Child Care Funding
and Policy Issues
By Jan Kaplan
INTRODUCTION
Congress will need to address child care funding and policy
issues when it considers the reauthorization of Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families and Child Care and Development Fund. Both programs were authorized
under the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunities Reconciliation
Act (PRWORA). The child care policies included in PRWORA reflect widespread
acceptance of the importance of child care to welfare-dependent families’
successful transition to employment and to their long-term job retention and
self-sufficiency. Potential increases in welfare caseloads resulting from an
economic downturn will reinforce the critical role that child care plays in
employment training and job-readiness programs for welfare recipients.
ISSUE OVERVIEW
PRWORA made two significant changes to federal child care
policy. First, federal funding streams supporting child care for welfare
recipients and low-income families were consolidated into one block grant, the
Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), which simplifies state administration
of federal subsidies for child care and substantially increases federal child
care funding. CCDF consists of three funding streams: mandatory funds that are
allocated by formula as an entitlement to states; matching funds that are
accessible to states if they meet a maintenance-of-effort (MOE) requirement
and match the funds at their Medicaid matching rate; and discretionary funds
that are subject to the annual appropriations process. States must spend at
least 4 percent of their total CCDF allocation for child care quality
improvement initiatives, including efforts to expand supply, improve consumer
education, and enhance child care resource and referral services. Other
set-asides in the annual appropriations process target infant and toddler
care, after-school programs, and additional quality improvement activities.
Second, PRWORA resulted in changes in the way states
administer their child care programs. States have substantial discretion to
establish eligibility standards, provider payment rates, and quality
standards. The law also gives states the flexibility to use funds available
under Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) for child care through
direct spending on child care or transfers of up to 30 percent of current-year
TANF funds to CCDF. TANF-funded child care assistance provided to low-income
nonworking families is considered “assistance” under the law and is
subject to time limits and data collection, child support, and work
requirements; TANF-funded child care assistance provided to low-income working
families is not considered assistance
and not subject to those limits and requirements.
POLICY QUESTIONS
What barriers do low-income families face in finding child
care? Congressional debate on the reauthorization of CCDF will focus on
ways to overcome the many barriers that impede low-wage families, welfare
recipients fulfilling work requirements, and families moving off of welfare
from finding child care that is safe, affordable, convenient, and nurturing.
Common barriers affecting the supply and demand for child care include a
limited supply of subsidies and high copayment requirements, which may prevent
families from being able to afford child care. Still another barrier is strict
eligibility criteria for subsidies, which may inhibit access by certain
low-income families. In addition, there are too few providers, particularly in
rural and inner-city areas, who care for children during nontraditional hours
or who provide care for infants, children with special-needs, sick children,
or school-age children. Furthermore, low reimbursement rates can dissuade
providers from providing child care for low-income families and can result in
high staff turnover, which reduces child care supply. Finally, available child
care services may be of poor quality with unhealthy or unsafe environments,
inadequate provider training, and insufficient staff/child ratios.
Could changes to the federal child care funding streams
help meet the child care needs of low-income families? While
increased spending under CCDF and TANF has increased the number of children
served through these funding streams, national studies indicate that a
relatively small proportion of eligible children receive child care subsidies.
Moreover, many working welfare leavers do not receive these subsidies. For
more information, see the section titled “Overview of Related Research.”
The low rate of participation in subsidy programs is likely
to focus the congressional reauthorization debate on the federal funding
levels and structure of child care programs. Some will argue that the current
system successfully provides access to child care for low-income families that
need this care and that neither increased funding nor changes in allocation
arrangements are required. Others will argue that increased funds and more
flexibility in the administration of the funds are needed to ensure that
low-income families have access to child care.
Proponents of maintaining funding levels are likely to
argue that the low take-up rates for child care subsidies indicate many
welfare leavers do not need subsidies because they are not working, already
have their children in child care, have incomes that are above the subsidy
eligibility limit or that require costly copayments, have school-age children,
or need only part-time care for which they choose not to seek subsidies.
