higher Tiers.

Therefore, for purposes of data interpretation, families in Tiers 1 and 2 will be identified as lowincome, families in Tiers 3 and 4 as middle-income, and families in Tier 5 as high-income families.

These data suggest that DPP is supporting a higher proportion of low-income families, while higher income families are also benefiting from the program. The low participation levels of families from middle-income, Tiers 3 and 4, could be a topic that is worth additional investigation in Year 3 of the evaluation, to gather additional data on factors that might be contributing to a lack of participation in these middle-income groups. However, given that the dataset is representative of one point in time when many families were not yet matched to a DPP preschool, the evaluation team cannot draw further inferences from the data at this time regarding the low participation rates. Further study is necessary to understand what, if any, factors could be preventing these families from participating in DPP.

5

Figure 4 shows the proportion of families of 4-year-old students receiving DPP tuition credits by income Tier, while Figure 4b shows the geographic distribution of families receiving DPP tuition credits by income Tier in Spring 2023. Data show that more than half of DPP’s families (57%) are in the lowest income levels (Tiers 1 and 2), while almost one quarter of all families (23%) come from high-income households (Tier 5). As stated earlier, a very low proportion (6%) of middle-income families (Tiers 3 and 4), were enrolled in DPP at the time the dataset was obtained by the evaluation team.

6

Figure 4b. Geographic distribution of families receiving DPP tuition credits by income tier, Spring 2023

Figure 5 shows the proportion of families of four-year-old students receiving DPP tuition credits by city Region. Data show that just over half of these families (51%) reside in the northeast and far-northeast regions of Denver, while the other half live in the northwest, southeast, and southwest regions, with similar proportions of families receiving DPP tuition credits. Data therefore indicate not only that the NE and FNE regions are geographically larger, but also show higher percentages of DPP families living in those regions.

7

Families were sent an email, in English and Spanish, inviting them to complete the online survey. The email included links to both the English and Spanish versions of the survey. As an incentive, families were offered a $30 Amazon gift card if they were one of the first 100 parents to complete the survey. In addition, they were informed that all parents completing the survey would be entered into a drawing to have a chance to win one of two electronic Tablets. The survey was open for two and a half weeks in July 2024 and parents received two reminders to complete the survey before it closed.

A total of 223 families completed the survey 6, representing an 8% response rate of parents of 4year-old DPP students. The highest representation came from the NE region with 35% of the surveys, followed by the NW region with 22%, the SE region with 18%, FNE with 14%, and SW with 11%. Income Tier representation included 46% from low-income families (Tiers 1 and 2), 31% from high-income families (Tier 5), and 7% from middle income families (Tiers 3 and 4).

Table 2 shows additional details on the family survey respondents.

Table 2. Number of survey participants (parents of 4-year-olds) by income tier and region Family income tier & region Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Tier 6

Total:

FNE

NE

NW

SE

SW

Total

21 7 1 1 0 1 31 (14%)

9 11 2 1 38 16 77 (35%)

12 9 3 1 18 7 50 (22%)

8 6 3 3 12 8 40 (18%)

12 8 0 0 1 4 25 (11%)

62 (28%) 41 (18%) 9 (4%) 6 (3%) 69 (31%) 36 (16%) 223 (100%)

Table 3 shows that more than half (59%) of the children of all survey respondents attended a school-based preschool. Data also show that children from low-income families (Tiers 1 and 2) were close to three times more likely to attend a school-based (n=75) than a community/nonschool-based (n=28) preschool. By contrast, high-income families (Tier 5), strongly favored community/non-school-based preschools, with almost twice as many of them (n=45) choosing these preschools, as compared to school-based centers (n=24). Middle income families (Tiers 3 and 4) show relatively similar preference for both types of preschools, with just a slight tendency towards school-based providers from families in Tier 3.

6

The total number of surveys collected was 228, 209 of them in English and 19 in Spanish. The number was reduced after removing surveys that were very incomplete and were not included in the analyses.

8

Table 3. Number of survey participants (parents of 4-year-olds) by income tier and type of provider Income tier 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total:

School-based 44 31 6 3 24 23 131 (59%)

Non-school-based 18 10 3 3 45 13 92 (41%)

Total 62 (28%) 41 (18%) 9 (4%) 6 (3%) 69 (31%) 36 (16%) 223 (100%)

Data from Table 4 show that families in the SW, FNE and NW regions have a higher preference for school-based preschools as compared with community/non-school-based preschools, with ratios of 3:1, 2:1, and 1.5:1, respectively, in favor of school-based centers. Families from the SE and NE regions show an equal or almost equal distribution between both types of preschools. It is unclear, however, whether the different concentrations of families by type of preschool is due to a preference for the type of preschool, the availability of preschools in the area, a combination of these factors, or other factors not evident from the survey data collected. Qualitative data collected from families and providers –reported later in the Choosing Preschool section of this report– will help to get a better understanding of the preschool selection decisions of DPP families.

Table 4. Number of survey participants (parents of 4-year-olds) by region and type of provider Region School-based Non-school-based Total FNE 21 10 31 (14%) NE 40 37 77 (35%) NW 31 19 50 (22%) SE 20 20 40 (18%) SW 19 6 25 (11%) Total: 131 (59%) 92 (41%) 223 (100%) Through survey data we found: ● Half (50%) of families with four-year-olds surveyed had two children under 18 years old living in their household. The most children under 18 years old living in any surveyed family’s household was eight children. The distribution of family size was similar across all five regions of the city, with an overall average of 2.33 children under 18 years old living in the households of the families surveyed. ● Half of the families surveyed (50%) had two people in their household working a paid job and 38% of surveyed families had one person in their household working a paid job.

Low-income families (Tiers 1 and 2) account for 67% of families working less than two

9

jobs and for 25% of families working two or three jobs. On the other hand, high-income families (Tier 5) account for 18% of families with less than two jobs, and for 43% of families who work two or three jobs. ● On average, 64% (n=143) of respondents stated that they worked 25 hours or more a week; 38% of these families are high-income families (Tier 5), while 32% are lowincome families (Tiers 1 and 2). Also on average, 13% (n=28) of respondents indicated that they worked less than 25 hours a week, 79% and 14% of them are low- and highincome families, respectively. A total of 18% of responding families indicated that no one in their household had a paid job, with two thirds of them (66%) being from lowincome families.

Families of 3-year-old students The evaluation team obtained contact information from 295 families of 3-year-old children enrolled in DPP during the 2023-24 school year. These families were all low-income (DPP’s Tiers 1 and 2) and enrolled in community-based preschools. Tier level and being enrolled in a community-based preschool were requirements to receive DPP’s tuition support for 3-year-old children 7. Figure 6 shows the geographic distribution, by city region, of these families as of fall 2023. Data show that families from the NE region had the highest participation level (36%), followed by FNE families (26%). Families in the SW and SE regions represented less than half (16% and 13%, respectively) the level of participation than those in the NE region. Families in the NW region had the lowest level of participation (9%).

7

Three 3-year-old children started the school year attending community-based preschools, but had switched to ECE3 programs in Denver Public Schools by the time families completed the evaluation survey.

10

Following the same outreach process used for families of 4-year-old students, families were sent an email, in English and Spanish, inviting them to complete the online survey. The email included links to English and Spanish versions of the survey. As an incentive, families were offered a $30 Amazon gift card if they were one of the first 40 parents to complete the survey.

The survey was open for two weeks in July 2024 and parents received two reminders to complete the survey before it closed.

A total of 33 families of three-year-old students completed the survey 8, representing a 12% response rate. Four of those families completed the survey in Spanish. Figure 7 shows the distribution of survey responses by city region. The FNE region had the highest representation (43%), followed by SE (21%), and by NE and SW (18% each). Interestingly, no survey responses were received from the NW region, which had the lowest representation overall of families receiving DPP tuition credits for three-year-old children.

Figure 8 shows a comparison of the proportion of families of 3-year-old children receiving DPP tuition credits against the proportion of families who completed the survey. Data show a 16% increase in representation from families in the FNE region, as well as smaller increases for the SE and SW regions. The proportion of families in the NE region shows an 18% decrease (50% effective decrease) between families receiving the tuition credits and those who completed the

8

There were a total of 35 surveys collected but three were deleted from the database and analyses because they were very incomplete. Two of these surveys were in Spanish.

11

survey. Families with three-year-olds in the NW region had no representation at all in the survey completion.

Additional survey sample findings from families with three-year-old students: ● Close to half of families surveyed (46%) had two children under 18 years old living in their household, while 30% of families surveyed had only one child under 18 years old living in their household. The most children under 18 years old living in any surveyed family’s household was seven children. Families had an average of 2.21 children under 18 living in their households. ● More than half of families surveyed (58%) had one person in their household working a paid job, while one third of surveyed families (33%) reported that two people in their household were working a paid job. The remaining 9% of families indicated that no one in their household had a paid job. ● 61% of survey respondents reported that they work an average of more than 25 hours a week, 18% work under 25 hours a week, and 21% reported that they do not work.

12

Section Highlights The participant sample section of the report included the following highlights: 1. A list of 272 preschool providers registered with DPP for the 2023-24 school year was used as the source of contact information of preschool center directors invited to participate in evaluation data collection activities, including online surveys and focus groups.

2. During the 2023-24 school year, 2,642 four-year-old students were identified as receiving preschool tuition credits from DPP and their parents were invited to participate in evaluation activities.

3. The evaluation team also obtained contact information from 295 families of 3-year-old children enrolled in DPP in the 2023-24 school year. These families were all low-income level (DPP’s Tiers 1 and 2) and enrolled in community-based preschools.

4. Data indicated families of four-year-olds from the NE region had the highest participation in DPP (32%), while all four of the other regions had similar participation levels of between 16% and 19%.

5. More than half of DPP’s families (57%) are low-income, while almost one quarter of all families (23%) come from high-income households.

6. A very low proportion (6%) of middle-income families were enrolled in DPP when the dataset was obtained. Further study is warranted to understand the factors that might contribute to these participation differences, particularly for middle income families.

7. Data were analyzed by five geographic regions of the city, including: Far Northeast (FNE) including Montbello, Gateway-Green Valley Ranch, and DIA, Northeast (NE), Southeast (SE), Northwest (NW), and Southwest (SW).

8. Data were also analyzed by family income tiers grouped into three main categories: Lowincome (Tiers 1 and 2); Middle-income (Tiers 3 and 4); and High-income (Tier 5).

9. Providers’ overall response rate to the survey was 31%. The responses received by region of the city were roughly in proportion to the number of invitations sent by region.

Parents of four-year-old children had an overall response rate of 8%, while parents of three-year-old children had an overall response rate of 12%.

10. Survey data show that families in the SW, FNE and NW regions have a higher preference for school-based preschools as compared with community/non-school-based preschools.

Families from the SE and NE regions showed a relatively equal preference between both types of preschools.

11. Survey data show children from low-income families were close to three times more likely to attend a school-based preschool versus non-school-based.

12. By contrast, high-income families strongly favored community/non-school-based preschools. Middle income families showed relatively even preference for both types of preschools.

13

Findings Findings from APA’s evaluation of DPP’s operations are organized by a set of research questions contained within five major focus areas, including: 1. Impact of UPK on DPP Operations 2. Customer Service/Interaction with DPP 3. Tuition Credit System 4. Choosing Preschool 5. Maximizing DPP Impacts and Access to Childcare The evaluation team’s description below of Year 2 (2023-24) findings is organized by these five major topic areas.

1. Impact of UPK on DPP Operations To understand the impact of UPK on DPP operations, it was important to first appraise providers and families’ understanding of UPK and DPP, as well as the differences and relationship between the programs. Data were collected from families and providers through online surveys and focus group conversations in reference to these topics. This section describes the findings from these data collection efforts, first for providers, then for families.

Provider Input Data were collected from community-based and school-based preschool providers 9 participating in DPP as well as from community-based providers not participating in DPP during the 2023-24 school year. The understanding of these groups of providers differed regarding the characteristics and relationship between DPP and UPK. The providers’ description of the two programs included the target population in terms of geography and age, what activities are funded, what the purpose of the funding is, and their funding sources as described below.

Data collected indicate that not all providers who completed the survey were UPK participants, and it is reasonable to expect that those who were UPK participants may have a better understanding of the program’s operations than those who had not established a relationship with UPK. Figure 1.1. shows a comparison of survey participants’ breakdown of their actual UPK participation in 2023-24 and their UPK enrollment status for 2024-25. Responses indicated that 73% of providers were working with UPK in 2023-24. This figure increased slightly by 2.4 percentage points to 75% for the 2024-25 school year. A very small proportion of providers, 1.2%, was unsure at the time of the survey whether they would participate in UPK in 2024-25.

9

All school-based providers who participated in the focus groups were DPS providers.

14

Figure 1.1. UPK Provider Participation Status in 2023-24 & 2024-25

Table 1.1. shows a breakdown of providers who completed the survey by region, type of preschool (school-based or community-based), and their UPK status in 2023-24 and 2024-25.

Data show that providers from the Northeast region had the highest representation overall (35%), followed by Southeast (21%), Southwest (18%), Northwest (17%), and Far Northeast (10%).

Eighty percent of respondents were from community-based centers. There were no school-based providers from the Northeast region completing the survey, while Far Northeast respondents were half each from school-based and community-based preschools. The percentage of UPK providers in 2023-24 and 2024-25, by region, fluctuated between 64% (NW) and 88% (FNE).

Interestingly, the only region that showed any increase in providers registered with UPK from 2023-24 to 2024-25 was the Northeast region (which went from 69% in 2023-24 to 76% in 202425, for a net increase of two providers). There was no change in the number of providers registered to participate in UPK from the other four regions.

15

Table 1.1. Distribution of providers who completed the survey by region, type of provider and UPK status (n=84) FNE

NW

SE

SW

Total

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

8

10% 29

35%

14

17%

18

21%

15

18%

84

100%

4

50%

0%

3

21%

4

22%

6

40%

17

20%

Communitybased (*)

4

50% 29 100%

11

79%

14

78%

9

60%

67

80%

2023-24 (*)

7

88% 20

69%

9

64%

13

72%

12

80%

61

73%

2024-25 (*)

7

88% 22

76%

9

64%

13

72%

12

80%

63

75%

Total (community-, home-, & school-based) Type of School-based preschool (*)

UPK provider

NE

0

(*) Percentages based on total number of providers by region.

Target population. According to focus group data, most providers had a clear understanding that DPP provides funding for preschool children, mostly 4-year-old children, who live in Denver.

They also generally understood that UPK provides funding for 4-year-old preschool children across Colorado. Not all providers understood, however, the exact Denver geographic boundaries for DPP, and some indicated in focus groups that they knew there were families who had a Denver address but did not qualify for DPP funding. Similarly, not all providers knew that DPP also funds preschool for 3-year-old children who meet certain criteria. A few community- and school-based providers believed Denver families may not qualify for DPP funding because their household income is too high. Few providers were aware that UPK also funds preschool for 3year-old children who meet criteria such as having an IEP. One community-based provider mentioned that UPK also gives tuition to some two-and-a-half-year-old children.

What is funded by DPP. All providers understood that DPP and UPK provide funding to cover preschool tuition of 4-year-old children. Not all providers understood the range of factors considered to determine the amount of tuition credits DPP families receive, although all were aware that family income was one factor in that decision. Community-based providers were more likely to report the elements incorporated in the formula that calculates the DPP tuition credits awarded to families, including family income, household size, attendance, and the preschool’s quality rating. Community-based providers also generally understood that DPP distributes funding to providers for classroom supplies, coaching and professional training opportunities for teachers and school administrators, as well as stipends that providers use in different ways to support their staff. No school-based providers or non-DPP providers that participated in the focus groups were aware of these additional DPP benefits.

16

Purpose of funding. All providers in focus groups understood that UPK funding has the purpose of supporting families across the state to send their 4-year-old children to preschool by paying for 15 hours a week of their tuition. By contrast, most community-based providers mentioned that DPP is interested in not only funding preschool, but also in supporting and increasing the quality of preschool education by providing funding to purchase classroom supplies, stipends, coaching, and training opportunities for teachers and childcare directors. In this way, focus group input surfaced a finding that many providers perceive DPP to provide more broad-based support for both providers and parents. A community-based provider expressed it this way, “DPP is really working on offering quality childcare to all children, especially those children in the year before kindergarten…UPK is just trying to make available preschool for all kids, so giving them that limited 15 hours worth of preschool per week.” (SW, DPP community-based provider). 10 11 Funding sources. Providers appeared to have a clear understanding of basic differences in funding sources between DPP and UPK. In fact, all providers participating in the focus groups understood that DPP funding comes from local tax dollars from the City of Denver, and UPK funding comes from the state. A community-based provider went further to explain that when providing funding for a family to send their child to preschool, UPK dollars are applied first to cover 15 hours a week, and then complemented with DPP funds.

Relationship between DPP and UPK. Focus group data showed that the understanding of the relationship between DPP and UPK was different for school-based and community-based providers. School-based providers who participated in focus groups recognized that they did not know/understand the relationship between UPK and DPP, how the programs worked together, or whether the funding for both programs had merged. Providers were also unclear as to how the UPK roll out might have produced changes in the number of students allowed per preschool classroom. One provider explained, “I feel like DPP funding is now rolled into UPK, like it's not separate anymore. And that there's different requirements for each; like with DPP we used to have a cap of 16 students, and now, because it's part of the state, it's 20 [students]” (NW, DPP schoolbased provider).

School-based providers were not aware of the role of DPP within UPK. As one provider in the focus group stated: “I don't know how they work together and if they work together. It's enough so we can provide those seats to children.” (SE, DPP school-based provider). One of these 10 11

Quotations in the report have been minimally edited to facilitate reading.

Throughout the report, parents’ quotations will be identified by the family’s DPP income tier level, Tiers 1 through 6 (T1 to T6), the type of preschool the child attends (school-based or community-based), and Denver’s geographic region where they live (FNE, NE, NW, SE, or SW). Preschool providers’ quotations will be identified by the geographic region where the center is located, their DPP status (DPP or non-DPP), and the type of preschool provider they are (school-based or community-based).

17

providers also believed that Head Start works with UPK, so their seats are filled with UPKapproved students.

In comparison to the school-based providers, most community-based providers who participated in the focus groups were more familiar with the relationship between DPP and UPK. Very few of them knew the exact role of DPP as one of UPK’s Local Coordinating Organizations (LCO) or the exact role of the LCOs overall. However, most did understand there is a partnership between DPP and UPK and that UPK funding is channeled through DPP to UPK-enrolled families and providers, independently from their own DPP funding. As an illustration of this understanding, one provider explained, “I don't think it's … and not in a negative way, I don't think it's a collaborative relationship [between DPP and UPK]. I think it's two different entities trying to get their work done and DPP just happens to be the conduit between the state and providers.”

(NE, DPP community-based provider).

Community-based providers also knew that DPP and UPK funding sources, application processes, and amount of funds provided were different. Community-based providers saw DPP as the “middleman” between UPK, providers, and families. Providers understood that DPP helps families connect with UPK, and that families can receive funding from UPK and DPP at the same time.

While the sample size of non-DPP providers participating in APA’s focus groups was small, participants understood that DPP and UPK are two different programs and that providers can participate in one or both programs independently. These providers understood that UPK funding is channeled through DPP, an organization that has been in operation for many years, while UPK is a new program that is still working out glitches in its delivery.

The online survey completed by 84 providers included eleven items addressing their level of understanding of topics related to the relationship between DPP and UPK. 12 Overall findings show that providers self-rated their understanding mostly as high or average. However, provider survey data show areas of weakness such as understanding how families are matched with UPK providers, the amount of funding that families can receive from UPK, and DPP’s and UPK’s funding sources. Regional variations were observed, with Northeast and Southwest providers consistently showing the highest and lowest levels of overall understanding, respectively. In general, data show that providers had a better understanding of details surrounding DPP as compared to their understanding of UPK, a not surprising trend given that all survey respondents were DPP providers, while only 73% of them were UPK providers, as already described.

12

Survey items were set in a 5-point Likert scale with the following anchors: 1=Very low understanding, 2=Low understanding, 3=Moderate understanding, 4=High understanding, and 5=Very high understanding. For purposes of data interpretation and reporting, scores 1 and 2 are grouped and labeled as Low understanding; 3 as Average understanding, and 4 and 5 as High understanding.

18

Figure 1.2. shows that, overall, the majority of providers reported having an average or high level of understanding of general operations, rules, and procedures for both DPP and UPK. When considering the five survey items together, 72% of providers reported a high or average level of understanding of both programs’ operations. Providers reported the highest level of understanding of children’s age eligibility requirements for DPP and UPK funding (51%), while the matching of families to UPK providers was the least understood of these five components (37%). These data are supported by focus group findings where providers indicated that families are often matched to preschools that are not a good fit for the child, the family, and/or the preschool, with a lack of understanding of the process that resulted in such incompatibility.

Figure 1.2 Percentage of providers rating their level of understanding of DPP and UPK operations (n=75*)

(*) n value for these items varied between 75 and 76; 75 was chosen as the most common of the two values to facilitate reading.

Table 1.2. shows averages of providers’ self-rating of their level of understanding of DPP and UPK operations across five key areas. Responses were assigned numeric values of between 1 (Very low understanding) and 5 (Very high understanding). Data show that providers from the Northeast region self-rated their understanding the highest in four of the five items, while Southwest providers self-rated their understanding the lowest in four of the five. These results yielded an almost one-point average difference between providers of these two regions (NE = 3.52, SW = 2.61).

19

Regional averages across the five key areas indicate that Southwest providers rated their understanding of these combined topics between low and moderate (2.61); Far Northeast, Northwest, and Southeast providers rated theirs in the moderate range of understanding, and Northeast providers rated their understanding between moderate and high (3.52).

Data in the Table’s “Average by item” column also lists the five components in descending order from easiest to hardest to understand (top to bottom). Interestingly, average understanding of these topics was not rated as high or very high by any group of providers. Given that families identify providers as their main source of information about DPP and UPK, these findings suggest that additional training and/or information offered to providers could produce an overall community-level improvement in the understanding of these important programs.

Table 1.2. Providers' average level of understanding of DPP & UPK operations in Five Key Areas (n=76*) (**) Providers' understanding of…

FNE NE NW SE SW Average by item: The age groups of children eligible for 3.00 3.88 3.57 3.25 2.71 3.28 funding from DPP and UPK DPP's role in UPK operations 3.17 3.58 3.00 3.19 2.62 3.11 The difference in enrollment processes for families in DPP and UPK How family or child risk factors impact DPP and UPK funding eligibility How families are matched with UPK providers Average by region:

3.00

3.42

3.14

2.94

2.50

3.00

3.00

3.50

2.71

2.81

2.57

2.92

3.33

3.23

2.29

2.81

2.64

2.86

3.10

3.52

2.94

3.00

2.61

(*) n value for these items varied between 75 and 76; 76 was chosen as the most common of the two values to facilitate reading. (**) Understanding rating scale: 1=Very low understanding, 2=Low understanding, 3=Moderate understanding, 4=High understanding, 5=Very high understanding.

These survey findings are supported by qualitative data collected from providers in APA’s focus groups. For example, as discussed above, most community-based providers understood there is a relationship between DPP and UPK in which DPP is the entity with whom providers and families interact to reach UPK, e.g., DPP supports providers and families to maneuver, understand and connect with UPK, and DPP passes UPK information down to providers.

Although most providers did not understand the exact function of DPP as UPK’s LCO, they understood that DPP and UPK work in partnership, that there is no programmatic crossover between both entities, and that DPP ultimately funnels UPK’s money to providers. Finally, providers recognized and understood that UPK’s first year of operations was very challenging 20

for all involved and indicated their belief that DPP became the providers’ and families’ lifeline due to its long experience working with them.

