CCRF Analysis 2023
1 Introduction
On October 19, 2021, the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) approved the distribution of $2.45 billion American Rescue Plan Act funds for direct relief to child care programs. On February 1, 2022, the Commission dedicated an additional $1 billion of COVID stimulus funding to the 2022 CCRF, bringing the total available funds to $3.45 billion. Eligible providers applied on a rolling basis until May 31, 2022. The deadline for all providers to spend award funding was November 30, 2023. In total, $3.43 billion were distributed across 10,773 providers.
The Texas Policy Lab collaborated with the Texas Workforce Commission to analyze the disbursement and use of these funds. This analysis provides an overview of the types of child care providers who applied for the second round of Child Care Relief Funding (CCRF), the differences between providers who did and did not apply, and how providers spent their relief funding. Analyses were completed using relief funding application data for the 2022 application cycle and expenditure data across all the five quarters as of January 26, 2024. Background data from weekly closure reports (e.g., desert status, TRS status) and HHSC CCL Daycare and Residential Operations data (e.g., subsidy status, capacity) were used to supplement application data.
Additionally, newly collected data for CCRF 2022, including data on race and ethnicity, top needs and challenges, and reasons for not participating in the subsidy program, were utilized to gain a better understanding of the providers who applied for CCRF funding.
Overall, 81% (10,850/13,441) of eligible providers applied for funding. Among eligible providers, 167 did not have a corresponding match in the weekly closure reports or HHSC data and, therefore, were missing data for background variables of interest. Because the analysis relies on these variables, providers who did not have background data were excluded. Therefore, a total of 13,274 providers with complete background data were included.
2 Overview
2.1 Eligible Providers
The figure below provides a baseline summary of child care providers in the data. There are more than twice as many center-based providers as there are home-based. Among center-based providers, about 50% are considered large with a capacity of 100 or more. Among home-based providers, about 62% are registered homes.
2.2 Percent of applicants vs. non-applicants among eligible providers
Among eligible providers with complete background data, 81% (10,812/13,274) applied for the first round of CCRF funding, leaving 2,591 providers that did not apply. Centers applied for funding at a higher rate than home providers, with 84% of center providers applying vs. 76% of home providers. Subsidy providers applied for funding at a higher rate than non-subsidy providers, with 93% of subsidy providers applying for funding compared to only 71% of non-subsidy providers. Urban providers applied for funding at a higher rate than rural providers (82% vs. 75%), and non-desert providers applied at a higher rate than desert providers (82% vs. 73%).
3 Applicants
3.1 By provider type and subsidy status
Subsidy providers consistently applied for funding at higher rates relative to non-subsidy providers, regardless of provider type and capacity. The figure on the left shows the total number of providers of each type (e.g., center vs. home, subsidy vs. non-subsidy, large vs. medium, etc.) that applied for funding. The figure on the right shows the percent of each type of provider who applied for funding.
Large centers who accept subsidies applied at the highest rate, with 95% of large centers applying for funding. Small non-subsidy centers applied at the lowest rate, with only 65% of small non-subsidy centers applying for funding.
3.2 By provider type and urban-rural classification
Urban providers applied for funding at a higher rate relative to rural providers. However, both rural and urban centers applied at slightly higher rates (78% and 85%, respectively) compared to rural and urban home providers (66% and 77%, respectively).
3.3 By TRS status
TRS-rated providers were more likely to apply than non-TRS providers. For example, 98% of all TRS 4-star center providers applied for funding.
3.4 By workforce board
In the figures below, workforce boards are sorted by size (i.e., the total number of eligible providers on the left and the total number of eligible subsidy providers on the right). In the figure on the left, the light blue shaded region illustrates the total number of eligible providers in each workforce board, and the dark blue shaded region indicates the proportion of eligible providers in each workforce board area that applied for funding. In the figure on the right, the light red shaded region illustrates the total number of eligible subsidy providers in each workforce board, and the dark red shaded region indicates what proportion of eligible subsidy providers applied for funding.
Gulf Coast is by far the largest workforce board, with a total of 3,607 eligible providers. Of those eligible providers, 2,898 applied, which is 80% of eligible providers in the Gulf Coast.
A closer look at the top five largest workforce boards (based on the number of eligible providers) reveals that Gulf Coast subsidy centers make up the largest proportion of applicants, accounting for 1,093 providers. Gulf coast non-subsidy centers make up the next largest proportion of applicants, with 818 providers. Applicants from the top five workforce boards alone account for 61% of all applicants.
3.5 By provider type, subsidy status, and urban-rural classification
The figure below accounts for both subsidy status and urban-rural classification. The width of each bar illustrates that there are more center provider applicants than home provider applicants. Urban centers who accept subsidies make up the largest proportion of providers that applied for funding, accounting for 4,094 providers, or 38% of all applicants.