Others will argue that the low take-up rates indicate demand is continuing to
outpace supply and that more funds are needed to increase the availability of
subsidies and supply of providers. They also may argue for increased and
stabilized CCDF funding to offset the potential loss of TANF funds for child
care during state economic downturns and the concomitant increased demand for
cash assistance and related services.
Proponents of changes to child care funding levels and
structure may also ask Congress to consider ways to increase state flexibility
in the use of the three funding streams. They may seek the ability to carry
over unexpended funds from one year to the next and call for the elimination
of the definition of TANF-funded child care as “assistance” for nonworking
families. This definitional change, proponents will argue, would allow states
to provide child care support to all low-income families without subjecting
them to federal TANF time limits and child support, data collection, and other
requirements. In addition, congressional consideration may be given to
changing the allowable level of transfers among TANF, the Social Services
Block Grant, and CCDF. Finally, changes may be proposed to the CCDF set-asides
that earmark a percentage of CCDF funds for specific programs or populations.
Proposals could include increases to the existing set-asides for quality
improvement, infant and toddler care, and school-age child care; limits on the
number of set-asides; or permanent authorization for set-aside programs funded
through the annual appropriations process. In addition, new set-asides could
be proposed to address identified gaps in supply. New set-aside proposals are
likely to be opposed by those concerned about the adequacy of CCDF funding
levels and state flexibility in the design and administration of child care
programs. They are also likely to be opposed by those against new federal
spending based on philosophical grounds.
Could other approaches to financing child care be addressed
in federal legislation? Proponents of increased funding for child care are
likely to ask the nation’s legislators to consider a variety of financing
approaches. New or expanded financing streams will be opposed by those who
believe the current funding structure is sufficient to meet the child care
needs of low-income families and who fear limits on state flexibility in
program design and administration. The debate on new child care financing
could include proposals to change or expand federal tax policy in order to
increase families’ ability to pay for child care. One approach would be to
expand the federal Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit beyond expansions
enacted in May 2001 in the omnibus tax bill, which increased the amount of the
credit and the income eligibility level to qualify for the credit. New
expansions could increase the percent of “allowable expenses” or raise the
income eligibility level for the credit. Another approach would make the tax
credit refundable in order to make it available to families with incomes too
low to owe federal income taxes.
Congress may also consider providing tax credits to
employers who provide child care for their employees or who subsidize child
care expenses. Lawmakers may also create or expand federal incentive programs
that support state child care funding innovations, including loan guarantees,
access to capital for economic development programs in low-income areas that
include child care facility construction, or the ability to use lottery or
gambling revenues and other special funds for child care programs. For more
information, visit http://www.financeproject.org
or see Louise Stoney, Looking into New Mirrors: Lessons for Early Childhood
Finance and System-Building (Boston, Mass.: The Horizons Initiative,
October 1998), at http://www.nccic.org/pubs/mirrors.html;
or S. Groginsky, Financing Child Care (Denver, Colo.: National
Conference of State Legislatures, June 2000), at http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/finrpt.htm.
What legislative approaches could Congress consider to
address the adequacy and availability of child care subsidies? Under CCDF,
states were given new discretion to design subsidy programs. They are no
longer required to guarantee child care to cash assistance recipients as they
fulfill work requirements or to welfare recipients as they leave the welfare
rolls. In addition, states may set their own income eligibility thresholds, up
to a maximum federal level of 85 percent of the state median income; may
determine provider reimbursement rates, parental copayment requirements,
education and outreach strategies, and eligibility recertification procedures;
and may decide whether to offer subsidies in the form of vouchers or provider
contracts. Some will argue that increased subsidy access and take-up rates can
be achieved through new federal requirements that change the way states design
and administer their programs. Others will argue that the imposition of any
new federal requirements will limit states’ ability to design programs that
meet the unique needs of their low-income families. Still others will argue
that states will need additional financial resources to comply with any new
subsidy requirements.
