[Senate Hearing 112-928]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-928
CCDBG REAUTHORIZATION: HELPING TO MEET THE CHILD CARE NEEDS OF AMERICAN
FAMILIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION,
LABOR, AND PENSIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
EXAMINING THE CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
REAUTHORIZATION, FOCUSING ON HELPING TO MEET THE CHILD CARE NEEDS OF
AMERICAN FAMILIES
__________
JULY 26, 2012
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
93-803 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
_____________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS
TOM HARKIN, Iowa, Chairman
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
PATTY MURRAY, Washington RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
BERNARD SANDERS (I), Vermont JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania RAND PAUL, Kentucky
KAY R. HAGAN, North Carolina ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota PAT ROBERTS, Kansas
MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island MARK KIRK, Illinois
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
Pamela Smith, Staff Director, Chief Counsel
Lauren McFerran, Deputy Staff Director
Frank Macchiarola, Republican Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Children and Families
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland, Chairman
PATTY MURRAY, Washington RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
BERNARD SANDERS (I), Vermont LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
KAY R. HAGAN, North Carolina RAND PAUL, Kentucky
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota PAT ROBERTS, Kansas
MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado MARK KIRK, Illinois
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming (ex
TOM HARKIN, Iowa (ex officio) officio)
Jessica McNiece, Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
THURSDAY, JULY 26, 2012
Page
Committee Members
Mikulski, Hon. Barbara A., Chairman, Subcommittee on Children and
Families, opening statement.................................... 1
Burr, Hon. Richard, a U.S. Senator from the State of North
Carolina....................................................... 3
Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, a U.S. Senator from the State of New Mexico. 5
Franken, Hon. Al, a U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota..... 16
Murray, Hon. Patty, a U.S. Senator from the State of Washington.. 18
Blumenthal, Hon. Richard, a U.S. Senator from the State of
Connecticut.................................................... 19
Hagan, Hon. Kay R., a U.S. Senator from the State of North
Carolina....................................................... 33
Merkley, Hon. Jeff, a U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon...... 45
Panel I--Witness
Smith, Linda K., Deputy Assistant Secretary and Inter-
Departmental Liaison for Early Childhood Development,
Administration on Children and Families, Department of Health
and Human Services, Washington, DC............................. 5
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Panel II--Witnesses
Grafwallner, Rolf, Ph.D., Assistant State Superintendent,
Division of Early Childhood Development, Maryland State
Department of Education, Baltimore, MD......................... 22
Prepared statement........................................... 24
Acord, Philip, Executive Director, Children's Home, Chattanooga,
TN............................................................. 28
Prepared statement........................................... 30
Singerman, Janet, President, Child Care Resources, Inc.,
Charlotte, NC.................................................. 33
Prepared statement........................................... 35
Coro, Susana, Assistant Teacher, Falls Church-McLean Children's
Center, Falls Church, VA....................................... 41
Prepared statement........................................... 43
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Statements, articles, publications, letters, etc.:
Senator Casey................................................ 52
American Public Human Services Association (APHSA)........... 53
Helen Blank, Director of Child Care and Early Learning,
National Women's Law Center................................ 55
Hannah Matthews, Director of Child Care and Early Education,
Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP)................... 58
Response by Linda K. Smith to questions of:
Senator Murray........................................... 61
Senator Sanders.......................................... 63
Senator Casey............................................ 66
(III)
Response by Rolf Grafwallner, Ph.D., to questions of:
Senator Murray........................................... 68
Senator Sanders.......................................... 69
Senator Casey............................................ 71
Response by Phillip Acord to questions of:
Senator Murray........................................... 72
Senator Sanders.......................................... 73
Senator Casey............................................ 74
Response by Janet Singerman to questions of:
Senator Murray........................................... 75
Senator Sanders.......................................... 81
Senator Casey............................................ 83
Response by Susana Coro to questions of:
Senator Murray........................................... 85
Senator Sanders.......................................... 86
CCDBG REAUTHORIZATION: HELPING TO MEET THE CHILD CARE NEEDS OF AMERICAN
FAMILIES
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 26, 2012
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Children and Families,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in
room SD-426, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara
Mikulski, chairman of the subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Mikulski, Burr, Murray, Bingaman, Hagan,
Merkley, Franken, and Blumenthal.
Opening Statement of Senator Mikulski
The Chairman. The Subcommittee on Children and Families
will now come to order. I'm pleased to be able to convene this
hearing, and it's the third in a series of hearings that we are
holding on early childhood development, with the hope that we
could reauthorize the Child Development Block Grant, something
that has not been reauthorized since the 1990s.
At our first hearing, we focused on the Federal return on
investment in early childhood and what the benefits are to
society as well as to the child. The second one was to focus on
how to improve the health, safety, and quality of these CCDBG
programs.
At this final hearing, we're going to focus on how we can
improve childcare without sacrificing the access to the
program. With only so many dollars, where do we spend our money
to really improve the quality of childcare programs and at the
same time not shrink the number that we have.
In our previous hearings, witnesses often mentioned a
tension between access and quality. If we invest in one,
sometimes they say it ends up at the expense of the other.
Well, I think we need to rethink how we talk about it and what
we do about it. We need to look at how we can encourage States
to ensure that all CCDBG providers have some measure of
quality, some concrete specific measures. That way, when you
invest in access and expand childcare slots you're also
ensuring quality.
This subcommittee is working on a bipartisan basis and I
thank Senator Burr and his very professional staff for their
collegiality and the way we've really looked at the issues from
the standpoint of our children, our families, and their budget
and our budget, both of which are having some tight times. We
are in this tough fiscal climate and we don't want to push
families out of childcare.
So we're going to ask our witnesses to give us their time,
to give us recommendations with those two factors in mind.
Childcare is something that all parents care about. Parents
want childcare that is affordable and high quality. At the
Federal level, we often expect far too little. Some have no
expectation that childcare workers have pre-service training,
no expectation that the facilities have regular inspections or
those who work in them have background checks.
Remember, we're talking about protecting vulnerable
populations, often infants and toddlers who can't speak for
themselves, and we must speak up and first protect them in that
environment; second, we must ensure that they have a shot at
learning opportunities. We want to promote healthy development,
both cognitively, emotionally, and physically.
CCDBG has not been reauthorized since 1996. The law often
reflects old thinking, that childcare is primarily a work
support program. Yes, that's one of the anchors. People turn to
childcare because they work. But at the same time, it is an
opportunity to help kids get learning ready or they're already
learning; we need to be ready for the kids. We know that 80
percent of the brain development occurs before age 3 and 90
percent before age 5. More than half of the children that
benefit from this block grant are from infants up to 5, meaning
that they're in these facilities at the time when their
learning ability is growing the most, at the fastest pace.
So we need to use this, not as a problem to be solved, but
as an opportunity to grasp and to nurture. That's why Senator
Burr and I have been working with members of the subcommittee,
particularly Senators Harkin and Enzi, to reauthorize the
program and to involve all members. Two have been very active
who are here now, Senators Franken and Bingaman, and I'm going
to note Senator Bob Casey, one of the leading advocates. These
three men and others on the other side of the aisle have been
active in it.
We want to increase participation. We want to promote
better administration of the program. We want to ensure program
integrity and accountability. But most of all, we want to
improve the quality and coordination of this program.
We don't have much time left in this Congress, but we hope
we can find general agreement on this. And with members working
on both sides of the bill, we hope that we can come to the
ability to have a framework for reauthorization, take it to the
committee, and take it to the Senate. It's one of these bills
that I would hope would pass with unanimous consent, but I'm a
dreamer, and I think dreams come true.
Having said that, I'd like to turn to Senator Burr, who's
been so active in this and has brought so many good ideas to
the table. This is the characteristic here. We focus with
collegiality, with civility, and presuming that we both have
great ideas and working with everybody that we can get the job
done.
I also want to particularly note his very strong advocacy
for protecting vulnerable populations, both here, in the Census
program, and so on.
Senator Burr.
Statement of Senator Burr
Senator Burr. Chairman Mikulski, I thank you for your
willingness to work with me and, more importantly, for your
staff 's hard work and for their focus over the last year
looking at what I think are commonsense changes that need to be
made in the childcare development block grant. Had I known this
was a dream, I might not have been on board.
[Laughter.]
But I think it will become a reality because of the input
of many over the last year. It was a little over a year ago
when we held the first hearings looking at critical changes
that need to be made in CCDBG to boost quality for children and
working parents. I'm heartened at the progress the HELP
Committee is making in looking at these changes and we can
finally reauthorize this important program and make it current
with some of the realities on the ground.
Madam Chairman, in our first committee hearing last year
you pointed out that you wanted this subcommittee to be rich in
policy and substance and to set a standard with CCDBG
reauthorization. In our first year under your leadership with
CCDBG reauthorization efforts, I can say you and your staff
have done exactly that.
While more work needs to be done, I believe we're on the
right track to achieving a sensible bipartisan reauthorization.
Again, I want to thank you and your staff for their work over
the past year.