3.6 By race and ethnicity
The figure below illustrates the racial and ethnic composition of applicants. Because race and ethnicity data were only available for providers who applied for funding, application rates by race and ethnicity cannot be determined. Overall, white providers made up the largest share of applicants at 32%, followed by hispanic providers (25%), and black providers (20%). For centers, white providers made up the largest share of applicants at 36%, while black providers made up the largest share of applicants at 27% for home based providers.
4 Non-applicants
4.1 By provider type and subsidy status
Non-subsidy providers were much less likely to apply for funding than subsidy providers. The figure on the left shows the total number of non-applicants by type and size, illustrating that non-subsidy providers accounted for 79% (2,048/2,591) of the providers who did not apply. The figure on the right shows the percent of each type of provider who applied for funding. Non-subsidy large centers and registered homes make up the largest fraction of providers that did not apply.
4.2 By provider type and urban-rural classification
Compared to urban providers, rural providers were less likely to apply for funding, regardless of provider type. For example, 34% of eligible rural home providers did not apply for funding.
4.3 By workforce board
In the figures below, workforce boards are again sorted by size. For the figure on the left, the light blue shaded region illustrates the total number of eligible providers in each workforce board, and the dark blue shaded region indicates what proportion of eligible providers in each workforce board did not apply for funding. For the figure on the right, the light red shaded region illustrates the total number of eligible subsidy providers in each workforce board, and the dark red shaded region indicates what proportion of eligible subsidy providers did not apply for funding.
Within the Gulf Coast, 709 providers did not apply out of 3,607 eligible providers.
A closer look at the top five largest workforce boards (based on the number of eligible providers) reveals that Gulf Coast non-subsidy centers make up the largest proportion of non-applicants, accounting for 363 providers. The next largest group of non-applicants is non-subsidy homes in the Gulf Coast, accounting for 269 providers. Non-subsidy providers in the Gulf Coast alone account for 26% of the total eligible providers that did not apply for funding.
4.4 By provider type, subsidy status, and urban-rural classification
The figure below accounts for both urban-rural classification and subsidy status. Urban centers that do not accept subsidies make up the largest fraction of providers that did not apply for funding, accounting for 978 providers or 38% of all non-applicants.
5 Utilization of relief funding
Overall, 99% (10,763/10,850) of providers who applied for and received 2022 CCRF funding reported their expenditures during the 2022 application cycle. Providers received their CCRF funds in four quarterly installments and reported quarterly expenditures across several spending categories. Certain providers who were participating in the Child Care Subsidy (CSS) program during summer of 2023 received a fifth CCRF payment and, therefore, reported expenditures for an additional fifth quarter. Because providers who failed to report their expenditures on a quarterly basis for the first four quarters were able to report the sum of expenditures across quarters, quarterly spending data for the first four quarters was not reliable for analysis. Therefore, the cumulative amount spent on each category across all five quarters was computed and examined for all 10,763 recipients. Additionally, fifth payment spending was examined separately for 3,481 providers who reported their expenditures.
5.1 Expenditures overview
The figure below illustrates the average amount spent across different categories for the 2022 reporting period. Overall, the two categories on which providers spent the greatest amount were personnel costs and rent, mortgage, or utilities, averaging $188K and $47K, respectively. Conversely, providers spent the least on parent tuition or copays and mental health support, averaging less than $500 on both categories.
Differences in the average amount spent on various categories were most apparent between home and center providers. Centers spent the greatest amount on personnel costs ($259K), followed by rent, mortgage or utilities ($61K), while homes spent the most on rent, mortgage, or utilities ($10K), followed by personnel costs ($7K). This is to be expected, as home-based providers generally do not have large staffing structures, and personnel-related costs are of greater concern to centers. Certain eligible subsidy providers received additional funding via fifth payment, so their overall expenditures are greater than the overall expenditures of non-subsidy providers. Differences between county type (rural vs. urban) were marginal.
| Category | Overall | Center | Home | Subsidy | Non-subsidy | Urban | Rural |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Personnel Costs | $188,198 | $259,666 | $7,053 | $219,731 | $152,699 | $196,360 | $128,105 |
| Rent/Mortgage/Utilities | $47,249 | $61,765 | $10,457 | $55,563 | $37,890 | $50,361 | $24,335 |
| Other allowable expenses | $19,712 | $26,449 | $2,637 | $23,524 | $15,420 | $19,633 | $20,298 |
| Purchases/updates to equipment and supplies | $16,721 | $21,985 | $3,381 | $19,915 | $13,126 | $16,627 | $17,421 |
| Goods and Services | $11,447 | $14,983 | $2,486 | $13,649 | $8,968 | $11,758 | $9,157 |
| Personal protective equipment | $1,605 | $1,940 | $756 | $1,928 | $1,240 | $1,634 | $1,389 |
| Mental health supports | $467 | $579 | $186 | $538 | $388 | $472 | $431 |
| Parent tuition/copays | $265 | $339 | $76 | $307 | $217 | $266 | $256 |
The figure below illustrates the relative share of expenditures across spending categories by provider demographics. Centers spent around 68% of their funding on personnel costs, while homes spent only 25% on personnel costs. Compared to center providers, home providers spent a larger percent of their funding (around 40%) on rent, mortgage, or utilities. Expenditure distributions were consistent across county type and subsidy status.