Proposals to change the subsidy program could require
states to:
·
guarantee child care for all
cash assistance recipients fulfilling work requirements and for post-TANF
recipients for a minimum time period;
·
allow families to receive
subsidies when participating in education and training programs or job
search activities;
·
use income eligibility criteria
rather than criteria based on TANF receipt, requiring them to comply with a
federal minimum income and/or new maximum income eligibility threshold;
·
simplify eligibility
determination and recertification requirements;
·
use current market rate survey
data to set provider reimbursement rates;
·
set a ceiling on copayments;
·
increase outreach and education
efforts promoting subsidies; and
·
use contracts rather than
vouchers to pay providers.
Congress could also be asked to target funds for staff
training, outreach materials, and improvements to automated systems to help
states overcome administrative pressures resulting from the growing demand
for child care assistance. Finally, federal technical assistance activities
could be enhanced.
How can Congress address concerns about the supply and
quality of child care? Access to child care that is safe and
nurturing and located close to home or work is essential to the successful
transition from welfare to work and to job retention among low-wage workers.
Serious gaps exist in the supply of child care, particularly in inner-city
and rural areas and for specialized care, including care during
nontraditional hours and care for infants, children with special needs, and
school-age children. Proposals by advocates for new federal policy
approaches to fill these gaps could include financial incentives for states,
localities, and providers or new restrictions on the use of block grant
funds. New federal requirements, however, may be opposed by those who are
concerned about preserving existing state flexibility and discretion to
address unique child care needs. In addition, some will argue against any
new requirements or incentives that would result in new federal or state
expenditures.
Proposals could focus on ways to encourage developers,
business owners, and other employers to invest in facility construction in
underserved areas. These incentives could include federal tax credits, loan
guarantee programs, bonds, and technical assistance. In addition, banks
could be encouraged to fund child care initiatives as a way to fulfill their
obligation to invest in their local community under the federal Community
Reinvestment Act. Another approach might impose new requirements on states’
use of block grant funds to encourage growth in child care supply. For
example, states could be required to establish a minimum base reimbursement
rate and to set higher reimbursement rates for providers who care for
special populations of children or who offer care during nontraditional
hours. Congress could also consider ways to increase the supply of
specialized care and care in underserved areas, including training and other
supports for informal care networks provided by families and neighbors.
Finally, other proposals could seek to increase the availability of before-
and after-school care. For more information, visit http://www.financeproject.org/osthome.htm.
Congress can be expected to address concerns about the
quality of child care for low-income families during the reauthorization
debate. Discussions are likely to focus on what constitutes quality child
care, the impact of child care on child development and long-term
self-sufficiency, and ways to measure and improve quality. Proposals for new
federal initiatives could address professional development and retention
issues; training and standards for informal caregivers; facility and
structural quality; minimum federal quality standards and federal
enforcement of state safety and licensing standards; and federal investments
in research and dissemination. In addition, Congress will likely be asked to
increase the CCDF quality set-aside. Although proposals to reduce state
flexibility in licensing and standards will face opposition, there may be
support for increased federal technical assistance and expanded research.
Finally, consideration could be given to support for
public-private partnerships at the state and local levels to increase the
supply and quality of child care. Federal support could be provided through
expanded technical assistance or financial incentives. In addition, states
could be asked to demonstrate how they encourage partnerships focused on
increasing child care supply. For more information, visit http://www.nccic.org/ccpartnerships/home.htm.
How can federal legislation facilitate the coordination
of child care with other early childhood education programs? Some
groups will argue that Congress should address ways to facilitate and expand
state-level collaboration among CCDF, Head Start, and other early childhood
programs, based on the success of federal Head Start Collaboration
initiatives in all 50 states that support multi-agency and public-private
partnerships to build early childhood systems. In some states, these
collaborations have resulted in full-day child care services and quality
initiatives. However, conflicting federal and state administrative
requirements have hindered some of these efforts. For more information,
visit http://www2.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/hsb/about/programs/st_colab.htm.
To overcome administrative obstacles, lawmakers could
consider common federal eligibility standards, reporting requirements, and
performance measures. They could also consider ways to coordinate or
integrate funding streams, including common cost accounting measures. In
addition, the nation’s legislators could increase federal technical
assistance, including information dissemination on agency policies,
procedures and best practices, and improve federal-state and cross-agency
communications. Finally, Congress could provide targeted CCDF funds to
support innovative collaborations among early childhood care and education
programs.