In the past two hearings, a common question was raised in
how we reauthorize CCDBG, how much quality can we ask for
without dramatically reducing the number of children or slots
for care. Through the helpful testimony of the past two
hearings' witnesses and the feedback from the field, I believe
there are basic upgrades we can make to this program that give
us and parents peace of mind that when they drop their kids off
and head off to their job their children are safe.
Like most people, I'd like to ensure that every low-income
parent who needs childcare in order to maintain work and be a
productive member of society gets it. But as the waiting lists
in many States, nearly 40,000 in my State of North Carolina,
show, the demand is far outstripping our limited ability to
supply care.
Meanwhile, we know that nearly 1.7 million children
currently receiving subsidies are not receiving quality care
and in some cases are in conditions unbefitting a Federal
taxpayer investment. Stories of children dying in locked vans,
conditions in facilities that lack basic health and safety
protections, are heartbreaking to me and to most.
In this time of limited Federal resources, examples of this
type of abuse of the public's and parents' trust that children
are being well-served cry for this program to be reformed. As
Linda Smith, who's here today--and some all around the world
consider her to be an expert on this issue; I certainly do--
said during our first June 2011 subcommittee hearing:
``We can make basic low- and no-cost changes to this
program that will go a long way toward ensuring the
health, safety, and quality in the setting parents
leave their children.''
I'm pleased that Janet Singerman of North Carolina's Child
Care Resources is here today. North Carolina has been hard at
work for years to improve the delivery of childcare, trending
to better the workforce quality, access, health and safety
standards, as well as a personal concern of mine, background
checks for childcare workers. I encourage my colleagues to
listen carefully to Ms. Singer-
man's testimony on how States can upgrade quality of services
incrementally so as not to jeopardize the number of children
served or slots.
One area where I know we can force quality with minimal
costs is the Child Care Protection Act, legislation which would
require background checks for all childcare workers who receive
Federal subsidies through CCDBG. This legislation, which I
drafted and has the support of Senator Enzi, Chairman Mikulski,
Senators Roberts, Kirk, and Bennet on this committee, and I
think others, would go a long way to improving CCDBG overall.
No one can deny the need for this change is necessary and
immediate. In March of this year, Dateline brought their
undercover cameras into a childcare facility receiving these
Federal funds and uncovered settings where individuals caring
for children in unsupervised settings had arrests in their
background, including battery, domestic violence, and drug-
related charges, leaving children to someone's sometimes fatal
chance. In North Carolina alone, we annually turn down 500
individuals with criminal or sexual offenses in their
background who have applied to work in childcare.
We have a moral responsibility to fix these issues and to
provide poor working parents with basic assurances that their
children are not being cared for by convicted felons. In fact,
21 States do not conduct fingerprint checks, 43 States do not
conduct sexual offender registry checks, and 24 States do not
conduct fingerprint checks for family childcare providers.
For a federally funded program intended to protect
children, this is unacceptable and it, frankly, must be
changed. If I had my way--and I know the chair would agree--
this legislation would be law today so that parents throughout
the country are sure that when they're using Federal dollars to
find childcare the workers in those settings haven't committed
heinous crimes, particularly against children, in their past.
I'm hopeful that all of my colleagues will support this
reasonable legislation as we move forward with the
reauthorization. I'm certain of one thing: When Chris Hansen
and the undercover Dateline cameras have spotlighted something
policymakers have done, they're going to say that we've done
our job, and this legislation will be a key ingredient to that,
as well as the reauthorization.
With that said, I look forward to today's testimony. Again,
Madam Chairman, I thank you and your staff for their
cooperation.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Burr.
Before I turn to Ms. Smith, Senator Bingaman, did you want
to say something? You have such a long history of being an
advocate in this area and I know as you are now summarizing
this incredible career you've had, first of all, we want to
thank you for your role here. Your legislative director, Dr.
Trudy Vincent, is somebody who was on my staff in the nineties
when we worked on this bill. We have a long association with
you and your staff.
But I think all of us, as we have this last hearing on this
topic, really just want to thank you for your contribution and
look forward to your engagement as we work on the bill. Would
you like to say something?
Statement of Senator Bingaman
Senator Bingaman. Well, thank you very much, Madam
Chairman, and thank you for having the hearing. It's a very
important issue. I look forward to learning from the witnesses
whatever can be done, and I'm particularly interested in these
low-cost and no-cost changes that might be made. I think, given
our fiscal reality here in Washington, I think that's where a
lot of the focus needs to be.
Thank you.
The Chairman. You're welcome.
We'd now like to turn to Linda Smith, the Deputy Assistant
Secretary and Inter-Departmental Liaison--wow--for Early
Childhood Development, for the Administration on Children and
Families. That sounds almost like you're a treaty negotiator
between the bureaucracies.
Ms. Smith has a long history of working in early childhood
development both at DOD and also with the private non-profit
organization, the Child Care Resource and Referral Agency. She
kicked off our first hearing, and brought such great testimony.
Today as we now look for some very concrete ideas, we look
forward to hearing how the administration's principles can help
us improve the quality of childcare without sacrificing access.
Ms. Smith, a really cordial welcome to you once again and
we look forward to hearing from you.
STATEMENT OF LINDA K. SMITH, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY AND
INTER-DEPARTMENTAL LIAISON FOR EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT,
ADMINISTRATION ON CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
AND HUMAN SERVICES, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Smith. Thank you, and I have to say that I've been
teased about that title. People ask me if my cards are five by
eight, and it needs to be.
Chairwoman Mikulski, Ranking Member Burr, and members of
the committee: I'm pleased to be back today to discuss
reauthorization of the Child Care Development Block Grant,
CCDBG. I now represent the Administration for Children and
Families at the Department of Health and Human Services. We
administer the CCDBG program. Reforming it is critical to our
efforts to support low-income working families and to close the
achievement gap of our Nation's poorest children.
Over the last 3 years the administration has worked hard to
ensure that more low-income children receive high-quality early
care and education. We have partnered with the Department of
Education to administer the Race to the Top Early Learning
Challenge, which promotes nine States in developing new
approaches to improving early learning programs.
We also implemented the bipartisan reforms Congress called
for in the Head Start Reauthorization Act to ensure taxpayer
dollars go to programs that provide the best quality education
to our poorest children.
Reauthorization of CCDBG provides another opportunity to
improve the early learning opportunities for millions of low-
income children in our childcare programs in all 50 States, the
territories, and the tribal communities. Childcare is both an
essential work support for parents and an early learning
program for children. High quality childcare, as you know, is
very expensive and many low-income families cannot afford it by
themselves. Childcare subsidies provided through the CCDBG
allow families to access care that they could not otherwise
afford.
Research shows that parents who receive subsidies are more
likely to work, work more hours, maintain employment, and earn
more. In addition, high quality care promotes a child's
development and learning, helping to ensure that the next
generation has skills necessary to compete in an increasingly
global economy.
Unfortunately, many children, particularly low-income
children, have already fallen behind even before they reach
kindergarten. Research has shown that disparities between low-
income children and their more advantaged peers start as early
as 9 months, so that many low-income children enter school
already behind. By promoting critical cognitive and social-
emotional skills, quality childcare can help close the gap.
Recent findings from the National Institute of Child Health
and Human Development demonstrates that the quality of
childcare received by children in their preschool years has
effects on their academic success well into adolescence.
In 2010, the latest data we have available, CCDBG provided
assistance to 1.7 million children. All of the children served
are low-income and half are living at or below poverty. New
research finds that families receiving childcare subsidies are
able to access higher quality care compared to families without
subsidies, but the quality of that care is still lower compared
to Head Start and State pre-K programs.
Although the children served by childcare subsidies and
Head Start are demographically similar, Head Start children
receive more support services and higher quality programs. In
contrast, children receiving childcare subsidies may be in care
that fails to meet even basic health and safety standards.
Parents understandably assume that providers funded by
Federal subsidies are safe. However, some States lack basic
requirements, such as comprehensive background checks, training
in basic first aid and CPR, and even safe sleep practices. And
in only half of the States do parents have ready access to
licensing and inspection information.
On average, States spend nearly 12 percent of CCDBG funds
each year in quality improvement efforts. They use these funds
to build quality rating and improvement systems, develop higher
standards, and to provide training to the workforce. These
investments improve the care for millions of children,
including those not directly subsidized by CCDBG.
However, we currently fall far short in our efforts to
provide stable support for both work and optimal child
development. Families in many States churn off and on childcare
assistance programs every few months, even when they remain
eligible. This is because the burden of the redetermination
process provides such barriers that they simply give up. This
churning threatens the employment stability of parents and
undermines child development by severing relationships with the
child's caregivers.
We have already taken steps within current authorities to
address some of these concerns. A year ago we revised the State
CCDBF plan, which serves as the application for the CCDBG funds
for the States. We increased the focus on health and safety,
program improvement, and workforce preparation. We asked States
to set goals for improving their programs, and for the first
time we are asking States to report their annual progress on
achieving their goals. We are asking for key data about efforts
to upgrade childcare monitoring. Finally, States will now have
to report for the first time on the quality of care each child
receiving subsidy is getting.
