Skip to main content
Multnomah County Auditor Jennifer McGuirk says the Preschool for All program is out of compliance with what the county promised voters who approved it in 2020.
At issue is whether Preschool for All can continue its current practice of providing an additional four hours of child care for all families, regardless of income. Those four additional hours, which extend beyond the six hours provided to all families by the measure, are known as “before and aftercare.”
In an Oct. 8 letter, McGuirk, who is independently elected, told County Chair Jessica Vega Pederson: “It is not clear to us that the dollars for before and aftercare are being expended as voters intended, nor is it clear that current practice aligns with the intent of the law.”
WHAT’S THE BEEF? McGuirk says Measure 26-214, which voters approved in November 2020, does not indicate all families are eligible for tuition-free before and aftercare. On the November 2020 ballot, the measure’s explanatory statement said funds from the new income tax levied to fund the program would be distributed to “offer up to 6 hours per day tuition-free for all participants; and up to 4 additional hours per day of before, aftercare tuition-free for families under the Self Sufficiency Standard for Multnomah County.”
This description is similar to the county’s final Preschool for All plan from July 2020, which states, “Before- and after-care options (for a total of up to 10 hours in a single day) are free for families below the Multnomah County Self Sufficiency Standard.” (The county code notes that it may provide up to four additional tuition-free hours for low-income families.)
But the auditor’s office has determined the program is currently paying for up to 10 hours of preschool for all families, regardless of income. McGuirk told Vega Pederson in her memo that these are “circumstances that require prompt corrective action.”
WHAT DOES THE COUNTY SAY? The county maintains it has done no wrong. In an Oct. 10 response to McGuirk, Vega Pederson cited a county legal analysis that asserts language in the county code permits the expenditure on the additional four hours for any Preschool for All family, not just those with low incomes. “In this policy area we believe the dollars for before and aftercare are being expended as voters intended and that current practice aligns with the intent of the law,” Vega Pederson wrote.
Dan Meek, a Portland lawyer who regularly handles elections cases, says he’s inclined to side with the county. “I think the ordinance is so poorly worded and vague that the county can justify spending the money on those extra four hours,” he told WW in an email.
WHY DOES IT MATTER? Preschool for All is no stranger to controversy. The child care initiative has an $87 million budget this year funded by a 1.5% income tax on households earning more than $200,000 and 3% on families making more than $400,000. But the revelation that all county children should receive 10 free hours of preschool regardless of need also brings its core mission into question. The program was supposed to prioritize families of color, low-income families, and children with developmental disabilities in its first few years (“The Itsy Bitsy Project,” WW, Nov. 8, 2023). Now, it’s committing itself to financing extra preschool hours for kids whose families can afford it anyway.
“Most families, regardless of income, need access to full-day, year-round services, and that is what the majority of Preschool for All programs offer,” county spokesman Ryan Yambra tells WW. “Providing coverage of extended care makes it possible for working families to have their children participate in our programs for a full day without the disruption of switching to a different post-school day care setting.”
Yambra says the county’s Preschool for All follows “the letter and spirit of the law.” The county did not comment on whether the matter had been resolved with the auditor.
County Commissioners Sharon Meieran and Julia Brim-Edwards say they haven’t heard anything from Vega Pederson or McGuirk on the matter since the Oct. 10 exchange, which went out to all commissioners.
Meieran says she doesn’t agree with Vega Pederson’s response. “Frankly, I find it surprising that the chair has not issued any further response to this,” she says, adding that the program’s practices should hew to what voters approved, not county code that bureaucrats wrote.
Brim-Edwards agrees that the auditor’s message is concerning. She says it’s important that specific uses of funds that the county requests from voters be outlined clearly in the ballot title and measure summary.
“The ballot title and explanatory statement are what govern the use of the funds,” Brim-Edwards says. “Credibility and trust of a governmental entity are based on doing what you said you were going to do.”
WHAT’S NEXT? McGuirk’s audit is ongoing. She expects to release her findings in early 2025.