5.2 Expenditures by provider type
To gain further insight into the differences between home and center providers, the impact of provider capacity and licensing on average expenditures was examined. Center providers spent the greatest amount on personnel costs regardless of size. As expected, large-capacity center providers spent significantly more on personnel costs, averaging over $400K on personnel costs alone. Both licensed and registered spent similar amounts on rent, mortgage, and utilities, though licensed homes spent more on personnel costs compared to registered homes. (See Supplemental Table 1 in Appendix for additional summary statistics).
| Category | Small (0-50) | Medium (51-99) | Large (100+) | Licensed Home | Registered Home |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Personnel Costs | $59,681 | $137,158 | $405,712 | $9,446 | $5,436 |
| Rent/Mortgage/Utilities | $22,770 | $39,347 | $89,330 | $10,563 | $10,385 |
| Other allowable expenses | $11,332 | $18,867 | $36,446 | $3,385 | $2,131 |
| Purchases/updates to equipment and supplies | $8,823 | $18,906 | $28,502 | $4,028 | $2,944 |
| Goods and Services | $6,087 | $12,744 | $19,485 | $2,348 | $2,580 |
| Personal protective equipment | $1,216 | $1,725 | $2,326 | $694 | $797 |
| Mental health supports | $349 | $492 | $713 | $183 | $188 |
| Parent tuition/copays | $180 | $306 | $416 | $96 | $62 |
Expenditure distributions also did not vary greatly within provider types. Larger-capacity centers were more likely to spend a larger percentage of their funds on personnel costs compared to small-capacity centers (70% vs. 50%), and registered homes spent a slightly greater share on rent/mortgage and utilities compared to licensed homes (42% vs. 34%).
5.3 Expenditures by workforce board
Average expenditure amounts were also compared between the five largest workforce boards: Gulf Coast, North Central, Dallas, Alamo, and Tarrant. While providers across the five workforce boards spent the most on personnel costs, providers located in the North Central and Tarrant county local workforce developmental area spent the greatest average amount at around $238K. Consistent across boards, providers spent the least on parent tuition or copays and mental health supports at less than $1200 on average.(See Supplemental Table 3 in Appendix for additional information).
| Category | Alamo | Dallas | Gulf Coast | North Central Texas | Tarrant County |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Personnel Costs | $205,939 | $202,599 | $199,575 | $238,470 | $238,522 |
| Rent/Mortgage/Utilities | $42,999 | $51,902 | $58,597 | $69,798 | $43,245 |
| Other allowable expenses | $13,094 | $18,624 | $19,494 | $29,012 | $20,480 |
| Purchases/updates to equipment and supplies | $17,358 | $18,276 | $17,091 | $16,716 | $15,325 |
| Goods and Services | $11,155 | $15,810 | $14,342 | $12,134 | $9,309 |
| Personal protective equipment | $1,566 | $2,232 | $1,970 | $1,521 | $1,251 |
| Mental health supports | $573 | $1,067 | $509 | $308 | $397 |
| Parent tuition/copays | $230 | $302 | $438 | $190 | $255 |
Again, top spending categories were consistent across the top five workforce boards. For each, providers indicated that they spent over 64% of their average amount awarded on personnel costs, followed by spending aorund 13%-20% of their funds on rent, mortgage, or utilities.
5.4 CCRF fifth payment analysis
Providers who had a Child Care Subsidy (CCS) referral between 6/1/21 and 11/30/22, remained eligible for the 2022 CCRF, and were participating in the CCS program at the time of the fifth payment were eligible for a fifth CCRF payment in the summer of 2023. Of the 6,218 providers who were determined eligible for a fifth payment, 3,481 reported their use of the funds. This section explores how these 3,481 providers spent their fifth payment and how fifth payment spending differs from their utilization patterns across the first four quarters.