Figure 1.3. shows that providers reported generally having a high level of understanding of the activities that DPP and UPK fund, as well as of providers’ requirements to participate in DPP. This was not the case for their understanding of other aspects of DPP and UPK funding. There was a difference for instance in providers’ understanding of the amount of funding parents can receive from either program: for DPP, 43% of respondents reported a high level of understanding, while the same was true for only 36% in regard to UPK. On the other hand, over half of respondents (54%) reported a high level of understanding of the providers’ requirements to participate in DPP, which was higher than their understanding of the requirements to participate in UPK (for which 39% of respondents reported a high level of understanding, representing a difference of 15.3 percentage points between the two programs).

The gap between the level of understanding of DPP components as compared to those of UPK is perhaps not surprising given that all survey respondents were DPP participants while only around 70% of them were UPK participants.

Figure 1.3 Percentage of providers rating their level of understanding of DPP and UPK funding and participation requirements

(*) n value for these items varied between 75 and 76; 76 was chosen as the most common of the two values to facilitate reading.

21

Table 1.3. presents averages of providers’ self-rating of their level of understanding of DPP and UPK funding and providers’ participation requirements, with responses assigned a numeric value from 1 (Very low understanding) to 5 (Very high understanding), broken down by item and region. The first four items relate to DPP and UPK funding, while the last two refer to providers’ requirements to participate in both programs.

Data show that, overall, Southeast region providers rated their understanding of DPP and UPK funding and provider participation requirements the highest of all five regions, compared to Far Northeast providers whose ratings were the lowest showing almost one point average difference between providers of those regions (SE=3.44, FNE=2.45). Southwest providers were second lowest in rating their understanding overall of these topics. Regional differences indicate that Southeast providers rated their understanding of these topics between moderate and high, Northeast and Northwest providers also rated their understanding between moderate and high, although much closer to moderate, and Far Northeast and Southwest providers rated their understanding between low and moderate.

Of note, understanding of providers’ requirements to participate in DPP and in UPK was rated higher (fifth and sixth items), in general, than most DPP and UPK funding topics (first through fourth items), by providers of all five regions. The moderate to high levels of understanding of the providers’ requirements to participate in DPP and UPK makes sense given that providers in DPP have to renew their enrollment with DPP on an annual basis, and the fact that UPK, as a new program, has received ample media coverage and providers have been encouraged to participate. It is interesting, although not surprising, however, that one of the two non-DPP providers interviewed by the evaluation team is a UPK but not a DPP provider and knew more about UPK than DPP requirements. The second non-DPP provider interviewed was not a UPK or DPP provider and expressed not being familiar with the requirements of both programs.

22

Table 1.3. Providers' average level of understanding of DPP and UPK funding and participation requirements (n=76*) (**) Providers' understanding of…

FNE NE NW SE SW Average by item: The amount of funding that families can receive 2.17 3.69 3.29 3.50 2.86 3.10 from DPP Whether families can qualify for both UPK and 2.67 2.58 3.21 3.63 2.64 2.95 DPP funding at the same time The amount of funding that families can receive 2.50 3.31 2.86 3.19 2.71 2.91 from UPK DPP's and UPK's funding sources 2.17 3.31 3.15 2.94 2.43 2.80 The requirements for providers to participate in 3.00 3.77 3.43 3.88 3.00 3.42 DPP The requirements for providers to participate in 3.33 3.35 2.86 3.25 2.62 3.08 UPK Average by region: 2.45 3.19 3.12 3.44 2.74 (*) n value for these items varied between 75 and 76; to facilitate reading 76 was chosen as the most common of the two values to facilitate reading. (**) Understanding rating scale: 1=Very low understanding, 2=Low understanding, 3=Moderate understanding, 4=High understanding, 5=Very high understanding

The relatively low average ratings of understanding DPP and UPK funding sources by survey respondents differs from the input received through APA’s focus groups. All the focus group participants for instance knew that DPP is funded by taxes from the City of Denver, while UPK is funded by the state. This discrepancy in findings with the survey data could be due to various reasons, including, a bias in the self-selection of focus group participants (those who agreed to participate might have been more informed overall about DPP and UPK than average providers across the city), the difference in sample size for both groups of respondents, or the wording of the survey question as compared to the opportunity that focus group participants had to explain their understanding of this topic.

Families Input APA collected both survey and focus group data from families to gauge their understanding of the relationship, roles, and differences between DPP and UPK. Most parents of 4- and 3-year-old children who participated in the focus groups explained that they found out about UPK from communications with their preschool providers, however, the extent of the information was mainly that families needed to complete a new application (UPK) to receive the funding that would pay for their children’s preschool. One parent was told that applying to UPK would benefit both the child and the school. Other parents found out about UPK from friends or 23

neighbors, through online conversations with other parents, or through searches for preschool options on the Internet.

Most parents in the focus groups had limited understanding of what UPK was or that completing the UPK application was optional. For example, one parent of a 3-year-old child indicated their belief that UPK enrollment was a requirement to get DPP support, while a Spanish speaking parent was told she needed to complete two applications to get free preschool for her child, one application was for DPP and the other to be placed in a waitlist to get a spot in the school closest to home.

Survey data collected from parents indicated that 92% (n=196) and 73% (n=33) of parents of 4and 3-year-old children enrolled in DPP, respectively, were aware that Colorado has a Universal Preschool Program. Data show that 13 of the 15 (87%) parents of 4-year-old children who were not aware of UPK were low-income parents, while 5 of the 15 (33%) lived in the Southwest region of Denver.

A total of 182 parents of 4-year-old children answered a question about their child receiving UPK tuition support, 63% of them indicated that their child was receiving such support, while 20% said their child was not receiving UPK support, and 18% were not sure/did not know if they were receiving UPK support. 13 Of the 20% that stated that their child did not receive UPK tuition support, 40% were high-income families, 46% lived in the Northeast region, and 32% were located in the Southeast region. Of the 18% that stated that they were unsure if their child was receiving UPK tuition support, 77% were low-income families. Figure 1.4 displays a map of these parent responses. This map shows a number of the grey “unsure” responses in and around the Southwest region of the city.

13

Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding.

24

Figure 1.4 Family Survey Question: Is Your Child Receiving Tuition Support from UPK?

Parents’ comments about learning about UPK from providers is consistent with providers’ observations that parents usually do not show up at a preschool asking about DPP or UPK, they go to the school looking to enroll their child and then ask how they will be able to afford the tuition. This is typically when providers inform them about DPP and UPK and, as they move through the enrollment process, answer parents’ questions. This process of informing families about UPK by answering their questions is unstructured, and therefore less likely to be consistent across provider or parent experiences. It also means that providers typically are not set up to provide parents with a full and consistent explanation of the relationship between UPK and DPP. Two non-DPP providers also shared that their experience is that parents do not ask about UPK or DPP, instead, they ask if there were any funding opportunities that would help them lower and afford the cost of tuition. Working with providers to ensure they have access to succinct, consistent messaging about the relationship between the programs could help ensure that DPP parents are more consistently informed over time.

Most providers in APA’s focus groups mentioned that they do their best to help parents complete their applications and troubleshoot when issues arise, although this is challenging for preschool staff. Several parents mentioned struggling with completing their applications and ensuring their children were actually enrolled in school. One of them reported having completed the application, but close to the beginning of the school year she found out that her child was not registered; when she sought help from DPS to resolve the problem, she learned that she had 25

completed either the DPP or the UPK application but not the school application; she did not know she also had to complete a school application for her child every year.

Providers in APA’s focus groups indicated that even when parents have been told they need to complete applications for each program, DPP and UPK, to get full financial benefits, many of them continue to confuse DPP with UPK, or believe they are the same program. It also happens that when parents are encouraged to enroll in one program, they frequently respond that they are already enrolled, without realizing they have only enrolled in the other program. Having families enrolled in DPP benefits not only the family, but the preschool also benefits from DPP support.

In addition, once families get the financial benefit of the programs, they often enjoy the school more as shared by one of the providers, “Once [families] get enrolled and they see the financial benefit, then they enjoy our school more because it costs less.” (NW, DPP community-based provider).

Some parents who participated in the focus groups indicated that they knew that DPP and UPK were not the same program, others mentioned they did not know if they were the same or different. A few parents said they did not know what UPK was at all. Very few focus group participants shared that DPP is a program for Denver families, while UPK is a program for Colorado. Although all focus group participants knew they were receiving financial support to cover their child’s preschool tuition, some of them did not know who was paying for the tuition, DPP or UPK. When asked to explain their understanding of how the two programs were related, most parents reported that they did not know how DPP and UPK were different, if there was a relationship between them, and what that relationship might be. One parent said that UPK is the general program and DPP is available as a secondary program for assistance.

Many parents also were very confused about the relationship and/or differences between DPS, UPK, DPP, and school choice. During focus group conversations some parents mentioned DPS when asked about DPP, and sometimes talked about the relationship between DPS and UPK, instead of DPP and UPK. A Spanish speaking parent of a 3-year-old child mentioned that she was interested in enrolling her child in DPP but did not understand whether students in DPS could receive financial support only from UPK, and indicated she believed many parents do not enroll in preschool at all and instead wait to enroll their children until kindergarten because they do not know they can be enrolled when they are 3 years old.

These findings are supported by data collected through the online surveys administered to parents of 3- and 4-year-old children enrolled in DPP. Figure 1.5. shows that high percentages of parents of 4-year-old children do not understand or understand very little of five out of six aspects of the relationship between UPK and DPP and the funding these programs provide.

The lowest level of understanding was around the topic of what the qualifications are for children to receive DPP and UPK funding for which 72% of respondents indicated they did not 26

understand or understood very little about the qualifications. Parents also indicated low understanding of the relationship between DPP and UPK (68%), whether all preschool providers in Denver are providers in both DPP and UPK (64%), and the amount of funding families can receive from DPP and UPK (59%).

The only item that more than half of parents (52%) indicated they understood well or very well was whether DPP and UPK were the same or two different programs. This was corroborated by parents’ comments during focus group sessions, where parents mentioned they knew DPP and UPK were two different programs. Again, however, this indicates that nearly half of parents (48%) do not understand that these are two different programs.

Figure 1.5. Percentage of families of 4-year-old children reporting their understanding of various aspects of DPP and UPK

When parent survey responses were mapped using GIS mapping, the data revealed some interesting potential patterns. For instance, as shown in Figure 1.6 below, there appear to be a higher concentration of parents in the Far Northeast region of the city who either do not understand (shown by grey dots) or understand very little (shown by red dots) whether families can receive tuition support from DPP and UPK at the same time.

27

Figure 1.6. Family Survey Question: Please rate your level of understanding of whether families can receive tuition support from DPP and UPK at the same time

Similarly, patterns can be observed across regions of the city when examining GIS mapping of family survey data from the survey question asking families to rate their level of understanding of whether DPP and UPK are the same or two different programs. As shown in Figure 1.7 below, concentrations of red dots indicating low levels of family understanding on this topic can be seen particularly in the Far Northeast and Northwest regions of the city.

28

Figure 1.7. Family Survey Question: Please rate your level of understanding of whether DPP and UPK are the same or two different programs

Parents of 3-year-old children receiving DPP tuition credits also rated their level of understanding of the same DPP and UPK aspects. Interestingly, the parents of 3-year-olds indicated higher levels of understanding than parents of 4-year-olds for each aspect as shown in Figure 1.8. The item that received the highest level of understanding from both groups of parents was Whether DPP and UPK are the same or two different programs (52% for parents of 4-yearolds and 72% for parents of 3-year-olds), while Understanding the relationship between DPP and UPK was the least understood by parents of 3 year olds (56%), and second least understood by parents of 4-year-old children (68%). The aspect with the greatest difference in level of understanding was the Children’s qualifications to receive DPP and UPK funding reported as well or very well understood by 28% and 52% of parents of 4- and 3-year-old children, respectively. These data, supported by similar providers’ comments in focus groups, indicate that, overall, families receiving DPP tuition credits are mostly unfamiliar with important aspects of DPP and UPK, suggesting that they would benefit from learning more about the programs. It is reasonable to infer that, if parents who are DPP participants do not know much about it, other parents not in the program may still be less knowledgeable about it and possibly less likely to benefit from this important funding. Figure 1.8. shows additional details on these data.

29

Figure 1.8. Percentage of families of 3-year-old children reporting their understanding of various aspects of DPP and UPK.

Awareness of DPP because of media on UPK There is almost total consensus among providers that the intense media coverage of UPK has attracted families to enroll their children in preschool. Most parents, they explained, are not knowledgeable about DPP or UPK, but they have heard that UPK would make preschool affordable to them, and this has encouraged them to enroll their children, even when they do not know how to get the financial assistance, or how UPK operates or specifically applies to them.

On the other hand, neither of the two non-DPP providers interviewed reported experiencing increased interest in their programs because of the UPK media coverage.

A community-based provider shared that their center has seen an increased number of families interested in preschool and touring the school because of their awareness of UPK; they shared how important this financial assistance has been for the community they serve, “Now we're able to serve more of our community from Montbello having UPK just being announced everywhere. So, we definitely got a lot of families interested that were not interested before because they can't afford it.” (FNE, DPP community-based provider).

Providers also mentioned that for many parents, preschool is the entry point to the education system, and they are very unaware of programs and services available to them, 30

“I think with preschool being the entry point of education for families, 80% of our families are coming in completely blind as to what's available to them because they're just so new.” (NE, DPP community-based provider).

Once families reach out to the preschool centers, it is up to providers to educate them about the programs, and this is when parents start learning about those services. One school-based provider explained it this way, “That's when all of those terms start coming up to them, and quite frankly, they get overwhelmed like, “this is difficult to navigate!” And they don't know the questions to ask, like they're not asking because they don't know what to ask. They just want to know [how to get their child in school].” (SE, DPP school-based provider).

Providers indicated it is not uncommon that families have not heard about DPP, but noted there are differences in the family awareness levels about DPP and UPK, ranging from those who have never heard about the programs and just want their child in school, to those who have informed themselves through different avenues and are more knowledgeable about the school system and the registration process.

One school-based provider explained in APA’s focus groups that the main difference between families is their affluence and proceeded to describe affluent families as families that are more knowledgeable about the schools, about how UPK works, about the enrollment process and having to apply through UPK to get a spot in the school of their choice. According to providers, these families are more likely to be white, monolingual English speakers with more means. Less affluent families mostly rely on the school staff to help them work through the enrollment system and tend to focus on finding a school that is close to home; these families tend to be parents of color, sometimes multi-language learners who have a language other than English as their primary language. This provider explained, “We say affluent, but we know in effect that it's more than just the money, it's the knowledge, it is the experience navigating systems. And some of these systems aren't as friendly to our multi-language families, it's not as user friendly to those who haven't been through the process before, or who have been proactive about researching what it takes to get students into preschool.” (SE, DPP school-based provider).

Finally, there were a few providers representing Catholic preschool centers participating in APA’s focus groups. These were preschools participating with DPP but not with UPK. They mentioned having several families with children enrolled in their centers or wanting to enroll in their centers interested in getting the UPK financial support; these families had asked why they could not get the UPK support. Providers mentioned that it was very difficult to explain to parents why their center was not with UPK and had to tell parents that it had to do with being a religious provider. Some told families that UPK had many regulations about religious 31

preschools, while others told them that they were still working with UPK on the logistics of becoming UPK providers.

Impact of UPK on DPP enrollment: The providers’ perspective Most providers who participated in the focus groups reported a significant decrease in student enrollment in DPP during the 2023-24 academic year compared to previous years. One provider described the decrease as “drastic,” others as “significant.” Only a few reported a slight increase in families enrolling their children in DPP at their center and one did not see any difference in their enrollment numbers.

One school-based provider indicated the enrollment decrease at their preschool center was small due to the strong family outreach efforts they conducted with the help of their on-campus Head Start liaison who helped all families with their enrollment process. Although providers were not certain about the specific reason for the enrollment decreases they experienced, they mentioned that factors such as low birth rate, families moving out of Denver, issues with UPK registration, or a combination of those and other factors may have contributed to the decline. Providers that were not enrolled in UPK, including Catholic schools, saw different rates of decrease in enrollment and believed that families were migrating to preschools that allowed them to receive UPK funding, as one of them expressed, “Especially for the schools like us that aren't a part of UPK, if you get a chance to take advantage of [UPK funding], then I understand why families would do it.” (NE, DPP community-based provider).

In general, providers attributed some enrollment challenges to the complexity of the UPK enrollment process that they indicated was especially burdensome for families that did not find the support needed to enroll. This barrier was identified as significant for non-English speaking families, “I would attribute UPK as far as running a bit of interference. I think before UPK the process was much easier, much more accessible for families, all families, and especially families who … would otherwise qualify for free and reduced-price lunch, or qualify for DPP, or qualify for Head Start. With UPK it's been harder for families to navigate access to that system.” (SE, DPP school-based provider) A community-based provider shared the different experience they had with DPP and UPK, and how UPK has taken away some of the control providers used to have over their own enrollment processes: “DPP has no impact on my enrollment process, how I offer spots, how I reach out to families, how I enroll families, DPP isn't a factor. They wait until I've matched with the family and then the school and the family say, ‘Hey, DPP, we're matched, we'd like funding.’ Whereas UPK has taken that control out of our hands. And it's UPK that does 32

the matching and says you have to take this family, and we've had to change a lot of our policies around UPK enrollment whereas DPP never impacted our enrollment processes.” (NW, DPP community-based provider).

Providers mentioned several other possible reasons for how UPK might have impacted DPP enrollment, as well as issues that might have impacted preschool enrollment in general, including: ● Confusing DPP with UPK. Because many families confused DPP with UPK, they might have thought they were already enrolled or had completed all the paperwork when that was not the case, and they had only completed paperwork for one or other of the programs. As one provider stated, “When I approach them about DPP, they say I've already done this, I've already filled out the paperwork, I don't need to do this again.”

(SE, DPP community-based provider). ●

General media and DPS promoting UPK but not DPP. Some providers believe that UPK is the more dominant name when referring to financial support for preschool and that DPS is making a concerted effort to have families enrolled in UPK, something they had never done for DPP. One provider for instance stated: “I think that the public school system is pushing UPK. UPK is a foundational shift for the public school system, where DPP I don't think was a fundamental shift to how they operate and did business… Like there is language coming from public schools talking about UPK, but I'm not hearing a ton of language coming from the public schools about DPP.” (NW, DPP communitybased provider).

●

The UPK matching process takes too long. According to some providers, some families are not willing to wait for UPK’s matching decision and instead move on and find other schools. “It's not a good thing that they're so slow. People are finding other schools while I'm waiting for them to take 3 months to match with our school.” (NW, DPP community-based provider).

● Community-based providers and most school-based providers do not meet families’ needs. According to some providers in focus groups, enrollment is impacted negatively because many ECE programs do not match parents’ working hours, do not offer services year-round, or do not offer financial support for 2- and 3-year-old children. According to one provider: “The stars have to align for it to work out for [parents] to come to an ECE program within the school versus go to an ECE program at a daycare center or facility that stays open late … So, we still have those 2 and a half hours, 3-hour slot that parents have to find some way for their kids to be watched.” (SE, DPP school-based provider). ● Resistance to enroll in DPP because they have enrolled in UPK. Some providers suggested that sometimes families who enrolled in UPK think they do not need DPP or do not want to bother completing the DPP application. “There's resistance, ‘I’m already 33

getting $600 a month, I don't really need to get the other $150 or whatnot,’ so I think that there's resistance that way.” (SE, DPP community-based provider). Some providers have responded to this resistance by making the DPP application a requirement for school registration for all families who live in the city and county of Denver, because the number of students enrolled in DPP in their centers has a financial impact on their centers. As one provider said: “This year we are going after this funding, because even the minimal amount, times 9 or 10 months per family, it makes a difference in the bottom line. We're not a cash cow, every little bit helps. So, [DPP enrollment] is not a new policy but I would say it's one that this year we have been much more diligent about enforcing, because with the introduction of UPK there is a negative impact, because they're only paying a certain amount for those 15 hours, and that's not our normal, what we would charge for 15 hours. We take a loss on that.” (SE, DPP community-based provider).

An important consequence of the challenges that families face when trying to enroll their children in UPK or seeking UPK tuition reimbursement is the impact on parent and family frustration levels with the overall preschool system that sometimes is blamed on the providers.

According to providers, this frustration negatively impacts relationships between families and providers because families often believe it is the providers’ responsibility to resolve those issues.

Families sometimes give up their attempts to enroll completely because they are tired of having to do so much paperwork that is confusing. The following quotations illustrate how problems with enrollment and reimbursement impact family/provider relationships.

“It doesn't feel good when the parents don't want us to see them because they haven't filled out all the forms. I had a parent, she refused, she said she wasn't filling out nothing else, she just stopped. And that was at the beginning of this school year, and even to this day our relationship was not the best. Even though I told her it was okay, you know. But our relationship was not the best.” (FNE, DPP community-based provider).

“I don’t like the fact of being a stalker and running the families away, and the family remembers you as the lady that keeps asking for all these papers.” (FNE, DPP community-based provider).

“That Mom is really mad, and she was even mad at us, which sucks because we're not offering that money refund for her. That's through DPP/UPK.” (SW, DPP communitybased provider) One provider reported that parents who apply to DPS preschools only have to complete one comprehensive application to enroll their child in the school, DPP, and UPK, all three at once.

On the other hand, parents who want to enroll their child in a community-based preschool have to complete three different applications. This provider suggested that a similar universal 34

application for families to enroll their child in a community-based preschool would be very helpful.

Impact of UPK on DPP enrollment: The families’ perspective Many parents who participated in the focus groups did not understand the difference between DPP and UPK and did not even know what exactly both programs were, therefore, their decision to enroll their children in DPP was not influenced by their decision to enroll in UPK, they just completed the applications they were instructed to complete. Some parents who realized they were completing two different applications had understood that completing the UPK application was a requirement to receive DPP tuition support, therefore, they did not see as optional their decision to complete the UPK application.

A Spanish speaking parent of a three-year-old explained that her first interest was always to enroll her child in DPP, but she did not understand whether UPK was only applicable to DPS preschools or to all Denver preschools, therefore, she completed both applications. Only one parent participating in a focus group shared that she hesitated completing the UPK application because she wanted her child to be enrolled in the same school as his siblings, and believed that by listing up to five schools in the UPK application she risked that her child could be assigned to a different school; she decided that if the child had been sent to a different school, she would not take the UPK enrollment.

These findings from the focus groups are supported by findings from APA’s online survey administered to all DPP parents. As shown in Figure 1.9., according to survey results of DPP families of 4-year-old children, 48% of families indicated that learning about UPK encouraged them to enroll their child in DPP, while another 50% stated that learning about UPK had no effect on their decision to enroll their child in DPP. The 1% of families who answered that UPK discouraged them from enrolling in DPP were low-income families from the Far Northeast and Northwest regions of Denver.

35

Figure 1.9. Percentage of families of 4- and 3-year-old children encouraged or discouraged

by UPK to enroll their child in DPP.

Slightly different results were found from parents of 3-year-old children enrolled in DPP who completed the survey, with 46% of them being encouraged to enroll their child in DPP after learning about UPK, and 54% indicating that learning about UPK had no effect on their decision to enroll their child in DPP. No DPP parents of 3-year-old children were discouraged from enrolling their child in DPP after learning about UPK, as shown in Figure 1.9.