In addition, states could be asked to encourage
collaborations that increase access to quality, full-day, full-year care by
easing state regulatory requirements, such as reporting and cost accounting
requirements; allocating a certain percentage of CCDF or TANF funds to
collaborations; establishing a single application form for multiple
programs; adopting common quality standards for child care and early
childhood providers; or demonstrating that they have established interagency
coalitions to plan and implement child care options. However, any federally
mandated initiatives are likely to be opposed because they reduce state
autonomy and flexibility in program design and administration. For more
information, see the U.S. General Accounting Office, Education and Care:
Early Childhood Programs and Services for Low-Income Families
(Washington, D.C., November 1999), at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/he00011.pdf;
or Jan Kaplan, Program Coordination and Simplification (Washington,
D.C.: Welfare Information Network, June 2001), at http://www.welfareinfo.org/RNcoordination.htm.
What data collection requirements could Congress include in
legislation to help researchers understand “what works” in child care?
It is likely that advocates, members of the research community, and
policymakers at the local, state, and federal levels will recommend that
Congress address the lack of data about the effectiveness of CCDF and TANF
expenditures in meeting child care demands. They may seek more uniform and
timely data on subsidy recipients, including employment, income, and other
demographics, as well as information on the type and hours of child care
that subsidy recipients use and their copayments. In addition, they may ask
for better information about the ways welfare leavers learn about their
eligibility for subsidies, how and why leavers choose to use subsidies, the
choices subsidy recipients make regarding child care arrangements, and the
stability of child care for users receiving subsidies compared with users
not receiving subsidies.
In addition, more information could be sought about the
quality improvements that states are implementing. This information has not
been collected under PRWORA. Longitudinal information on school readiness
and other long-term outcomes could also be collected. Further, efforts to
identify universally accepted quality indicators could be supported in
legislation.
Finally, Congress could consider ways to improve the
coordination of data collection at the federal level and among state and
local TANF, CCDF, and other agencies. In addition, federal technical
assistance activities could be expanded and research programs strengthened,
including the U.S. Child Care Bureau’s grants for State Child Care Data
Capacity and Research Projects. For more information, visit http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/ccb/research/ccprc/capacity/index.htm.
CURRENT PRACTICE AT THE STATE LEVEL
The flexibility afforded to states under PRWORA has
resulted in different child care policy approaches. According to 1999 data
collected by the State Policy Documentation Project, 35 states provide a
child care guarantee to TANF families. In many of these states, low-income
working families must wait for child care because of inadequate funds. In
addition, 27 states have a transitional child care guarantee for families
moving from welfare to work—7 have a time limit on the guarantee, 6 have
income limits on eligibility, and 14 have time and income limits. Among the
remaining states without a transitional child care guarantee, 15 give
priority to families leaving the welfare rolls over other low-income working
families and one state guarantees that all working families with incomes
below a certain level will receive child care assistance. Finally, 36 states
provide child care assistance to families in education and training
programs. For more information, see State Policy Documentation Project, Findings
in Brief: Child Care Assistance (Washington, D.C.: Center for Law and
Social Policy and Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, January
2001), at http://www.spdp.org/tanf/childcare/childcaresumm.htm.
In addition, state income eligibility limits and
copayment requirements vary among states. Income eligibility levels in six
states are at the federal maximum threshold of 85 percent of the state
median income (SMI). In 26 states, the income eligibility level is between
50 percent and 59 percent of the SMI, and the level is lower in the
remaining states. In 33 states, copayment policies follow the federal
recommendation that no more than 10 percent of a family’s income be spent
out of pocket for child care. In nine states, a family’s copayment is
limited to between 11 percent and 29 percent of income. In 38 states,
nonworking TANF families are not subject to a copayment. For more
information, see State Policy Documentation Project, Findings in Brief:
Child Care Assistance (Washington, D.C.: Center for Law and Social
Policy and Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, January 2001), at http://www.spdp.org/tanf/childcare/childcaresumm.htm;
and Mark Greenberg et al., Welfare Reauthorization: An Early Guide to the
Issues (Washington, D.C.: Center for Law and Social Policy, July 2000),
at http://www.clasp.org/pubs/TANF/packa.htm.