But much still needs to be done. Current law does not
reflect recent research on brain development in the early
years, nor has it kept pace with current State practices.
Reauthorization is an opportunity to build on State innovation,
learn from the new research, and drive best practices. As such,
we think that CCDBG reauthorization should be based on the five
following key principles:
No. 1, improving quality by establishing a foundation to
ensure health and safety in childcare and a systemic framework
through which States can improve quality, increasing the funds
dedicated to quality and incorporating into statute existing
quality set-asides now included in appropriations language,
ensuring that quality funds are spent on evidence-based
activities that improve quality, including health and safety
standards, ensuring that States have effective monitoring
systems and protocols to ensure that providers meet State
regulatory requirements, and expanding education and training
opportunities of the workforce;
No. 2, supporting access. The combination of the end of the
Recovery Act CCDBG funding and current State fiscal constraints
have caused States to cut back on childcare assistance. We
should work to counterbalance these pressures and maintain
services to families while making quality improvements.
No. 3, increasing transparency for parents about the health
and safety records of providers and other key quality
indicators.
No. 4, promoting continuity of care, such as requiring
longer eligibility determination periods for families receiving
childcare subsidies.
And No. 5, ensuring program integrity by providing more
assistance to States to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse.
In closing, let me emphasize that we are committed to
better alignment of all early care and education programs. We
have formed strong partnerships with the Department of
Education, USDA, DOD, the Consumer Product Safety Commission,
Maternal and Child Health, and other Federal agencies to reduce
the barriers to more efficient and effective programs. Our
overarching goal is to ensure that more low-income children
have access to high quality care.
States are strong partners in these efforts, with many
States leading the way on improving health and safety and
setting higher early learning standards. The diverse range of
States engaged in these efforts, including those States
represented on this subcommittee, demonstrate the bipartisan
interest and support for improving the quality of care in order
to keep our Nation's children safe, healthy, happy, and
learning.
I want to thank the subcommittee for its leadership on this
issue and we look forward to working with you to achieve
reauthorization. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Linda K. Smith
Chairwoman Mikulski, Ranking Member Burr, and members of the
subcommittee, I am pleased to appear at this hearing to discuss
reauthorization of the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG)
Act. It is my honor to serve as the Deputy Assistant Secretary and
Inter-Departmental Liaison for Early Childhood Development at the
Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, which administers the CCDBG. Prior to joining ACF, I
worked for nearly 10 years as the executive director of the National
Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies (NACCRRA). I
also spent a significant portion of my career at the Department of
Defense helping to develop the military childcare system.
Reforming the CCDBG Act is a critical part of our Nation's efforts
to support low-income working families and to close the achievement gap
by improving the early learning opportunities of children at risk of
falling behind in school. Over the past 3 years, the Obama
administration has worked to ensure that more low-income children
receive high-quality early care and education. The Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS) has partnered with the Department of Education
to administer the Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge grant
competition. This partnership is currently supporting nine States'
efforts to transform their early learning and development programs from
a patchwork of disconnected programs with uneven quality into
coordinated State systems that prepare children for success in school
and in life. At the same time, HHS has implemented the bipartisan
reforms Congress called for in Head Start to direct taxpayer dollars to
Head Start programs that provide the best available early education
services to children in every community. Reauthorizing the CCDBG Act
provides an opportunity to build upon these efforts by improving the
early learning and afterschool opportunities for millions of low-
income children in all 50 States, U.S. territories, and hundreds of
tribal communities.
Because childcare is both an essential work support for parents and
a critical early learning program for children, shoring up our
investments in childcare will improve the lives of families and promote
the economic success of our country. First, childcare allows millions
of parents to go to work every day. As the Nation's economy continues
to recover from the deepest recession in decades, it is critical for
families to have access to quality care so that parents have the peace
of mind to seek and retain employment that will fuel the recovery. But
due to the high cost of care, many low-income families cannot afford to
pay for childcare by themselves. Childcare subsidies allow these
families to access care that they could not otherwise afford. Research
shows that parents who receive subsidies to help them pay for childcare
are more likely to work, work more hours, maintain employment, and earn
more (Schaefer, Kreader, and Collins, 2006).
Second, investing in childcare pays dividends because quality care
promotes children's development and learning--helping to ensure that
the next generation has the skills and abilities necessary to compete
in an increasingly global economy. Unfortunately, many children,
particularly low-income children, have already fallen behind even
before kindergarten starts. Research has shown that disparities between
low-income and more advantaged children start as early as at 9 months
of age, so that low-income children enter school unprepared to learn
and keep pace with their peers (Halle, et al., 2009). By promoting
critical cognitive and social-emotional abilities, quality childcare
can help close this school readiness and achievement gap. Recent
findings from the National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development (NICHD) find that the quality of childcare children receive
in their preschool years has effects on their academic success and
behavior all the way into adolescence (HHS National Institutes of
Health, 2010). Programs with the highest quality of care have the
largest positive impact later in life. For example, a recent followup
study to the well-known Abecedarian Project, which began in 1972 and
has followed participants from early childhood all the way through
young adulthood, found that adults who participated in high quality
early childhood education are still benefiting. Participants have
significantly more years of education than peers and were four times
more likely to earn college degrees. (Frank Porter Graham Child
Development Institute, 2012). Similarly, for school-age children,
research shows that participation in high quality afterschool programs
is correlated with positive outcomes, including improved academic
performance, study skills, and work habits (Vandell, 2005).
Simply stated, quality early care and education is a fiscally sound
investment in our future. Research by Nobel Prize-winning economist,
Professor James Heckman of the University of Chicago shows significant
returns on investment for early childhood education, particularly in a
child's earliest years. Arthur Rolnick of the Federal Reserve Bank of
Minneapolis, who testified before the subcommittee last summer, has
concluded that early care and education is the best investment that
this country can make. Although we currently face tight budgetary
constraints, the Administration, in its fiscal year 2013 budget
request, has prioritized significant investments for childcare, along
with key reforms to maximize their effectiveness.
The subcommittee's progress in moving toward reauthorization of the
CCDBG Act provides an important opportunity to improve the lives of
children and families. The Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF),
which is comprised of Federal funding for childcare under the CCDBG Act
and the Social Security Act, provides both subsidies to families as
well as resources to raise the quality of care and is therefore well-
positioned to be the centerpiece of quality reform efforts. In 2010
(latest available data), CCDF provided childcare assistance to 1.7
million children from nearly 1 million working families and families
attending school or job training. All of the children served are low-
income, and half are living at or below poverty level. These children
are all at risk of falling behind in school. In addition to funding
childcare subsidies, States spend $1 billion of CCDF each year in
quality improvement efforts, exceeding the amount required by law.
States are using CCDF to build Quality Rating and Improvement Systems
(QRIS), which set voluntary higher standards for childcare and provide
financial incentives and technical assistance to meet them. QRIS helps
families find quality care and assists providers with moving up the
levels of quality. States also are investing in professional
development and workforce initiatives to improve the qualifications of
childcare providers. These quality investments improve the level of
care for millions of children, including children whose care is not
directly subsidized by CCDF. Together with States, territories, and
tribes, we are working to meet the Administration's overarching goal of
helping low-income families access high quality childcare that fosters
healthy development, school success, and meets the diverse needs of
families.
However, in order to realize the full promise of CCDF, we must make
overdue reforms to ensure that children are in safe, high quality care.
New research finds that families receiving childcare subsidies are able
to access higher quality care compared to families without subsidies,
but the quality of care is still lower compared to Head Start and State
Pre-K programs (Brooks-Gunn, Johnson, and Ryan, 2012). Although the
children served by childcare subsidies and Head Start are
demographically similar, Head Start children receive a wider range of
support services in addition to higher quality care and early
education, giving them and their families more tools for success in
later life. While Head Start prioritizes school readiness and helps
parents gain the skills necessary to be effective educational partners
with schools, children receiving childcare subsidies sometimes receive
care that fails to meet basic health and safety standards and to
provide the early education they need to succeed in kindergarten and
beyond.
To be sure, there are wonderful childcare programs that provide
high quality care to low-income children, and those children gain the
pre-academic and social and emotional skills they need to succeed. But,
there are many low-income children receiving CCDF-funded care that are
in poor quality programs where providers lack the skills and resources
necessary to provide high-quality early care and education.
Currently, we fall short in our efforts to provide stable support
for work and child development. Families in many States ``churn'' on
and off childcare assistance programs every few months, even when they
remain eligible, because of the burden of the eligibility re-
determination process. This churning of clients threatens the
employment stability of parents and undermines child development by
severing children's relationships with their caregivers.