Challenges to program enrollment Parents in focus groups shared some of the challenges they faced when trying to enroll their children in DPP and UPK. Many of the barriers were reported as being due to lack of information about the UPK enrollment process and what parents were expected to do to complete the process. Other reported problems included “glitches” in the system, such as not recognizing parents’ passwords or indicating that documents were missing but not saying which specific documents were missing. For instance, some parents did not realize they were expected to log in to accept the matching of their child to a school, and that there was a deadline to do this or the system would remove their child’s spot from the preschool of their choice. “[It] would have been disastrous had the school not been able to help us get her spot back with the UPK confusion. It just, there was no notification, it didn't tell you, ‘Hey, this is really urgent, you need to log back in and accept this,’ even though I'd filled it all 36

out. I followed all the directions, and it was awful. I did all of that, and I still almost lost her spot.… It was really hectic and really stressful for our family, like panic attack level. … It was hard to log in too. I tried to log in, didn’t work, but I was putting it [the password] in the way that I wrote it down, and it wouldn’t take it, and I had to reset it, it was glitchy. Or I made a mistake, I don’t know, who knows, but it was really difficult and scary.” (T4, school-based, NW).

Another parent reported: “When we tried to do the UPK thing it was a mess, and I honestly couldn't figure it out, and I had to go down to the school and have the secretary guide me because I couldn't log in or I didn't get emails and stuff either for his spot at the school. I feel like that was just really hard, because as a parent you want your kid to be able to start school, and for it to be on time, and you feel kind of like you're failing if you don't do it when it needs to be done, and then you're rushing to get it all taken care of within a deadline.” (T1, school-based, NW) Still other problems mentioned were the continuous change of dates associated with the initial UPK rollout and the release of results matching children with schools, as well as the lack of coordination between entities that ended up requiring families to supply multiple copies of the same documents because of a lack of document sharing across those entities. As one parent stated: “There's a lot of setbacks and a lot of frustrations for parents, because they were setting different dates. So, they had a certain day for a rollout that parents would know like the choice if they got their choice for the schooling for their kiddos, and then it was, let’s say, March 2nd, nope, it's next month, and then next month, and then the communication was really lacking. And it was just a whole mess. It was stressful.” (T1, school-based, FNE) Having two distinct programs to apply for was also reported to be challenging for parents, with information reported to be lacking about how DPP and UPK were related and in what order parents needed to complete the applications and make their school selections.

“Sí fue un poco complicado, porque yo decía, okay, tengo que estar en el DPP, tengo que hacer la aplicación de Denver, tengo que hacer la aplicación de Universal Pre-K, y creo que las hice como tres veces cada una porque sí faltó comunicación, entre todos esos programas, entre Denver, Universal Pre-K, DPP, pero yo decía, mi hijo tiene que entrar al preescolar, así que yo los hago otra vez. Pero no es fácil si una persona no tiene acceso a internet o si no tiene acceso a su correo electrónico porque no hay un lugar cercano donde diga, me puedo ir a inscribir al DPP.” (T2, community-based, FNE) [Yes, it was a bit complicated, because I said, okay, I have to be in DPP, I have to complete the Denver application, I have to complete the Universal Pre-K application, and I think I did them like three times each because of the lack of communication 37

among all those programs, Denver, Universal Pre-K, DPP, but I kept saying, my son must be in preschool, so I will do this application again. But it is not easy if a person does not have Internet access, or if they don’t have access to their own email, because there isn’t a place close by where I can go to register to DPP.” (T2, community-based, FNE).

The evaluation team observed that enrollment challenges were in part the result of families not understanding what UPK was and how it worked, which was the result of an overall lack of information and clear communication to families about the program. Parents in focus groups mentioned that finding information on UPK by themselves was difficult, and that the information they found was often conflicting, confusing, or unhelpful. As indicated in the quote above, some parents were so worried they had not properly enrolled their child, that they went back to the beginning of the process and ended up enrolling their child multiple times, and that the enrollment process was especially difficult for families who did not have Internet access or an email account and there was not a physical location, or an office, where they could go to apply in person instead of applying online.

Providers’ suggestions to better communicate the DPP-UPK relationship Evaluation data found that providers are the main source of information about program enrollment for families and that while providers who participated in the data collection knew enough about DPP and UPK to help families with basic navigation of these systems, it was clear that many providers did not know enough particularly about UPK to be able to troubleshoot the many hurdles that families encounter in the enrollment process and subsequent interactions with these two programs. Providers recognized they would benefit from a better understanding of these programs and the relationship between them, and mentioned they would appreciate having more clear and concise information.

School-based providers requested that UPK information be sent directly to DPS schools, not only to the DPS Central Office. Compared to community-based providers, DPS administrators were significantly less knowledgeable about all aspects of UPK and DPP, in great measure because it is Central Office staff who oversee processing families’ applications and interacting directly with UPK and DPP personnel. DPS principals who participated in the data collection indicated their schools usually have front-office staff specifically dedicated to interacting with families to help them enroll in DPP and UPK, and these school staff should be included in the communication chain and considered the primary target of information outreach efforts. Principals also mentioned it is important for school administrators to be informed of the relationship between UPK and DPP, and the family/school matching process. Administrators of community-based preschools, especially of small preschool centers, are usually equally involved in supporting families to navigate the DPP and UPK enrollment systems, therefore, they also should be the target of these communication efforts.

38

A school-based provider shared that sometimes families approach the school with registration concerns that school staff cannot resolve which makes families feel frustrated with the school.

They explained, “I think that's definitely something that could be improved, because from a customer relations standpoint we want to be the ones who can help families with everything… and when we can't then you just feel a little helpless.” (NW, DPP school-based provider) School and community-based providers mentioned the importance of clarifying the roles of DPP, UPK, and DPS because of the level of confusion these entities present for the community and even for some providers. Because understanding how families can benefit from the different funding sources available to them is such a topic of confusion, it was suggested DPP prepare and give to providers clear and concise language they can send to parents explaining how funding from UPK may not cover the full amount of tuition and the importance of enrolling in both programs not only to secure additional tuition credits for their children, but also to support the cost of care incurred by providers. Language around how the funding streams fit together and how their enrollment benefits families and providers, was described as needed for providers to share with the families.

Providers suggested several formats that DPP could use to share such information with them.

One of these formats could be a 30-minute training call, scheduled at different times and days, to explain what DPP does, and what its relationship is with UPK. These calls could be recorded for later viewing by providers that could not attend the live presentation. Providers also suggested another way for DPP to convey this information to them would be with a simple, one-page summary of the salient points, or a short PowerPoint presentation of all the major points of what they think is important for providers to know, and that providers can quickly refer to when parents ask questions about both programs. Another suggestion was that DPS, UPK, and/or DPP make short videos available online, in different languages, explaining in easy terms the different funding supports that families can access, and that these videos could be used at community fairs or other settings to expand outreach to families.

Section Highlights This Impact of UPK on DPP section of the report included the following highlights and potential recommendations: 1. As in year 1 of the evaluation, family and provider focus groups in year 2 corroborated the finding that providers are the primary source of information for families regarding the benefits, requirements, and key components of DPP and UPK. Providers therefore play a central role in helping educate the community about these two programs. This highlights the importance of: 1) understanding existing gaps in provider 39

understanding of DPP and UPK; and 2) ensuring that providers fully understand DPP, as they are essential spokespersons for the program.

2. Provider processes for informing families about UPK or DPP are typically unstructured and are often in response to parents’ questions. This avenue for informing families about the programs is therefore less likely to be consistent across provider or parent experiences.

3. In general, community-based providers understand that DPP distributes funding to providers for classroom supplies, coaching and professional training opportunities for teachers and school administrators, as well as stipends that providers use in different ways to support their staff. In contrast, no school-based DPP providers or non-DPP providers that participated in focus groups were aware of these DPP benefits.

4. Focus group input indicates school-based DPP providers do not tend to deal directly with DPP or UPK and are therefore often not familiar with many aspects of either program.

5. School-based DPP providers reported their District’s central office staff are primarily responsible for interacting with DPP/UPK. This current communication structure suggests DPP has an opportunity to expand on its current communications directly to school-based preschool providers in order to expand their understanding and appreciation of the full range of benefits that DPP can provide to ensure these providers are maximizing their potential DPP benefits.

6. Focus group input suggests many preschool providers perceive DPP as providing broader support than UPK (including not only tuition support for families, but support for coaching, training, and classroom supplies).

7. Providers appear to have a clear understanding of the difference in funding sources between DPP and UPK. In particular, all providers participating in evaluation focus groups understood DPP funding comes from local tax dollars from the City of Denver, while UPK funding comes from the state.

8. According to survey data, providers reported the highest level of understanding of children’s age eligibility requirements for DPP and UPK funding, while the matching of families to UPK providers was one of the least understood components. These data were corroborated in provider focus groups.

9. Provider survey data show several important areas of weakness in provider understanding of the DPP/UPK relationship, including: ○ How families are matched with UPK providers; ○ The amount of funding that families can receive from UPK. 10. Focus group data differed somewhat from the survey data in that most community-based providers who participated in focus groups reported being familiar with the relationship between DPP and UPK. This may be due to the fact that providers who agreed to participate in focus groups were also more likely to be actively informing themselves about DPP/UPK. Regardless, very few focus group participants understood 40

the role of DPP as one of UPK’s LCOs or the exact role of the LCOs overall. Most did understand that the amounts provided through the two programs were different, that there was a partnership between DPP and UPK, and that UPK funding was channeled through DPP to UPK-enrolled families.

11. In contrast to community-based providers, school-based providers did not know/understand the relationship between UPK and DPP, how the programs worked together, or whether the funding for both programs had merged.

12. Survey data show regional variations across Denver in provider understanding of DPP/UPK operations in five key areas (such as funding eligibility, enrollment processes and family matching). In particular, providers in the Southwest region of Denver consistently showed the lowest levels of overall understanding of these operational topics, while those in the Northeast self-reported the highest level of understanding. These findings suggest DPP should consider increasing its targeted communications efforts to providers in specific regions of the city (such as the Southwest) to help close existing gaps in understanding across the city.

13. Similarly, there were regional variations in provider understanding of DPP funding and provider participation requirements. Southeast region providers for instance rated their understanding of DPP and UPK funding and provider participation requirements the highest of all five regions, compared to Far Northeast providers whose ratings were the lowest. Again, targeted communications from DPP on these topics could help address existing regional differences in provider understanding of these topics.

14. Overall, surveys found that the average provider understanding of five key topics associated with DPP and UPK operations has room to improve. For instance, 65% of providers indicated either low or average understanding of the amount of funding parents can receive from UPK and 55% were either low or average in understanding whether families can qualify for DPP and UPK funding simultaneously. Given that families consistently say that providers are their main source of information about these programs, DPP should consider providing added training or information to providers to boost both provider and family understanding of DPP and UPK. Such information could be provided

by DPP through: ○ Recorded webinars; ○ One-page handouts in multiple languages that providers can share with families with succinct descriptions of DPP and UPK and how the programs interact; ○ Documentation that describes clearly how funding from UPK may not cover the full amount of tuition and the importance of enrolling in both programs not only to secure additional tuition credits but also to support providers with training and meeting their true cost of care; ○ Online trainings or meetings offered in multiple languages to share information with providers about the two programs.

41

15. Similar to provider survey data, family survey results found high percentages of parents of 4-year-old children do not understand or understand very little of five out of six aspects of the relationship between UPK and DPP and the funding these programs provide. Additional efforts are needed to help educate families about these aspects. Low levels of parent understanding were found regarding: ○ What the qualifications are for children to receive DPP and UPK funding; ○ The relationship between DPP and UPK; ○ Whether all preschool providers in Denver are providers in both DPP and UPK; & ○ The amount of funding families can receive from DPP and UPK. 16. There was consensus among providers that UPK media coverage attracted some families to enroll their children in preschool. While providers indicated most parents are not knowledgeable about DPP or UPK, they believe parents heard UPK would make preschool more affordable, and this encouraged them to enroll. Parent survey data corroborated this finding with roughly half of respondents indicating that learning about UPK encouraged them to enroll their child in DPP. While UPK media attention has been a benefit in this way, data suggest more efforts are needed to address parent confusion on how the two programs interact.

17. Some providers reported that the complexity of the UPK enrollment process could be especially burdensome for non-English speaking families.

18. Families receiving DPP tuition credits are mostly unfamiliar with important aspects of DPP and UPK and would benefit from learning more about the programs. Parents not currently in DPP are likely even less knowledgeable.

19. Providers in APA’s focus groups indicated that sometimes families who enrolled in UPK think they do not need DPP or do not want to bother completing the DPP application. Some providers have responded to this by making the DPP application a requirement for school registration for all families who live in Denver.

20. Having two distinct programs and applications was also reported to be challenging for parents and a barrier to families participating. Information was reported to be lacking about how DPP and UPK were related and in what order parents needed to complete the applications and make their school selections. Some providers reported parent frustration with having to provide application information multiple times.

21. DPP should collaborate with UPK to streamline the application process so that common data or information is automatically entered into both systems. DPP could also work with UPK to create a universal, single application form that can be used by any type of provider (community based, school based) so families can apply simultaneously to both programs without having to enter information twice. Providers reported that parents who enroll their child in DPS preschools have this advantage already.

42

2. Family and Provider Interactions with DPP Families and DPP: Learning about DPP Parents who participated in the focus groups reported different ways that they first learned about DPP. Some learned of the program when they enrolled their older children. New parents in the system reported that they learned about DPP through providers, friends and neighbors, others learned from Head Start staff or from the childcare centers where their children were enrolled as infants or toddlers. Other ways that parents learned about DPP were from: fliers received in the mail or at community fairs in Westwood, during free-day visits at the Denver Art Museum, from a support group for a refugee community, and from information provided at a medical pediatric clinic. One parent from Southwest Denver receiving DPP tuition credits for her child did not know what DPP was.

Two families in the focus groups had arrived in Denver from out of state in time for their child to attend preschool, one of them learned about DPP from a family member who was already living in Denver and had enrolled their child in a community-based preschool. The other family had a 3-year-old child and experienced an interesting journey into Denver’s preschool system. Before arriving in Colorado, this family researched schools in Denver, with specific criteria in mind, for example, they wanted a bilingual program close to their new home. Through their online search they read about UPK and believed the program would make preschool free for children in Colorado; when they arrived, they proceeded to fill out what they described as “like a million applications.” Coming from another state where preschool was free, they did not know they had to pay for preschool in Colorado and it was not until mid-school year when they found out they were behind in their preschool payments. They described this initial experience as follows: “I honestly don’t know how much contact I’ve had with DPP. I think I just went through UPK last year. I don’t think I had any contact with DPP. … I had no idea; it seems like there were like multiple applications going on at the same time. And I just filled out like a million applications. … We didn’t even know that we had to pay for preschool, we thought it was free, and we were behind on payments. The emails were going to my husband, and he wasn’t checking, he wasn’t opening those emails. And I don’t remember how I became aware of this, but I was told, I think it was sometime in February that we were behind on our payments. So, I contacted, I think, Denver Public Schools, and they told me how much we were getting in terms of DPP credit and how much we had to pay, so we had to pay, back pay and then pay the pay forward. (T6, school-based, SE) Data from the evaluation’s online survey administered to DPP parents of 3- and 4-year-old children show findings similar to those reported in focus group conversations. The primary way for parents to learn about DPP was from preschool personnel, but also from friends, neighbors, relatives, and other parents. Five of the top six ways to learn about DPP chosen by survey respondents, were also mentioned by focus group participants. The only discrepancy observed 43

was regarding use of the internet while searching for information on UPK, which was listed second by parents of 4-year-olds, but mentioned only once by focus group participants. Survey findings indicate that the most common pathway to find out about DPP was from personal interactions and word of mouth in various settings. Hearing from preschool personnel (teachers, directors, or other employees) was by far the single biggest source for both groups of parents of 4-year-olds (41%) and 3-year-olds (49%). Hearing from a friend, neighbor, another parent with a child in preschool, or someone in their family accounted for an additional 38%-39% for both groups. Additional details of these data are shown in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1. Ways in which families of 4- and 3-year-old children learned about DPP How did you learn about DPP? (check all that apply) Parents’ responses

In a conversation with a teacher, director, or other preschool employee On the internet while searching for information on the Colorado Universal Preschool Program (UPK) From friends or neighbors From another parent in my preschool From someone in my family At a community fair or event In a conversation or presentation with a DPP employee/representative In the Bright by Text app On the bus (RTD) or bus stop

4-year-olds (n=223)

3-yearolds (n=33)

41%

49%

21%

12%

15% 12% 11% 7% 5%

18% 9% 12% 12% 0%

1% 0%

3% 0%

Families in the focus groups shared that they were interested in DPP for two primary reasons, the benefits to the child and making preschool affordable. In terms of the benefits to their children, key benefits that were mentioned included children’s learning and socialization, improved attention, and the help that children with Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) would receive. One Spanish-speaking parent mentioned that some friends had told them that enrolling in preschool was an overall benefit for the child. Another parent mentioned that in addition to receiving the financial support, what attracted her the most about enrolling her child with DPP was that children are fed in preschool, which she found of great help to her family, “Lo que más me llamó la atención fue la ayuda económica y la ayuda con la comida.”

[What attracted my attention the most was the financial support and the help with the meals.] (T1, school-based, SW) 44

In terms of affordability, all parents agreed that enrolling in DPP meant that its financial support would make preschool not only possible but for many of them free, with some parents being able to increase the number of hours their child could attend preschool, and others being able to keep their child in preschool as parents were struggling to pay tuition even as both worked full time jobs. A parent who recently arrived in Colorado was also very surprised that DPP would provide preschool financial support for 3-year-old children which was very expensive in her former state.

Some parents mentioned the logistics of applying to DPP as a positive aspect of their experience, including the ease of completing only one DPS school choice application that included DPP and UPK. Others appreciated being able to keep their child in their current home-based preschool and still apply for and receive DPP support. Some non-English speaking parents indicated their appreciation for having the option of finding information on the Internet which helped prevent non-English speakers from having to engage in conversations that would make them feel embarrassed because of their low language proficiency and the types of questions they wanted to ask. Two parents talked about how friendly and courteous DPP personnel were in all their communications, while another parent indicated being very interested in learning about the preschools’ quality ratings.

Most parents in the focus groups reported that they never considered not applying to DPP. Those who did consider not applying gave several reasons for hesitating to enroll their children. Those reasons included: That they had been told the application was difficult and lengthy; the difficulty of presenting income documentation because they were used to disposing of paystubs; not knowing how to prove income while being unemployed; feeling that they would not qualify for support because of DPP income guidelines (“Why should I just go ahead? Because, I mean, I’m probably not gonna be approved [T1, school-based, FNE]); believing that preschool is very expensive, and they would still not be able to afford it even with DPP assistance; thinking they would not qualify because of their immigration status; and believing DPP would be so popular they would not be able to secure the financial support.

Additional Information Parents Said Would Help the Application Process While all focus group participants were able to enroll their children in DPP, they mentioned several types of information that would have been helpful to them when enrolling their child in DPP. 1. General information: The majority of parents in the focus groups expressed some confusion about what DPP, UPK, DPS, and School Choice are and how these programs work together. Parents shared that it would have been useful to know what these programs were, what they fund, what the difference is between them, what their relationships to each other are, and what the benefits of enrolling in one or several of them are. Parents also wanted more information on the differences between different types of schools, including DPS, community-based, and home-based preschools. They 45

also wanted more information to understand what preschools were participating in DPP, in UPK, or in both.

2. Availability of extended day or year-round services: Parents expressed the need for more information on availability of programs that offer extended days before and after typical preschool hours as well as programs that ran in the summer. Several parents shared that many preschool centers, especially those associated with DPS, did not meet families’ needs in terms of available hours of service during the day as well as during summer months.

3. Income and other qualifications/requirements: Two parents shared that they could not find information on income cut-off requirements to qualify for tuition support for 3-yearold children. They indicated that knowing what the requirements were to qualify for the programs would have been very helpful. Some parents suggested that fliers or other short handouts should include this information.

4. The application process: One of the major frustrations expressed by parents was an overall lack of understanding of the enrollment process. They were confused about the documentation needed to be submitted, why they had to submit the same documentation several times at different stages of the process (e.g., submit to DPP and to UPK), what the various timelines and deadlines were for DPP and UPK, and what specific months of the year were covered by tuition from UPK and DPP. Parents also expressed the need for more clear and timely information on: a. Learning if they had been approved by what program. b. Understanding how much tuition for which they had been approved. c. Understanding if they still needed to pay something even after DPP or UPK tuition credits were provided. d. Understanding what steps they needed to take (and in which order to take them) to ensure their children received the preschool services they needed.

An overall frustration expressed by some parents was that there was no contact information for someone they could call to address the problems they were encountering during the enrollment process. One Spanish speaking parent suggested that a flowchart with a clear description of the application process be developed to guide families through enrollment for their school, DPP and UPK. She explained, “A mí me hubiese gustado que desde un principio me hubieran dicho, ¿quiere inscribir a su hija en la escuela? Si, no, este es el link, esta es la aplicación a seguir y esta aplicación la va a llevar a otra aplicación, o sea, que van conjuntas para que usted siga el proceso y no estar llame y llame, preguntando y preguntando, sino que ahí mismo le

46

den la información, o sea que le den las armas a uno para uno decir, okay, ya llené esto, me falta la otra.” (T1, school-based, NE) [I would have liked that, from the beginning, someone would have told me, do you want to register your daughter in school? Yes/No, this is the link, this is the application you need to follow and this application will take you to another application, in other words, they go together for you to follow the process and we don’t have to be calling and calling, asking and asking, instead, right there they give you the information, they give you the tools so we can say, okay, I’ve filled in this, I still need to do this.]

Why families do not enroll in DPP Families were asked to select the three most important reasons from a list of fifteen of why they believed parents do not enroll their children in DPP. Interestingly, regardless of the difference in the number of families who completed each survey, the same top five reasons selected by families of 4-year-old children in the 2022-23 evaluation were selected this year by families of 3and 4-year-old children enrolled in DPP (Table 2.2). Between 2022-23 and 2023-24, the overall percentages of parents of 4-year-old children showed a small decline in three of the five reasons, and a small increase in one of the reasons. Slightly higher percentages of parents of 3-year-old children chose those same five reasons.

Of importance, the top reason chosen by the three groups of parents was that parents do not know that DPP exists, which is consistent with data collected in the focus group conversations.

This response was even higher for parents of 3-year-olds, with nearly 80% listing this as the top reason they believed parents did not enroll their children in DPP. Another notable finding is that large percentages continued to cite the belief many parents have that their income is too high to qualify for DPP tuition credits. In fact, nearly half of parents of 4-year-olds cited this reason in the current evaluation year (down from 56% a year ago) as did nearly two-thirds (64%) of parents of 3-year-olds. Nearly one third of respondents indicated that parents might believe that DPP tuition credits are only available for children attending DPS preschools. Table 2.2. shows additional details on these data.

47

Table 2.2. Percentages of DPP families of 3- and 4-year-old children, in evaluation years 1 and 2, choosing main reasons for why parents do not enroll their children in DPP (*) Five most important reasons for not enrolling their Parents’ Responses child in DPP Year 1 Year 2 Year 2 4-yr-olds (n=382) They do not know that DPP exists They believe they do not qualify for the DPP tuition credits because their income is too high They do not know that DPP provides tuition credits to reduce the cost of preschool They believe that DPP tuition credits are given only in Denver Public Schools (DPS) preschools and not any other preschools They do not know where to start

4-yr-olds 3-yr-olds (n=223) (n=33)

63% 56%

55% 48%

79% 64%

48%

44%

52%

27%

27%

36%

27%

34%

30%

(*) Percentages in this Table are based on the number of families who identified each reason as one of the most important reasons they think parents do not enroll their children in DPP. Each reason could have been chosen between 0% and 100%, therefore, the percentages would not add to 100%

In summary, according to the survey results of DPP families, most families believe the largest barrier to enrolling in DPP is either a lack of knowledge of the program’s existence and how to access it, the purpose of enrolling, or the qualifications to enroll. Most DPP families themselves learned about DPP through speaking personally with someone who informed them about DPP.