States are using different strategies to increase the use
of child care assistance. These strategies include distributing brochures,
posters, and resource guides; using resource and referral agencies;
conducting outreach through community organizations; and launching public
information campaigns. For more information, see Michelle Ganow, Child
Care Subsidies: Strategies to Provide Outreach to Eligible Families
(Washington, D.C.: Welfare Information Network, September 2000), at http://www.welfareinfo.org/childcaresubsidiesissuenote.htm.
In addition, several states are using the tax code to help families address
child care costs. Twenty-seven states have a tax credit or tax deduction for
child care expenses; in 10 of those states, the credit is refundable. For
more information, see National Women’s Law Center, Recent Changes in
State Child and Dependent Care Tax Provisions: Tax Year 2001
(Washington, D.C.: National Women’s Law Center, 2001), at http://www.nwlc.org/pdf/taxchart2001.pdf.
Under federal law, states may set their own reimbursement
rates for providers, though federal guidelines recommend that states set
their reimbursement rates no less than the 75th percentile of the current
market rate. About half of the states are using the most recent market data
to set their rates, but rates in most states remain below the federally
recommended level. Yet a growing number of states are experimenting with
differential rates for providers who meet certain quality standards and who
care for children during nontraditional hours or for children with special
needs. For more information, see Mark Greenberg et al., Welfare
Reauthorization: An Early Guide to the Issues (Washington, D.C.: Center
for Law and Social Policy, July 2000), at http://www.clasp.org/pubs/TANF/packa.htm;
or Children’s Defense Fund, A Fragile Foundation: State Child Care
Assistance Policies (Washington, D.C.: Children’s Defense Fund, 2001),
at http://www.childrensdefense.org/head-resources.htm.
Finally, TANF funds, both through transfers to CCDF and
through direct expenditures, have become a major component of state child
care spending as cash assistance caseloads have declined and states have
recognized the critical role that child care plays in the successful
transition from welfare to work. In fiscal 2000, 49 states spent TANF funds
on child care, with total TANF expenditures on child care exceeding federal
CCDF allocations. These spending levels cannot be maintained, however, if
state economic conditions decline and cash assistance caseloads increase.
For more information, see Rachel Schumacher et al., The Impact of TANF
Funding on State Child Care Subsidy Programs (Washington, D.C.: Center
for Law and Social Policy, September 2001), at http://www.clasp.org/childcare/TANFChildCareFullReport.pdf.
Also, see Jean Layzer and Ann Collins, National Study of Child Care for
Low-Income Families: State and Community Substudy Interim Report
(Cambridge, Mass.: Abt Associates, Inc., November 2000), at http://www.abtassoc.com/reports/welfare-download/ES-NSCCLIF.pdf;
or S. Groginsky, Financing Child Care (Denver, Colo.: National
Conference of State Legislatures, June 2000), at http://ww.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/finrpt.htm.
OVERVIEW OF RELATED RESEARCH
Jean Layzer and Ann Collins examined provider supply and
subsidy access in 17 states. They found shortages of regulated care,
particularly in low-income neighborhoods, of care for specific populations,
such as infants and toddlers and children with special needs, and of care
during nontraditional hours. Study participants cited the strong economy in
1999 as a major reason for the shortages; child care providers were drawn to
better-paying jobs at the same time the demand for child care increased
because of increased employment at all income levels. The study also found
that the survey states were able to serve only between 15 percent and 20
percent of children eligible for federal subsidies and that 12 of the states
had waiting lists for subsidies. A review of state welfare leaver studies by
Schumacher and Greenberg also concluded that less than 50 percent of leavers
who are working are receiving child care assistance. For more information,
see Jean Layzer and Ann Collins, National Study of Child Care for
Low-Income Families: State and Community Substudy Interim Report
(Cambridge, Mass.: Abt Associates, Inc., November 2000), at http://www.abtassoc.com/reports/welfare-download/ES-NSCCLIF.pdf;
and Rachel Schumacher and Mark Greenberg, Child Care After Leaving
Welfare: Early Evidence from State Studies (Washington, D.C.: Center for
Law and Social Policy, October 1999), at http://www.clasp.org/pubs/childcare/Child%20Care%20after%20Leaving%20Welfare.htm.