More troubling, some childcare providers who receive CCDF subsidies
fail to meet health and safety safeguards, which I know has been a
significant concern to you, Senator Burr. Parents understandably assume
that providers funded by subsidies are safe. However, because the
current statute does not define health and safety standards, some
States lack basic requirements such as comprehensive criminal
background checks, or training on First Aid/CPR and safe sleep
practices. In fact, there are 12 States that do not require CPR
training and 10 States that do not require First Aid courses for
teachers in childcare centers. Further, 29 States do not require SIDS
prevention training. Far too often, this lack of accountability leads
to tragedy. Unfortunately, in too many cases, it takes well-publicized
deaths in childcare settings to prompt State action to strengthen their
licensing standards to better address children's safety. These tragic
losses emphasize the importance of health and safety standards and
building a strong foundation for high quality care.
The HHS Office of Child Care has been moving forward within the
authorities we have to address these concerns and to focus on the goal
of ensuring that low-income children have access to high-quality care.
A year ago, we revised the CCDF Plan, which serves as the application
for CCDF funds and requires States, territories, and tribes to describe
their childcare program and services. The CCDF Plan revisions enhanced
the focus on health and safety, childcare program improvement, and the
training and education of the childcare workforce. We now also ask
States to set goals for improving their childcare programs over the 2-
year life of the Plan. For the first time, we are asking States to
track improvement in childcare quality by reporting their annual
progress on their goals, as well as key data about their efforts to
upgrade childcare monitoring, offer grants to programs, and provide
training and scholarships to teachers.
In addition, States now will report data on State-defined quality
measures for each child receiving a subsidy. For example, States that
are implementing a QRIS will report the QRIS level of programs caring
for children receiving subsidies, allowing us to chart improvements
over time. Working through the application and the data reporting
processes, we are encouraging States to be more purposeful and
strategic in their spending and increasing accountability for Federal
funds. To support their efforts, we recently launched a redesigned
technical assistance network to help States, territories, and tribes
achieve the goals that they have set for their childcare programs. We
also expect that States funded through the Race to the Top Early
Learning Challenge will serve as models for how to implement and use
QRIS to improve program quality.
Despite these improvements, key reforms in the statute would have a
much greater positive impact on children and families who rely on
childcare. The CCDBG Act, last reauthorized over 15 years ago, does not
reflect recent research findings about brain development in the early
years and the critical importance of facilitating children's learning
from birth. The statute also does not acknowledge current State
practices, such as the implementation of QRIS and career pathways for
early childhood and afterschool educators. We believe reauthorization
of the CCDBG Act is an opportunity to build on State innovation, learn
from new research in the field, and drive best practices. As such, we
think that CCDBG reauthorization should be based on these key
principles:
Improving Quality--The Administration's reauthorization
principles preserve State flexibility inherent within the block grant
structure, while establishing a foundation that will assure health and
safety in childcare and a systemic framework through which States and
communities can improve the quality of childcare. This includes
increasing the share of dollars dedicated to quality improvement and
incorporating into statute existing quality set-asides included in
appropriations language. Currently, the 4-percent minimum quality set-
aside in the CCDBG Act and the customary appropriation set-asides
combine to establish a quality spending requirement of approximately 7
percent. In fiscal year 2010, States reported spending 12 percent of
total CCDF expenditures on quality activities. Increasing the share of
funds spent on quality while ensuring that the funds are spent on
evidence-based efforts to raise the bar on quality will support
improvements in State health and safety standards.
Standards alone are not enough. We also need to ensure that States
have effective State monitoring systems and protocols to ensure that
providers meet regulatory requirements established by the State.
Quality funds also should be used by States to support implementation
of QRIS for childcare programs and to expand professional development
opportunities for the childcare workforce.
Supporting Access--In an uncertain economy, access to high
quality childcare is more important than ever. The combination of the
end of the Recovery Act CCDBG funding and State fiscal constraints have
caused some States to cut back on childcare assistance. We should work
to counterbalance these pressures and maintain services to families
while making critical quality reforms.
Facilitating Informed Choices--Parents also must have
access to information on the quality of childcare programs, so they can
make the best decisions for their families' needs. Increased
transparency for parents about the health and safety track records of
providers and key indicators of quality are an important component of a
system based on parental choice.
Promoting Continuity of Care--The basis of early learning
is the relationship between the adult and the child, which takes time
to develop. Research tells us that children have better educational and
developmental outcomes when they have continuity in their childcare
arrangements. The constant churn of families on and off CCDF subsidies
disrupts these crucial relationships, undermining children's learning,
and making it harder for parents to stabilize their employment and
progress in their jobs. Therefore, we suggest considering changes that
would improve continuity for families, such as longer eligibility re-
determination periods for families receiving childcare subsidies.
Ensuring Program Integrity--We continue to focus on
program integrity efforts and providing technical assistance to States,
territories, and tribes to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse.
The key principles of our reauthorization proposal align closely
with much of the Administration's work on improving opportunities for
early learning in childcare and education programs. These principles
remove barriers to coordination with programs such as Head Start and
State pre-kindergarten to allow States and communities to better
address the comprehensive needs of children and families.
The Administration is aligning early care and education programs
and raising the bar on quality so that more low-income children have
access to high quality early education through our efforts in CCDF,
Head Start, and the Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge. While
there is much work to be done, States are strong partners in these
efforts, with many States leading the way on improving health and
safety standards and setting high standards for quality for childcare.
The diverse range of States engaged in these efforts, including those
represented in this subcommittee, represents the bipartisan interest
and support for raising the quality of childcare to keep children safe,
healthy, and ready to succeed in school. The Administration thanks the
subcommittee for its leadership, and looks forward to working together
as we take the next steps to achieve the CCDBG Act reauthorization.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Ms. Smith.
My first set of questions will deal with access. Then,
childcare is based on really the best people in the room doing
the best practices for our children. You are an expert at
information and referral. It goes back to your work in the
nonprofit days. When we originally did this bill, one of the
things we wanted was clear information and referral to parents
so they could make an informed decision around cost, location
and satisfaction.
The world of information has revolutionized since then
because of the Internet. Do you envision working with the
Administration and should we also get more elaborate in our own
bill about really encouraging, No. 1, where is childcare, how
much does it cost, and kind of a report card on the quality of
it? Or do you think we should just let what we've been doing
stand and leave it to you to write internal new rules regs?
Ms. Smith. No, I actually think it might be a combination
of both of those things, that we actually know a lot more, as
we were saying, about the research and what actually we know
works and what doesn't work. For example, we know that certain
safety requirements, just basic health and CPR training, will
decrease the number of accidents in childcare programs. So we
know certain things and I think those things we should go to
the research and we should require.
I think there has been progress made in the childcare
resource and referral community, and the next panel with Janet
Singerman can address some of those, in terms of identifying
key indicators and getting that information out to parents. But
I think we've made progress. We have a long ways to go. The
State efforts around quality rating improvement systems are
providing much of that information to parents.
The Chairman. So how do we get it into the hands of parents
in the best way?
Ms. Smith. I think what we have to focus on is technology
in many ways, to be honest with you.
The Chairman. How do we do it? Should we be prescriptive in
the bill, descriptive in the bill, or silent in the bill?
Ms. Smith. I think we should be--that's a really good
question. I think I would have to say on this a little more
prescriptive, since the information is out there and yet it
hasn't taken in many cases----
The Chairman. Would you offer suggestions in this, because
you really have such incredible experience and a range of
people to consult with? Because this is the gateway to the
program. This is how you make a decision. So if we're going to
go to all this effort and there's one childcare provider that
doesn't have the same first aid training or whatever you're
going to put in there--but we want a one-stop shop, and not
everybody has a phone and not everybody--I mean, not everybody
has a Blackberry. Everybody does have a cell phone.
Ms. Smith. That's true.
The Chairman. Everybody says, ``Oh, it's on the web, they
can go there.'' Often for poor women seeking, coming into the
market or staying in the market, they don't have the $1,000 a
year to maintain a subscription to something like this. It's
going to go into their childcare. So we need to meet people
where we are, not where the young people working for the agency
are. So let's do that.
The second is this churning. In our guise to make sure that
only the most eligible get this, have we inadvertently created
a bureaucracy that spends too much time in determining
eligibility? In some places it's now every 6 months. What is
this churning and how can we ensure that only those who are
eligible get it, but that you don't have to prove it every hour
and a half?
Ms. Smith. In some cases it seems like that's what's
happening to families, because I've actually been in States
where families are required to recertify every 3 months. So I
do think that we need to look at this. We have many programs in
this country that are based on income that don't require 3-
month or 6-month reauthorizations. For example, Head Start
eligibility is determined and it's good for the child for a
year.
We actually think that we can go to a 1-year eligibility
with the States, then having the authority to go in and check
randomly. I mean, if the State suspects that there are problems
then there's nothing that would preclude them from going in and
looking at or doing a random selection of people. But to
require everyone to do it all the time is overkill.
The Chairman. And overkill for both the parent and that's a
lot of bureaucracy to maintain around eligibility.
Ms. Smith. And it prevents collaboration between programs,
too. I think that's one of the things that we're concerned
about between childcare and Head Start. When childcare people
have to recertify so frequently, getting the childcare wrap-
around services even to Head Start becomes a problem.