Knowledge of DPP tuition support A total of 88% of parents of 4-year-old children completing the survey indicated they knew that DPP provided money to their child’s preschool to reduce the tuition cost that they paid. Of the 12% (n=26) that were not aware of DPP’s contribution, 81% of them were low-income families, and 88% were enrolled in a school-based preschool. This indicates that a productive avenue for DPP to close this information gap would be to focus on providing additional communication materials to DPS preschool leaders and staff that could be easily shared with parents in their programs.

When asked about their awareness of the amount of DPP’s contributions to reduce their child’s tuition payments, half (50%) of all responding parents of 4-year-old children stated they did not know the amount, while the other half indicated they knew how much money DPP paid for their child’s preschool tuition. Of those who did not know the amount of financial support received, 60% (n=64) were low-income families. Of those parents who knew the amount of support 48

received from DPP, 44% (n=46) were high-income families. Figure 2.1. shows details on these data.

Figure 2.1. Percentage of parents of 4-year-old children who knew that DPP contributes to their tuition cost and how much is contributed (n=212).

Figure 2.2. presents GIS-mapped, geographic distribution of families of 4-year-old children indicating whether they knew or did not know the amount of tuition credits subsidized by DPP to pay for their child’s tuition. As the map shows, families who did not know the amount of tuition credits (represented by red dots) had higher concentrations in the Southwest and Far Northeast regions. The other regions appear to have a more even distribution of those who knew the amount and those who did not, with certain neighborhoods more dominated by green dots than others.

49

Figure 2.2. Geographic distribution from responses of families of 4-year-old children to the survey question: Do you know how much money DPP pays for your child’s preschool tuition?

In the case of parents of 3-year-old children, 33 parents completed the survey and almost all of them (94%) indicated they knew that DPP contributes money to their child’s preschool to reduce the tuition cost the family pays. Almost two-thirds of all survey respondents (64%) also knew how much DPP’s tuition credit was. All these families were low-income families, as per the design of the program. Figure 2.3 shows details of these data.

50

Figure 2.3. Percentage of parents of 3-year-old children who knew that DPP contributes to their tuition cost and how much is contributed (n=33).

Preschool providers and DPP Most DPP providers expressed that even when they have encountered challenges with DPP related to the implementation of UPK, they were very grateful for the funding and the support received from DPP. Providers often noted that without such funding and general support, they would not be able to operate and provide services to families. They also mentioned that it was easier to work and communicate with DPP than with UPK, and they greatly appreciated the understanding and respect that DPP had shown about providers’ decisions to enroll or not enroll in UPK. “First of all, let me tell you, I'm thankful for them, so make sure you know that the Denver Preschool Program and UPK, I am thankful for them, I'm thankful for Chris, and Diana. I'm very thankful for those people, but it just [enrollment] can be a little challenging.” (FNE, DPP community-based provider). “[Express to DPP] our deep appreciation! DPP does so much for providers, we are incredibly grateful. It's not just funding for families, it is funding for programs, it is coaching and not just coaching from a perspective of in the classroom, it’s leadership coaching. There are so many things that we have access to through DPP, and we're incredibly grateful. (SE, DPP community-based provider).

51

Impact of providers’ requirements on DPP participation Providers who participated in the focus groups were asked whether any of the requirements to participate as a DPP provider made them not want to participate in the program. Most providers expressed that they had no issues with existing requirements, with the potential exception of the quality rating process which some providers found burdensome. Most providers recognized that DPP preschools should have their quality assessed to ensure the high quality of the preschool, but several took the opportunity to share that the rating process was extremely stressful and difficult. They also felt that the preparation required to get ready for the rater’s visit was very time consuming for everyone at the preschool. Although some providers found the preparation with Early Childhood Council trainers a good learning experience and important to update their classroom materials, others did not find the process or the rating valuable enough as feedback to improve their practice. One provider mentioned that the raters’ observations did not adapt to less typical preschool programs (such as those with a Montessori focus) and as a result the materials they used during the observations were not always applicable or useful, which they considered a waste of resources.

Some of the reasons for not finding the rater’s visit useful were that the raters were not deemed qualified to do the observations, to offer helpful feedback, or to ultimately decide the rating of the center. They also felt that the system of observations was too subjective and not an impartial assessment of their programs. Because the rating assigned to the centers impacts the amount of tuition they receive from DPP, this was a strong point of contention. The following quotes from providers in the focus groups show some of the strong reactions towards the rating system.

“Colorado Shines is like the death of my life. If that wasn't a requirement, maybe a lot more people would do it [become a DPP provider]. … The Colorado Shines rating could be a turn off for some people.” (FNE, DPP community-based provider) “Colorado Shines is a big deal, it's a lot of work from the director to teachers, that is stressful. … And so that's probably one of the reasons why I would probably not sign in.”

(FNE, DPP community-based provider).

“My biggest complaint about Colorado Shines is that the raters are not always from an ECE background, so one of our raters has never worked in an ECE program, and so I feel like they just have a different version or vision of what ECE should look like versus actually being in the classroom and hands on. … One of the biggest points we got deducted for was books on the playground, and the teacher was just reading the book, but there were no words in the book, it was a picture book, so she was like “Tree! Can you find a tree? Point to a tree outside.” And then she said that the teacher wasn't reading the words in the book, but when it came down to it she was like, “Well, I actually didn't even get close enough to even know if there were words in the book.” And I was like, “well, so how can you deduct me points if you don't even do that!” I just feel like some of their expectations it's subjective, it's not a concrete rating system, not an actual 52

assessment of a program. … I definitely think there should be some sort of quality rating … it just shouldn't be as subjective.” (FNE, DPP community-based provider) All providers that participate in DPP must meet four basic requirements, licensing as a preschool provider, insurance, background checks of every person who has contact with the students at the center, and to have a quality rating. Survey data collected from community- and school-based providers about how significant each requirement was in discouraging them to participate in DPP show that, effectively, quality rating is the most discouraging requirement, although it does not seem to be drastically discouraging. Providers were asked to rate the significance of the impact of each requirement on discouraging them to participate in DPP using a scale of 1=Very significant impact to 5=No significant impact at all. Table 2.3. shows that licensing and background checks were the requirements that least discouraged providers from becoming DPP providers, while quality rating was the least appreciated requirement.

Table 2.3. Mean ratings of the significance of each DPP requirement in discouraging providers to participate in DPP (*) ALL providers Licensing Insurance Background check Quality rating

n 71 71 71 71

Mean 4.39 4.14 4.37 3.75

(*) scale 1=Very significant impact, 5=No significant impact at all.

When broken down by region, data show that Southeast providers rated the DPP requirements as more onerous (shown by the lower average numbers) than providers from other regions. By contrast, Northeast providers rated the requirements as less discouraging (showing higher average numbers) than their colleagues across other regions. Table 2.4. shows additional details of these data.

53

Table 2.4. Mean ratings of the significance of each DPP requirement in discouraging providers from participating in DPP, broken down by region (*) Region DPP requirement n Mean FNE Licensing 6 4.67

NE

NW

SE

SW

Insurance

6

4.00

Background check

6

4.00

Quality rating

6

4.00

Licensing

25

4.80

Insurance

25

4.68

Background check

25

4.80

Quality rating

25

3.84

Licensing

12

4.42

Insurance

12

3.83

Background check

12

4.50

Quality rating

12

3.25

Licensing

15

3.73

Insurance

15

3.67

Background check

15

3.87

Quality rating

15

3.53

Licensing

13

4.23

Insurance

13

4.00

Background check

13

4.15

Quality rating

13

4.15

(*) Scale 1=Very significant impact, 5=No significant impact at all.

Providers were also asked how strongly they agreed or disagreed that DPP’s current quality rating system accurately reflects the quality of childcare offered by their programs. They were asked to provide their rating on a scale of 1=Strongly disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Agree, and 4=Strongly agree. Overall providers ratings had a mean score of 2.84, and regional average ratings fluctuated between a low of 2.58 for the Northwest region, and a high of 3.00 for the Southeast. These data suggest that providers overall leaned slightly towards agreeing with the 54

statement that the current quality rating system accurately reflected the quality of childcare offered. Table 2.5 shows details of these data.

Table 2.5. Average providers agreement that the quality of their childcare program is accurately reflected by their quality rating (*) Region All Regions FNE NE NW SE SW

n 70 6 24 12 14 14

Mean 2.84 2.83 2.83 2.58 3.00 2.93

(*) Scale 1=Strongly disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Agree, 4=Strongly agree

Through an open-ended survey question providers were given an opportunity to share additional comments about the DPP participation requirements or the rating system. Eighteen providers offered additional thoughts, and several themes emerged from the analyses of these comments, including: ● A quality rating is useful and necessary/important. There is nothing wrong with DPP using a rating system that, in this case, is used to allow access to the program and to incentivize quality programming. Without a rating system quality might be neglected. ● A quality rating system is only one way to look at quality and every rating system is in some way flawed. A rating system based on levels from 1 to 5 is not a very efficient way to determine a preschool’s quality. The current system used by DPP, some providers argued, does not incorporate factors such as the families’ perception of the program as demonstrated by their long waitlists, or the rich and authentic relationships and care between educators, administrators, and families that actually represent what family engagement looks like. Other providers mentioned that the slow pace of rating a program every three years, or observing the center only on one day, are indicators that the rating process will not accurately assess program quality. ● There are other ways to rate the quality of preschool programs such as Tools of the Mind, the NAEYC accreditation, or the CLASS which helps teachers in their classrooms and paints an accurate picture of what is going on in the classroom. Teachers feel it is unfair that their rooms’ rating is only, at best, a snapshot of their room. ● There were also comments referring to the current quality rating system creating too much stress and needless paperwork, as well as some issues with the raters, as explained by a provider, “The communication from Clayton is not good and resulted in several months of coaching loss in preparation for rating. The coaches from Clayton and the council 55

share conflicting information. Our perception is that the process is designed to make things easier for raters/reviewers with little understanding of the impact to programs.” (SE, DPP community-based provider) “We had a lot of issues with our Colorado Shines rating. … They did not respect a lot of the rules that are set up in place and the people that they have working are not particularly professional or ethical. I feel like there needs to be more regulation in ensuring that they are following and being fair to us as we prepare months and months ahead and to be not taken seriously by them is definitely unfair. The score that we receive also affects the amount of money that we get from DPP and CCAP, this is why they should be more professional as they have centers’ livelihoods in their hands.” (SW, DPP community-based provider) Although not mentioned as something directly related to the quality rating process, a communitybased provider from the Southwest region suggested that DPP staff visit the preschool centers to see the level of need they have, and where the need is. Their viewpoint was that providers receive DPP and DECC coaching based on visits and observations only when they are getting ready for the Colorado Shines visits and ratings. This provider made a specific request: “I've been a director for 3 years, and it feels like we only get heard, or we only get observations [from Clayton Early Learning Center], or we only get visits when we're going to go through the rating because it's obviously something that impacts them [DPP] as well. And then it's kinda like, once we're done with the rating, okay, bye, like, that's great. Yeah, see you again in like almost when you're gonna have your rating again. And then they just kind of forget about you and your staff for that big chunk [of time]. So that's also something that we wish was more consistent, that way, when our rating period comes, we're not so much worried that we need all these things, or that our teachers need to change this and that because it's just a continuation of every year versus just trying to pack all that info in two months before your rating. … as a director, I personally don't feel seen, I feel like I constantly have to be advocating for my center, or else we not get what we need.” (SW, DPP community-based provider).

Finally, providers mentioned a few more issues that they wished were addressed by DPP to streamline the DPP application process and reporting requirements: ● Tracking students’ daily attendance is very time consuming, not beneficial nor necessary, and especially burdensome for preschools with many students. ● Several providers found the monthly reporting very repetitive and would prefer that they did not have to answer every question every month, especially if they have no changes to report.

56

Although not enough of a challenge to discourage providers from participating in DPP, a few suggested that DPP streamline the providers’ enrollment process by aligning into one of the platforms used by most providers, including Early Learning Ventures (ELV), Brightwheel, or Procare.

In addition to understanding DPP providers’ perspective on its requirements, the APA evaluation team wanted to understand what might be preventing non-DPP providers from entering the system and if any barriers were due to DPP’s requirements. Evaluation data collected included interviews with two community-based providers who are not participating in DPP. One of these providers, although licensed, held a school-age license, which is different from the preschool license required to participate in DPP. This type of provider’s license authorizes the preschool to offer services to 5-year-old and older children. Although eager to become a DPP provider to service families who cannot afford the tuition, and as a current UPK provider, they shared some reservations about the quality rating system and the reimbursement rates the center would receive. The concerns about the quality rating system resonate with similar concerns shared by current DPP providers: “As far as quality initiatives or improvement plans and that kind of stuff, again, that's great, but are the people that are doing that, do they have any idea what they're looking at when they look at our setting? … and they're coming to us and saying, well, you don't have this, this, this and this and this, and you're not doing this, this and this, this way, what value does that really have for us? … I would struggle to take the advice or considerations of people coming in and looking at our program that don't know what they're looking at… We're still having to question, does this even help us? Does this even work towards our goals?” (NE, non-DPP community-based) The second non-DPP provider explained that, as a recently reopened center after having been closed due to the Covid pandemic, the new preschool director was just getting familiarized with all the administrative duties of her role and had not had an opportunity to explore getting affiliated with DPP. However, she explained that the most important factor they need to understand before engaging with DPP or UPK is the level of control they have in their decisions about what students are accepted in their center. She explained that as a relatively small preschool, they are as inclusive as possible of all students, however, they also knew the limitations of the services they could provide. Specifically, they knew they did not have personnel trained and qualified to serve students with severe special needs, and they were concerned that if they became a DPP and/or a UPK provider, they might have to relinquish that control and be forced to accept students regardless of their capacity to provide the services all students deserve. Another concern shared by this provider was that, by accepting DPP and/or UPK funding, she believed she and her staff would need to meet additional requirements or certifications she was not aware of. She explained her concerns this way, 57

“I am going to always be protective of my ability to create a program that meets children's needs, that as a director, I'm able to resource families, care for families, but also care for my teachers and recognize our limitations. So, my concern stepping into a program like DPP, Universal Preschool, is that I begin to lose that control. And that I would be directed and told, you need to keep a child when we don't have the capacities to do that.” … “What are the requirements that are gonna be made additionally on my teaching staff and myself for a licensed facility that meets the needs of the Denver Preschool Program? Because my concern as a provider…is that a lot of times there are additional certifications, things that people want, and it really does not put money in teachers’ pockets, and it doesn't increase my ability to raise my tuition. Right? So those are some of my concerns.… are there additional requirements that teachers and a licensed facility have to have to be a part of the program in order to receive those [funds]?... I would really need to understand all the parameters regarding retaining a child, withdrawing of a child. I would need to have a really good understanding, and I would need to understand, how much, what percent control do I have in that, what percent control does DPP have in that. Because I would imagine, if I am accepting someone's money for a child to attend, that limits the choices and the reasons why I choose for dismissal, and I really don't choose for that very often, we really seek to care for children, but it's difficult if I have somebody else telling me when I can withdraw a child, or can't” (SE, non-DPP community-based provider).

The data collected from non-DPP providers offered insight on the types of concerns that nonDPP providers might have that are preventing them from becoming DPP providers. These concerns can be informative to help DPP understand which program requirements or benefits may need to be made more explicit or clear in the future.

Section Highlights This Family and Provider Interaction with DPP section of the report included the following highlights and potential recommendations: 1. Survey and focus group findings both found that the main way parents and families find out about DPP is through personal conversations and word of mouth. Talking with preschool personnel was by far the single biggest information source for parents of 4-year-olds (41%) and 3-year-olds (49%). Hearing from a friend, neighbor, another parent, or a relative accounted for an additional 38%-39% for both groups.

2. Families in the focus groups shared that they were interested in DPP for two primary reasons: 1) benefits to the child; and 2) making preschool affordable. In terms of the benefits to their children, key benefits mentioned included learning and socialization skills, improved attention, and help for children with IEPs. 58

3. The majority of parents in focus groups had some confusion about what DPP, UPK, DPS, and school choice are and how the programs work together. Parents shared that it would have been useful to know what each program funds, what the differences and relationships are between them, and the benefits of enrolling in more than one.

4. Most providers in evaluation focus groups indicated they had no issues with existing requirements to participate in DPP, with the exception of the quality rating process. Some providers believed quality raters were not qualified to do the observations or to decide center ratings and that the rating process was too subjective. Since the ratings impact DPP tuition assistance, this was a strong point of contention.

5. Survey findings corroborated that the quality rating process was the most likely DPP requirement to discourage providers from participating, however providers on average did not think the rating process was a very significant discouraging factor.

6. Surveyed providers overall leaned slightly to agree with the statement that the current quality rating system accurately reflected the quality of childcare offered. This suggests a general acceptance amongst providers that the rating process has merit, despite some flaws that surfaced during focus group discussions.

7. Parents expressed the need for more information on programs that offer before- and after-typical preschool hours as well as programs that ran in the summer.

8. A major frustration expressed in focus groups was a lack of understanding of the DPP and UPK enrollment processes. Parents were confused about documentation needed, required timelines, why documentation was needed several times, what months of the year were covered by UPK or DPP, whether they were approved, how much tuition support they received, and if they still owed money even with the tuition credits. Some potential avenues DPP could pursue to help address these challenges include: a. Establish a clear point of contact for parent and provider questions about the DPP and UPK enrollment processes. b. Track the most frequently asked enrollment questions from parents and providers for each program, including questions about how the two programs interact, why parents should apply, and tips for streamlining the process of applying to both. c. Create and annually revise responses to the most frequently asked questions to be posted on the DPP web site and distributed to providers to share with potential clients. d. Create a one pager with a flowchart that graphically shows the application process for each program with deadlines, timelines, dates by which families can expect a determination of the tuition credit they will receive and contact information and web links for further information.

9. The top reason parents believe families choose not to enroll in DPP is that they do not know DPP exists. This finding was consistent from Year 1 (63%) and Year 2 (55%) evaluation surveys as well as a separate survey of parents with 3-year-olds in DPP (79%).

59

10. Another notable finding is that large percentages of 4-year-old parents (56% in year 1 and nearly 50% in year 2) and nearly two thirds of 3-year-old parents believe families do not enroll in DPP because they think their income is too high to qualify.

11. Most parents (88%) of 4-year-old children completing the survey knew DPP provided money to their child’s preschool to reduce their tuition cost. Of the 12% that did not know, 81% were low-income families, and 88% were enrolled in a school-based preschool. This indicates that a productive avenue for DPP to close this information gap would be to focus on providing additional communication materials to DPS preschool leaders and staff that could be easily shared with parents in their programs.

12. Half of all responding parents of 4-year-old children did not know the amount that DPP contributed to their tuition. Of those who did not know, more than half (60%) were low-income families. Only 36% of parents of 3-year-olds knew the amount of their DPP tuition credit. These large gaps in awareness represent an opportunity for DPP to further expand parent knowledge on this topic through enhanced community outreach and communications. Parents appreciated outreach efforts through community fairs, neighborhood events, and other in-person gatherings.

13. GIS mapping of survey data helps show that certain regions and neighborhoods in Denver (including in the Southwest region and Gateway-Green Valley Ranch for example) might particularly benefit from targeted DPP outreach and communications to boost awareness of tuition credit amounts.

14. Although not enough of a challenge to discourage providers from participating in DPP, a few suggested that DPP streamline the providers’ enrollment process by aligning into one of the platforms used by most providers, including Early Learning Ventures (ELV), Brightwheel, or Procare.

60

3. Tuition Credit System Survey data show that 72% of DPP families of 4-year-old children and 91% of families of 3year-old children indicated that access to DPP tuition credits encouraged or somewhat encouraged them to send their child to preschool. These results confirm that DPP tuition credits have a high level of impact on most participating Denver families. Figure 3.1 presents details on these data. Families were asked to answer “yes”, “somewhat”, or “not at all” to the question: “Did DPP tuition credits encourage you in any way to send your child to preschool?”

About 85% of low-income families of 4-year-olds indicated that DPP encouraged or somewhat encouraged them to send their child to preschool, representing 58% of families who made this statement. Conversely, 44% of high-income families answered, “Not at all”, representing more than half of all families who answered the question this way.

All families of 3-year-old children in DPP were low-income families. High-income families of 4year-olds were the least influenced (17%) by DPP tuition credits to send their child to preschool, indicated by a “Yes” response, while low-income families were the most influenced (55% answered “yes”) by DPP tuition credits to send their child to preschool.

Figure 3.1. Percentage of families of 3- and 4-year-old children indicated level of encouragement to send their child to preschool due to DPP tuition credits

61

Figure 3.2. shows the geographic distribution of families of 4-year-old children indicating how encouraged they felt by DPP tuition credits to send their child to preschool. The map is broken down by regions and shows (in green dots) the families who felt encouraged to send their child to preschool. The map also shows (in red dots) families that the tuition credits did not encourage them to send their child to preschool, and families (with orange dots) that felt somewhat encouraged by the tuition credits to send their child to preschool.

These data reveal some variations in regional impact of the credits. For instance, all but two of the families in the Far Northeast and Southwest regions reported that DPP tuition credits encouraged or somewhat encouraged them (green and orange dots) to send their children to preschool. The Northeast region showed families were roughly half and half. The Northwest region showed response variety by neighborhood, with certain neighborhoods (such as Sloans Lake) predominantly green, while other neighborhoods (such as Berkeley) were predominantly red. The Southwest region shows many more families that were either encouraged or somewhat encouraged by the tuition credits to send their child to preschool than those who were not.

Figure 3.2. Family Survey: Did DPP tuition credits encourage you in any way to send your child to preschool? DPP families of 4-year-old children.

When asked if families would be able to send their child to preschool without the DPP tuition credits, 68% of families of 4-year-old children indicated they would either not be able to afford preschool or would struggle to afford preschool, a 10% increase from last year, while 97% of 62

families of 3-year-olds made the same indication. Figure 3.3 shows details of these data. 61% of low-income families indicated they would not be able to afford preschool, representing 81% of families who made this statement. 47% of high-income families indicated they would still send their child to preschool, but it would be financially difficult, representing 49% of families who made this statement.

Figure 3.3. Percentages of families and their ability to send their child to preschool without the tuition credits they received

GIS mapping of the data for this survey question provides additional information on how the impacts of DPP tuition credits may vary in different areas of the city. As shown in Figure 3.4, family survey responses to the question of whether they would be able to send their child to preschool without the DPP tuition credits showed variance by city region. In particular, the Far Northeast and Southwest regions of the city show survey responses that almost unanimously indicate families would either not be able to afford paying for preschool without DPP (red dots), or that it would be financially difficult (orange dots). By contrast, the other regions show more responses indicating families would not have a problem sending their child to preschool without DPP support (green dots). The Northeast region, for instance, shows far fewer red dots overall, and a higher number of green dots than the other regions of the city, although most neighborhoods still contain orange dots indicating families in those regions would find it financially difficult without DPP support.

63

Figure 3.4. Family Survey: Would you be able to send your child to preschool without the DPP tuition credits you receive?

Sixty parents of 4-year-old children and eleven parents of 3-year-old children wrote comments in the survey about receiving the DPP tuition credits as well as being encouraged to send their child to preschool as a result of receiving the tuition credits. All of these parents mentioned how important DPP’s financial support was for them to be able to send their child to preschool.