Overall, the two categories on which providers spent the greatest amount remained personnel costs and rent, mortgage, or utilities, averaging $69K and $20K, respectively. Conversely, providers did not spend any portion of their fifth payment on parent tuition or copays category. Centers spent the greatest amount on personnel costs ($77K), followed by rent, mortgage or utilities ($23K), while homes spent the most on rent, mortgage, or utilities ($3.9K), followed by personnel costs ($3.4K). (See Supplemental Table 2 in Appendix for additional summary statistics).
| Category | Overall | Center | Home | Urban | Rural |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Personnel Costs | $69,329 | $77,558 | $3,441 | $72,477 | $48,465 |
| Rent/Mortgage/Utilities | $20,035 | $23,564 | $3,895 | $21,150 | $11,636 |
| Purchases/updates to equipment and supplies | $17,402 | $21,385 | $1,711 | $17,407 | $17,363 |
| Other allowable expenses | $17,075 | $19,964 | $2,526 | $17,045 | $17,287 |
| Goods and Services | $12,359 | $15,027 | $1,246 | $12,553 | $10,874 |
| Personal protective equipment | $2,700 | $3,481 | $537 | $2,695 | $2,734 |
| Mental health supports | $2,467 | $3,178 | $604 | $2,423 | $2,865 |
While personnel costs and rent, mortgage, or utilities remained the two highest spending categories, their relative percentage of total spending was significantly smaller for fifth payment spending compared to spending in the first four quarters. Overall, providers spent 49% of their fifth payment on personnel costs and 14% on rent, mortgage, or utilities, compared to the first four quarters where they spent 64% and 17.5%, respectively. The decrease in personnel costs was driven primarily by centers who saw a 20 percentage point decrease in relative spending for the fifth payment, whereas homes saw a greater decrease in rent, mortgage, or utilities spending at 11 percentage points.
As a result of decreased spending in the two largest spending categories, relative spending increased in nearly every other category, most notably for mental health supports. While providers only spent 0.2% of their funds on mental health supports in the first four quarters, this increased to 2% for their fifth payment spending. On average, the cumulative amount spent on mental health supports across the first four quarters was $378, whereas the average amount spent using only the fifth payment was $2,467. This increase was consistent for both homes (0.6% vs. 4%) and centers (0.2% vs. 2%).
6 Non-participation in the subsidy program
As part of the 2022 application cycle, additional data was gathered for providers who don’t participate in the subsidy program. Providers were asked to report the reason for not participating in the subsidy program. Among all the non-subsidy providers who applied for funding, 51% (2,612/5,089) of providers reported a reason for their non-participation. These responses were used to determine the main reasons for provider’s non-participation.
6.1 By provider type
Overall, the top reasons reported by both center- and home-based non-subsidy providers for not participating in the subsidy program were that they needed additional information about the subsidy program (47% vs 46%), followed by serving families that have not requested or needed subsidy participation (33% vs. 39%)
| Reason | Overall | Center | Home |
|---|---|---|---|
| Need more information | 46 % | 47 % | 46 % |
| Families have not requested or needed | 36 % | 33 % | 39 % |
| Reimbursement Rates too low | 4 % | 5 % | 3 % |
| Facility is full/fills too quickly | 3 % | 4 % | 1 % |
| Facility is new/too small | 3 % | 2 % | 4 % |
| Other | 3 % | 4 % | 2 % |
| Paperwork/reporting requirements | 3 % | 3 % | 2 % |
| Not receiving/receiving late reimbursement payments | 1 % | 1 % | 1 % |
| Not receiving/receive late parent co-pays | 0 % | 1 % | 1 % |
7 Analysis of top needs reported by the providers
For the 2022 application cycle, providers were also asked to provide their top three biggest needs and challenges. Among all the providers who reported their top needs, 87 did not have a corresponding match in the weekly closure reports or HHSC data and, therefore, were missing data for background variables of interest. Because the analysis relies on these variables, providers who did not have background data were excluded. Therefore, a total of 10,763 providers with complete background data were included.
7.1 Top needs overview
Overall, top needs reported by providers were largely related to staffing, such as staffing shortage and staff compensation, which is consistent with reported expenditures. Differences in needs reported were most apparent between home and center providers. While center-based providers reported top needs related to staffing, home-based providers reported their top needs to be managing families’ fears and uncertainty related to COVID-19, followed by low enrollment. Reported top needs by subsidy status (subsidy vs. non-subsidy) and county type (rural vs. urban) were also related to staffing (staff shortage and staff compensation) which is consistent with their top spending categories.