So we need to look at these eligibility requirements and
see if we can't make them consistent across.
The Chairman. So your recommendation would be 1 year plus
random sampling to determine whether.
Well, my time is up. I'd like to now turn to Senator Burr.
Thank you very much, Ms. Smith.
Senator Burr. Linda, welcome. Thank you for your valuable
input.
Let me just ask you, does the Administration support the
Child Care Protection Act?
Ms. Smith. Yes.
Senator Burr. Great.
Ms. Smith. In a nutshell.
Senator Burr. That bill says that individuals determined
through the background check process to have committed murder,
rape, offenses against children, and other crimes should not be
allowed to work in a childcare setting, but provides an
exemption for individuals who have committed a drug-related
offense, but after a 5-year cooling-off period. Do you think
that's an acceptable exemption?
Ms. Smith. Well, I do think that we have to allow some
discretion within the States around some types of offenses. So
I would say, yes. I think that we have a lot to learn on this.
I would say the beauty, to be honest with you, of the law
that's proposed is as preventative as anything else. I think it
will be a deterrent to people to apply because, knowing that
these things are going to be checked and exactly for what, one
would assume that people will not apply.
I can tell you that my experience with the Defense
Department showed that to be true. After we were required in
DOD to implement background checks, that's exactly what
happened, and people stopped applying. It also set a threshold
for quality. So I think the act has lots of potential to
improve many aspects of childcare.
Senator Burr. I think many employers in America would tell
you as they interview potential applicants, when they notify
them that there's a drug test involved many applicants don't
complete the interview.
Ms. Smith. Correct.
Senator Burr. Because they know the outcome.
If you had to characterize the State of the QRIS system
nationally, the Quality Rating and Improvement System, are we
at a Model T level or are we at Ferrari level, or somewhere in
between?
Ms. Smith. That's kind of a hard question. I don't know
that I would put it as a Model T or where. I would put it--
maybe in a race, we're maybe at the 30 percent mark, in part
because we've got about half of the States now with QRIS and
many of them are still in the developmental phases of quality
rating improvement. Obviously, your State and some other States
are well down the path on that.
But we're still learning on it. I would also say that we
cannot actually characterize it as a national system because
the States' QRISes vary greatly. It's one of the things that
we're looking at ACF is to try and figure out where we can find
consistencies among the State QRIS systems and how we can help
States that are now moving toward that with lessons learned
from States such as North Carolina.
Senator Burr. What do you think are the essential elements
of a good QRIS?
Ms. Smith. Well, I think that one of the essential elements
has to be a connection to licensing. I know that in North
Carolina's system that is true. To exclude the licensing system
from the QRIS is creating yet another wedge within an already
bifurcated system. So I really think that we need to look at
linking it to licensing, to basic health and safety, and then
moving people up in a progression toward a higher level,
whether that be national accreditation or some other higher
level as determined by the State.
Senator Burr. One final question. Would you agree that Head
Start and the requirements we place on Head Start are very
different from what we currently require and should require on
CCDBG?
Ms. Smith. Well, they're radically different, yes. But I
would tell you that is another thing that we're looking very
seriously at right now at ACF. One of the things that we are
interested in is, as I said, how can we break down the
barriers, is to begin to look horizontally at these programs
and figure out what they have in common. For example, health
and safety standards should not be different between Head Start
and childcare and pre-K. A child should be no less safe or
healthy in any one of those settings.
So how can we begin to build a platform or a foundation
where we address the consistencies and the things that should
be the same between early learning programs and then look at
how we can further promote those kinds of activities. So it's
something that we're very interested in. There are many others.
There's the child- and adult-care food program, all food
programs; why don't they all comply with those standards? Why
don't all programs comply with the Consumer Product Safety
Commission standards for playgrounds? Those things should not
be any different based on whether it's Head Start, childcare,
or pre-K.
Senator Burr. Thank you.
Thank you, chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Let me just say how we're going to proceed: Senator
Bingaman, Senator Franken, Senator Murray, Senator Blumenthal.
Senator Bingaman. Thank you very much.
Thanks for your testimony. I'm not as informed on this as
the chairman and the Ranking Member. What does a person have to
demonstrate to have his or her child eligible under this
program?
Ms. Smith. It varies by State, sir. The State is authorized
to determine the eligibility levels based on the State's own
decisions on what they view as their priorities. Essentially,
most of the children, as I said, are right now at poverty or
below, at least half of them are, or in that range.
Senator Bingaman. That is the eligibility cutoff for most
States?
Ms. Smith. The eligibility cutoff for most States is--I
would have to get back to you on the average on that. But it
has gone down over time, in part because the funding has stayed
so flat in the childcare program. So as States have tried to
maintain levels of children--and it gets to this access versus
quality issue. As States have tried to maintain the levels,
they have increased the eligibility requirements, decreased the
payments to providers, increased the co-pays.
So as I like to say, there are lots of levers in childcare
and it's hard to say any one of those is the reason or is
consistent between the States.
Senator Bingaman. You mentioned this. I think you referred
to it as the burden of the redetermination process. The
chairman was asking about that. Your recommendation, as I think
you stated before, is that we have something in the Federal law
that says States are only able to make this determination of
eligibility once a year, and that they can then do random
checks to be sure that people haven't gotten rich in the mean
time and their kids should not be participating.
So that's your view, is that that should be mandated in
Federal law in this reauthorization?
Ms. Smith. I think ``mandated'' is a strong word. I think
that we--but we would like to see that as a basic goal of
CCDBG, yes.
Senator Bingaman. OK.
Is the much more frequent redetermination requirement done
for a reason of trying to keep people out of the program? What
is the reason why a State would require a redetermination of
eligibility every 3 months?
Ms. Smith. Well, in fairness to the States, we've put a lot
of pressure on the States recently in terms of the program
integrity requirements and monitoring them. The States are
required to report and we go out and monitor program integrity,
which means compliance with different features. They're all
set, in fairness, by the States, what we monitor them to.
But, that being said, there is a big emphasis on program
integrity, and I think what's been happening is the States are
reacting to that and wanting to make absolutely sure that they
are in compliance with the Program Integrity Act.
Senator Bingaman. I'm not understanding the words you're
using very well. I've always thought of program integrity as
the characteristics of the program, whereas I've thought the
eligibility was something that the parent of the child had to
be able to demonstrate. So why would the increased emphasis on
program integrity cause the States to put more pressure on the
parents who are trying to keep their kids eligible?
Ms. Smith. Well, because the States are being monitored to
make sure that children aren't getting subsidies that are not
really authorized under current State policies. For example, if
the State has set the income threshold at the poverty level in
the State and someone goes out and monitors that State and
that's their threshold and they find families that are above
that, then they're really out of compliance. The States are
really trying very hard----
Senator Bingaman. They're out of compliance with their own
requirement. They're not out of----
Ms. Smith. That's right.
Senator Bingaman [continuing]. Compliance with any Federal
requirement.
Ms. Smith. They're out of compliance with their own
requirements as they set them. But they have set them and then
we monitor to them. We're trying to work with the States on
this and we've been doing a lot of training to help educate the
States on how to set their requirements and make sure that
they're realistic.
Senator Bingaman. Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Franken.
Statement of Senator Franken
Senator Franken. Just to followup on that--thank you, Madam
Chair--is that a big problem, people suddenly getting a
windfall of money? I mean, what kind of percentage of families
does that happen to? It seems a little penny-wise and pound-
foolish.
Ms. Smith. I actually think that's a good way to describe
it. I do think that we don't have data that actually supports--
and we could go back and look and see in terms of the
monitoring that we've done so far this year. But I do think
that there is a tendency to be overly cautious at the State
level to make sure that they're not out of compliance.
Senator Franken. You certainly want this going to kids who
need it.
Deputy Assistant Secretary Smith, as the chairwoman said in
her opening statement, we know that birth to age 3 is an
important time for brain development and for building a
foundation for later learning. Since 1999 Congress provided
CCDBG funds to improve the quality of care for infants and
toddlers in annual appropriations bills. Because this money has
been allocated through the appropriations process, there is
little guidance on how States should use the funding.
Yesterday, I introduced legislation to authorize this
funding stream and provide guidance to States on how to use it.
Under my bill, States can use funds for evidence-based quality
improvement initiatives. These could include supporting family
childcare homes through staffed networks, integrating infant
and toddler components into higher education and professional
development programs, and helping childcare providers pursue
accreditation or a higher rating on their State's quality
rating system.
Can you talk about the importance of improving the quality
of care, especially for infants and toddlers?
Ms. Smith. I think, given what the research shows, there is
nothing more important than improving the quality of infant-
toddler care. As I said in my remarks, we know that by 9 months
of age children are already starting to lag. So it is
critically important, and we do need to pay attention to this.
I applaud your efforts around this. We also know that many,
many of our youngest children are in family childcare settings.