Parents also mentioned various aspects of the impact of the financial support they received from the DPP tuition credits. The following is a list of the types of impacts mentioned, followed by sample comments from the families. Most comments include more than one type of impact: ● Level of participation. Parents indicated the credits helped them afford the level of participation that best met their family needs, such as enrolling the child full time, additional days per week, or in before or after school programs. ● Choosing their preferred school. Tuition credits widen families’ ability to select the preferred preschool for their child. Sometimes the preferred school was a community64

based school with a specific educational approach (e.g., Montessori), or a school that by its location was more convenient for the family. ● Child outcomes. Many parent comments talked about the opportunity that DPP tuition credits afforded to help their child grow academically and/or socially or emotionally.

Comments in this category included those of parents who mentioned the importance of having their child attend preschool. Some of those parents shared that, with or without the financial support, they would have found the way to pay for preschool because of what education means to them. ● Child with special needs. Some parents who had a child with special needs discussed how important the DPP tuition credits were to help them afford their child receiving much needed services. ● Attending to other responsibilities. Some parents mentioned that DPP financial support allowed them to send the child to preschool while they increased their work hours, took care of other children or went to school to improve their careers and economic outlook.

The following is a sample of parents’ comments in the survey regarding the impact of DPP tuition credits on their lives: “Daycare is the most stressful cost as a parent. We are educated and employed with good jobs and the cost of daycare is still almost crippling as a family with 3 young children.”

(T2, SE, community-based) “DDP has assisted my child and I tremendously. For him to be able to attend preschool at 3 has benefited him in so many positive ways.” (T2, FNE, community-based) “DPP has helped my family tremendously in assisting with the childcare tuition assistance program. It not only helped me financially, but it helped by saving me from becoming unemployed due to no childcare for my child. Beyond blessed.” (T2, FNE, community-based) “DPP Tuition allows me to send my older child to school, so he is able to experience an educational environment with other children. It also allows me time to stay home and care for my younger child.” (T1, SW, community-based) “DPP tuition credits enabled us to continue enrollment at a preferred preschool.” (T5, NE, community-based)

65

“Es vital para mi tener la ayuda de DPP. Es tan tambien de gran importancia para el desarrollo academico, social y emocional de mi hijo y de mi familia.” [It is vital for me to have DPP's help. It is also of great importance for my family and my child's academic, social and emotional development.] (T2, FNE, community-based) “Gives kids the opportunity regardless of if parents can pay or not.” (T2, NE, Schoolbased) “Gracias al apoyo financiero pude llevar a mi hija al Preschool y permitir que ella socializara con más niños y se preparara para el kinder, gracias por la ayuda.” [Thanks to the financial support I was able to take my daughter to preschool and allowed her to socialize with more children and to get ready for kinder, thanks for the help.] (T1, SE, community-based) “I appreciate this program so much. Because of it my 4-year-old is ready and prepared for kindergarten. He loves his school and his pre k teacher of 2 years!” (T1, SW, schoolbased) “It made things easier financially. We both are working full time jobs, middle class and even though we make okay money it was extremely helpful to have tuition help. THANK YOU!!” (T5, SE, school-based) “It would be a financial burden affording it on one income. I decided to send him once funding became available.” (T2, NE, School-based) “Kids in preschool I feel is super important.” (T5, NW, community-based) “My daughter started attending Highlands Montessori when she was 2 years old, so while the DPP tuition credits did not encourage me to send her to school, they were really helpful to receive! Having that credit was a huge help financially. Thank you for all your work in making this program what it is!” (T5, NW, community-based) “My spouse is the only one working so we wouldn't be able to afford to send her to school if we didn't get tuition and yes it encouraged us to send her because we thought it would be good for her to get extra education.” (T1, NW, School-based) “Not able to send my daughter full time without assistance due to crazy student loans. So, prior to assistance my daughter was part time.” (T6, SW, community-based)

66

“Starting a family through the pandemic has presented many challenges. Now with the cost of goods and childcare rising to an unsustainable expense any aid available is lifesaving.” (T2, NW, School-based) “The DPP assistance helped me make the decision to put my child in full day preschool.”

(T2, SW, School-based) “The tuition credits are a lifeline with the cost of housing in Denver being so high.” (T6, SE, School-based) “This program gave my daughter an amazing opportunity and head start in school. (T2, NW, School-based)” “We are fortunate to make money to send our child to preschool, and preschool had been part of his education planned from the start. The tuition assistance was greatly helpful to offset other costs in life.” (T6, NW, Non-school-based “While I would have still sent my child to school, without UPK and the DPP tuition credit I would have had to look for a different school or ECE 4 spot at DPS. This allowed me to keep my daughter at the school we wanted for all 12 months.” (T5, NE, communitybased) “Without DPP, we would not have been able to afford full-time preschool for our 4-yearold with autism. Thank you SO much for the support. It made a HUGE difference for our family!” (T3, NW, Non-school-based).

“Without this program my daughter would have had to stay home with me or family. No way could I have afforded the tuition.” (T1, SE, community-based) In addition to the parents who completed the survey and shared comments about the impact of DPP funding on their children and families, some parents who participated in focus groups explained that, thanks to DPP’s tuition support they were able to enroll their child in schools they would not have been able to afford otherwise. The majority of parents, however, decided to keep their children in preschools they had already chosen. Many of those schools were close to home and others were schools where the child’s older siblings were already enrolled. Location of the preschool was the main criteria for some of these families to choose the preschool. Several parents mentioned they did not drive and being able to drop and pick up the kids without having to use public transportation was important. Sometimes it was the child’s grandparents who were in charge of picking the children up after school, and again, a school within walking distance of them was important.

67

Enrolling the child in a school that better fit their needs was another important benefit that families in the focus groups said they were better able to accommodate thanks to DPP’s tuition credits. One parent for instance mentioned they enrolled their child in a Montessori school that was better fit for their needs but was much more expensive than the regular public school. DPP tuition credits helped them cover the before- and after-school hours they needed but could not have otherwise afforded. One Spanish speaking parent of a 3-year-old child said DPP’s support had influenced her choice of provider because with DPP she was able to choose the school close to home, instead of going to a much farther center that would have required the use of public transportation.

Section Highlights This Tuition Credit System section of the report included the following highlights: 1. The vast majority of DPP families responding to the survey – 72% of DPP families of 4year-old children and 91% of families of 3-year-olds – said access to DPP tuition credits encouraged or somewhat encouraged them to send their child to preschool.

These results confirm that DPP tuition credits have a high level of impact on most participating Denver families across the city.

2. About 85% of low-income families of 4-year-olds indicated that DPP tuition credits encouraged or somewhat encouraged them to send their child to preschool.

3. When asked if they would be able to send their child to preschool without DPP tuition credits, a large majority (68%) of families of 4-year-olds indicated they would either not be able to afford preschool or would struggle to afford it. This was a 10% increase from last year’s survey. Nearly all (97%) families of 3-year-olds gave the same answer.

4. Survey data revealed variations in regional impact of the credits. For instance, most families in Far Northeast and Southwest Denver reported DPP tuition credits encouraged them to send their children to preschool. The Northeast region family responses were roughly half and half, and the Northwest region showed response variety by neighborhood, likely driven by income level variations. These data can help inform targeted future DPP communications strategies by region and even neighborhoods.

5. The Far Northeast and Southwest regions of the city also had survey responses that almost unanimously indicated families would either not be able to afford paying for preschool without DPP or that it would be financially difficult.

68

4. Factors Influencing Family Preschool Choices and Access The APA evaluation team gathered data from families of 3- and 4-year-old children enrolled in DPP through a family survey and a series of focus groups to answer several key questions on the topic of choosing preschool, including: ● What factors influence parent decisions when choosing a preschool for their children? Do these factors vary by parent characteristics? ● What are the primary challenges and barriers to accessing preschool? ● Do parents feel that their preschool provider offers services that are accessible and culturally responsive?

As discussed in the previous section of this report, receiving DPP tuition credits played a role in some cases on families’ choice of preschool. Overall, the primary factors influencing parents’ decision making were location, finding a preschool that met the child’s needs, and securing a spot in an affordable preschool that offered hours of operation that met family needs (such as full-time and before- and after-school programming).

One parent mentioned that finding a school was not an issue, especially when accessing search sites such as DPP’s website that has information on all the preschools, the problem was actually choosing the best school for the child. She explained, “Some preschools have half days, some have full days, some have extended days, so it wasn't hard, just the whole process of actually choosing what the best option for your child was the hard part.” (T1, FNE, school-based) Parents discussed an array of concerns and priorities that could influence their efforts to find the best school for their child. Some felt apprehensive thinking their 3- or 4-year-old child was too young and felt protective seeking the best school experience for the child. Others shared the importance of finding and corroborating the reputation of the school and identified an array of other factors to consider, including the teaching quality, level of rigor, rules and discipline expectations, punctuality expectations, home-school communications, and whether children are expected to wear a uniform.

Several parents suggested that all parents should visit and tour the schools they are considering for their children before they attempt to enroll. They mentioned the importance that parents walk in and like the preschool environment and staff, and that they are prepared to ask many questions and pay attention to how and if the staff answer their questions. Because many parents may not know what to ask school personnel during a visit, one parent suggested that DPP staff, as experts in the field, develop a list of research-backed questions that parents can ask and use as a tool when visiting a school to decide if it is the best fit for their family.

69

Parents also suggested talking with a few parents outside and inside the school. One parent mentioned that the DPP website provides useful information about the schools, their mission and vision, the programs offered, and hours of operation, but that there it would be useful to also include comments by former parents or staff about their experiences in the school.

Some parents discussed using the rating of the school to assess whether it was a quality program without realizing that ratings could be deceptive for them because a school with a good rating was not necessarily the best fit for their child. Regardless of their intentions to find the best school for their children, parents in focus groups discussed that sometimes the decision came down to availability and affordability. They mentioned that affordable high-quality schools usually had long waitlists, while expensive schools had openings but were not affordable.

Working parents discussed the pressure they felt having to enroll their children or risk losing their jobs.

For families with multiple children in different grades and schools, it was difficult to find schools with drop-off and pick-up times that aligned to drop their children off and pick them up. For these parents their preference was to have all their children attend the same school. On the positive side, a parent shared, it is easier to find openings in DPS ECE programs for 3-year-old children than in community-based preschools. In addition, DPS’ lottery system gives priority enrollment to children with siblings in the same school which families usually prefer.

Family Survey Findings: Factors Pertaining to Preschool Quality According to the survey results of DPP families, most families were unaware of their child’s preschool quality rating, and when asked to rank preschool quality aspects, the preschool’s quality rating was middle of the pack in terms of importance when choosing a preschool.

Families overwhelmingly showed value in the preschool’s personnel qualifications and how they treated their family as the most important aspect when choosing a preschool. While the rankings of quality aspects and preschool characteristics did not vary across income levels or regions of the city, the magnitude of importance for some characteristics did vary across income levels. For example, proximity to public transportation was more important to low-income families than higher income families, but overall, this was still the least important characteristic.

70

Figure 4.1 Percentage of families of 3- and 4-year-old children indicating knowledge of the quality rating of the preschool their child attended

When asked if families were aware of the quality rating of their child’s preschool, the surveys found that most families of 3- and 4-year-old children were aware of their child’s preschool’s quality rating (52% and 62%, respectively) as shown in Figure 4.1. High-income families were the most likely to be aware of their child’s preschool quality rating (51%).

GIS mapping of the survey response data (Figure 4.2) showed a higher concentration of families in the Northwest region not knowing the quality rating of their child’s preschool as compared to a relatively evenly distribution of yes/no responses across the other regions of the city.

71

Figure 4.2. Family Survey: Do you know the quality rating of your child’s preschool?

APA’s family survey also asked parents to rate a series of factors pertaining to preschool quality as either “of the most importance,” “important,” or “not as important. When asked which quality aspects of a preschool were most important, 98% of families indicated that the preschool director and the teachers having the appropriate training, certificate, or license was important or the most important aspect of a quality preschool. This was true across all income levels.

These quality aspects of a preschool were rated the most important qualities last year, as well.

While how long the preschool has been in operation ranked the lowest importance for families, across all income levels, as well as in last year’s survey results.

Family Survey Findings: Rating the Importance of Other Preschool Characteristics The family survey also asked parents to rate the level of importance of a series of other characteristics. Nearly all families of 3-year-olds and 4-year-olds (98%) indicated that the preschool listening to their concerns and being respectful to their child and their family were either important or the most important characteristics of a preschool. These preschool characteristics were rated the most important characteristics on the year one survey as well.

72

Sharing their family's religious beliefs (30%) was among the least important preschool characteristics for families of 4-year-olds, though the magnitude of importance varied across income levels. Closer to half (44%) of low-income families of 4-year-olds indicated that sharing their religious beliefs was either an important or the most important characteristic of a preschool, compared to 19% of higher income families. Nearly all families of 3-year-olds indicated a shared religious belief was either an important or of the most important preschool characteristics.

Similarly, 24% of families of 4-year-olds indicated that being close to public transportation was the least important preschool characteristic for families, though this also varied across income levels. Nearly half (44%) of all low-income families (families of 3-year-olds and 4-year-olds) indicated that being close to public transportation was either an important or the most important characteristic of a preschool, compared to 7% of all higher income families.

Provider Survey Findings: Challenges Meeting Current Demand According to the survey results of DPP providers, 27% of providers do not have enough slots to meet the parent demand for preschool aged children, with a disproportionate amount of these centers in the Far Northeast. Providers identified the top three barriers to increasing the number of available slots in their centers as an inability to provide a high enough salary to attract and retain qualified teachers, cover the gap between the full cost of tuition and the tuition support provided to families, and adequate space to expand in their childcare facility, each of these affecting the Far Northeast region as a higher barrier than the average provider stated.

73

Figure 4.3 Providers indication of current ability to meet demand for childcare

When asked if their program had enough slots to meet parents’ demand for care, 73% of providers stated that they had enough slots to meet the demand for preschool aged children (Figure 4.3). Of the 27% of providers that stated they did not have enough slots to meet the demand, about 60% were located in either the Far Northeast or Northwest regions of the city.

Nearly two-thirds (62%) of the surveyed providers did not offer infant care, but of those that did and were able to meet the parent demand, 46% were located in the Northeast region. This finding has numerous potential implications for understanding how challenges in finding childcare can vary for families in different regions of the city.

Providers report varying capacities to meet families' childcare demands, with many highlighting significant challenges. Waitlists, particularly for infant and toddler care, are a recurring theme, with some schools reporting waitlists of over 100 families for children under age two. Several providers note the overwhelming demand for toddler slots compared to preschool slots, often leading to consideration of converting preschool rooms to toddler classrooms. Staffing shortages are a common issue, aggravated by the different child to adult ratios for infant, toddler, and preschool requirements, forcing many programs to limit their capacity despite having physical space available. Some providers also face challenges expanding due to the high costs of real estate and construction in Denver.

While some providers express satisfaction with their current size and are not interested in expanding, others emphasize a strong desire to grow to meet community needs but are hindered 74

by limited funding or space. Programs serving niche populations, such as parent cooperatives or small facilities, highlight their unique roles but acknowledge they cannot accommodate broader demand. Overall, the demand for childcare, especially for infants and toddlers, far outpaces the current capacity, with some providers describing the childcare situation in Denver as a "crisis."

Figure 4.4. Providers indicated key barriers to increasing available childcare slots

When asked to rate several factors to increasing the number of available slots at their center on a scale of a “Low barrier=1” to a “High barrier=5”, 68% of providers rated their inability to pay a high enough salary to attract and retain qualified teachers as a high barrier 14, though this varied across regions. Of the 33% of providers stating this as a low barrier, 58% are located in the Southeast or Southwest regions. Providers in the Far Northeast region rated every barrier as a high barrier at the same rate or greater than the average provider, suggesting an increased level of market stress in this region of the city. Providers in the Southwest region rated almost every barrier at or below the same rate as the average provider, with the exception of their ability to hire and retain qualified bilingual teachers (67%). Across all regions, the ability to meet state licensing requirements was rated as the lowest barrier.

In an open-ended survey response, providers identified several additional key barriers to delivering quality childcare, including district-level decision-making, such as Denver Public Schools (DPS) policies, as a barrier to accommodating demand, noting issues with classroom allocation and unclear metrics for decision-making. Additionally, the complexity of the 14

A high barrier is defined as a 3 or above on the 5-point Likert scale.

75

Universal Preschool (UPK) enrollment process has been a barrier for families, particularly those with limited English proficiency.

Financial concerns also emerged, with providers highlighting the high costs of childcare furniture, rising rent and construction costs, and insufficient funding options, especially for toddler care or summer programming. Families outside Denver or those no longer eligible for programs like CCCAP often struggle to afford tuition, creating an accessibility gap. Despite these barriers, some providers expressed a preference for smaller programs to maintain close relationships with students, staff, and families.

Provider Focus Groups: Corroborating Survey Findings on Challenges Meeting Denver’s Childcare Demand Providers who participated in focus group conversations in large part corroborated the survey findings, identifying the same top barriers to increasing the number of preschool slots in Denver, including: 1. Inability to recruit and retain qualified staff; 2. Lack of adequate space; and 3. Inability to cover the full cost of providing care.

Input from provider focus groups on these topics is provided below.

1. Inability to Recruit and Retain Qualified Staff The biggest barrier to increasing the number of preschool slots available in Denver according to the provider focus groups had to do with the workforce in the field of early childhood education.

Through the focus groups conversations with DPP providers, it became clear that this is a complex, multifaceted issue that includes recruitment and retention of qualified staff, finding qualified ECE teachers who want to stay in the profession, the cost of living in Denver, and the professionalization of the field.

Recruitment and retention of qualified staff. Providers shared that it is difficult for them to find and hire talented, qualified educators and paraprofessionals that sometimes are required to be bilingual or certified in programs such as Montessori education. Without qualified staff providers cannot increase their capacity to offer additional slots for more children in their centers. In addition, preschools often require the services of other professionals such as psychologists or speech therapists whose salary rates are usually much higher than those of other professionals in the center, which makes it harder for preschools to afford them.

Finding qualified ECE teachers who want to stay in the profession. Several providers shared that the Professional Development Information System (PDIS) has streamlined the teacher

76

qualifications required to be deemed a qualified ECE teacher. This adjustment has made it much simpler for candidates to become officially qualified, however, this new standard does not guarantee the classroom experience needed in the profession. Overall, providers believed the change in PDIS has not increased the quality of teacher preparation, sending to preschool centers teachers who lack the set of skills to be teachers or school directors. Once in the classroom, providers indicated teachers often must be re-trained while they are in the practice. This results in teachers or school personnel who find themselves in a profession that is not what they had expected, creating high subsequent turnover rates. One of the providers in APA’s focus groups explained: “Now anybody can obtain their director’s [certification], their teacher’s [certification], they don't really have those qualities or set of skills to be a teacher, to be a director, which also affects teacher retention because they don't really know how to work in the field.” (SW, DPP community-based provider).

Professionalization of the field. Providers explained that they, as well as families, want qualified teachers in the classroom. They want to elevate the field by having teachers who see themselves and are treated as the professionals they are, earning livable wages, and receiving health insurance and other benefits. But many providers explained that they cannot afford to pay their teachers more than the minimum wage, a minimum wage that keeps going up and providers need to keep paying. One of the providers mentioned that even offering salaries above minimum wage and benefits is not enough to attract needed staff at their preschool.

“I am trying to hire an assistant right now, and we've even gone up, we pay full medical benefits and $25 an hour, and I still can't find anybody. So, it's hard to find people who are actually willing to put in that work and the time to do it.” (FNE, DPP communitybased provider). 15 Another provider mentioned, “There is a mental hurdle that to work for minimum wage is different than being able to work for a little bit more in a more professional field, and you get more professionality back from your employees when they feel like they are honored as a profession.” (NE, DPP community-based provider) Providers also explained that teachers earning minimum wage do not want to go back to school or engage in additional training, as they are already highly educated and underpaid and often feel unappreciated. Providers consistently expressed the challenge created in establishing and maintaining high quality programs when they cannot afford to pay for the best teachers. One provider explained: “It's really hard to keep getting people in this profession and who want to stay in this profession. Being that the state of Colorado and Denver is just so expensive to live in.

15

The minimum wage in Denver at the time of this conversation was $18.29/hr.

77

And I think that's really always going to be the challenge of how do you make yourself a high-end quality program if you can't afford to pay for the best? And so, I think that to me our biggest struggle is always going to be the difference of the true cost of care and the fact that the numbers will never match at that moment.” (NE, DPP community-based provider).

2. Lack of Adequate Physical Space Many providers indicated that their centers are at total enrollment capacity and cannot receive more students. Increasing the number of students was restricted not only by the physical space in that they cannot add new classrooms, but also because of the maximum student to teacher ratio allowed by licensing regulations. Many providers explained they have enough families on the waitlist to be able to fill additional classrooms, but they do not have the space to accept more students. In order to serve more families, some providers have adjusted the services they offer to include before- and after-school slots to more students but, in spite of those adjustments, they are at capacity.

Several providers mentioned that even if they wanted to increase the size of their facilities, they had no room to expand in their current location and the cost of land and rentals in Denver is too expensive and unaffordable. A provider shared that they recently moved to a new facility with more space, but even with the extra space they are again at capacity.

Several providers shared that in response to the Covid-19 pandemic and the reduced number of children attending in-person classes, they reduced the number of slots available and even closed classrooms; this was the case for community-based as well as school-based providers.

Community-based providers, for the most part, have rebounded from the low enrollment, reopened their closed classrooms, and are now back to full capacity. For school-based providers in the DPS system, however, the decision to reopen classrooms is made by the District’s Central Office, and classrooms have been reassigned to other grades or have not reopened even when the schools have waitlists long enough to fill more classrooms. In addition, providers in focus groups believed that projections of the number of children to be enrolled have been traditionally inaccurate, which contributes to no assignment of more classrooms to preschool grades.

3. Inability to Cover Cost of Care and Cost of Living in Denver.

The cost of hiring teachers and other school personnel and paying them an appropriate salary, especially for larger preschools with many classrooms, teachers and staff, becomes a cost that providers say makes many preschool centers not sustainable. In addition, when providers want to open additional classrooms, providers’ associated costs of materials, furniture, and everything necessary for a new preschool classroom make this endeavor almost unreachable.

78

“Nowadays, somebody, even though they haven't been in the field for long, they expect to be paid like $22-$23 an hour, and that's not viable for our center, especially since we're a big center, and we have 9 classrooms, 18 teachers, to afford to pay all those teachers that amount of money. We can't do it, to be honest. … also getting the materials ready for that classroom, the funds to get a classroom ready and to open a brand-new classroom.

Everything's really expensive nowadays.” (SW, DPP community-based provider).

Another preschool provider talked about the cost of rent adjusted for inflation as an expense that prevents many centers from expanding to offer more slots to families with young children. Cost of supplies for the classroom and other needs required in a preschool also need to be considered.

As this provider explained, there is never a balance or alignment between actual costs and earnings/revenue. Preschools must maintain a balance in the ratio of teachers to children as established in the licensing requirements, and providers say this is a balance that parents want but either do not want – or are unable – to pay for through tuition increases. Similarly, as teachers and staff want and expect salary increases, this also requires tuition increases that bring push back from families who cannot fathom another cost increase. Providers consistently reported that, while preschool costs keep increasing, they do not see profits going up and cannot keep up with the rising costs.

Provider Focus Groups: Ideas for DPP and policymakers to increase preschool supply Providers in focus groups reflected on steps that DPP and policymakers might take to increase preschool capacity to meet existing demand. One of the providers believed there could be no solution without massive federal subsidies to help solve the infant, toddler, and preschool care crisis, and that unfortunately there is not enough political will to support universal care. Another provider signaled UPK as the entity that promised families more things than what they have delivered so far but with that promise, attracted more children to preschool. This provider explained, “I think UPK brought in a lot more kids, and it promised a lot more things to parents, and I don't think that parents really quite understood, they just heard free preschool. I do get a lot of families, regardless of where they're from, that are really upset because they only get 15 hours.” (FNE, DPP community-based provider).

