A response to Awaiting Report Item Number 26-23 regarding the Cambridge Preschool Program

CPP Status Update:

CPP is in its second academic year of implementation. There are currently 858 children enrolled in CPP programs across the City. Two-hundred-and-sixty-six of those children are three-year-olds, and 592 are four-year-olds. Forty-one percent of the enrolled children have Priority status.

(Children quality for Priority status if their family income is below 65% AMI, or if they are experiencing homelessness, or if they are in the foster care system.) CPP is a mixed-delivery system, with students distributed across three preschool sectors – Cambridge Public Schools (CPS), DHSP preschools, and preschools operated by community-based organizations (CBOs). ➢ CPS – 302 students enrolled (This does not include children with IEPs who enroll in preschool through Special Start.) ➢ DHSP – 217 students enrolled ➢ CBOs – 339 students enrolled Demand for CPP seats has remained relatively steady since the first CPP application in 2024, although applications decreased somewhat in the CPP match that was conducted this winter to enroll students for the 26-27 school year.

SY24-25 SY25-26 SY26-27

TOTAL

725

789

768 CPS 319 278 254 DHSP 142 210 214 CBOs 264 301 300 The numbers above reflect the number of students who received CPP “match” offers during the annual winter CPP match. Note that students who move to Cambridge after the CPP application deadline and students whose families otherwise missed the CPP application deadline continue to

enroll post-match. As such, the match numbers shown above slightly underestimate the actual enrollment numbers for each school year.

The CPP system includes a wide range of high-quality preschool options and is designed to ensure that families can select preschool programs that best meet their family’s and child’s needs. The CPP system includes full-day and school-day program options; a variety of programmatic models including language immersion programs, Montessori programs, and Reggio programs; and programs that use various curricular models.

Through the CPP application, families are asked to select six to ten preschools, and to rank those preschools to reflect the family’s order of preference. In the most recent CPP match, 97% of families with Priority status received a match offer from one of their top three ranked preschool choices, and 94% of General (non-Priority) families matched with one of their top three choices.

All age-eligible four-year-olds and Priority three-year-olds who are Cambridge residents are guaranteed a CPP seat. In the most recent CPP match for SY26-27, a total of 198 three-year-olds received a match offer, and 93 non-Priority three-year-olds were placed on a waitlist.

Exploring the Means Testing of CPP:

In launching CPP the City acted on its longstanding commitment to provide universal high-quality preschool to all Cambridge families regardless of income. The implementation of a universal preschool program had long been a goal of the Cambridge City Council, and for nearly two decades, the City administration, City Council, School Committee, and Cambridge Public Schools administration, along with a broad coalition of stakeholders, worked to make this goal a reality.

Per the request of Council, OEC, in conjunction with the City Manager’s strategy team, has explored the means-testing of CPP as a way to potentially offset budget pressures and to possibly fund some form of CPP expansion. OEC explored three potential models for means-testing: 1) Implement a CPP sliding fee scale that mirrors DHSP preschool's sliding fee scale. 2) Implement a slightly modified version of the DHSP sliding fee scale that does not charge any fees of families with incomes below 100% AMI. 3) Implement CPP as a program that is free for all families with incomes below 200% AMI, but not available to families with higher incomes.

The table below shows estimated cost savings for the City based on these means-testing models. The actual cost savings would depend on 1) annual fluctuations in CPP enrollment; 2) the income brackets that the City selects to use for a sliding fee scale; and 3) the extent to which CPS would participate in any fee-charging structure.

(Note that the second column in the table below reflects potential cost savings if all CPP families, including those enrolled in CPS, are charged fees through the sliding fee scale. The third column reflects potential cost savings if the City does not charge fees for CSP students.)

Means-Testing Model

Potential

Cost Savings

Potential

Cost Savings

w/o CPS Implement a CPP sliding fee scale that mirrors DHSP preschool's sliding fee scale.

~$5.9M ~$4M Implement a slightly modified version of the DHSP sliding fee scale that does not charge any fees for families with incomes below 100% AMI.

~$5.4M ~$3.6M Implement CPP as a program that is free for all families with incomes below 200% AMI.

~$1M

Each of the models depicted above would provide some cost savings for the City, which would allow for modest expansion of services for lower-income families. However, each model also presents specific disadvantages and challenges, not least of which is the rolling back of the City’s longstanding commitment to free universal preschool at a time when other cities and states are expanding universal preschool and childcare. Additional advantages and challenges are reflected below:

Model #1:

Implement a CPP sliding

fee scale that mirrors DHSP preschool's sliding fee scale.

• Cost savings that could be used to fund other priorities.

This model:

• Is a significant departure from the City’s longstanding commitment to free universal preschool. • Is more complicated for families to understand. • Carries a not-insignificant implementation burden, requiring additional infrastructure (for billing, income determinations, etc.). • Could place a greater administrative burden on community-based providers.

This model would result in new fees for families with incomes between 65%-100% AMI, many of whom are already facing significant financial challenges.

The City would need to decide whether CPS, as a public school system, would also operate on a sliding fee scale, and if so, additional infrastructure within CPS may be required.

Model #2: Implement a slightly modified version of the DHSP sliding fee scale that does not charge any fees for families with incomes below 100% AMI.

• Cost savings that could be used to fund other priorities. • This model does not result in any additional fees for families with incomes below 100%.

This model:

• Is a significant departure from the City’s longstanding commitment to free universal preschool. • Is more complicated for families to understand. • Carries a not-insignificant implementation burden, requiring additional infrastructure.

• Could place a greater administrative burden on community-based providers.

The City would need to decide whether CPS, as a public school system, would also operate on a sliding fee scale, and if so, additional infrastructure within CPS may be required.