This is an area that we need to pay particular attention to
because it's one that often falls outside of the licensing
requirements in States or the threshold for what is monitored
is very high. So I think that we need to pay attention to this.
During the ARA funding years, we actually conducted a
demonstration project between childcare and Head Start where we
actually worked with family childcare, and we found amazing
results by being able to support family childcare providers,
get them the training that they need, and we saw amazing
improvements.
I actually went out and visited a training with some of
those childcare providers and it was quite impressive. Most of
those providers were ELL, English language learners, too. So we
still saw tremendous growth in those providers and in the
quality.
Senator Franken. And we'll see that pay off later.
You began your career in the northern Cheyenne reservation
in Montana and have done a lot of childcare work in Montana.
You saw firsthand the childcare options available to rural
families and the unique challenges facing rural families
looking for high quality childcare. We know that if low-income
children cannot access high quality childcare and early
education programs they are less likely to be ready for school
when they enter kindergarten.
What kinds of obstacles do rural families face when they're
trying to find high quality care, and what strategies are some
rural communities using to help families access childcare?
Ms. Smith. Yes, I can address this one from firsthand
experience with my own children. As you said, I was working on
the northern Cheyenne reservation and I had two children under
the age of 5. One of my daughters was able to go to the program
that I had, but my infant I had to find childcare for. There
was one family childcare provider within about 150 miles, I
think.
It just so happened that she was good, and she was State-
licensed, believe it or not, which was interesting. But I do
think that I remember facing those issues and the rural issues
clearly. I think we need to think about family childcare again.
We need to consider options, and we are thinking about this at
ACF right now, about how we can encourage more grants and
contracts to family childcare providers, because one of the
problems with family childcare is the stability of the income.
If a child drops out, their income goes down and they really
need to look for alternate resources and ways to maintain their
income.
So we're looking at how we might use grants and contracts,
especially in rural areas, with family childcare providers.
There are a number of other things that we're thinking about in
terms of how do we braid, better braid the funding for all
early care and education programs in rural communities so that
we are not competing for the same children with small amounts
of money. So there's a lot of things that we can do around this
one.
The other thing I think we need to look at--and this is one
of the reasons why I generally hesitate to say that we need to
make too many overly aggressive requirements in Federal
legislation--is because in rural communities we often need to
consider things like, I know I was the only person with early
childhood background for probably 150 miles. So to require a
degree of a person in a rural setting is difficult.
We need to look at compensatory measures: How can we ensure
that we get the training to the people that are isolated in
such a way that they can afford it, have access to it, and that
it helps children, without becoming too burdensome on some of
the other kinds of requirements that may or may not lead to
quality.
Senator Franken. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chairman. Senator Murray.
Statement of Senator Murray
Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Chairman Mikulski and
Senator Burr, for holding a really important hearing. As you
know, early childhood education is extremely important to me. I
come to this topic not just as a Senator, a member of this
committee, a former PTA member, a school board member, and a
mom, but I am the only Senator who has been a pre-school
teacher formerly, and actually that's where I learned most of
the skills that I use here.
[Laughter.]
But this topic is extremely important, and I'm so glad
you're looking at this, considering the reauthorization of the
Child Care and Development Block Grant.
We've heard it up and down that childcare is one of the
best investments that we can make as a Federal Government, and
this reauthorization is a critical part of that. Everybody's
talked about the research that shows how early childhood
education benefits a child throughout their school career. And
it is such an important resource for parents who are trying so
hard to manage and work and do everything they need to do to
make sure their kids get the best start.
Frankly, the bottom line is that as a parent, if you know
your child is safe and in a good setting while you are at work,
you do a better job for your employer. So childcare is just
really a critical part of our economic recovery.
I did want to ask you today, because one of the things I've
really focused on for a long time is the issue of homelessness.
I saw an analysis recently that showed that homeless families
receive childcare subsidies at a lower rate than families who
are in homes and that homeless mothers are more likely to
report quitting their job or school because of unreliable
childcare.
That is really concerning to me, because homeless children
are among the most vulnerable out there. Having a stable
childcare situation would do wonders for a homeless family. It
would allow their parents time to work or look for work and get
their family into a home, and it would really actually lessen
the time that a homeless child spends in their car or their
tent or wherever they happen to be living.
So I wanted to ask you while you're in front of us today
what you're seeing happening on the ground in terms of
childcare for homeless families and what we can do in
reauthorization to really address this critical issue?
Ms. Smith. I appreciate you and your staff 's interest in
this, and we've had several meetings as a result of that
interest in trying to examine what we can do to support
homeless families. One of the things, as you know, we're
working on Head Start and how do we ensure that homeless
children have access and stability within the Head Start
program.
That being said, we also need to look at childcare policies
State by State, because we know that, while the regulation that
we issue gives the States the authority to give grace periods
for certain requirements for eligibility for childcare, two-
thirds of the States use that option, one-third do not. We need
to work with these States to basically convince them of the
importance of looking at these policies and the barriers that
they're presenting to these families.
I think the other thing that we need to do is a better job
in working with some of our other partner programs that support
homeless families, to identify these families and prioritize
them in the system, so that we don't make it harder for them to
get that access.
I know that I have personally watched people walk through
processes for applying for subsidies, and some of those
policies present instant barriers to homeless families in terms
of just even providing envelopes or something with your
permanent address on it.
So we need to work with the States on these issues and it
is on our radar screen for sure. We are giving it a high
priority. I don't know that I can tell you right now that we
have an absolute solution.
Senator Murray. Well, this is a very important issue. It
addresses the most vulnerable of kids amongst us, and there are
real barriers, like just not having an address you can put on a
form to access.
Ms. Smith. Right.
Senator Murray. So we really want to work with you on that.
Madam Chairman, thank you so much for doing this. I will
submit some questions for the record. I know I hear from
childcare providers at home that their major challenge is how
do they balance quality and access. So that's something I think
we really need to look at.
The Chairman. We're struggling with that.
Senator Murray. Yes.
Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Senator Blumenthal.
Statement of Senator Blumenthal
Senator Blumenthal. Yes, I'd like to join in thanking
Senator Mikulski and Senator Burr for having this hearing on a
critically important topic and for emphasizing the importance
of both the employment benefits and the learning development
benefits, the cognitive and social, emotional abilities that
these programs offer.
I was struck by the observation in your testimony, and I'm
quoting:
``There are many low-income children receiving CCDF-
funded care that are in poor quality programs, where
providers lack the skills and resources necessary to
provide high-quality early education, early care and
education.''
I wonder what specific steps in this reauthorization will
raise the quality of the providers, that is the staff, the
people who do know what Senator Murray did in providing pre-
school services in these facilities? What specifically will
raise the quality?
Ms. Smith. I think one of the first things that can be done
is to take a look at State requirements around who must be
regulated and who must comply with basic health and safety. We
know that 19 percent of children receiving CCDF funds right now
are in care that is outside the regulated system and for which
we know nothing about the quality of care, the quality or
safety of the programs that they're in.
That, to understand, equates to about 320,000 children that
are receiving subsidies right now. So what can be done with
that? Well, I think the first thing is to take a look at
requiring programs that accept Federal funds to comply with
certain fundamental basic health and safety standards and for
States to require some kind of licensing and oversight of those
programs. I think that's No. 1.
Senator Blumenthal. So you're saying that almost 20 percent
of all programs funded by the Federal Government have no
requirements as to quality, in effect?
Ms. Smith. Twenty percent of children subsidized right now,
by our most recent data, 19 percent actually of children, are
in programs that are neither regulated nor inspected by the
States.
Senator Blumenthal. So there's no, in effect, standard, no
requirement for meeting certain minimal criteria?
Ms. Smith. In some States, sir, it's possible--and this is
another thing that is I think problematic. In some States it's
possible for the State to mail out to a potential provider a
checklist and for them to check off what they basically--
whether they think they're doing these things or not, and mail
it back in, and get a license in the mail, with no one ever
having looked at that program.
Senator Blumenthal. Which in effect is a sham.
Ms. Smith. It is.
Senator Blumenthal. Will this reauthorization legislation,
the reforms that you make reference to in your testimony,
correct that situation?
Ms. Smith. It would be our hope and expectation that we
would address that particular problem of who and how we spend
our Federal money and requiring at least minimum health and
safety.
Senator Blumenthal. I'm not sure I understand what you mean
by ``hope and expectation.'' Will it? And I don't mean to--this
is a friendly question, not a hostile question.
Ms. Smith. I'm just saying that that would be what we would
like to see happen, but I can't say what the committee or
Congress is going to do on this one. But certainly our concern
is that children not be placed in childcare that has never been
looked at and that we know nothing about the quality of care
and we're spending Federal money on it.
Senator Blumenthal. Because it can be not only less useful
or useless, but also potentially dangerous.
Ms. Smith. Absolutely. And I do think one of the things
that we do know is that quality of care matters. The research
is crystal clear on this issue, that the quality of care
matters and it matters most to poor children. So that we put 19
percent of our poor children in care that we know nothing about
is not acceptable.