Providers suggested that one solution to expanding preschool availability is that UPK expand their tuition support from 9 to 12 months and offer more than 15 hours a week. Provider suggestions that were focused on DPP included: ● DPP could be more flexible in their geographic boundaries and offer support to families who live on the city border but cannot afford preschool.

79

●

●

●

●

● ●

●

●

DPP could offer additional professional development for preschool administrators to help them develop/expand their business and management credentials as well as their grant writing skills, which could help them attract additional funding by themselves.

Increasing the wages of preschool professionals. Examples of provider comments on this topic included: “I think everybody has the capability to increase [childcare slots] somehow some way, but it's that staffing, and it's that workforce, it's the turnover, it's not the notqualified staff that is the problem. I would love to see some funding dumped into wages for staff to support the need for preschool.” (SE, DPP community-based provider).

“I know they [DPP] give out the achievement awards and all that, but it would be nice if we can get help with wages. All the stuff that we have to do, all the trainings we have to do, all that we have to help kids with behaviors. Just it's a lot. It can be a lot on a teacher.” (FNE, DPP community-based provider).

DPP could distribute a monthly newsletter that includes a list of available ECE grants that school administrators could pursue.

Providers would also like to see DPP expand their financial support to younger students. Knowing that DPP already funds a number of families of 3-year-old children, they suggest that more children of that age be supported, then expand the support to include 2-year-olds and younger children.

They also would like to see DPP expand funding to include purchase of equipment and furnishings to open more classrooms.

Providers mentioned that they could use DPP, UPK, and DPS help to support professional development for teachers to increase the pool of qualified preschool teachers.

A few providers suggested that DPS deadlines to add ECE classrooms could be better aligned with the UPK enrollment calendar to have better estimates of the demand for preschool services, and that better estimates would result in the opening of additional preschool classrooms in DPS. Providers also suggested that policy makers pass a rent assistance or mortgage assistance bill for childcare centers to own or rent their facilities and help make preschool more affordable.

Providers were asked about ideas to encourage non-licensed providers to get licensed, which would allow more providers to offer care for a larger number of children. Providers suggested that increasing outreach, support and communication with those unlicensed providers could encourage them to move towards getting licensed. Suggestions for supporting this process from DPP and other leaders in Denver’s ECE community included: ● Offering monthly workshops to show unlicensed providers that getting licensed is not too complicated.

80

● Increasing communications to unlicensed providers of the financial benefits of becoming licensed, including the benefit of participating in DPP and getting funds to support training and classroom material purchases. ● Increasing communications that licensing and quality-rating can increase their visibility and ability to attract more business. ● Offering one-on-one support to walk unlicensed providers through each step of the licensing process and licensing rules and regulations.

Providers in APA’s focus groups cautioned that the licensing process is overwhelming for some providers, which is why championing the benefits of being a licensed provider is so important.

Providers also indicated their belief that a high percentage of non-licensed providers are Spanish speakers or do not speak English and that these providers need more information about the licensing process in their own language.

Family Survey Results: Preschool Affordability, Supply, and Accessibility According to the survey results of DPP families, low-income families experienced more difficulty finding affordable childcare, while higher income families experienced more difficulty finding childcare with enough capacity for their child.

Figure 4.5 Percentage of 3- and 4-year-old families experiencing unaffordable childcare

81

The survey found that 43% of families of 4-year-olds found preschools they liked but were too expensive for them, while 85% of families of 3-year-olds had the same experience. One third (33%) of high-income families (a 20-percentage point decrease from last year) and 42% of lowincome families (41% last year) shared this experience. Survey results indicated this experience impacted the Far Northeast region disproportionately to the other regions, with 52% of families from the Far Northeast region stating they had this experience, while on the low end 28% of families from the Southeast region shared this experience. Figure 4.6 below shows GIS mapping of this survey data, with green dots representing families who indicated they found preschools they liked but were not able to afford.

Figure 4.6. Family survey question: When you were looking for a preschool for your child, did you find any preschools that you liked but were too expensive for you?

The family survey also delved into the availability of preschool slots in desired preschools.

Specifically, the survey asked whether families across Denver found preschools that they liked for their children but found that they were full and not accepting any additional children. Figure 4.7 below shows responses to this survey question for both families of 4-year-olds and 3-yearolds.

82

Figure 4.7 Percentage of families of 3- and 4-year-old children that indicated experiencing insufficient supply of childcare

As shown in Figure 4.7, the survey found about half (46%) of families of 4-year-olds and families of 3-year-olds (52%) found preschools they liked but did not have available slots. Over half (52%) of tier 5 and tier 6 families had this experience (representing 60% of all families who shared this experience), compared with 35% of low-income families (representing 28% of all families who had this experience).

Figure 4.8. shows GIS mapping of these survey responses. Green dots on the map indicate families that found preschools they liked but were full and not accepting more children.

83

Figure 4.8. Family survey question: When you were looking for a preschool for your child, did you find any preschools that you liked but they were full and not accepting more children?

The survey also found that less than half (42%) of families believed there were enough preschools to choose from close to where they lived (Figure 4.9.). Similar percentages (45%) of low-income families believed there were enough preschools to choose from where they lived, representing 55% of families indicating this same belief. Only 27% of high-income families believed there were enough preschools to choose from close to where they lived, representing 47% of families indicating the same belief.

84

Figure 4.9. Family perceptions on sufficiency of childcare supply

GIS mapping of this survey data for families of 4-year-olds is shown in Figure 4.10 below.

Green dots on the map show respondents that indicated “yes” to the question of whether they thought there were enough preschools to choose from close to where they lived (red dots indicated a “no” answer, and grey dots indicate respondents that did not know the answer to the question). Interestingly, the Northwest region of the city showed the highest proportion of red and grey dots, indicating surveyed families in that region in particular had the perception that there was not a sufficient supply of preschools to choose from.

85

Figure 4.10. Family survey question: Do you think that there are enough preschools to choose from close to where you live?

The evaluation’s family survey and focus groups also attempted to assess whether parents felt that their preschool provider offered services that were culturally responsive. The vast majority of focus group participants agreed that providers, including teachers, employees and the preschool director respect and value their culture and that of their families.

When asked if families agreed that the directors, teachers, and other employees at their child’s preschool valued and respected their culture, 91% of families completing the survey indicated they agreed with the statement. Of the 9% of respondents that stated they disagree or strongly disagree with the statement, 100% were low-income families from either the Far Northeast or the Southeast regions.

Parents that participated in the evaluation’s focus groups gave multiple examples of experiences that demonstrated to them that preschool personnel respected and valued their cultures. One of the common examples shared was that the preschool director, teachers, and other staff spoke the language of the families, primarily Spanish, and that this was a clear way to honor their culture.

Some schools were dual language, which demonstrated to families that their culture was valued because this helped students and families feel comfortable and welcome at the school, in addition to enabling staff to better support their children’s learning. Several families expressed selecting schools in part based on their ability to communicate in their primary language.

86

Other parents discussed how their children’s schools were very diverse, and the school celebrated the holidays of the different cultures represented. Teachers sometimes went farther to integrate learning about the cultures through their celebrations as a way to value and respect all students and families. Parents also shared that they always felt welcome and were treated well.

One of the parents shared why she felt respected and valued, “El personal es muy atento, es muy respetuoso, cuando uno llega a pedir cualquier información ellos siempre están a la orden y si no está la persona que lo atiende a uno viene otra y lo atiende, nunca lo dejan esperando. En cuestión de las culturas. son muy multiculturales y siempre, en el transcurso del año hacen eventos en las aulas y al nivel de la escuela para intercambiar cultura, ya sea comida, tradiciones, bailes, o sea, todos nos volvemos una sola familia, todos tenemos una misma cultura, aunque tengamos comida distinta, hablemos distintos [idiomas], en ese preciso momento todos somos familia, todos somos culturas.” (T1, NE, school-based) [Staff are very attentive, very respectful, when we get there to request information they are always at our service and if the person that takes care of us is not available there is someone else to take care of us, they never keep us waiting. In regards to the cultures, they are very multicultural and they always, throughout the year, organize events in the classrooms or at school-wide level to exchange culture, it be food, traditions, dances, in other words, we all become one family, we all have the same culture even if we have different foods, speak different languages, at that precise moment we all are family, we all are cultures.]

Another parent described an event that took place before classes started where all students had been invited, “Uno como que se sorprende de muchas cosas, porque en esos eventos que le hacen a los niños antes de entrar a estudiar ellos son super atentos, ellos hacen todo, hay comida, hay helado, o sea, pero la comida es como o sea que todo mundo coma, se dé gusto, quede lleno, contento, hay juegos para los niños. … ellos respetan mucho y son súper atentos.” (T1, SE, school-based).

[One gets surprised of many things, because in those events that the school organizes for the children before classes start, they are super attentive, they make everything, there is food, there is ice cream, I mean, the food, that everyone eats, that everyone indulges, that they finish full, happy, they have games for the children….they are very respectful and are super attentive. They are very healthy.]

Another parent experienced the school respect in a very different way. She was interested in learning what books would be presented to the children, and in response to her interest/concern, the school not only gave her a list of the readings that would be used in the classroom, but also let her borrow the books so she could read them before the school year started. Once the parent 87

had a chance to read the books and identified those that she deemed not appropriate for the age of her child, the teachers suggested that the child could be pulled out from the classroom when those books were read. The parent did not like the option of pulling the child out because she would feel ostracized, therefore, the final arrangement was that the parent would be notified in advance to keep her child home that day. The parent appreciated the accommodation that she perceived as respectful of her values.

Although most parents felt that their culture was valued and respected at their schools, one parent shared that poor families of color were treated differently by the principal at their school as compared to how white and wealthier parents were treated, primarily being ignored when trying to resolve problems faced by their children. This parent mentioned that the issue was more problematic given that the school is surrounded by housing projects where many children attending the school live.

Section Highlights This Choosing Preschool System section of the report included the following highlights: 1. When asked which quality aspects of a preschool were most important, 98% of families indicated that the preschool director and the teachers having the appropriate training, certificate, or license was important or the most important aspect of a quality preschool. This was true across all income levels and these quality aspects were also rated the most important qualities in year one of this evaluation.

2. The length of time a preschool was in operation ranked the lowest of importance for families, across all income levels. This result was the same for the year one parent evaluation survey.

3. According to the survey results of DPP families, most families were unaware of their child’s preschool quality rating, and the preschool’s quality rating was middle of the pack in terms of importance to families when choosing a preschool.

4. Higher income, Tier 5 families were the most likely to be aware of their child’s preschool quality rating (51%).

5. Parent focus group feedback suggested a wide array of factors come into play when selecting preschools. If possible, families should visit prospective sites in person and come prepared with questions to ask teachers and staff. To help support families in this regard DPP staff could consider developing a list of research-backed questions parents can ask when visiting and choosing preschools.

6. Parents in focus groups discussed that preschool decisions often came down to availability and affordability. They indicated affordable, high-quality schools usually had long waitlists, while expensive schools had openings but were not affordable.

88

7. Nearly all families (99%) indicated that having preschool staff be respectful to their child and family were very important characteristics to them in a preschool. These were also rated as highly important characteristics on the year one survey.

8. Sharing their family's religious beliefs (30%) was among the least important preschool characteristics for families. The magnitude of importance varied by income levels, with low-income families indicating this as an important characteristic compared to high-income families who did not consider it to be as important.

9. Nearly half of low-income families indicated that being close to public transportation was either an important or the most important characteristic of a preschool, compared to 7% of higher income families.

10. Survey results showed 27% of providers did not have enough slots to meet parent demand for preschool. Of these 27%, more than half were located in either the Far Northeast or Northwest regions of the city, with a disproportionate amount of these centers in the Far Northeast.

11. The top three barriers to increasing the number of available childcare slots were identified in the provider survey and corroborated in provider focus groups: a. Inability to pay a high enough salary to attract and retain qualified teachers. b. Inability to cover the gap between the full cost of providing care and the tuition support provided to families. c. Inability to find adequate space to expand in their childcare facility.

12. Providers in the Far Northeast region identified every barrier as a high barrier at the same rate or greater than the average provider, suggesting an increased level of market stress in this region of the city.

13. Nearly two-thirds of surveyed providers did not offer infant care, but of those that did and were able to meet demand, almost half were located in the Northeast region.

This has numerous implications for understanding how infant care challenges vary by region and is particularly critical since providers reported having long waitlists for both infant and toddler care. Overall, childcare demand, especially for infants and toddlers, appears to far outpace current capacity, with providers describing it as a "crisis."

14. Providers had several suggestions for how DPP could help expand preschool supply: a. Offer additional professional development for preschool administrators to help them develop their business and management credentials and grant writing skills. b. Distribute a monthly newsletter that includes a list of available ECE grants that school administrators could pursue. c. Expand funding to include purchase of classroom equipment and furnishings. d. Encourage state policymakers to pass legislation supporting rent or mortgage assistance for childcare providers to reduce their facility costs. e. Increase communications to unlicensed providers of the financial benefits of becoming licensed, including the benefit of participating in DPP.

89

f. Increase communications that licensing and quality-rating can increase unlicensed provider visibility and ability to attract more business. g. Offer monthly workshops and one-on-one support to help unlicensed providers going through the licensing process.

15. APA’s family survey found that 43% of families of 4-year-olds and 85% of those with 3-year-olds found preschools they liked but were too expensive to afford. a. This experience impacted Far Northeast families disproportionately higher than other regions. For instance, 52% of respondents from the Far Northeast reported this experience, compared to 28% of those from the Southeast. b. One third (33%) of high-income families (a 20-percentage point decrease from last year) and 42% of low-income families shared this experience.

16. Survey findings corroborated focus group input regarding Denver’s ongoing preschool supply challenges. About half of families of 4-year-olds and families of 3-year-olds found preschools they liked but did not have available slots. a. This affected more than half of tiers 5 and 6 families, compared with 35% of lowincome families. b. Less than half (42%) of families believed there were enough preschools to choose from close to where they lived. c. NW region families, in particular, had the perception that there was not a sufficient supply of preschools to choose from.

17. The vast majority of survey (91%) and focus group participants agreed that their providers and preschool staff respected and valued their culture. Efforts made by providers to serve families in the primary language spoken at home and to celebrate multicultural holidays were particularly appreciated.

90

5. DPP Impacts on Parents and Providers According to survey results, families perceived many positive impacts from their participation in DPP. For instance, as shown in Figure 5.1., a majority (62%) of surveyed families with 4-yearolds credited their ability to afford more childcare to their access to DPP tuition credits. An even larger percentage of families with 3-year-olds (82%) were able to afford more hours of childcare due to DPP’s support.

In addition, 62% of low-income families stated they were able to improve their economic situation by either gaining additional education or gaining or maintaining employment due to the hours their child attended preschool funded by DPP tuition credits, and 37% of all families indicated they would need to leave the workforce to care for their child if childcare became unaffordable to them.

More than half (55%) of low-income families indicated on the survey that they were able to meet additional basic needs, such as groceries, housing, and health insurance, due to their child’s preschool costs being supplemented.

Figure 5.1. Percentage of families of 3- and 4-year-old children who indicated they were able to afford additional hours of childcare due to DPP support

When asked whether access to DPP tuition credits allowed families to afford additional childcare hours, 62% of families answered “Yes.” This response was consistent across income tiers, with 59% of low-income families answering “Yes” (representing 48% of all families who answered “Yes”) and 53% of high-income families also answering “Yes” (representing 53% of all families who answered “Yes”).

91

GIS mapping of the survey data for families of 4-year-olds is shown in Figure 5.2. Green dots on the map show respondents that indicated “yes” to the question of whether DPP tuition credits afforded them more hours of childcare for their child. The highest proportion of “yes” versus “no” responses can be seen in the Far Northeast region (about 2.5 times more Yes than No responses) and the Southwest region (nearly 4 times more Yes than No responses).

Figure 5.2. Family survey question: Did DPP’s tuition credit allow you to afford more hours of childcare?

As shown in Figure 5.3., of all the families of 4-year-olds who stated DPP tuition credits afforded them more hours of childcare, 40% stated that they were able to afford between 1 and 5 additional hours of childcare due to DPP’s tuition credits (roughly a half day) and 28% stated they were able to afford between 6 and 10 additional hours (roughly a full day). For families of 3-year-olds close to a quarter of respondents (23%) indicated between 1 and 5 hours and nearly another quarter indicated between 6 and 10 hours, while almost half of families (46%) were able to afford more than 15 hours of childcare a week due to DPP’s support, which shows the importance of this funding for participating families.

Close to one-third (29%) of low-income families stated they were able to afford between 1 and 5 additional childcare hours due to DPP tuition credits, representing 61% of families who answered this way. Almost one-fifth (19%) of high-income families stated they were able to afford between 6 and10 additional childcare hours due to DPP tuition credits, representing 41% of families who answered this way.

92

Figure 5.3. Distribution of families of 3- and 4-year-old children of additional hours of childcare afforded to families due to DPP support

When asked how the additional hours of DPP-supported childcare affected families, survey responses varied but could be grouped into three distinct categories: 1) Self Care; 2) Economic Improvements; 3) and Care for Others (Figure 5.4.).

93

Figure 5.4. Direct impacts of childcare hours indicated by families of 4-year-old children

Self-Care. Over three-quarters (84%) of families of 4-year-olds indicated that the added hours of childcare they could afford because of DPP helped them reduce their stress, improve their mental health, and self-care. All (100%) of families of 3-year-old children taking the survey made a selection from this category. DPP’s positive impacts on families in the self-care category transcended income differences. For instance, over three-quarters (78%) of low-income families of 4-year-olds selected a response in the category of Self Care (representing 43% of every Self Care response) but an even higher percentage (88%) of high-income families of 4-year-olds selected a response in this category (representing 35% of every Self Care response).

Economic Improvements. The percentage of responses in the category of economic improvements differed for families of 4-year-olds and those with 3-year-olds. About two-thirds (65%) of families of 4-year-olds indicated that added hours of childcare provided through DPP allowed for improvement of their economic conditions, such as having time to get more education or time to get a job or to stay employed. However nearly all (97%) of families of 3year-olds made a selection from this category. Similar to the self-care category, the positive impacts appeared to transcend income differences, with 62% low-income and 69% high-income families selecting a response in the category of Economic Improvement. In addition, 41% of low-income families indicated that the hours of childcare afforded them the time to get a job, (representing 65% of families selecting this response), while 67% of high-income families indicated that the hours of childcare afforded them the opportunity to stay employed or increase their hours and income (representing 39% of families selecting this response).

94

Care for Others. 41% of families of 4-year-olds indicated that added hours of childcare afforded

by DPP allowed them to spend additional time and effort on caring and supporting others, while 46% of families of 3-year-olds made a selection from this category.

Figure 5.5. shows GIS mapping of the survey data regarding how preschool support helped parents or caregivers to stay employed or to increase their work hours and income. As shown in the map, parents across regions answered “yes” (shown as green dots) to the survey question that asked whether the hours their child spent in preschool helped them either stay employed or to increase their income. These data reveal that economic benefits due to the availability of childcare accrue to families across Denver’s distinct regions.

Figure 5.5 Family survey question: Have the hours that your child is in preschool helped you to stay employed or increase your work hours and income?

Similarly, GIS mapping of survey data found that DPP tuition credit impacts on improving mental health and reducing family stress accrued evenly across Denver’s regions. Figure 5.6. shows GIS mapping of family survey data on this topic. As shown in the map, parents across regions answered “yes” (shown as green dots) to the survey question that asked whether the hours their child spent in preschool helped reduce their stress and improve their mental health.

95

Figure 5.6. Family survey question: Have the hours that your child is in preschool helped you to reduce your stress or improve your mental health?

When asked about what childcare alternatives families would utilize if preschool was not available to them, about half of respondents (48% and 52% respectively for families with 4- and 3-year-olds) indicated they would have to stay home to care of their child (Figure 5.7.). This alternative could have significant negative economic impacts on families including on the ability of the primary caretaker of the child to stay employed. A majority (61%) of low-income families selected this alternative (representing 58% of all families selecting this alternative) while 39% of high-income families selected the same.

96

Figure 5.7. Family Survey Responses to Who Would Care for Their Child if Preschool Was Not Available Who would care for your child if preschool was Parent Responses unavailable?

Year 1 Year 2 Year 2

I would have to stay home to care for my child Someone in my family I don’t know Nanny/Babysitter A friend or neighbor I would need to bring my child with me to work

4-yrolds (n=382)

4-yrolds (n=223)

3-yr-olds (n=33)

48% 31% 16% 10% 5% 5%

48% 22% 10% 41% 2% 5%

52% 37% 12% 24% 6% 9%

41% of families of 4-year-olds stated they would need to hire a nanny or a babysitter. 57% of high-income families selected this alternative, representing 47% of all families selecting this alternative, while 17% of low-income families selected the same.

22% of families of 4-year-olds said someone in their family would have to care for their child.

31% of low-income families selected this alternative, representing 67% of all families selecting this alternative, while 11% of high-income families selected the same.

Figure 5.8. Direct impacts of tuition credits indicated by families of 4-year-old children

97

When asked how DPP tuition credits have impacted families, 40% of families of 4-year-olds indicated DPP tuition credits enabled them to afford the cost of meeting more basic needs such as food, housing, and health care, while 76% of families of 3-year-olds made a selection from this category. More than half (55%) of low-income families indicated that DPP tuition credits enabled them to afford additional basic needs. For low-income families, the most consistently indicated basic need they were able to better afford due to DPP was food for their family. The most consistently indicated basic need that DPP assisted with for high-income families was their ability to better afford housing costs.

Parent Focus Group Input Corroborates Family Survey Data on DPP Impacts Twenty parents participated in evaluation focus groups, representing all five regions of Denver.

Eighteen of the 20 were low-income families (Tiers 1 and 2) while the other two were Tiers 4 and 6. Ten participants were Spanish speakers and three of the twenty were parents of 3-year-old children receiving DPP financial support. One parent did not remember completing the DPP application and believed that her family did not get the financial support from DPP, only from UPK. All parents were very grateful for the financial support they received, although one parent said that even with the financial support, the small gap amount her family had to pay was a big financial burden that was very difficult for them to afford.

The financial support from DPP was a significant help for all the families. This support allowed some parents to return to work full time, while others were able to stay home to take care of younger children. One parent was able to focus on their studies while working and going through a career change, while another mentioned that financial support helped them pay for food, clothes and energy bills. Another parent was able to get a part-time job and as a family they were able to buy their first car ever, and a Spanish speaking mother of two was able to focus on her Masters’ studies improving her education and career.

Several families shared that DPP reduced their stress and gave them calm and peace of mind that they would be able to survive financially at the same time their children were learning and socializing in school. Several also indicated that having their children in school allowed parents time to better themselves and to take care of things they needed to do while the child was in school, which all enabled them to be more present when the child was at home.

Parents also shared how important it was to send their children to preschool, and to see how much they developed academically and emotionally. Parents reported seeing large, positive differences in their children from beginning to end of the school year in their language development, their knowledge of mathematics, learning their letters, becoming interested in learning, and especially in their social interactions with other children. Parents also reported improvements in their children with following routines, knowing how to establish their own personal space, regulating their emotions, becoming more independent, showing their own interests, and starting to develop friendships. One parent mentioned that her child was identified 98

as having attention deficit disorder by her preschool teacher, and that this would not have happened if they had not been able to send her to preschool which was made possible with DPP support.

