Walk It Forward Survey, September 2026: Non-Member Provider 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, 62 owners and directors of licensed child care programs across Colorado, representing 90 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, none of them current ECEA members. Here is what they said, in their numbers and their words.
Who answered
The mix looks like Colorado’s licensed sector: 32% centers, with a strong showing from stand-alone preschools and family child care homes. 69% 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
School district operated?
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
This question splits sharply depending on who runs the program. 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 school district operation
| Answer | Independent (not district operated)76 programs, 56 responses | School district operated14 programs, 6 responses |
|---|---|---|
| Decreased since UPK | 40 of 76 (53%)32 responses | 0 |
| I have UPK kids but they are not staying for the rest of the day | 8 of 76 (11%)7 responses | 0 |
| Stable, about the same as before UPK launched | 8 of 76 (11%)5 responses | 4 of 14 (29%)4 responses |
| Increased since UPK | 6 of 76 (8%)4 responses | 9 of 14 (64%)1 response |
| Opened after UPK began, so cannot compare | 2 of 76 (3%)2 responses | 1 of 14 (7%)1 response |
| Not applicable; we do not serve 4-year-olds | 12 of 76 (16%)6 responses | 0 |
Four-year-old enrollment, by program type
| Answer | Centers29 programs, 20 responses | Preschools16 programs, 11 responses | Home-based21 programs, 21 responses | District-run14 programs, 6 responses | School-age10 programs, 4 responses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Decreased since UPK | 22 of 29 (76%)15 responses | 5 of 16 (31%)4 responses | 13 of 21 (62%)13 responses | 0 | 0 |
| I have UPK kids but they are not staying for the rest of the day | 5 of 29 (17%)4 responses | 3 of 16 (19%)3 responses | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Stable, about the same as before UPK launched | 0 | 5 of 16 (31%)2 responses | 3 of 21 (14%)3 responses | 4 of 14 (29%)4 responses | 0 |
| Increased since UPK | 2 of 29 (7%)1 response | 2 of 16 (12%)1 response | 1 of 21 (5%)1 response | 9 of 14 (64%)1 response | 1 of 10 (10%)1 response |
| Opened after UPK began, so cannot compare | 0 | 1 of 16 (6%)1 response | 1 of 21 (5%)1 response | 1 of 14 (7%)1 response | 0 |
| Not applicable; we do not serve 4-year-olds | 0 | 0 | 3 of 21 (14%)3 responses | 0 | 9 of 10 (90%)3 responses |
What this tells policymakers: 61% of providers say their financial health has declined in two years, 39% say public funding is a net cost once administration is counted, and 63% have lost four-year-old enrollment or the full-day families that came with it. 43% of participating programs spend six or more hours every week on paperwork that licensing does not require. Break the enrollment question out by who runs the program and the picture is even clearer: no district operated program reported losing four-year-olds. The loss is landing on independent programs.
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?
Not one district operated program saw a threat to its survival. Most independent centers and homes did. Weighted by programs represented, with response counts underneath.
Effect of expansion, by school district operation
| Answer | Independent (not district operated)76 programs, 56 responses | School district operated14 programs, 6 responses |
|---|---|---|
| It could threaten our ability to remain in business | 36 of 76 (47%)30 responses | 0 |
| It would create significant financial pressure | 12 of 76 (16%)9 responses | 2 of 14 (14%)2 responses |
| We would likely have to reduce classrooms, staffing or services | 3 of 76 (4%)3 responses | 0 |
| We could adapt and remain competitive | 8 of 76 (11%)6 responses | 9 of 14 (64%)1 response |
| Little or no effect | 17 of 76 (22%)8 responses | 3 of 14 (21%)3 responses |
Effect of expansion, by program type
| Answer | Centers29 programs, 20 responses | Preschools16 programs, 11 responses | Home-based21 programs, 21 responses | District-run14 programs, 6 responses | School-age10 programs, 4 responses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| It could threaten our ability to remain in business | 15 of 29 (52%)11 responses | 6 of 16 (38%)4 responses | 15 of 21 (71%)15 responses | 0 | 0 |
| It would create significant financial pressure | 7 of 29 (24%)4 responses | 3 of 16 (19%)3 responses | 2 of 21 (10%)2 responses | 2 of 14 (14%)2 responses | 0 |
| We would likely have to reduce classrooms, staffing or services | 2 of 29 (7%)2 responses | 1 of 16 (6%)1 response | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| We could adapt and remain competitive | 5 of 29 (17%)3 responses | 1 of 16 (6%)1 response | 2 of 21 (10%)2 responses | 9 of 14 (64%)1 response | 0 |
| Little or no effect | 0 | 5 of 16 (31%)2 responses | 2 of 21 (10%)2 responses | 3 of 14 (21%)3 responses | 10 of 10 (100%)4 responses |
71% 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. 61% 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. 74% 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 5% 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.
“By expanding free public school seats for older children, the government has stripped private centers of the older age groups that financially subsidized our expensive infant and toddler care. If private, independent centers like mine close down, public schools cannot absorb the infants and toddlers left behind.”
Owner of a center and a home, 30 years in the field
“How do you propose private providers keep their doors open or make a living wage with the loss of income they would endure from free care for infants and toddlers?”
Family child care home owner
“How are you ensuring that this measure increases access for families, decreases tuition for families, improves wages for teachers, and ensures stability for existing providers?”
Center owner
“How do they plan on supporting the additional needs and delays of today's children? The percentage of children with special needs is growing every year and we need financial help to meet their needs safely and fairly.”
Center owner
“How will money be equitably distributed to home daycares?”
Family child care home owner
“Not just for private providers, but what regulations and requirements that are not necessary to ensure the safety and wellbeing of children and staff can be relaxed to reduce the cost of operating a licensed child care?”
School-age program
“We can't just take your word for it that it will work out. UPK and CCCAP have cost us a lot of time and haven't brought any extra revenue to our program in exchange for the time.”
Center owner
“I have been a provider for going on 35 years. Being forced out of business would be devastating.”
Family child care home owner
What non-member providers 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
82% want ECEA to take clear, strong positions on business impact or go further; only 18% prefer a neutral proponents-say, opponents-say approach. Of those who have followed ECEA’s advocacy this year, 63% rate the tone about right; 52% say they have not followed it closely, which is a reach opportunity as much as a rating.
For Board discussion
This is the non-member half of the combined industry results. Every one of these programs took time to answer an ECEA survey; that is a warm list for member recruitment and a check on whether our advocacy voice matches what the wider industry wants. The combined public page is at coloradoecea.org.
Source: ECEA Walk It Forward provider surveys, responses collected September 1 through 14, 2026 (62 complete responses from the non-member provider survey only; percentages in the bar charts are of all 62 respondents; the breakout tables are weighted by programs represented, 90 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.