A study of local policies and practices found that
certain cohorts of parents were less likely to participate in child care
subsidy programs. These included immigrant parents and parents with very
young children who thought they had to use center-based care. In addition,
parents were less likely to use subsidies if they had family members who
could provide care; had no prior experience with welfare or subsidy
programs; lacked knowledge of child care options available through
subsidies; or lived in communities with a scarcity of centers or family
child care homes. For more information, see Judith Carroll, How to Pay
for Child Care?: Local Innovations Help Working Families (Berkeley,
Calif.: Growing Up in Poverty Project, April 2001), at http://pace.berkeley.edu/POLICY_BRIEF.01-1.pdf.
Besharov and Samari examined welfare leaver data to
determine the cause of low subsidy take-up rates. They concluded that state
policies are biased toward full-time workers and regulated, center-based
care, and these policies deter women who work part time or who have informal
care arrangements from seeking subsidies. For more information, see Douglas
Besharov and Nazanin Samari, “Child Care after Welfare Reform”, in The
New World of Welfare, ed. Rebecca Blank and Ron Haskins
(Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 2001), at http://www.brookings.edu.
The U.S. General Accounting Office found that more than
half of subsidized children nationwide are placed in center-based care. In
some states, less than 5 percent of children are cared for by relatives,
while in other states more than 30 percent of children are cared for by
relatives. For more information, see U.S. General Accounting Office, Child
Care: States Increase Spending on Low-Income Families (Washington, D.C.,
February 2001), at http://www.gao.gov.
Although the research is still inconclusive on the relative benefits of
formal, center-based care and informal, home-based care for child
development and employment stability, a recent study found that different
settings appear to meet the different needs of low-income families.
According to these findings, formal child care centers best meet the
developmental needs of low-income children, while the accessibility and
flexibility of unregulated home care best meets the needs of mothers. For
more information, see Rebekah Levine Coley et al., Child Care in the Era
of Welfare Reform: Quality, Choices, and Preferences (Baltimore, Md.:
Johns Hopkins University, November 2001), at http://www.jhu.edu/~welfare/19168_welfare_Nov.pdf.
The literature on quality in child care suggests a
positive link between quality child care and a child’s daily experiences,
school readiness, and later academic achievements and social interactions.
It also points to the long-term economic benefits of quality child care,
including a reduced need for ongoing special education services and public
assistance and a decreased potential for delinquency. For more information,
see Deborah Lowe Vandell and Barbara Wolfe, Child Care Quality: Does it
Matter and Does it Need to be Improved? (Madison, Wis.: Institute for
Research on Poverty, May 2000), at http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/irp/childcare.pdf).
Researchers have also found that low-income women, when
deciding whether to work, view child care quality and reliability as more
important than its cost. For more information, see Robert J. Lemke et al., Child
Care and the Welfare-to-Work Transition (Washington, D.C.: National
Bureau of Economic Research, March 2000), at http://www.nber.org/papers/w7583.
Other researchers have found, however, that children of welfare recipients
are more likely to receive care that is of lower quality, as measured by the
availability of educational materials, the use of television and videos, and
the cleanliness of the facilities. For more information, see Growing Up in
Poverty Project, Remember the Children: Mothers Balance Work and Child
Care Under Welfare Reform (Berkeley, Calif.: Growing Up in Poverty
Project, February 2000), at http://pace.berkeley.edu/remthechild_exsumm.pdf.
For additional research findings, visit http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/ccb/research/ccprc/index.htm#bg.
PENDING POLICY PROPOSALS
Several national organizations have formulated policy
positions to address federal support for child care for low-income families
and welfare recipients through TANF and CCDF.