The following is a selection of quotations of parents sharing how DPP helped their families and the impact that attending preschool has had on their children: “It gives you time as a parent to wind down, and just to take that time to better yourself, and when they arrive you know that you're in that good place to be the best parent you can be.” (T1, FNE, school-based) “Having him be in school more allowed me to do more things that I needed to do during the day, instead of trying to fit them in, so that I could be more present when he was home or be able to relax once in a while, even if it was just for a couple of minutes.” (T1, NE, community-based) “Y la verdad fue un beneficio muy bueno para mí también, porque en mi país nunca le leía un libro … la importancia de un libro, acá fue muy diferente. Entonces, el beneficio para mí, para mi familia, fue muy grande que, gracias a Dios, he aprendido mucho de eso.” (T1, SE, school-based) [The truth is that it was a very good benefit for me too, because in my country I never read them a book … the importance of a book, it was very different here.

Then, the benefit for me, for my family, was great, thank God, I’ve learned a lot about that.]

“Beneficio para mi familia, pues me dio oportunidad a mí de trabajar un part time y apoyar a mi esposo, de organizarnos mejor con la casa, con escuela, repartirnos las labores de la casa 50 y 50. Entonces, aparte pues la economía nos ayudó hasta a comprar nuestro primer auto para poder salir. Nos sirve para llevar a las niñas a la escuela en temporada de frío, de lluvia. Estoy muy agradecida, muy agradecida.” (T1, NE, school-based) [Benefit for my family because it gave me the opportunity to work a part-time job and help my husband, organize ourselves better at home, with the school, distribute the household chores 50/50. Then, our finances helped us to buy our first car to be able to go out. It helps us to take the girls to school during the cold weather, during rainy weather. I am very grateful, very grateful.]

“Being able to go back to work full time and not have this huge childcare cost was super helpful for my family.” (T2, SW, school-based)

99

“It helped us out a lot, … My spouse was able to provide more for us with them paying the tuition that they did, because I do have little babies, so I was able to stay home, and my kids were able to go to school and learn earlier, get their education sooner, and that was great for them to be able to socialize and just start learning and going to school with their siblings. So, I mean, it helped us out quite a lot. Honestly.” (T1, NW, school-based) “Last year my daughter was in ECE4 preschool; my second son is on the spectrum, so he has a lot of different appointments from specialists, therapists and other things. And this really allowed for me to be really, I guess, calm and sure that we're going to be able to make those appointments. We're not going to have any issues with childcare. And when I had to work she was in school. So, I mean, it was amazing help, it helps parents a lot.”

(T1, FNE, school-based) “Being able to get them started, especially with our kids coming out of Covid, being able to put them in at 3 and 4, for socialization is huge. I've seen a huge difference in my youngest, in learning routines, and all of that stuff before they really get into the nitty gritty of kindergarten through 5th grade.” (T2, SW, school-based) “My little girl is talking so much more, she's gone from really quiet to extremely talkative, and it's really upped her socialization.” (T4, NW, school-based) The focus group findings were corroborated by family survey data as well. For instance, as shown in Figure 5.9., when asked to rate their child’s readiness for kindergarten in the following areas from “Very High” to “Very Low”, 78% of all responses were either “High” or “Very High”. These ratings were consistent across all income levels and city regions.

100

Figure 5.9. Percentage of families indicating “High” or “Very High” kindergarten readiness for their child across various factors

Provider Perceptions on the Sufficiency and Impact of DPP’s Tuition Credits Providers expressed appreciation for DPP’s tuition credit system, citing its positive impact on families and the childcare community. Many highlighted the tuition credits as a valuable resource, though several noted they do not fully cover the cost of care for children requiring special services or in high-cost programs. Some providers emphasized the need for expanded support, such as increasing slots for 3-year-olds or addressing the gap between the reimbursement rates for different Colorado Shines quality rating levels, which some providers felt do not adequately incentivize providers that have achieved higher ratings.

Additionally, some providers called for adjustments to the sliding scale to better support middleincome families, who often pay a substantial portion of taxes that fund DPP but receive less financial benefit. Providers also raised concerns about the challenges of maintaining coverage during teacher breaks and planning time, which they often subsidize from general school funds.

When asked if the DPP tuition credits the program received per child were enough to cover the costs to provide service, providers were approximately split into thirds, with 31% indicating the tuition credits received per child were enough, 36% saying they were “almost” enough, and 33% saying they were not enough (Figure 5.10). The survey data revealed some variation in provider responses to this question by region of the city. For instance, 71% of respondents from the Far Northeast region of the city shared the perspective that their childcare center was receiving 101

enough or almost enough funding from DPP tuition credits to cover the costs to provide services.

This compared to 57% of providers reporting the same from the Northwest region of Denver.

Figure 5.10. Provider’s Indication of the Sufficiency of DPP’s Per-child Tuition Credit

DPP has established a monthly cost of care rate of $1,590-$1,890, per DPP student, as the ceiling amount a childcare program can receive monthly from all funding sources (in DPP’s Cost of Care Model). When asked if the monthly cost of care ceiling rate established by DPP was sufficient to cover the costs to provide services (Figure 5.11) 44% stated it was enough to cover their costs. When examined by region of the city, the Far Northeast had the higher percentages reporting the ceiling rate was enough or almost enough, while the Northeast region had the lowest percentage that shared that perspective.

102

Figure 5.11. Provider’s indication of the sufficiency of the ceiling amount of all funding sources

Provider Perceptions on the Impacts of DPP’s Quality Improvement (QI) funds Focus group conversations with providers revealed that DPS school-based providers and nonDPP providers were not aware of the quality improvement (QI) funds provided by DPP. Once they heard that QI funding was used to supply materials to the classrooms of DPP providers, DPS providers mentioned that sometimes they received supplies for their ECE classrooms that they had not requested or were aware they would receive. If the materials were, in fact, bought with DPP QI funds, these providers indicated they would have preferred to give advance input on what was purchased so they would not receive materials they were not using. One DPS provider remembered receiving an email congratulating them on receiving funds, but did not know at the time that it was probably from DPP. He explained, “Yes, we have received funds…I didn't know that that was necessarily a piece of DPP. I knew that we had received funding for a variety of different things but did not know that was DPP specifically.” (SE, DPP school-based provider).

Community-based providers who were new to DPP were not very familiar either with the QI funding available to them but indicated they were very interested in learning more about those funds. A more experienced provider shared that DPP gives them a budget and the preschool administrators let their preschool teachers order the things they need from different websites approved by DPP. 103

DPP community-based providers reported that they knew of and used DPP QI funding, which they found very helpful and greatly appreciated. Different providers reported they used the funding for classroom materials (e.g., books, toys, educational materials, etc.), to support wellness for teachers, and for training and professional development for teachers and preschool administrators. Other providers mentioned they used the QI funds to give bonuses to teachers in recognition of the hard work they do and to keep a financial cushion for days when the preschool is closed to be able to pay their hourly-paid teachers.

A community-based provider explained how their teachers use the DPP funds for professional development, “We usually get DPP funding for trainings for teachers. They send all the offers, and our teachers love to enroll in those trainings... I think they're very helpful, how to manage the classroom, they give them ideas on how to support better the students depending on their age group. And then yes, DPP will send stipends for our teachers, twice already this year, and the teachers are just grateful that they get that. So, they have a lot of resources for the teachers, which is great.” (FNE, DPP community-based provider) Other providers mentioned the significance of receiving the QI funds and how meaningful it was to be recognized and appreciated.

“They [DPP] provide not only teacher achievement awards, things like that that help teachers get kind of compensated for the trainings and things that they are doing above and beyond that normally we couldn't afford to offer, and that has been a huge thing.”

(NE, DPP community-based provider).

“We have been very, I say, just very blessed. With the monies that have been able to come through we actually used those towards bonuses. And our teachers have been so, so thankful, for those opportunities and the incentives that we're able to use those bonuses as incentivized bonuses and then when we may have school closures or anything like that it just helps to cushion those school closures especially with our hourly-rated paid teachers. Yes, those have been a godsend, literally a godsend for our staff.” (NE, DPP community-based provider).

“Teachers get on board when they get that stipend back, and there's a check in the mail to them that they took this class and spent this time learning which they're finding these classes are amazing, and you find great info and content. But getting that check in the mail sometimes that's the biggest incentive there, and they're like, wow, yeah, I'm on board to do some more classes.” (SE, DPP community-based provider).

When asked which uses of the DPP QI funds received have had the most impact on child outcomes, providers mentioned in focus groups that although QI-funded classroom materials 104

were very important and useful in their teaching, the teacher training received with the support of QI funds was the most impactful. Providers explained that the training and coaching received by teachers had the most impact on children because what teachers learn, they take to the classroom, which directly benefits the students. Quality training positively impacts the teacher’s knowledge as well as their ability to handle classroom situations, providers said, and as a result teachers are better prepared, which supports the students.

Teachers loved the trainings not only because of what they learned, but because they were compensated for them, they developed professional communities with other educators outside of their building who had similar struggles, similar needs, and they exchanged ideas and learned about topics relevant to their practice. Providers observed that teachers got a lot out of those trainings, and the compensation they received made them feel supported, it was not that they were being asked to do things off the clock for free, they were asked to increase their knowledge and bring it back to the classroom, while they were being compensated.

“The coaching, their achievement awards, the quality improvement, the classes … all of them are so valuable in helping us to raise the needle on how our quality is being maintained and achieved at our program every day.” (NE, DPP community-based provider).

“I would just say that the coaching [for teachers] has probably been the most impactful [on child outcomes]. And then also just staff morale, somebody to tell them, not that we don't tell them that they're doing a good job, but somebody else coming in and just really spending some quality one-on-one time with them.” (SE, DPP community-based provider).

“I would say we've used a lot of our strengthening grants for professional development.

And I would say that has a direct impact on the children in the classroom. This year we had a fantastic professional development around STEM… It was really fantastic to see how we were able to take this professional development and apply it directly to the instruction that was happening in the classroom and increase the teachers’ confidence as they connected lesson planning and creating learning opportunities for children that were very play based, but also directly connected to learning outcomes.” (SE, DPP community-based provider).

On the other hand, another provider made her case for the teachers’ stipends as the most impactful on children’s outcomes, “I would say, the teachers’ stipends just because parents really like stability in a center, and they really like when we have good teacher retention. And honestly, those stipends that the teachers in the preschool classrooms have been given the last year it's what's been pushing a lot of my teachers to stay just because it's an extra income, and it's pretty good money that you're getting. So even if we don't have the materials, I think parents appreciate more having that teacher retention and having teachers that have been in a center for a longer time, because they know the rules better, they know the kids better, the 105

center, the parents. I think that [teacher stipends] has a better impact.” (SW, DPP community-based provider).

According to survey results of DPP providers, the most important QI investments to impact child outcomes were the purchase of classroom materials and professional development for teachers, including coaching, which was described as exceptional. These investments enhanced classroom quality, teacher growth, and the overall learning environment.

Providers also highlighted the need for greater flexibility in fund usage, including expendable materials like art supplies, and expanded eligibility for infant, toddler, and non-Denver programs.

They also called for simplified processes and clearer guidance on fund usage, as well as more direct support for Directors and Assistant Directors to strengthen leadership and program quality.

When asked if they were aware DPP provides Quality Improvement (QI) Funds to preschool providers to help improve the quality of childcare offered, 85% of providers indicated they were aware (Figure 5.12). Only 15% of providers indicated they were unaware DPP provided these funds. This suggests the program has done an effective job at communicating to most providers the availability of these funds to support their programs.

Figure 5.12. Provider’s awareness of quality improvement funds

Of providers that stated they were aware of the QI Funds, the most popular use of these funds was to help purchase classroom materials, (Figure 5.13) however the next two largest use of funds both pertained to training and coaching (provided in groups and one-on-one). Around three quarters of providers from the Northeast (76%) and Southwest regions (73%) used QI Funds for 106

classroom materials, representing 61% of all providers that used QI Funds for this purpose. In comparison, only 38% of providers from the Far Northeast region reported use of QI Funds for classroom materials.

The least popular use of these funds was to enroll teachers and staff in early childhood college courses, with 37% of all responding providers selecting this use of the funding. About two-thirds of providers from the Northeast region (61%) reported using QI Funds towards early childhood college courses, representing 48% of all providers that used QI Funds for this purpose. In comparison, only 25% of providers from the Southwest region reported use of the QI Funds for early childhood college courses.

Figure 5.13. Provider’s recent use of quality improvement funds

Providers shared additional feedback regarding QI funds highlighting their significant positive impact on schools, particularly in supporting professional development, classroom quality, and staff growth. Respondents expressed deep appreciation for the funds, noting they have enabled the purchase of essential classroom materials, furniture, and equipment while also fostering professionalism through coaching and professional development opportunities. The coaching provided, especially from external partners like Clayton, was described as exceptional. Many schools emphasized that the QI funds are a vital resource, describing them as "a gift" and stating they "would not survive" without this support.

However, respondents also identified areas for improvement. Schools expressed a need for greater clarity on how to utilize QI funds and how they differ from other grant options. Concerns were raised about the rigid eligibility requirements, particularly for programs serving infant and toddler classrooms or schools outside Denver, which feel excluded despite serving Denver 107

families. Additionally, schools wished for more flexibility in fund usage, including expendable items like art materials, and called for a simpler application process. Directors and Assistant Directors also voiced a desire for more direct benefits to support their leadership roles.

Section Highlights This Impacts of DPP section of the report included the following highlights: 1. Large majorities of surveyed families (62% of those with 4-year-olds and 82% of those with 3-year-olds) credited their ability to afford more childcare to DPP tuition credits. This response was consistent across income tiers, including 59% of low-income and 53% of high-income families.

2. Of the families of 4-year-olds who stated DPP tuition credits afforded them more hours of childcare, 40% stated that they were able to afford between 1-5 additional hours of childcare (roughly a half day) and 28% stated they were able to afford 6-10 additional hours (roughly a full day). 46% of families of 3-year-old children were able to afford more than 15 hours of childcare a week due to DPP’s support, which shows the importance of this funding for participating families 3. GIS mapping of survey data for families of 4-year-olds in response to the question of whether DPP tuition credits afforded them more hours of childcare, revealed the highest proportion of “yes” versus “no” responses in the Far Northeast (about 2.5 times more yes than no responses) and Southwest (nearly 4 times more yes than no responses) indicating an even higher level DPP tuition credit impact in these regions.

4. GIS mapping of survey data regarding how increased preschool access helped parents stay employed or increase their income showed economic benefits from preschool access accrued to families across Denver’s distinct regions and neighborhoods.

5. A large majority (62%) of surveyed low-income families improved their economic situations by either gaining additional education or gaining or maintaining employment due to the hours their child attended preschool funded by DPP tuition credits.

6. More than half (55%) of low-income families and 41% of all families of 4-year-olds indicated DPP tuition credits made their families better able to meet additional basic needs, such as affording groceries, housing, and health insurance. For low-income families, the most consistently indicated need they were better able to afford was food.

7. Over three-quarters (84%) of families of 4-year-olds indicated that the added hours of childcare they could afford because of DPP helped reduce their stress and improved their mental health and self-care. All (100%) of families of 3-year-old children taking the survey made a selection from this category.

8. About two-thirds (65%) of families of 4-year-olds indicated that added hours of childcare provided through DPP allowed for improvement of their economic conditions, such as having time to get more education, to get a job or stay employed.

Nearly all (97%) families of 3-year-olds made a selection from this category.

108

9. Findings on DPP’s positive impacts on reducing family stress, improving mental health, and improving economic conditions transcended income differences and were consistent across family income tiers.

10. About half of parents surveyed said they would have to stay home to care for their child if preschool were not available to them. This alternative could have significant negative economic impacts on families, including the ability of primary caretakers to stay employed.

11. The vast majority of providers (86%) used DPP QI funds to purchase classroom materials in the last two years, and the majority (56%) used these funds to pay for group training and coaching.

12. When asked which uses of DPP QI funds had the most impact on child outcomes, providers indicated in surveys and focus groups that purchased classroom materials were very important and useful in their teaching, but teacher training and coaching paid for with support of QI funds was the most impactful to staff and children they serve.

13. Compensation/stipends to recognize teacher time spent in training were highly positive and impactful. Providers reported teachers loved the training funded with DPP support not only because of what they learned, but because they were compensated which respected their time as professionals, and they developed professional communities with other educators outside of their buildings.

14. Providers expressed appreciation for DPP’s tuition credit system, citing its positive impact on families and the childcare community. Many highlighted the tuition credits as a valuable resource, though several noted they do not fully cover the cost of care for children requiring special services or in high-cost programs. Survey findings showed less than a third fully agreed that the per-child credits they received covered their costs.

15. Providers expressed deep appreciation for DPP’s QI funds, noting they have enabled the purchase of essential classroom materials, furniture, and equipment while also fostering professionalism through coaching and professional development opportunities.

109

Summary of Findings This Summary of Findings compiles together all of the end-of-section highlight lists and includes a brief additional high-level summary at the end of each section.

Highlights of Participants Sample Section The participant sample section of the report included the following highlights: 1. A list of 272 preschool providers registered with DPP for the 2023-24 school year was used as the source of contact information of preschool center directors invited to participate in evaluation data collection activities, including surveys and focus groups.

2. During the 2023-24 school year, 2,642 four-year-old students were identified as receiving preschool tuition credits from DPP and their parents were invited to participate in evaluation activities.

3. The evaluation team also obtained contact information from 295 families of 3-year-old children enrolled in DPP in the 2023-24 school year. These families were all low-income level (DPP’s Tiers 1 and 2) and enrolled in community-based preschools.

4. Data indicated families of four-year-olds from the NE region had the highest participation in DPP (32%), while all four of the other regions had similar participation levels of between 16% and 19%.

5. More than half of DPP’s families (57%) are low-income, while almost one quarter of all families (23%) come from high-income households.

6. A very low proportion (6%) of middle-income families were enrolled in DPP when the dataset was obtained. Further study is warranted to understand the factors that might contribute to these participation differences, particularly for middle income families.

7. Data were analyzed by five geographic regions of the city, including: Far Northeast (FNE) including Montbello, Gateway-Green Valley Ranch, and DIA, Northeast (NE), Southeast (SE), Northwest (NW), and Southwest (SW).

8. Data were also analyzed by family income tiers grouped into three main categories: Lowincome (Tiers 1 and 2); Middle-income (Tiers 3 and 4); and High-income (Tier 5).

9. Providers’ overall response rate to the survey was 31%. The responses received by the region of the city were roughly in proportion to the number of invitations sent by region.

Parents of four-year-old children had an overall response rate of 8%, while parents of three-year-old children had an overall response rate of 12%.

10. Survey data show that families in the SW, FNE and NW regions have a higher preference for school-based preschools as compared with community/non-school-based preschools.

Families from the SE and NE regions showed a relatively equal preference between both types of preschools.

11. Survey data show children from low-income families were close to three times more likely to attend a school-based preschool versus non-school-based.

110

12. By contrast, high-income families strongly favored community/non-school-based preschools. Middle income families showed relatively even preference for both types of preschools.

In summary, the evaluation of DPP operations for the 2023-24 school year included 272 community- and home-based DPP providers from all five regions of Denver: Far Northeast (FNE), Northeast (NE), Northwest (NW), Southeast (SE) and Southwest (SW). Also included were a small number of community-based providers not participating in DPP. The evaluation also included 2,642 and 295 families of 4- and 3-year old children, respectively, enrolled in DPP for the 2023-24 school year. Data collection activities included online surveys and focus groups in English and Spanish. Data were analyzed by geographic region, income level, and type of preschool, school-based or community-based.

Data showed different DPP participation rates of families of 4-year-old children by geographic region with the highest participation in the Northeast region (33%) while the other four regions had similar participation levels of between16% and 19%. Families participation by income level, defined through DPP Tiers, also showed different participation levels with more than half of DPP’s families (57%) from low-income levels (DPP Tiers 1 and 2) and almost one quarter (23%) of families from high-income households (Tier 5). Middle-income families (Tier 3 and 4) represented a very low proportion (6%) of DPP participation.

From those who completed the survey, families from the FNE, NW and SW regions showed higher preference for school-based preschools as compared with community-based preschools.

Children from low-income families were close to three times more likely to attend a schoolbased preschool versus a community-based preschool; high-income families strongly favored community-based preschools, while middle income families showed a relatively even preference for both types of preschools.

Highlights of Section 1: Impact of UPK on DPP Operations This Impact of UPK on DPP section of the report included the following highlights and potential recommendations: 1. As in year 1 of the evaluation, family and provider focus groups in year 2 corroborated the finding that providers are the primary source of information for families regarding the benefits, requirements, and key components of DPP and UPK. Providers therefore play a central role in helping educate the community about these two programs. This highlights the importance of: 1) understanding existing gaps in provider understanding of DPP and UPK; and 2) ensuring that providers fully understand DPP, as they are essential spokespersons for the program.

2. Provider processes for informing families about UPK or DPP are typically unstructured and are often in response to parents’ questions. This avenue for informing 111

families about the programs is therefore less likely to be consistent across provider or parent experiences.

3. In general, community-based providers understand that DPP distributes funding to providers for classroom supplies, coaching and professional training opportunities for teachers and school administrators, as well as stipends that providers use in different ways to support their staff. In contrast, no school-based DPP providers or non-DPP providers that participated in focus groups were aware of these DPP benefits.

4. Focus group input indicated school-based DPP providers do not tend to deal directly with DPP or UPK and are therefore not familiar with many aspects of either program.

5. School-based DPP providers reported their District’s central office staff are primarily responsible for interacting with DPP/UPK. This current communication structure suggests DPP has an opportunity to expand on its current communications directly to school-based preschool providers in order to expand their understanding and appreciation of the full range of benefits that DPP can provide to ensure these providers are maximizing their potential DPP benefits.

6. Focus group input suggests many preschool providers perceive DPP as providing broader support than UPK (including not only tuition support for families, but support for coaching, training, and classroom supplies).

7. Providers appear to have a clear understanding of the difference in funding sources between DPP and UPK. In particular, all providers participating in evaluation focus groups understood DPP funding comes from local tax dollars from the City of Denver, while UPK funding comes from the state.

8. According to survey data, providers reported the highest level of understanding of children’s age eligibility requirements for DPP and UPK funding, while the matching of families to UPK providers was one of the least understood components. These data were corroborated in provider focus groups.

9. Provider survey data show several important areas of weakness in provider understanding of the DPP/UPK relationship, including: ○ How families are matched with UPK providers; ○ The amount of funding that families can receive from UPK. 10. Focus group data differed somewhat from the survey data in that most community-based providers who participated in focus groups reported being familiar with the relationship between DPP and UPK. This may be due to the fact that providers who agreed to participate in focus groups were also more likely to be actively informing themselves about DPP/UPK. Regardless, very few focus group participants understood the role of DPP as one of UPK’s LCOs or the exact role of the LCOs overall. Most did understand that the amounts provided through the two programs was different, that there was a partnership between DPP and UPK, and that UPK funding was channeled through DPP to UPK-enrolled families.

112

11. In contrast to community-based providers, school-based providers did not know/understand the relationship between UPK and DPP, how the programs worked together, or whether the funding for both programs had merged.

12. Survey data show regional variations across Denver in provider understanding of DPP/UPK operations in five key areas (such as funding eligibility, enrollment processes and family matching). In particular, providers in the Southwest region of Denver consistently showed the lowest levels of overall understanding of these operational topics, while those in the Northeast self-reported the highest level of understanding. These findings suggest DPP should consider increasing its targeted communications efforts to providers in specific regions of the city (such as the Southwest) to help close existing gaps in understanding across the city.

13. Similarly, there were regional variations in provider understanding of DPP funding and provider participation requirements. Southeast region providers for instance rated their understanding of DPP and UPK funding and provider participation requirements the highest of all five regions, compared to Far Northeast providers whose ratings were the lowest. Again, targeted communications from DPP on these topics could help address existing regional differences in provider understanding of these topics.