| NeedsCategory | Overall | Center | Home | Non-subsidy | Subsidy | Rural | Urban |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Staffing shortage - we are not receiving enough applications from qualified applicants to serve all children who want to attend my program or are short staffed for other non-compensation reasons including COVID-19 | 64 % | 81 % | 21 % | 54 % | 72 % | 62 % | 64 % |
| Staff compensation - We are unable to compensate staff at a level required to recruit and retain qualified staff | 58 % | 70 % | 28 % | 50 % | 65 % | 61 % | 58 % |
| Low enrollment - I am unable to recruit and enroll enough students at my desired capacity | 47 % | 42 % | 59 % | 49 % | 45 % | 31 % | 49 % |
| Mental health / burnout / exhaustion of myself or my staff | 38 % | 34 % | 49 % | 43 % | 33 % | 50 % | 36 % |
| Staff retention - when we hire staff, they do not stay with us very long (for issues other than compensation) | 37 % | 47 % | 9 % | 29 % | 43 % | 42 % | 36 % |
| Managing families’ fears and uncertainty related to COVID-19 | 30 % | 14 % | 69 % | 38 % | 22 % | 24 % | 30 % |
| Navigating decisions and policies to mitigate COVID-19 in my program | 20 % | 8 % | 48 % | 27 % | 13 % | 18 % | 20 % |
| Other | 8 % | 5 % | 17 % | 10 % | 6 % | 12 % | 7 % |
7.2 By provider type
Top biggest needs/challenges did not differ significantly within provider types. Overall, all the top two out of three biggest needs/challenges reported by centers based on their capacity were related to staffing such as staff compensation, staff shortage. This is to be expected, as center-based providers have large staffing structures compared to home-based providers. On the other hand, top challenges reported by both licensed and registered homes were managing families’ fears and uncertainty related to COVID-19, followed by second highest needs as low enrollment.
| NeedsCategory | Small (0-50) | Medium (51-99) | Large (100+) | Licensed Home | Registered Home |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Staff compensation - We are unable to compensate staff at a level required to recruit and retain qualified staff | 71 % | 72 % | 68 % | 43 % | 17 % |
| Staffing shortage - we are not receiving enough applications from qualified applicants to serve all children who want to attend my program or are short staffed for other non-compensation reasons including COVID-19 | 68 % | 78 % | 86 % | 23 % | 19 % |
| Low enrollment - I am unable to recruit and enroll enough students at my desired capacity | 44 % | 43 % | 41 % | 47 % | 67 % |
| Staff retention - when we hire staff, they do not stay with us very long (for issues other than compensation) | 42 % | 45 % | 51 % | 14 % | 5 % |
| Mental health / burnout / exhaustion of myself or my staff | 35 % | 33 % | 33 % | 47 % | 50 % |
| Managing families’ fears and uncertainty related to COVID-19 | 21 % | 15 % | 11 % | 64 % | 73 % |
| Navigating decisions and policies to mitigate COVID-19 in my program | 12 % | 9 % | 7 % | 43 % | 52 % |
| Other | 7 % | 5 % | 4 % | 17 % | 17 % |
7.3 By top 5 work force board
Top needs/challenges reported were also compared between the five largest workforce boards: Gulf Coast, North Central, Dallas, Alamo, and Tarrant County. Again, the top needs reported were consistent across the top five workforce boards. For each, over 40% of the providers indicated their top needs as staffing shortage, staff compensation and low enrollment. Overall all the workforce boards reported a similar top needs pattern. (See Supplemental Table 4 in Appendix for full data.)