American Enterprise Institute (AEI). For
more information, contact Douglas Besharov at 202/862-5904 or dbesharov@aei.org;
or visit http://www.brookings.edu. In
“Child Care After Welfare Reform” in The New World of
Welfare, AEI argues that any changes to federal law should support state
autonomy and flexibility in the delivery of child care services through:
·
more timely, reliable, and
comprehensive data collection;
·
less categorical and rigid
funding streams and a more stable source of key child care funding than
unspent welfare funds;
·
greater coordination of Head
Start with child care;
·
the elimination of barriers to
the use of subsidies for part-time and home-based care;
·
a requirement that states give
priority to serving children based on financial need rather than
determining eligibility based on a federal income limit; and
·
a national research agenda of
randomized studies of best practices in child care quality.
American Public Human Services Association (APHSA).
For more information, contact Elaine Ryan at 202/626-0100; or visit http://www.aphsa.org.
In Crossroads: New Directions in Social Policy, APHSA recommends
that the CCDF reauthorization:
·
maintain and enhance child
care funding, with CCDF funded at no less than $2 billion in discretionary
funds and $2.7 billion in entitlement funds;
·
preserve state authority to
transfer up to 30 percent of the TANF block grant into CCDF and to spend
TANF funds directly on child care;
·
maintain current program
flexibility and streamline the rules pertaining to the administration of
block grant funds;
·
support research that
contributes to the understanding of measurable quality indicators that can
be addressed at the state and local levels; and
·
encourage the public and
private sectors to build and sustain an early care and education workforce
that is well trained, well respected, and adequately compensated.
Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP). For
more information, contact Rachel Schumacher or Mark Greenberg at
202/328-5140; or visit http://www.clasp.org.
In its Comments Regarding the Reauthorization of the Child Care and
Development Fund, CLASP recommends that the CCDF reauthorization:
·
increase child care funds so
states can serve more eligible families and provide equal access to a wide
array of care options;
·
enhance data collection and
research capacity to increase understanding of the subsidy system and its
impacts on children, parents, and providers;
·
improve the quality of child
care for all children, particularly those in low-income families; and
·
remove administrative barriers
for families to access and maintain subsidies.
Child Welfare League of America (CWLA). For
more information, contact John Sciamanna, 202/639-4919 or jsciamanna@cwla.org;
or visit http://www.cwla.org/advocacy/tanf011218.htm.
In Comments on the Reauthorization of the Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families Program Authority, CWLA calls on Congress to:
·
increase funding for CCDF to
ensure that every eligible child receives assistance within five years;
·
eliminate the distinction
between CCDF-funded child care and TANF-funded child care;
·
increase provider
reimbursement rates until they reach 100 percent of market rates; and
·
expand current federal CCDF
health and safety requirements.
National Association of Counties (NACo). For
more information, contact Marilina Sanz at 202/393-6226 or msanz@naco.org;
or visit http://www.naco.org/leg/platform/human/hse01.cfm.
NACo’s American County Platform delineates the following federal
policy positions.
·
Federal support for child care
should be available to all welfare recipients who need it while
participating in employment, education, or training and to working parents
as they leave public assistance. Care should be available on a fee scale,
based on ability to pay.
·
Additional financial support
should be available for special needs care and for care during
nontraditional hours.
·
Employers should be given
increased financial incentives to provide child care for their employees
onsite or as a benefit.
·
The Dependent Care Tax Credit
should be made refundable.
·
Congress should develop tax
credits and liability insurance pools to expand supply.
National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL).
For more information, contact Sheri Steisel at 202/624-5400; or visit http://www.ncsl.org/statefed/HUMAN.HTM.
NCSL’s child care policy urges the federal government to maintain state
flexibility under CCDF and recommends the following.
·
Child care services should be
available to all recipients required to participate in welfare-to-work
programs and adequate federal funding should be provided for those
services.
·
States should be provided
federal funding to extend child care assistance for at least two years to
persons who no longer receive cash assistance because of earnings or child
support.
·
Any changes to CCDF must not
include additional mandates.
·
Any additional funding for
CCDF should be as a state entitlement.
·
Federal technical assistance
should be provided on the coordination and financing of child care
programs as well as on quality standards and licensing.
·
State governments should
retain the authority to regulate child care facilities.
