Walk It Forward Survey, September 2026: ECEA Member Responses
What Colorado’s child care providers are telling us
Before Colorado builds a bigger child care system, the people who run child care want a seat at the table.
In the first two weeks of September, 46 owners and directors of licensed child care programs across Colorado, representing 113 licensed sites, answered the same set of questions about public funding, enrollment, compliance, and what they need before any new statewide funding measure earns their support. Centers, preschools, family child care homes, school-age programs, all of them ECEA member programs. Here is what they said, in their numbers and their words.
Who answered
The mix looks like Colorado’s licensed sector: 78% centers, with a strong showing from stand-alone preschools and family child care homes. 96% already participate in Universal Preschool Colorado (UPK), the Colorado Child Care Assistance Program (CCCAP), or both, so these are the people who know first-hand what public funding asks of a program.
Type of program
Current public funding participation
How public funding is landing
Revenue is only half the story. Providers weighed the dollars UPK and CCCAP bring in against the enrollment rules, attendance tracking, reporting, monitoring and payment procedures that come with them. The honest picture: for most programs, public funding has not been a net gain.
Over the past two years, my program’s financial health has
Considering both revenue and costs, public funding has meant
Four-year-old enrollment since UPK launched in fall 2023
Weekly staff time on public-funding paperwork, beyond licensing
The breakouts below are weighted by programs represented (a director answering for six sites counts as six), with the raw response count underneath.
Four-year-old enrollment, by program type
| Answer | Centers102 programs, 36 responses | Preschools9 programs, 8 responses | Home-based2 programs, 2 responses |
|---|---|---|---|
| Decreased since UPK | 54 of 102 (53%)19 responses | 6 of 9 (67%)5 responses | 1 of 2 (50%)1 response |
| I have UPK kids but they are not staying for the rest of the day | 12 of 102 (12%)5 responses | 1 of 9 (11%)1 response | 0 |
| Stable, about the same as before UPK launched | 18 of 102 (18%)4 responses | 2 of 9 (22%)2 responses | 1 of 2 (50%)1 response |
| Increased since UPK | 17 of 102 (17%)7 responses | 0 | 0 |
| Opened after UPK began, so cannot compare | 1 of 102 (1%)1 response | 0 | 0 |
| Not applicable; we do not serve 4-year-olds | 0 | 0 | 0 |
What this tells policymakers: 63% of providers say their financial health has declined in two years, 48% say public funding is a net cost once administration is counted, and 67% have lost four-year-old enrollment or the full-day families that came with it. 45% of participating programs spend six or more hours every week on paperwork that licensing does not require.
What happens if “free public school” expands to younger children
UPK primarily touched the preschool market. Providers were asked to walk it forward: what if no-tuition, district-based care expanded to toddlers and children under four?
Effect on the long-term viability of my program
Should policymakers address the property-tax gap between private programs and tax-supported facilities?
Weighted by programs represented, with response counts underneath.
Effect of expansion, by program type
| Answer | Centers102 programs, 36 responses | Preschools9 programs, 8 responses | Home-based2 programs, 2 responses |
|---|---|---|---|
| It could threaten our ability to remain in business | 73 of 102 (72%)25 responses | 5 of 9 (56%)4 responses | 0 |
| It would create significant financial pressure | 21 of 102 (21%)6 responses | 1 of 9 (11%)1 response | 1 of 2 (50%)1 response |
| We would likely have to reduce classrooms, staffing or services | 2 of 102 (2%)2 responses | 0 | 0 |
| We could adapt and remain competitive | 6 of 102 (6%)3 responses | 2 of 9 (22%)2 responses | 1 of 2 (50%)1 response |
| Little or no effect | 0 | 1 of 9 (11%)1 response | 0 |
85% of providers say expansion of district-based care to younger ages would threaten their business, create significant financial pressure, or force cuts to classrooms and staff. 74% want the structural cost difference addressed: private programs pay property taxes, directly or through rent, that fund the very facilities they now compete with.