14. Overall, surveys found that the average provider understanding of five key topics associated with DPP and UPK operations has room to improve. For instance, 65% of providers indicated either low or average understanding of the amount of funding parents can receive from UPK and 55% were either low or average in understanding whether families can qualify for DPP and UPK funding simultaneously. Given that families consistently say that providers are their main source of information about these programs, DPP should consider providing added training or information to providers to boost both provider and family understanding of DPP and UPK. Such information could be provided

by DPP through: ○ Recorded webinars; ○ One-page handouts in multiple languages that providers can share with families with succinct descriptions of DPP and UPK and how the programs interact; ○ Documentation that describes clearly how funding from UPK may not cover the full amount of tuition and the importance of enrolling in both programs not only to secure additional tuition credits but also to support providers with training and meeting their true cost of care; ○ Online trainings or meetings offered in multiple languages to share information with providers about the two programs.

15. Similar to provider survey data, family survey results found high percentages of parents of 4-year-old children do not understand or understand very little of five out of six aspects of the relationship between UPK and DPP and the funding these programs provide. Additional efforts are needed to help educate families about these aspects. Low levels of parent understanding were found regarding: 113

○ What the qualifications are for children to receive DPP and UPK funding; ○ The relationship between DPP and UPK; ○ Whether all preschool providers in Denver are providers in both DPP and UPK; ○ The amount of funding families can receive from DPP and UPK. 16. There was consensus among providers that UPK media coverage attracted some families to enroll their children in preschool. While providers indicated most parents are not knowledgeable about DPP or UPK, they believe parents heard UPK would make preschool more affordable, and this encouraged them to enroll. Parent survey data corroborated this finding with roughly half of respondents indicating that learning about UPK encouraged them to enroll their child in DPP. While UPK media attention has been a benefit in this way, data suggest more efforts are needed to address parent confusion on how the two programs interact.

17. Some providers reported that the complexity of the UPK enrollment process could be especially burdensome for non-English speaking families.

18. Families receiving DPP tuition credits are mostly unfamiliar with important aspects of DPP and UPK and would benefit from learning more about the programs. Parents not currently in DPP are likely even less knowledgeable.

19. Providers in APA’s focus groups indicated that sometimes families who enrolled in UPK think they do not need DPP or do not want to bother completing the DPP application. Some providers have responded to this by making the DPP application a requirement for school registration for all families who live in Denver.

20. Having two distinct programs and applications was also reported to be challenging for parents and a barrier to families participating. Information was reported to be lacking about how DPP and UPK were related and in what order parents needed to complete the applications and make their school selections. Some providers reported parent frustration with having to provide application information multiple times.

21. DPP should collaborate with UPK to streamline the application process so that common data or information is automatically entered into both systems. DPP could also work with UPK to create a universal, single application form that can be used by any type of provider (community based, school based) so families can apply simultaneously to both programs without having to enter information twice. Providers reported that parents who enroll their child in DPS preschools have this advantage already.

In summary, providers are the primary source of information for families regarding the benefits, requirements, and key components of UPK and DPP. Data showed that all providers have gaps in their knowledge about different aspects of these two programs, with gaps more pronounced for school-based than community-based providers. Existing gaps are understandable given that community-based providers have more direct communication with DPP and UPK (through DPP as the LCO), while school-based providers do not tend to communicate directly with DPP or UPK. Important areas of weakness in providers’ understanding of these programs include the 114

UPK matching process of families with schools, the amount of funding families can receive from UPK, and the funding sources of both programs. Regional variations in providers’ understanding of DPP funding and provider participation requirements were found also. DPP should consider providing added training or information to providers to boost both provider and family understanding of DPP and UPK. Families reported a great deal of misunderstandings and confusion about DPP and UPK, what they are and the difference between them, how they are related, who qualifies for the programs, and most importantly, the enrollment process. Providers’ information to families, given their own gaps in understanding of these programs, is usually unstructured and inconsistent. These findings underscore the importance of: 1) understanding existing gaps in provider understanding of DPP and UPK; 2) ensuring that providers fully understand how the programs interact, as they are essential spokespersons for the program; and 3) pursuing steps to streamline and consolidate the DPP and UPK enrollment and application processes.

Highlights of Section 2: Family and Provider Interactions with DPP This Family and Provider Interaction with DPP section of the report included the following highlights and potential recommendations: 1. Survey and focus group findings both found that the main way parents and families find out about DPP is through personal conversations and word of mouth. Talking with preschool personnel was by far the single biggest information source for parents of 4-year-olds (41%) and 3-year-olds (49%). Hearing from a friend, neighbor, another parent, or a relative accounted for an additional 38%-39% for both groups.

2. Families in the focus groups shared that they were interested in DPP for two primary reasons: 1) benefits to the child; and 2) making preschool affordable. In terms of the benefits to their children, key benefits mentioned included learning and socialization skills, improved attention, and help for children with IEPs. 3. The majority of parents in focus groups had some confusion about what DPP, UPK, DPS, and school choice are and how the programs work together. Parents shared that it would have been useful to know what each program funds, what the differences and relationships are between them, and the benefits of enrolling in more than one.

4. Most providers in evaluation focus groups indicated they had no issues with existing requirements to participate in DPP, with the exception of the quality rating process. Some providers believed quality raters were not qualified to do the observations or to decide center ratings and that the rating process was too subjective. Since the ratings impact DPP tuition assistance, this was a strong point of contention.

5. Survey findings corroborated that the quality rating process was the most likely DPP requirement to discourage providers from participating, however providers on average did not think the rating process was a very significant discouraging factor.

6. Surveyed providers overall leaned slightly to agree with the statement that the current quality rating system accurately reflected the quality of childcare offered. This 115

suggests a general acceptance amongst providers that the rating process has merit, despite some flaws that surfaced during focus group discussions.

7. Parents expressed the need for more information on programs that offer before- and after-typical preschool hours as well as programs that ran in the summer.

8. A major frustration expressed in focus groups was a lack of understanding of the DPP and UPK enrollment processes. Parents were confused about documentation needed, required timelines, why documentation was needed several times, what months of the year were covered by UPK or DPP, whether they were approved, how much tuition support they received, and if they still owed money even with the tuition credits. Some potential avenues DPP could pursue to help address these challenges include: a. Establish a clear point of contact for parent and provider questions about the DPP and UPK enrollment processes. b. Track the most frequently asked enrollment questions from parents and providers for each program, including questions about how the two programs interact, why parents should apply, and tips for streamlining the process of applying to both. c. Create and annually revise responses to the most frequently asked questions to be posted on the DPP web site and distributed to providers to share with potential clients. d. Create a one pager with a flowchart that graphically shows the application process for each program with deadlines, timelines, dates by which families can expect a determination of the tuition credit they will receive and contact information and web links for further information.

9. The top reason parents believe families choose not to enroll in DPP is that they do not know DPP exists. This finding was consistent from Year 1 (63%) and Year 2 (55%) evaluation surveys as well as a separate survey of parents with 3-year-olds (79%).

10. Another notable finding is that large percentages of 4-year-old parents (56% in year 1 and nearly 50% in year 2) and nearly two thirds of 3-year-old parents believe families do not enroll in DPP because they think their income is too high to qualify.

11. Most parents (88%) of 4-year-old children completing the survey knew DPP provided money to their child’s preschool to reduce their tuition cost. Of the 12% that did not know, 81% were low-income families, and 88% were enrolled in a school-based preschool. This indicates that a productive avenue for DPP to close this information gap would be to focus on providing additional communication materials to DPS preschool leaders and staff that could be easily shared with parents in their programs.

12. Half of all responding parents of 4-year-old children did not know the amount that DPP contributed to their tuition. Of those who did not know, more than half (60%) were low-income families. Only 36% of parents of 3-year-olds knew the amount of their DPP tuition credit. These large gaps in awareness represent an opportunity for DPP to further expand parent knowledge on this topic through enhanced community outreach

116

and communications. Parents appreciated outreach efforts through community fairs, neighborhood events, and other in-person gatherings.

13. GIS mapping of survey data helps show that certain regions and neighborhoods in Denver (including in the Southwest region and Gateway-Green Valley Ranch for example) might particularly benefit from targeted DPP outreach and communications to boost awareness of tuition credit amounts.

14. Although not enough of a challenge to discourage providers from participating in DPP, a few suggested that DPP streamline the providers’ enrollment process by aligning into one of the platforms used by most providers, including Early Learning Ventures (ELV), Brightwheel, or Procare.

In summary, the main way parents and families find out about and interact with DPP is through personal conversations and word of mouth. Conversations with preschool staff was by far the single largest parent information source. A top priority remains outreach to families about DPP’s existence, since findings from Year 1 and 2 of the evaluation point to unawareness of the program as a top reason families do not enroll. Since providers are a key source of parent information, it follows that DPP outreach strategies should include a focus on provider communications. This could include encouraging all DPP providers to take further steps to enroll parents in DPP and to include DPP information in communications with prospective families, including the benefits – to both families and providers – of DPP participation. Key other areas to target include expanding family and parent awareness of the amount of funds they receive from DPP and expanding awareness that there are no income limits for families to participate. GIS mapping of survey data helped show that certain regions and neighborhoods in Denver (including in the Southwest region and Gateway-Green Valley Ranch for example) might particularly benefit from targeted DPP outreach to boost awareness.

As touched upon in Section 1 of this report, the complexity of having two programs (DPP and UPK) to enroll in and apply for was a major frustration expressed by parents and providers. In fact, having two enrollment and application processes was reported to be challenging for parents and a barrier to families participating and was especially burdensome for non-English speaking families. Several suggestions were offered to address these issues and reduce the burden on enrolling in both programs. Finally, while the current quality rating system could keep some providers from participating in DPP, providers on average did not think the rating process was a significant discouraging factor. Instead, they leaned towards agreeing with the statement that the quality rating system accurately reflected the quality of childcare offered.

Highlights of Section 3: Tuition Credit System This Tuition Credit System section of the report included the following highlights: 1. The vast majority of DPP families responding to the survey – 72% of DPP families of 4year-old children and 91% of families of 3-year-olds – said access to DPP tuition credits encouraged or somewhat encouraged them to send their child to preschool.

These results confirm that DPP tuition credits have a high level of impact on most participating Denver families across the city.

117

2. About 85% of low-income families of 4-year-olds indicated that DPP tuition credits encouraged or somewhat encouraged them to send their child to preschool.

3. When asked if they would be able to send their child to preschool without DPP tuition credits, a large majority (68%) of families of 4-year-olds indicated they would either not be able to afford preschool or would struggle to afford it. This was a 10% increase from last year’s survey. Nearly all families of 3-year-olds gave the same answer.

4. Survey data revealed variations in regional impact of the credits. For instance, most families in Far Northeast and Southwest Denver reported DPP tuition credits encouraged them to send their children to preschool. The Northeast region family responses were roughly half and half, and the Northwest region showed response variety by neighborhood, likely driven by income level variations. These data can help inform targeted future DPP communications strategies by region and even neighborhoods.

5. The Far Northeast and Southwest regions of the city also had survey responses that almost unanimously indicated families would either not be able to afford paying for preschool without DPP or that it would be financially difficult.

In summary, DPP tuition credits are having a high level of positive impact on most participating Denver families across the city. Large majorities indicated they would either not be able to afford preschool or would struggle to afford it without DPP tuition credit support, and the percentage who indicated this increased from Year 1 findings. Large percentages of families also said that DPP tuition credits encouraged them to send their child to preschool. With the ever-growing body of literature extolling the value and positive impacts of attending preschool on later child outcomes, this finding alone suggests the possibility of a massive return on investment from DPP’s tuition credit program.

Highlights of Section 4: Factors Influencing Family Preschool Choices and Access This Choosing Preschool System section of the report included the following highlights: 1. When asked which quality aspects of a preschool were most important, 98% of families indicated that the preschool director and the teachers having the appropriate training, certificate, or license was important or the most important aspect of a quality preschool. This was true across all income levels and these quality aspects were also rated the most important qualities in year one of this evaluation.

2. The length of time a preschool was in operation ranked the lowest of importance for families, across all income levels. This result was the same in the year one evaluation.

3. According to the survey results of DPP families, most families were unaware of their child’s preschool quality rating, and the preschool’s quality rating was middle of the pack in terms of importance to families when choosing a preschool.

4. Higher income, Tier 5 families were the most likely to be aware of their child’s preschool quality rating (51%).

5. Parent focus group feedback suggested a wide array of factors come into play when selecting preschools. If possible, families should visit prospective sites in person and 118

come prepared with questions to ask teachers and staff. To help support families in this regard DPP staff could consider developing a list of research-backed questions parents can ask when visiting and choosing preschools.

6. Parents in focus groups discussed that preschool decisions often came down to availability and affordability. They indicated affordable, high-quality schools usually had long waitlists, while expensive schools had openings but were not affordable.

7. Nearly all families (99%) indicated that having preschool staff be respectful to their child and family were very important characteristics to them in a preschool. These were also rated as highly important characteristics on the year one survey.

8. Sharing their family's religious beliefs (30%) was among the least important preschool characteristics for families. The magnitude of importance varied by income levels, with low-income families indicating this as an important characteristic compared to high-income families who did not consider it to be as important.

9. Nearly half of low-income families indicated that being close to public transportation was either an important or the most important characteristic of a preschool, compared to 7% of higher income families.

10. Survey results showed 27% of providers did not have enough slots to meet parent demand for preschool. Of these 27%, more than half were located in either the Far Northeast or Northwest regions of the city, with a disproportionate amount of these centers in the Far Northeast.

11. The top three barriers to increasing the number of available childcare slots were identified in the provider survey and corroborated in provider focus groups: a. Inability to pay a high enough salary to attract and retain qualified teachers. b. Inability to cover the gap between the full cost of providing care and the tuition support provided to families. c. Inability to find adequate space to expand in their childcare facility.

12. Providers in the Far Northeast region identified every barrier as a high barrier at the same rate or greater than the average provider, suggesting an increased level of market stress in this region of the city.

13. Nearly two-thirds of surveyed providers did not offer infant care, but of those that did and were able to meet demand, almost half were located in the Northeast region.

This has numerous implications for understanding how infant care challenges vary by region and is particularly critical since providers reported having long waitlists for both infant and toddler care. Overall, childcare demand, especially for infants and toddlers, appears to far outpace current capacity, with providers describing it as a "crisis."

14. Providers had several suggestions for how DPP could help expand preschool supply: a. Offer additional professional development for preschool administrators to help them develop their business and management credentials and grant writing skills. b. Distribute a monthly newsletter that includes a list of available ECE grants that school administrators could pursue.

119

c. Expand funding to include purchase of classroom equipment and furnishings. d. Encourage state policymakers to pass legislation supporting rent or mortgage assistance for childcare providers to reduce their facility costs. e. Increase communications to unlicensed providers of the financial benefits of becoming licensed, including the benefit of participating in DPP. f. Increase communications that licensing and quality-rating can increase unlicensed provider visibility and ability to attract more business. g. Offer monthly workshops and one-on-one support to help unlicensed providers going through the licensing process.

15. APA’s family survey found that 43% of families of 4-year-olds and 85% of those with 3-year-olds found preschools they liked but were too expensive to afford. a. This experience impacted Far Northeast families disproportionately higher than other regions. For instance, 52% of respondents from the Far Northeast reported this experience, compared to 28% of those from the Southeast. b. One third (33%) of high-income families (a 20-percentage point decrease from last year) and 42% of low-income families shared this experience.

16. Survey findings corroborated focus group input regarding Denver’s ongoing preschool supply challenges. About half of families of 4-year-olds and families of 3-year-olds found preschools they liked but did not have available slots. a. This affected more than half of tier 5 & 6 families, compared with 35% of lowincome families. b. Less than half (42%) of families believed there were enough preschools to choose from close to where they lived. c. NW region families, in particular, had the perception that there was not a sufficient supply of preschools to choose from.

17. The vast majority of survey (91%) and focus group participants agreed that their providers and preschool staff respected and valued their culture. Efforts made by providers to serve families in the primary language spoken at home and to celebrate multicultural holidays were particularly appreciated.

In summary, Year 2 evaluation data on the factors that influence family preschool choices and access found that most families were unaware of their child’s preschool quality rating, and the preschool quality rating was middle of the pack in terms of importance to families when choosing a preschool. Instead, availability and affordability remain the top factors influencing parent choice. Unfortunately, many families still are not able to afford the preschools they liked best, and many find that the preschools they like have no available slots. Providers corroborate the seriousness of these challenges and cite their inability to pay a competitive wage to attract and retain staff as a crucial challenge to their ability to expand the number of children they serve, as well as a lack of affordable space, and inability to charge high enough tuition to meet their full cost of providing care. Supply problems are further exacerbated by the fact that many providers do not choose to serve infants or toddlers. These supply and demand challenges should remain a top priority for state and local policymakers and for DPP to address. Providers offered numerous 120

suggestions for policymakers to consider, including among other ideas pursuing state legislation supporting rent or mortgage assistance for childcare providers to reduce their facility costs, and increasing communications to unlicensed providers of the financial benefits of becoming licensed, including the benefit of participating in DPP.

Highlights of Section 5: DPP Impacts on Parents and Providers This Impacts of DPP section of the report included the following highlights: 1. Large majorities of surveyed families (62% of those with 4-year-olds and 82% of those with 3-year-olds) credited their ability to afford more childcare to DPP tuition credits. This response was consistent across income tiers, including 59% of low-income and 53% of high-income families.

2. Of the families of 4-year-olds who stated DPP tuition credits afforded them more hours of childcare, 40% stated that they were able to afford between 1-5 additional hours of childcare (roughly a half day) and 28% stated they were able to afford 6-10 additional hours (roughly a full day). 46% of families of 3-year-old children were able to afford more than 15 hours of childcare a week due to DPP’s support, which shows the importance of this funding for participating families 3. GIS mapping of survey data for families of 4-year-olds in response to the question of whether DPP tuition credits afforded them more hours of childcare, revealed the highest proportion of “yes” versus “no” responses in the Far Northeast (about 2.5 times more yes than no responses) and Southwest (nearly 4 times more yes than no responses) indicating an even higher level DPP tuition credit impact in these regions.

4. GIS mapping of survey data regarding how increased preschool access helped parents stay employed or increase their income showed economic benefits from preschool access accrued to families across Denver’s distinct regions and neighborhoods.

5. A large majority (62%) of surveyed low-income families improved their economic situations by either gaining additional education or gaining or maintaining employment due to the hours their child attended preschool funded by DPP tuition credits.

6. More than half (55%) of low-income families and 41% of all families of 4-year-olds indicated DPP tuition credits made their families better able to meet additional basic needs, such as affording groceries, housing, and health insurance. For low-income families, the most consistently indicated need they were better able to afford was food.

7. Over three-quarters (84%) of families of 4-year-olds indicated that the added hours of childcare they could afford because of DPP helped reduce their stress and improved their mental health and self-care. All (100%) of families of 3-year-old children taking the survey made a selection from this category.

8. About two-thirds (65%) of families of 4-year-olds indicated that added hours of childcare provided through DPP allowed for improvement of their economic conditions, such as having time to get more education, to get a job or stay employed.

Nearly all (97%) families of 3-year-olds made a selection from this category.

121

9. Findings on DPP’s positive impacts on reducing family stress, improving mental health, and improving economic conditions transcended income differences and were consistent across family income tiers.

10. About half of parents surveyed said they would have to stay home to care for their child if preschool were not available to them. This could have significant negative economic impacts, including on the ability of primary caretakers to stay employed.

11. The vast majority of providers (86%) used DPP QI funds to purchase classroom materials in the last two years, and the majority (56%) used these funds to pay for group training and coaching.

12. When asked which uses of DPP QI funds had the most impact on child outcomes, providers indicated in surveys and focus groups that purchased classroom materials were very important and useful in their teaching, but teacher training and coaching paid for with support of QI funds was the most impactful to staff and children they serve.

13. Compensation/stipends to recognize teacher time spent in training were highly positive and impactful. Providers reported teachers loved the training funded with DPP support not only because of what they learned, but because they were compensated which respected their time as professionals, and they developed professional communities with other educators outside of their buildings.

14. Providers expressed appreciation for DPP’s tuition credit system, citing its positive impact on families and the childcare community. Many highlighted the tuition credits as a valuable resource, though several noted they do not fully cover the cost of care for children requiring special services or in high-cost programs. Survey findings showed less than a third fully agreed that the per-child credits they received covered their costs.

15. Providers expressed deep appreciation for DPP’s QI funds, noting they have enabled the purchase of essential classroom materials, furniture, and equipment while also fostering professionalism through coaching and professional development opportunities.

In summary, data collected in Year 2 of the evaluation on DPP impacts corroborated data from Year 1, which showed significant positive impacts on families and providers. Large majorities of families directly credit DPP with making preschool more affordable, and with allowing them to increase the hours their children attend preschool. These combined impacts had a correspondingly large and positive impact on reducing family stress, improving mental health, and enhancing family economic opportunities by making it easier for parents and caregivers to find jobs, stay employed, or pursue education they need to improve their earning capacity.

Evaluation data was similarly positive regarding DPP’s positive impacts on providers, who consistently expressed strong appreciation for DPP’s tuition credit system and its impact on families. Providers also reported that DPP’s QI funds have been highly valuable in supporting the needed purchase of classroom supplies and materials, and that teacher training and coaching paid for with QI funds was the most impactful overall QI-funded activity. Providers particularly stressed the value of giving stipends and compensation to teachers and staff who participated in training to recognize and value their time as professionals.

122

Appendix A: List of evaluation and research questions Project III: Evaluation Research Questions Perception of DPP and UPK 1. What do providers indicate are the successes and challenges associated with integrating DPP and UPK in Colorado?

2. What are parents’ perceptions and understanding of DPP and UPK? How can DPP help providers explain UPK and DPP to parents?

3. How do families hear about DPP? How do they learn how to apply for DPP tuition credits?

4. How can DPP improve its outreach to families?

Customer Service/Interaction with DPP 5. How do providers describe their interactions with DPP? Concerning tuition credits?

Concerning quality improvement?

6. To what extent do families have direct interactions with DPP? How do they describe these interactions?

7. Does the DPP application system make it easy or difficult for providers to participate?

What prevents providers from participating in DPP? 8. Is accessing DPP easier or harder for families from different socioeconomic and language backgrounds?

Tuition credit system 9. Do tuition credits encourage families from all income levels to send their children to preschool?

10. What levers of the tuition credit system can be changed to make a greater impact on families in Denver?

11. What families are accessing tuition credits? What families are not accessing the tuition credits?

12. Does the scholarship pilot effectively meet the program goals?

Choosing Preschool 13. What factors influence parent decisions when choosing a preschool for their children (e.g., transportation, affordability, hours available, childcare deserts, etc.)? Do these factors vary by parent characteristics (e.g., income level, language spoken by parents, neighborhood where they live)?

123

14. What are the primary challenges and barriers to accessing preschool (e.g., transportation, affordability, hours available, childcare deserts, etc.)? Do these barriers vary by parent characteristics?

15. Do parents feel that their preschool provider offers services that are accessible and culturally responsive?

Maximizing DPP Impacts and Access to Childcare 16. What are parent and provider perceptions of DPP impacts on participating families (i.e. does it increase DPP families’ ability to enter the workforce, find more stable, full-time employment, or pursue higher education opportunities)?

17. How can DPP operations or funding supports be changed to improve access to childcare in communities that are childcare deserts?

18. How can provider ratings or other metrics be changed or created to improve access to childcare in communities that are childcare deserts?

19. What QI investments do providers indicate are most important to impact child outcomes and what additional QI investments are most needed?

Additional question 20. What do multiple audiences say are the most effective ways to present complex findings tailored to different interests (providers, parents, policymakers, and community leaders)?

124