| NeedsCategory | Gulf Coast | North Central Texas | Dallas | Alamo | Tarrant County |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Staffing shortage - we are not receiving enough applications from qualified applicants to serve all children who want to attend my program or are short staffed for other non-compensation reasons including COVID-19 | 61 % | 65 % | 60 % | 64 % | 62 % |
| Low enrollment - I am unable to recruit and enroll enough students at my desired capacity | 59 % | 47 % | 51 % | 46 % | 43 % |
| Staff compensation - We are unable to compensate staff at a level required to recruit and retain qualified staff | 56 % | 58 % | 61 % | 61 % | 57 % |
| Mental health / burnout / exhaustion of myself or my staff | 37 % | 38 % | 34 % | 33 % | 38 % |
| Managing families’ fears and uncertainty related to COVID-19 | 32 % | 27 % | 31 % | 31 % | 33 % |
| Staff retention - when we hire staff, they do not stay with us very long (for issues other than compensation) | 29 % | 36 % | 29 % | 35 % | 39 % |
| Navigating decisions and policies to mitigate COVID-19 in my program | 20 % | 21 % | 23 % | 20 % | 21 % |
| Other | 7 % | 8 % | 11 % | 10 % | 8 % |
8 Appendix
8.1 Expenditures across all five quarters by provider type
| Category | Mean (SD) | Median (IQR) | Mean (SD) | Median (IQR) | Mean (SD) | Median (IQR) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Personnel Costs | $188,198 ($265,793) | $90,907 ($8,000-$263,662) | $259,666 ($283,608) | $171,969 ($73,646-$355,250) | $7,053 ($9,002) | $3,627 ($500-$10,100) |
| Rent/Mortgage/Utilities | $47,249 ($88,244) | $15,454 ($2,433-$53,504) | $61,765 ($100,422) | $28,158 ($0-$79,002) | $10,457 ($8,752) | $9,200 ($4,100-$15,240) |
| Personal protective equipment | $1,605 ($5,954) | $0 ($0-$800) | $1,940 ($6,958) | $0 ($0-$558) | $756 ($1,261) | $175 ($0-$1,051) |
| Purchases/updates to equipment and supplies | $16,721 ($39,200) | $3,004 ($0-$15,240) | $21,985 ($45,110) | $5,285 ($0-$24,558) | $3,381 ($5,080) | $2,080 ($300-$4,850) |
| Goods and Services | $11,447 ($30,854) | $1,193 ($0-$8,873) | $14,983 ($35,758) | $841 ($0-$14,999) | $2,486 ($3,475) | $1,350 ($0-$3,449) |
| Mental health supports | $467 ($3,435) | $0 ($0-$0) | $579 ($4,033) | $0 ($0-$0) | $186 ($606) | $0 ($0-$0) |
| Parent tuition/copays | $265 ($2,124) | $0 ($0-$0) | $339 ($2,492) | $0 ($0-$0) | $76 ($396) | $0 ($0-$0) |
| Other allowable expenses | $19,712 ($59,958) | $0 ($0-$10,546) | $26,449 ($69,593) | $0 ($0-$18,875) | $2,637 ($5,010) | $35 ($0-$3,426) |
| Note: (SD) represents Standard Deviation and (IQR) represents Interquartile Range. |
8.2 Expenditures of only CCRF fifth payment by provider type
| Category | Mean (SD) | Median (IQR) | Mean (SD) | Median (IQR) | Mean (SD) | Median (IQR) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Personnel Costs | $69,329 ($73,258) | $46,276 ($82,387) | $77,558 ($73,662) | $55,174 ($80,730) | $3,441 ($2,876) | $2,658 ($3,895) |
| Rent/Mortgage/Utilities | $20,035 ($27,946) | $11,228 ($20,479) | $23,564 ($29,683) | $15,000 ($22,097) | $3,895 ($2,447) | $3,326 ($3,437) |
| Personal protective equipment | $2,700 ($7,010) | $1,000 ($2,237) | $3,481 ($8,032) | $1,310 ($2,998) | $537 ($530) | $400 ($468) |
| Purchases/updates to equipment and supplies | $17,402 ($32,576) | $5,099 ($15,217) | $21,385 ($35,374) | $8,680 ($21,928) | $1,711 ($2,018) | $1,082 ($1,630) |
| Goods and Services | $12,359 ($24,775) | $4,188 ($14,041) | $15,027 ($26,910) | $6,193 ($16,562) | $1,246 ($1,273) | $800 ($1,180) |
| Mental health supports | $2,467 ($4,618) | $1,030 ($2,394) | $3,178 ($5,233) | $1,698 ($2,889) | $604 ($872) | $300 ($543) |
| Other allowable expenses | $17,075 ($30,116) | $5,183 ($15,656) | $19,964 ($32,177) | $6,500 ($20,518) | $2,526 ($2,733) | $1,485 ($2,445) |
