Section 5: Service Delivery Models

States vary in the way they deliver prekindergarten services: some limit the provision of prekindergarten services to public school settings, others allow for a diversity of service delivery providers. This section outlines the relative benefits of each of the service delivery models.

Service Delivery Limited to Public Schools

Only a handful of states (e.g., Kansas and Louisiana) limit the provision of state prekindergarten services to public schools, but some larger programs (e.g., Oklahoma and Texas) serve the majority of prekindergarten children in public schools.

Prekindergarten programs nested within public schools have the advantages of the infrastructure provided by the school system.

• The flow of funds from the state to the school district is already in place, allowing more streamlined program administration.
  
  
• Many infrastructure costs, such as facilities, transportation, and administration, are already capitalized and have only a marginal cost impact on the program.
  
  
• Professional development requirements (both pre-service and in-service) and teacher pay tend to be higher for prekindergarten programs housed within public schools, as they generally follow the public school credential and salary schedules.
  
  
• Transitions between prekindergarten and kindergarten are generally easier when students stay in the same building.

One disadvantage of limiting state prekindergarten services to public schools is that it restricts the choices parents have in selecting a prekindergarten program for their child. Public schools may also need to make adjustments to accommodate prekindergarten programs. For example, some teachers certified in elementary education are not certified in prekindergarten, and some schools do not have the appropriate physical environment for very young children.

Diverse Service Delivery

Most states allow multiple service providers to provide prekindergarten services. In addition to public schools, eligible providers may include Head Start centers, child care centers, private schools, home-based sites, educational cooperative sites, churches, vocational and technical schools, YMCAs and YWCAs, military bases, universities, and hospitals. Within the group of states that use diverse service delivery systems, three models have emerged.

1. State-funded Head Start model. Head Start is a federal program that funds community-based organizations or school districts to provide preschool education to children living below the poverty level. In the state-funded Head Start model, funding for the program comes from the state, but the program’s design is similar to Head Start. Some states limit state supplemental funds to existing Head Start grantees, while others allow new providers to follow the program design defined by the Head Start performance standards. Some states pay for additional children to attend programs, while others may designate a portion of funds to supplement the cost of serving existing children.

   Examples: Delaware, Oregon

2. Public school subcontracting model. Public schools are the recipients and fiscal agents for state prekindergarten funds, but this model recognizes the availability of diverse service providers in a community. Schools have the discretion to subcontract with community-based providers; some states even mandate that a set percentage of funds must be subcontracted to the community. This may mean that a child care center receives support for all or part of a prekindergarten classroom, or it may mean that the public school pays the salary of a prekindergarten teacher who is stationed in the community.
   
   Examples: New York, West Virginia
   
   
3. Community-based model. In this model, the state provides direct grants to local governing bodies or to community-based providers, including public schools, Head Start centers, child care centers, churches, and youth-serving organizations. It differs from the pubic school sub-contracting model in that the schools do not always act as the fiscal agent for the state-funded prekindergarten program. Each grantee is its own fiscal agent.
   
   Examples: Connecticut, Massachusetts

A diverse delivery approach has a number of advantages.

• It offers parents more choices, allowing them to select the program that best meets their needs and the needs of their children.
  
  
• It maximizes the use of existing facilities and existing expertise in the community.
  
  
• It minimizes the need to transport children who require full-day care when prekindergarten is only a half-day program.
  
  
• It can raise program quality in community settings by limiting funding to those service providers who comply with higher state standards.¹
  
  
• There may be a spillover effect that improves the quality of classrooms within the facility that are not part of the pre-k initiative, such as the infant and toddler classrooms. For example, community-based settings that receive funding for Georgia Pre-k receive more attention and assistance from the state prekindergarten office, including access to funding to improve the quality of the infant and toddler classrooms. Other states have expanded access to professional development and training for all early educators in recognition of the demand for more qualified prekindergarten teachers.

States that implement a diverse service delivery system must make concerted efforts to build partnerships between participating providers and related agencies. Each service provider may have different priorities and cultures that can make it challenging for all participants to work together toward the same goals. Providers may also have diverse program standards, making it more difficult to reach the higher minimum standards of some state prekindergarten programs.

For More Information

Clifford, R.M., and J.J. Gallagher. Designing a High Quality Pre-Kindergarten Program. Chapel Hill, N.C.: North Carolina Education Research Council, 2001. Available at:
http://erc.northcarolina.edu/docs/publications/prekprogram.pdf

Schumacher, R., M. Greenberg, and J. Lombardi. States Initiatives to Promote Early Learning: Next Steps in Coordinating Subsidized Child Care, Head Start, and State Prekindergarten. Washington, D.C.: Center for Law and Social Policy, 2001. Available at:
http://clasp.org/publications/state_initiatives_rpt.pdf

Web Resources

State programs with different models of service delivery

Head Start supplement: Oregon Head Start Prekindergarten Program
http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/results/?id=41

Public school subcontracting: New York Statewide Prekindergarten
http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/nyc/upk.html

Community-based model: Massachusetts Community Partnerships for Children
http://www.eec.state.ma.us/

¹ K. Schulman, H. Blank, and D. Ewen. Seeds of Success: State Prekindergarten Initiatives 1998-99. (Washington, D.C.: Children’s Defense Fund, 1999).

[ Return to Top | Printer-friendly version ]

NPC Prekindergarten Framework
©2004 The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
National Prekindergarten Center, FPG Child Development Institute, UNC-CH
[Section 5 revised 1/17/2006]