Senator Blumenthal. One out of every five children in the
United States.
Ms. Smith. Yes.
Senator Blumenthal. And many of them more likely to be low-
income than others.
Ms. Smith. Oh, no. They are low-income. They are definitely
low-income.
Senator Blumenthal. My time has expired, but I really want
to thank you for your very helpful testimony this morning.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
The Chairman. Ms. Smith, thank you very much for a very
content-rich presentation. The Q and A here has been really
informative and instructive. We're going to ask you to be
available to us as we work on the principles of our bill to be
in keeping with the President's principles and to really
benefit from your expertise. You're going to be the Department
and the specific organization within the Department to
implement this. So we really value your expertise, and thank
you very much.
We're now going to turn to our panel that brings a wealth
of experience from the community, as Senator Murray said, from
out there. They're kind of the boots on the ground.
We welcome to the table Dr. Rolf Grafwallner, who heads up
the Division of Early Childhood Development in my own home
State of Maryland. It licenses and monitors all childcare
programs, and he brings 20 years of experience in running the
program, and he's also come up with innovative ideas, like
working with our colleague Congressman Steny Hoyer,
implementing the Judy Centers. We really welcome you.
We also want to welcome Mr. Phil Acord, who has worked at
the Children's Home in Chattanooga, TN, for more than 30 years,
and he's provided care to children whose parents hold
nontraditional work hours. This is actually something very
interesting to me, the night shift crowd. We look at it from
those who work as nurse's aides to important defense
facilities. In my State I have the National Security Agency.
They work 24 hours 7 days a week protecting America. How do we
help them protect their children and raise their children
better? We really look forward to your advice and insights and
experience.
We have Janet Singerman, who serves as the president of the
Child Care Resources, one of North Carolina's largest
nonprofits. Senator, she's I know someone well known to you. I
didn't know if you wanted to introduce Ms. Singerman to me and
to Senator Blumenthal.
Senator Burr. Chairman Mikulski, let me first welcome Janet
from Charlotte, NC, and at the same time apologize to the
chair, because Janet served for over 15 years on the Maryland
Committee for Children in Baltimore, MD, in addition to serving
as the deputy director and project manager.
The Chairman. Oh, I saw that. That's the second paragraph
here. I got to the second sentence, which said ``Burr to
introduce.''
Senator Burr. So I feel like I have stolen a treasure from
Maryland, only to claim her, as I do, a treasure to North
Carolina, but, more importantly, to children in this country.
She was elected to the position of president of the board
of directors of the National Association of Child Care Resource
and Referral Agencies from 2004 to 2006, after many years of
leadership in the field at the national level. Prior to joining
the Child Care Resources as president in 1997, Janet worked for
14 years with the Maryland Committee for Children, serving as
its deputy director and as the co-founder and project manager
of Maryland's statewide Child Care Resource and Referral
System.
She's been on the front lines in North Carolina for some of
the most exciting work currently under way in the country in
early childhood care. In her role as president of Child Care
Resources. Child Care Resources serves several North Carolina
central counties and last year subsidy funds administered by
that organization enabled a monthly average of 7,000-plus
children from low-income families to access childcare in North
Carolina.
Janet, is active on local, regional, State, and national
levels. Her agency provides comprehensive childcare resources
and referral services, including consumer education and
referral, training and professional development, targeted
quality improvement and technical assistance consultation,
public education, and data collection and trend analysis. She
is a multi-talented, tremendous resource for this committee.
Janet, welcome.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chairman. Well, even though you chose to move to North
Carolina, we still love you. We also do remember when you
worked with our good friend Terry Lansburgh, who was really
kind of the founding mother of the childcare movement in
Maryland, a very dear friend to me and adviser to many on
public policy. It was really out of that nonprofit that goaded
government to really have a framework for childcare and
childcare that really worked for the kids and supported the
families. So it's good to see you again.
I'd also like to welcome Ms. Coro. Susana Coro is here
today representing real parents, the people that we talk about,
and their children. We felt it was important to hear from a
parent. She herself not only is a user of the service, but she
also works in the field of early childhood care, to make sure
we get the viewpoint of the parent.
We want to thank you, Ms. Coro, because we know you've
taken time off from work today to be with us and that you're
here on your own time, and it's very much appreciated.
So we're going to turn to the panel. We're going to ask
them to make their presentations crisply, so we can get--as you
can see, this is a committee that really wants to engage in
conversation, and we're going to need to wrap up as close to 12
o'clock as we can. That's not to stifle conversation, but to
kind of encourage expedition.
We'd like to really kick off with you, Rolf, another
Marylander, and your considerable background, and look forward
to hearing from you.
STATEMENT OF ROLF GRAFWALLNER, Ph.D., ASSISTANT STATE
SUPERINTENDENT, DIVISION OF EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT,
MARYLAND STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, BALTIMORE, MD
Mr. Grafwallner. Good morning, Madam Chair and members of
the committee. I'm pleased to be here to report out on the work
we do on the CCDBG in Maryland. My name is Rolf Grafwallner,
assistant State superintendent of the Division of Early
Childhood Development of the State Department of Education. The
division is the lead agency for early childhood education in
Maryland and it includes the administration of the CCDBG and
all childcare quality initiatives.
As part of my testimony I would like to make three major
thematic points on how to improve the CCDBG. The
reauthorization should shift the focus on child outcomes while
maintaining its function as a monetary support to help low-
income families to afford the cost of childcare. The mission of
childcare subsidies is not only to ensure that lower wage
working families have access to subsidized care, but that young
children have access to quality programs. It means that the
Federal and State funding for young children adopts the goal of
school readiness as the primary focus and becomes an integral
part of each State's reform efforts. That should include the
CCDBG.
Shortly after the transfer of childcare subsidies to the
State Department of Education, our division tested the extent
to which children receiving childcare subsidies were enrolled
in high quality programs, what does it mean, what are the
outcomes? We pursued and received Federal research and examined
the question. Compared to children who had only informal
childcare arrangements, such as with family, friends, or
neighbors, children with subsidies enrolled in center-based
care were more likely to be prepared for school.
Based on those results, we worked on getting more children
enrolled in licensed childcare centers, which contributed to
the increased school-readiness outcomes of low-income children
statewide from 59 percent in 2007 to 76 percent in 2011.
Second point: Reauthorization should include provisions for
integrating Head Start and CCDF funds. This approach should be
coupled with the requirement that at a minimum 10 percent of
the State's TANF funds be reserved for childcare subsidy. CCDBG
cannot be considered in isolation, especially since the
consolidated governance structure allows for more strategic
coordination among the various funding streams.
As a State administrator, I'm engaged in coordinating State
and Federal policies of three publicly funded programs: Head
Start, public school pre-kindergarten, and childcare subsidies.
All three of these programs are targeted basically to the same
income groups. In Maryland this means families of four with
incomes below about $40,000 a year. Any families making more
than that are locked out of any kind of subsidy.
For a State focused on school readiness goals and education
reform, this is a serious problem in terms of access to
programs and accountability for results. Within the context of
today's budgetary constraints, we simply cannot afford to work
in silos. That means creating separate funding streams,
regulations, and fragmented oversight.
From a State perspective, access to subsidized early care
and education could be expanded to more middle-income families
if the CCDBG reauthorization were to coordinate its policies
with those of Head Start in terms of funding and performance
standards. Over the past decade there have been innovative
models in that regard, and Ms. Smith talked about it to some
extent, where both childcare and Head Start funding were
supporting early childhood centers that benefited more
children. These models met the test of expanded access, higher
quality, and better results.
In addition, linking Head Start and CCDF funding with TANF
would integrate the school readiness mission of childcare and
Head Start with the family support model of all the TANF
programs.
The reauthorization should also refocus the current quality
set-asides and earmarks with a stronger emphasis on workforce
development and continuous program improvement, including a
requirement for States to establish performance benchmarks, not
just tracking the data but establishing benchmarks in those
areas. The existing set-asides and earmarks should be
eliminated in lieu of more flexibility for States to address
the dire needs of workforce development and program improvement
in childcare.
While States would still have the flexibility to tailor the
CCDF funds to meet their strategic interests, the
reauthorization should set performance benchmarks regarding the
improvement of the workforce in childcare, in family childcare,
as well as in center-based care.
We were pleased that ACF introduced new process indicators
for quality into the States' plan last year, in the last
reporting cycle.
Maryland currently spends approximately 10 percent of the
Federal appropriation in quality initiatives and we have major
results in focusing our efforts on workforce development and
continuous improvement. For instance, we have tripled the
childcare workers joining a formal career ladder program over
the past 10 years and we increased the number of accredited
programs by tenfold from 2001 to 2011.
Maryland, just like other States, navigates within the
confines of what is being provided in terms of funding and
Federal and State requirements. The CCDBG as it currently
exists has many positive features and they should be retained
in the reauthorization, such as offering flexibility, becoming
a reliable funding source, and States receiving technical
support from the agency that administers it.