·
Tax incentives should be used
to encourage the creation of child care programs and to help parents
better afford child care services.
National Governors Association (NGA). For more
information, contact Helene Stebbins at 202/624-5300 or hstebbins@nga.org
and Gretchen Odegard at 202/624-5361 or godegard@nga.org;
or visit http://www.nga.org/nga/legislativeUpdate.
NGA’s child care and early education policy asks the federal
government to support, not control, state activities in child care, as
follows:
·
maintain maximum state
flexibility under CCDF;
·
provide adequate funds to
states to meet the need for child care;
·
provide incentives and
rewards for improved coordination of child care and early education
programs;
·
encourage professional
development to reduce turnover for child care providers;
·
provide tax incentives for
employers, individuals, and providers;
·
require federal programs to
collaborate with state and local programs that serve children; and
·
support state efforts to
enforce state licensing and accreditation.
National League of Cities (NLC). For more
information, contact Pamela Konde, 202/626-3068 or konde@nlc.org;
or visit http://www.nlc.org/nlc_org/site/files/pdf/nmp4.pdf.
NLC’s national municipal policy on human development places a high
priority on day care services that are safe, affordable, and of high
quality and asks the federal government to:
·
create minimum federal
standards on what constitutes high-quality, safe, and affordable child
care and support research geared to developing models of high-quality
day care;
·
provide a consistent
database of information on child care needs, solutions to problems,
successful programs, and sources of funding;
·
develop a continuous source
of funding for child care services;
·
strengthen recruitment,
training, scholarship, and compensation programs to develop a large,
well-trained pool of early childhood workers;
·
make available low-interest
loans to entities interested in starting day care services;
·
provide incentives to home
care providers who comply with licensing regulations; and
·
encourage the development of
child care services for infants and toddlers with special needs and
terminal illnesses.
OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES AND RESOURCES
The following organizations also have an interest or
expertise in federal and state child care policies. Visit their web site
or contact them directly. For additional resources, visit the Welfare
Information Network Child Care Reauthorization web page at http://www.welfareinfo.org/childcarereauth.htm
and the Child Care web page at http://www.welfareinfo.org/childcare.htm.
The Center for the Child Care
Workforce, 202/737-7700; or http://www.ccw.org/home/.
Child Care Action Campaign,
Lisa Shulman, 212/239-0138; or http://www.childcareaction.org/.
Children’s Defense Fund,
Danielle Ewen, 202/628-8787; or http://www.childrensdefense.org/.
The Finance Project, Sharon
Deich or Barbara Langford, 202/628-4200; or http://www.financeproject.org.
National Association of Child
Care Resource and Referral Agencies, Edna Ranck, 202/393-5501; or http://www.naccrra.org.
National Association for the
Education of Young Children, 202/232-8777; or http://www.naeyc.org/.
National Center for Children
in Poverty, Jane Knitzer, 212/304-7100; or http://cpmcnet.columbia.edu/dept/nccp/main6.html.
National Child Care
Association, Lynn White, 800/543-7161; or http://www.nccanet.org/.
National Council of Jewish
Women, 800/829-6259; or http://www.ncjw.org/programs/childcare-campaign.htm.
National Institute for Out of
School Time, 781/283-2547; or http://www.wellesley.edu/WCW/CRW/SAC/index.html.
National School-Age Child Care
Alliance, Pam Browning, 617/298-5012; or http://www.nsaca.org/.
National Women’s Law Center,
Margot Friedman or Lela Shepard, 202/588-5180; or http://www.nwlc.org.
The Next Generation Project, Lisa
Gennetian, 212/532-3200; or http://www.mdrc.org/NextGeneration/Default.html.
U.S. Child Care Bureau,
202/690-6782; or http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/ccb/.
-
or contact: TANF Reauthorization Resources,
The Welfare Information Network,
1401 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 800,
Washington, D.C. 20005
(tel. 202-587-1000),
TANF Reauthorization Resources are coordinated by the Welfare Information
Network,
a business line of The Finance Project. They are funded by grants from the
David and Lucile Packard Foundation and the Annie E. Casey
Foundation.