| Note: (SD) represents Standard Deviation and (IQR) represents Interquartile Range. |
8.3 Average expenditures table by workforce board
| Workforce Board | N | Personnel Costs | Rent Mortgage Utilities | Other allowable expenses | Purchases or updates to equipment and supplies | Goods and Services | Mental health supports | Parent tuition or copays | Personal protective equipment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gulf Coast | 2888 | $199,575 (64 %) | $58,597 (19 %) | $19,494 (6 %) | $17,091 (5 %) | $14,342 (5 %) | $509 (< 1%) | $438 (< 1%) | $1,970 (1 %) |
| North Central Texas | 1196 | $238,470 (65 %) | $69,798 (19 %) | $29,012 (8 %) | $16,716 (5 %) | $12,134 (3 %) | $308 (< 1%) | $190 (< 1%) | $1,521 (< 1%) |
| Dallas | 883 | $202,599 (65 %) | $51,902 (17 %) | $18,624 (6 %) | $18,276 (6 %) | $15,810 (5 %) | $1,067 (< 1%) | $302 (< 1%) | $2,232 (1 %) |
| Alamo | 844 | $205,939 (70 %) | $42,999 (15 %) | $13,094 (4 %) | $17,358 (6 %) | $11,155 (4 %) | $573 (< 1%) | $230 (< 1%) | $1,566 (1 %) |
| Tarrant County | 784 | $238,522 (73 %) | $43,245 (13 %) | $20,480 (6 %) | $15,325 (5 %) | $9,309 (3 %) | $397 (< 1%) | $255 (< 1%) | $1,251 (< 1%) |
| Rural Capital Area | 508 | $229,055 (66 %) | $52,204 (15 %) | $18,298 (5 %) | $26,948 (8 %) | $20,047 (6 %) | $434 (< 1%) | $219 (< 1%) | $1,048 (< 1%) |
| Capital Area | 489 | $280,201 (80 %) | $33,930 (10 %) | $12,701 (4 %) | $14,960 (4 %) | $9,289 (3 %) | $329 (< 1%) | $43 (< 1%) | $984 (< 1%) |
| Lower Rio Grande | 415 | $90,754 (51 %) | $45,023 (26 %) | $15,859 (9 %) | $13,728 (8 %) | $7,877 (4 %) | $245 (< 1%) | $77 (< 1%) | $2,814 (2 %) |
| Borderplex | 311 | $89,592 (55 %) | $33,711 (21 %) | $17,455 (11 %) | $17,104 (10 %) | $4,036 (2 %) | $117 (< 1%) | $17 (< 1%) | $1,225 (1 %) |
| Central Texas | 268 | $92,854 (60 %) | $25,471 (17 %) | $15,686 (10 %) | $13,674 (9 %) | $4,600 (3 %) | $284 (< 1%) | $247 (< 1%) | $792 (1 %) |
| Cameron County | 213 | $86,306 (48 %) | $35,952 (20 %) | $40,542 (23 %) | $8,775 (5 %) | $5,905 (3 %) | $467 (< 1%) | $323 (< 1%) | $1,857 (1 %) |
| East Texas | 211 | $140,692 (65 %) | $30,335 (14 %) | $20,201 (9 %) | $16,420 (8 %) | $7,186 (3 %) | $641 (< 1%) | $117 (< 1%) | $1,413 (1 %) |
| South Plains | 169 | $153,059 (70 %) | $23,738 (11 %) | $18,430 (8 %) | $13,537 (6 %) | $8,950 (4 %) | $148 (< 1%) | $229 (< 1%) | $623 (< 1%) |
| The Coastal Bend | 161 | $130,051 (67 %) | $30,017 (16 %) | $13,779 (7 %) | $11,087 (6 %) | $6,174 (3 %) | $365 (< 1%) | $45 (< 1%) | $1,253 (1 %) |
| The Heart Of Texas | 146 | $117,249 (63 %) | $21,690 (12 %) | $16,951 (9 %) | $16,893 (9 %) | $11,155 (6 %) | $237 (< 1%) | $102 (< 1%) | $826 (< 1%) |
| Panhandle | 142 | $124,118 (64 %) | $24,019 (12 %) | $22,475 (12 %) | $14,381 (7 %) | $6,952 (4 %) | $471 (< 1%) | $39 (< 1%) | $1,240 (1 %) |
| Brazos Valley | 129 | $140,081 (62 %) | $36,346 (16 %) | $25,135 (11 %) | $13,477 (6 %) | $8,556 (4 %) | $255 (< 1%) | $228 (< 1%) | $1,311 (1 %) |
| South East Texas | 123 | $169,008 (67 %) | $38,967 (15 %) | $17,702 (7 %) | $14,845 (6 %) | $9,418 (4 %) | $250 (< 1%) | $350 (< 1%) | $1,982 (1 %) |
| West Central Texas | 117 | $111,340 (66 %) | $14,867 (9 %) | $13,968 (8 %) | $21,339 (13 %) | $5,733 (3 %) | $244 (< 1%) | $84 (< 1%) | $471 (< 1%) |
| South Texas | 115 | $87,787 (53 %) | $46,184 (28 %) | $15,875 (9 %) | $10,509 (6 %) | $4,849 (3 %) | $345 (< 1%) | $41 (< 1%) | $1,615 (1 %) |
| Permian Basin | 114 | $170,090 (65 %) | $26,963 (10 %) | $36,772 (14 %) | $19,958 (8 %) | $7,122 (3 %) | $682 (< 1%) | $935 (< 1%) | $1,123 (< 1%) |