What providers need before they can support a new funding measure
Initiative 195 and Proposition NN would create major new statewide revenue streams, each naming early child care and education as a possible use. Private providers were not invited to help design how that money would reach programs. Here is what they say has to come first.
How important is meaningful private-provider representation in designing the system?
Which approach would do the most to strengthen your program?
A few respondents picked more than one, so shares add to more than 100.
Protections that should be established first
Respondents picked up to three, so shares add to more than 100.
After considering these issues, what would you need before supporting a new statewide measure?
Reaction to Initiative 195’s graduated income tax, as described by proponents and opponents
The door is open, on conditions. 72% of providers are either ready to support a new measure once protections are written in or want real detail on distribution and administration before deciding. Only 4% would support a measure on purpose alone. Equitable access, cost-relief parity, and comparable payment for the same children are the three protections providers name most.
In their own words
We asked for the one question providers most want policymakers and supporters of a new funding measure to answer. These are direct quotes from the anonymous survey, lightly trimmed for length.
“How will this measure deliver direct financial support to private providers without adding extra administrative complexity or regulatory burden?”
Center director
“Will the new funding formula cover the actual, true cost of delivering quality care, or will it tie our hands with price caps and mandates that force us out of business?”
Center and school-age program owner
“Can you guarantee that this money will not just go to public school districts?”
Center owner
“Are we a family choice state? We have historically been a family choice state, but so many new measures have weakened this. If we are no longer a family choice state, the policymakers need to state that.”
Center owner
“Why is there no cap on the amount of UPK funding that can go to school districts? The loss of full-day 4 and 5 year olds is causing private providers to close at an alarming rate.”
Center owner
“Why my property taxes are funding my direct competitors.”
Center owner
What members want from ECEA’s voice
Two questions were asked for the Board’s eyes rather than for policymakers: how assertive respondents want ECEA to be when it communicates about policies and ballot measures, and how they rate the past year of advocacy. These do not appear on the public results pages.
When ECEA communicates about policies and ballot measures, the voice I want is
Options run from most cautious to most assertive.
Over the past year, ECEA’s advocacy voice has been
89% want ECEA to take clear, strong positions on business impact or go further; only 11% prefer a neutral proponents-say, opponents-say approach. Of those who have followed ECEA’s advocacy this year, 76% rate the tone about right.
From the mailbag
Some providers followed their survey with a letter. Two excerpts.
“Small family childcare programs cannot absorb delayed reimbursements while continuing to cover our mortgages, food, insurance, staffing, supplies, and every other operating expense. We should not be expected to finance a state program while waiting to be repaid. Any measure moving forward needs enforceable protections, not simply reassuring language, for prompt and predictable payment, minimal administrative burden, respect for private business policies, philosophical autonomy, equitable participation by family childcare homes, and families’ ability to choose the setting that truly fits their child.”
Family child care owner and nature-based educator
“Whatever your political leaning, it is imperative that you read the language of these initiatives to understand how they intend to help and how they will harm small businesses. Where is all of this money going to go? And how? Who will administer these programs and at what cost? What strings will be attached if we accept more public funding? Privately owned programs provide infrastructure, character, competition, choice in education, and so much more for our families.”
Montessori school owner
For Board discussion
This is the member half of the combined industry results, prepared for the Board so it can see what the programs we represent are asking for before ECEA weighs any position on the November measures. The combined public page is at coloradoecea.org.
Source: ECEA Walk It Forward provider surveys, responses collected September 1 through 14, 2026 (46 complete responses from the ECEA member survey only; percentages in the bar charts are of all 46 respondents; the breakout tables are weighted by programs represented, 113 in total; figures may not sum to 100 due to rounding). Universal Preschool Colorado (UPK) and the Colorado Child Care Assistance Program (CCCAP) are the state’s two main public funding streams for licensed child care. Prepared for the ECEA Board of Directors; not for public distribution. ECEA does not take a position on a ballot measure unless its Board of Directors adopts one; this page reports what providers said.
