Context

Illinois’s Early Childhood Block Grant (ECBG) funds preschool programs across school districts, community-based providers, and regional offices of education.

For years, funding was request-based. Grantees articulated their program costs and Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) reviewed for what was necessary and reasonable, awarding dollars based on stated need and funding available. Over time, this resulted in significant variability with little to no standardization for equity.

As part of Governor Pritzker’s Smart Start Illinois, ISBE committed to expanding access and improving quality. When ECBG funding grows, most of that new money is already spoken for:

• New money goes toward opening programs in areas that don’t have any
• Funds are allocated as required to specific set-asides
• Existing grantees keep what they got last year to continue operating their programs (funding can’t get pulled back)

Any remaining funds left can go toward improving funding – improving quality – for existing programs. And that’s not much.

ISBE partnered with Afton to answer, “With limited quality dollars, where does the next dollar in have the most impact?”

Goal

ISBE needed a data-driven methodology for allocating quality dollars — an approach that could be explained, defended, and repeated year-over-year.

This project sought to answer questions like:

1. Where are the biggest funding gaps?
2. How do we prioritize for maximum impact?
3. How do you make equitable decisions when the whole system is underfunded?

Approach

Understanding the Problem

ISBE and Afton ran listening sessions, focus groups, and a cost survey across ‘23-24. What emerged was clear:

• Workforce challenges hit CBOs hardest. Centers couldn’t compete on salary or benefits.
• Revenue access varied dramatically. Due to the nature of their revenue make up, school districts have access to a variety of local funds and other state sources. Community-based providers had far fewer options.

Seeing the Variability

While average per-child funding looked similar across grantee types, the range within each type was significant. Legacy funding amounts meant two programs serving similar populations could receive wildly different support.

Averages masked the problem. The floor was the problem.

Targeting for Maximum Impact

In FY25, ISBE targeted quality dollars to non-school district providers furthest from equity.

Beyond the financial data, this approach was further supported by stakeholder input that confirmed CBOs have fewer revenue sources to supplement grants.

ISBE prioritized raising per-child minimums for non-school district providers and raising home visiting salary floors to match IDHS standards. The logic was transparent.

Outcomes

ISBE allocated $8.58 million in FY25 quality dollars:

• $5.24 million to raise per-child minimums for non-school district providers
• $3.34 million to raise home visitor/supervisor salary floors

The impact:

• 140 grantees received increased per-child funding
• Increases ranged from $627–$2,101 (PFA) and $313–$2,328 (PFAE) (the largest since FY20)
• Established a repeatable methodology for making quality investment decisions year-over-year

While unfortunately the ecosystem remains underfunded, ISBE now has a framework for hard allocation decisions, one that helps answer where the next dollar can do the most good.