| Deep East Texas | 109 | $176,114 (70 %) | $27,100 (11 %) | $11,907 (5 %) | $24,429 (10 %) | $10,093 (4 %) | $141 (< 1%) | $113 (< 1%) | $1,353 (1 %) |
| North Texas | 98 | $118,240 (68 %) | $17,733 (10 %) | $18,283 (10 %) | $13,977 (8 %) | $5,435 (3 %) | $262 (< 1%) | $67 (< 1%) | $652 (< 1%) |
| Golden Crescent | 84 | $94,526 (62 %) | $21,042 (14 %) | $14,770 (10 %) | $16,498 (11 %) | $4,578 (3 %) | $155 (< 1%) | $178 (< 1%) | $844 (1 %) |
| North East Texas | 78 | $171,173 (71 %) | $21,101 (9 %) | $15,328 (6 %) | $18,563 (8 %) | $10,957 (5 %) | $1,369 (1 %) | $497 (< 1%) | $2,389 (1 %) |
| Texoma | 71 | $131,812 (72 %) | $24,658 (13 %) | $16,773 (9 %) | $4,408 (2 %) | $3,669 (2 %) | $887 (< 1%) | $349 (< 1%) | $695 (< 1%) |
| Middle Rio Grande | 70 | $63,925 (48 %) | $17,670 (13 %) | $26,715 (20 %) | $15,089 (11 %) | $8,622 (6 %) | $70 (< 1%) | $70 (< 1%) | $904 (1 %) |
| Concho Valley | 27 | $133,381 (70 %) | $19,531 (10 %) | $12,472 (7 %) | $16,285 (9 %) | $6,790 (4 %) | $44 (< 1%) | $185 (< 1%) | $1,960 (1 %) |
| Note: (%) represents relative percentage of spending in each category for each workforce board. |
8.4 Top needs table by workforce board
| Workforce Board | N | Staffing shortage | Staff compensation | Staff retention | Low enrollment | Managing families fears due to COVID-19 | Mental Health/exhaustion of myself or my staff | Navigating decisions policies due to COVID-19 | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gulf Coast | 2888 | 61 % | 56 % | 29 % | 59 % | 32 % | 37 % | 20 % | 7 % |
| North Central Texas | 1196 | 65 % | 58 % | 36 % | 47 % | 27 % | 38 % | 21 % | 8 % |
| Dallas | 883 | 60 % | 61 % | 29 % | 51 % | 31 % | 34 % | 23 % | 11 % |
| Alamo | 844 | 64 % | 61 % | 35 % | 46 % | 31 % | 33 % | 20 % | 10 % |
| Tarrant County | 784 | 62 % | 57 % | 39 % | 43 % | 33 % | 38 % | 21 % | 8 % |
| Rural Capital Area | 508 | 77 % | 54 % | 47 % | 39 % | 21 % | 39 % | 16 % | 6 % |
| Capital Area | 489 | 75 % | 68 % | 46 % | 30 % | 20 % | 39 % | 16 % | 5 % |
| Lower Rio Grande | 415 | 60 % | 54 % | 36 % | 62 % | 43 % | 24 % | 16 % | 6 % |
| Borderplex | 311 | 63 % | 68 % | 48 % | 41 % | 32 % | 23 % | 17 % | 8 % |
| Central Texas | 268 | 58 % | 54 % | 46 % | 36 % | 35 % | 36 % | 23 % | 11 % |
| Cameron County | 213 | 73 % | 43 % | 55 % | 52 % | 20 % | 47 % | 8 % | 3 % |
| East Texas | 211 | 70 % | 64 % | 49 % | 23 % | 18 % | 50 % | 16 % | 9 % |
| South Plains | 169 | 57 % | 69 % | 44 % | 25 % | 21 % | 59 % | 15 % | 8 % |
| The Coastal Bend | 161 | 50 % | 55 % | 33 % | 37 % | 34 % | 48 % | 34 % | 10 % |
| The Heart Of Texas | 146 | 65 % | 58 % | 43 % | 39 % | 18 % | 49 % | 16 % | 11 % |
| Panhandle | 142 | 54 % | 49 % | 37 % | 38 % | 36 % | 44 % | 27 % | 13 % |
| Brazos Valley | 129 | 64 % | 62 % | 41 % | 38 % | 23 % | 40 % | 21 % | 10 % |
| South East Texas | 123 | 70 % | 63 % | 33 % | 33 % | 28 % | 46 % | 21 % | 7 % |
| West Central Texas | 117 | 60 % | 38 % | 43 % | 23 % | 26 % | 68 % | 29 % | 12 % |
| South Texas | 115 | 71 % | 55 % | 39 % | 57 % | 40 % | 17 % | 17 % | 4 % |
| Permian Basin | 114 | 67 % | 58 % | 49 % | 41 % | 22 % | 39 % | 16 % | 9 % |
| Deep East Texas | 109 | 81 % | 63 % | 41 % | 29 % | 18 % | 46 % | 17 % | 5 % |
| North Texas | 98 | 60 % | 54 % | 40 % | 22 % | 27 % | 63 % | 21 % | 12 % |
| Golden Crescent | 84 | 55 % | 56 % | 49 % | 38 % | 29 % | 42 % | 20 % | 12 % |
| North East Texas | 78 | 73 % | 67 % | 45 % | 31 % | 18 % | 45 % | 12 % | 10 % |
| Texoma | 71 | 58 % | 56 % | 30 % | 35 % | 28 % | 58 % | 21 % | 14 % |
| Middle Rio Grande | 70 | 50 % | 49 % | 36 % | 47 % | 50 % | 30 % | 19 % | 20 % |
| Concho Valley | 27 | 74 % | 78 % | 48 % | 19 % | 11 % | 56 % | 7 % | 7 % |