Before the state builds a bigger child care system, providers want a seat at the table.
Over the first week of September, 82 owners and directors of licensed private child care programs across Colorado, representing 163 licensed programs, told us how public funding is really landing in their businesses and what they need before any new statewide funding measure earns their support. Here is what they said, in their numbers and their words.
Not a member yet? Your voice counts here too. The survey is open and anonymous, and takes about five minutes. Every response strengthens the case we bring to policymakers.
Take the survey nowWho answered
The mix looks like Colorado's licensed private sector: mostly centers, with strong showing from stand-alone preschools and family child care homes. Nine in ten 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
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) 149 programs, 76 responses | School district operated 14 programs, 6 responses |
|---|---|---|
| Decreased since UPK | 81 of 149 (54%) 42 responses | 0 |
| I have UPK kids but they are not staying for the rest of the day | 18 of 149 (12%) 11 responses | 0 |
| Stable, about the same as before UPK launched | 25 of 149 (17%) 11 responses | 4 of 14 (29%) 4 responses |
| Increased since UPK | 21 of 149 (14%) 9 responses | 9 of 14 (64%) 1 response |
| My program opened after UPK began, so I cannot compare | 2 of 149 (1%) 2 responses | 1 of 14 (7%) 1 response |
| Not applicable; we do not serve 4-year-olds | 2 of 149 (1%) 1 response | 0 |
Four-year-old enrollment, by program type
| Answer | Centers 115 programs, 46 responses | Preschools 19 programs, 16 responses | Home-based 13 programs, 13 responses | District-run 14 programs, 6 responses | School-age 2 programs, 1 responses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Decreased since UPK | 64 of 115 (56%) 27 responses | 9 of 19 (47%) 7 responses | 8 of 13 (62%) 8 responses | 0 | 0 |
| I have UPK kids but they are not staying for the rest of the day | 14 of 115 (12%) 7 responses | 4 of 19 (21%) 4 responses | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Stable, about the same as before UPK launched | 18 of 115 (16%) 4 responses | 4 of 19 (21%) 4 responses | 3 of 13 (23%) 3 responses | 4 of 14 (29%) 4 responses | 0 |
| Increased since UPK | 18 of 115 (16%) 7 responses | 2 of 19 (11%) 1 response | 1 of 13 (8%) 1 response | 9 of 14 (64%) 1 response | 0 |
| My program opened after UPK began, so I cannot compare | 1 of 115 (1%) 1 response | 0 | 1 of 13 (8%) 1 response | 1 of 14 (7%) 1 response | 0 |
| Not applicable; we do not serve 4-year-olds | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 of 2 (100%) 1 response |
Weekly staff time on public-funding paperwork, beyond licensing
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
Not one district operated program saw a threat to its survival. Nearly every independent center and home did. Weighted by programs represented, with response counts underneath.
Effect of expansion, by school district operation
| Answer | Independent (not district operated) 149 programs, 76 responses | School district operated 14 programs, 6 responses |
|---|---|---|
| It could threaten our ability to remain in business | 99 of 149 (66%) 47 responses | 0 |
| It would create significant financial pressure | 26 of 149 (17%) 11 responses | 2 of 14 (14%) 2 responses |
| We would likely have to reduce classrooms, staffing or services | 3 of 149 (2%) 3 responses | 0 |
| We could adapt and remain competitive | 15 of 149 (10%) 10 responses | 9 of 14 (64%) 1 response |
| Little or no effect | 6 of 149 (4%) 5 responses | 3 of 14 (21%) 3 responses |
Effect of expansion, by program type
| Answer | Centers 115 programs, 46 responses | Preschools 19 programs, 16 responses | Home-based 13 programs, 13 responses | District-run 14 programs, 6 responses | School-age 2 programs, 1 responses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| It could threaten our ability to remain in business | 80 of 115 (70%) 31 responses | 11 of 19 (58%) 8 responses | 8 of 13 (62%) 8 responses | 0 | 0 |
| It would create significant financial pressure | 22 of 115 (19%) 7 responses | 3 of 19 (16%) 3 responses | 1 of 13 (8%) 1 response | 2 of 14 (14%) 2 responses | 0 |
| We would likely have to reduce classrooms, staffing or services | 3 of 115 (3%) 3 responses | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| We could adapt and remain competitive | 10 of 115 (9%) 5 responses | 2 of 19 (11%) 2 responses | 3 of 13 (23%) 3 responses | 9 of 14 (64%) 1 response | 0 |
| Little or no effect | 0 | 3 of 19 (16%) 3 responses | 1 of 13 (8%) 1 response | 3 of 14 (21%) 3 responses | 2 of 2 (100%) 1 response |
Should policymakers address the property-tax gap between private programs and tax-supported facilities?
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?
Protections that should be established first (top three, share selecting each)
Which approach would do the most to strengthen your program?
After considering these issues, what would you need before supporting a new statewide measure?
Reaction to Initiative 195's graduated income tax
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, lightly trimmed for length.
"How will this measure deliver direct financial support to private providers without adding extra administrative complexity or regulatory burden?"
"Can you guarantee that this money will not just go to public school districts?"
"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?"
"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."
"What binding protections will be built into this measure to ensure that private family child care educators can participate without delayed reimbursements, financially unsustainable administrative burdens, or being required to surrender their independent policies and educational philosophies?"
"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."
"Why is there no cap on the amount of UPK funding that can go to school districts? Have you thought about what happens to businesses when there are no providers left and people can no longer show up to work?"
"Do you support small business in child care? If so, how much do you know of our operations, regulations, and financials? How have you considered the impacts to small business?"
"The funding should be universal, it should cover an extended school day, and it should be set up so parents can choose to stay at their private provider and not be sent to a school district. The Denver Preschool Program model has all of these options worked out."
"Thanks for staying on top of things so we can all have a voice in what happens to Colorado's children and our very important industry."
The voice you want from ECEA
You told us how you want us to speak when policies and ballot measures affect your business. The answer is clear: take positions, base them on business impact, and say it plainly.
Which comes closest to the voice you want from us?
Over the past year, ECEA's advocacy voice has been
Together we are stronger.
These results are going in front of legislators, agency leaders and the campaigns behind Initiative 195 and Proposition NN. Every additional response makes the case harder to ignore. If you have not taken the survey yet, it is anonymous and takes about five minutes. If you like the advocacy we do, become a member and help us do more of it.
Source: ECEA Walk It Forward provider surveys, responses collected September 1 through 8, 2026 (82 complete responses, combined across ECEA members and non-members; percentages in the bar charts are of all 82 respondents; the two breakout tables are weighted by programs represented, 163 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. The Early Childhood Education Association of Colorado has advocated for licensed private early childhood programs since 1985.