But from a State's perspective, it cannot exist as a
funding source in isolation. As State pre-kindergarten and Head
Start strive to stress the quality of early care, CCDBG must
follow. The most important thing the reauthorization can do is
to initiate such process at the Federal level.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to this
issue.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Grafwallner follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rolf Grafwallner, Ph.D.
summary
Speaker: Rolf Grafwallner, Assistant State Superintendent for the
Division of Early Childhood Development at the Maryland State
Department of Education (MSDE). The Division is the lead agency for
early childhood education in Maryland, and it includes the
administration of the CCDBG and all childcare quality initiatives.
policy recommendations
The CCDBG reauthorization should shift the focus on child outcomes,
while maintaining its function as a monetary support to help low-income
families to afford the cost of childcare.
The mission of the childcare subsidy is not only to ensure that
low-wage working families have access to subsidized childcare, but that
their young children have access to quality programs. It means that
young children's readiness for school becomes the primary focus and an
integral part of each State's education reform efforts.
CCDBG reauthorization should include provisions for integrating
Head Start and CCDF funds. This approach should be coupled with a
requirement that, at a minimum, 10 percent of the State's TANF funds be
reserved for childcare subsidy.
CCDBG cannot be considered in isolation, especially since the
consolidated governance structure allows for a more strategic
coordination among the various funding streams. From a State
perspective, access to subsidized early care and education could be
expanded to more middle-income families if the CCDBG reauthorization
were to coordinate its policies with those of Head Start, also
administered out of the Administration of Children and Families, in
terms of funding and performance standards. Over the past decade, there
have been innovative models, where both childcare and Head Start
funding were supporting early childhood centers that benefited more
children in terms of financial support and providing a better learning
environment as a result of the childcare programs not only meeting
licensing standards but adopting the more stringent Head Start
performance standards. These models meet the test of expanded access
and higher quality. Linking Head Start/CCDF funding with TANF would
integrate the school readiness mission of a childcare/Head Start model
with the family support model of all the TANF programs.
The CCDBG reauthorization should refocus the current quality set-
asides and earmarks with a stronger emphasis on workforce development
and continuous program improvement, including a requirement for States
to establish performance benchmarks in those areas.
The existing set-asides and earmarks should be eliminated in lieu
of more flexibility for States to address the dire needs of workforce
development and continuous program improvement in childcare. While
States would still have the flexibility to tailor the CCDF funds to
meet their strategic interests, the reauthorization should set
performance benchmarks regarding the improvement of the workforce and
childcare programs.
Maryland, just like other States, navigates within the confines of
what is being provided in terms of funding, and Federal and State
requirements. The CCDBG, as it currently exists, has many positive
features--it offers flexibility, it has become a reliable funding
source, and States receive technical support from the agency that
administers it. But, from a State's perspective, does not exist in
isolation. As State pre-kindergarten and Head Start strive to stress
the quality of early education, the CCDBG must follow. Many States are
in the process of reorganizing their governance of early childhood
education and consolidating all programs and funding streams into one
agency. The most important thing the reauthorization of the CCDBG can
do is to initiate such a process at the Federal level. In practice,
this would mean joint and blended funding to increase coordination
between childcare, Head Start, and TANF, resulting in improved access
to quality early education and care for the children of working
parents.
The first rule of order should be a reorganization of the existing
programs to allow for a more streamlined and consistent support for
children and their families. The reauthorization of the CCDBG can play
a historic role in this effort.
______
Chairwoman Mikulski and members of the subcommittee, my name is
Rolf Grafwallner, assistant State superintendent for the Division of
Early Childhood Development at the Maryland State Department of
Education (MSDE). The Division is the lead agency for early childhood
education in Maryland, and it includes the administration of the CCDBG
(or CCDF), namely the childcare subsidy program and all childcare
quality initiatives. I appreciate the opportunity to speak before you
and provide you with a State's perspective.
For the CCDBG and childcare subsidy to be administered by an
education department is not typical. In fact, it is very rare. Only a
handful of States have similar governance arrangements. When the
funding, policy authority, and administration of the CCDBG was
transferred in 2006 to the Maryland State Department of Education, it
was done with the understanding that the provision of services for
subsidized children enrolled in the State's licensed childcare programs
were part and parcel of the State's P-20 reform initiative.
child care contributes to school readiness in maryland
The mission of the childcare subsidy was not only to ensure that
low-wage working families had access to subsidized childcare, but that
their young children had access to quality programs. It meant that
young children's readiness for school became the primary focus and an
integral part of Maryland's education reform efforts.
Shortly after the transfer, our Division tested the extent to which
children receiving childcare subsidies were enrolled in high quality
programs, and we found that only 5 percent of all children were
enrolled in State or nationally accredited programs--the criterion we
use for highly quality early education. We pursued and received a
Federal research grant to examine the question further.
Our research, conducted in partnership with the Towson University
and Child Trends, Inc., examined the question, What is the relationship
between children with subsidies enrolled in childcare programs and
their results on the Maryland Kindergarten Assessment?
The results were both fascinating and sobering. The type of
subsidized care arrangement was significantly associated with
differences in the likelihood of being assessed as fully ready for
school on the two pre-academic domains, language/literacy and
mathematical thinking. Compared to children who had only informal
(family, friend or neighbor non-regulated) subsidized care
arrangements, children enrolled in subsidized center-based care were
more likely to be fully ready. The higher likelihood of school
readiness was found among both children in center care either for the
year before kindergarten or for 2 years prior to kindergarten.
Subsidized center care was associated with an increase of between 11
percent and 14 percent in the probability of being fully ready on the
two pre-academic domains.
This data is critical to Maryland since children entering school
with significant deficiencies, especially in the pre-academic areas,
may need intervention services in public schools associated with higher
costs for local school districts. From a mere economic and educational
perspective, the investment through the CCDBG could be looked at as a
missed opportunity, shifting the costs to remedy the educational needs
of children to local school districts, if children do not access
quality programs.
Maryland's data actually indicates favorable trends when it comes
to parents' preferences for childcare arrangements. According to last
fiscal year's participation rate, 80 percent of parents chose childcare
centers. The remainder of children were enrolled in family childcare or
informal care. Such statistics may not be true for other States, and,
while Maryland's research data cannot be generalized, it points out a
troubling feature associated with the CCDBG. For years, it has
maintained the focus of the program on childcare so families can work.
It has offered increasing but limited focus on the outcomes for
children. The CCDBG reauthorization should shift the focus to child
outcomes, while maintaining its function as a monetary support to help
low-income families afford the cost of childcare.
child care subsidy in the context of other subsidized programs
From Maryland's perspective, the CCDBG should not be considered in
isolation of other programs, especially since a consolidated governance
structure allows for a more strategic coordination among the various
funding streams. There are two other major funding sources which
provide subsidized educational services for young children: the
federally funded Head Start program provides full subsidy for children
from families at or below 100 percent of Federal Poverty Guidelines
(FPG) and the State's pre-kindergarten program, operated by local
school systems, is fully funded for children from families at or below
185 percent of the FPG. Adding the CCDBG, with eligibility for families
at or below 178 percent of FPG, creates a third option for accessing
subsidized early care and education.
As a result of these three programs, Maryland provides options for
families with very low incomes. Any family whose income falls just
outside those Federal poverty guidelines has no options except to pay
for care out-of-pocket or depend on family or friends for a patchwork
care arrangement. This is a problem in terms of a State's ability to
close the school readiness gap. In fact, several years ago we
calculated the gap our policies created for families with middle
incomes.
In 2008, families who gained access to State and local financed
pre-kindergarten programs had household incomes of $40,792 or less for
a family of four. Families who enrolled children in Head Start had
household incomes of $22,050 or less for a family of four. And,
families accessing childcare subsidy had incomes of $37,485 or less for
a family of four in order to be eligible for childcare subsidies.\1\
Thus, any family of four earning more than the prescribed eligibility
guidelines had no access to publicly funded early childhood programs.
Assuming that 10 percent of the family's income is a reasonable
expenditure for early care and education costs, our calculations showed
that families of four who earn more than $40,792 experience a
significant increase in their household's share for childcare or
preschool. Applying the 10 percent rule, family household incomes would
have to be at $72,000 and above to become affordable again. While we do
not have specific data on the number of children who are represented by
this ``donut hole'' of affordability, census data suggests there is a
high proportion of children whose families make more than $41,000 and
less than $72,000. Those children might be enrolled in childcare
programs, but many are being cared for in ad-hoc arrangements by
friends, neighbors, and relatives. These arrangements are part of the
fabric of community support and a very important feature of our
society, but our data suggests they are not conducive to school
readiness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Maryland currently has a ``freeze'' on the upper income
brackets of its eligibility guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From a State perspective, access to subsidized early care and
education could be expanded to more middle-income families if the CCDBG
reauthorization were to coordinate its policies with those of Head
Start, also administered out of the Administration for Children and
Families, in terms of funding and performance standards. Over the past
decade, there have been innovative models, where both childcare and
Head Start funding were supporting early childhood centers that
benefited more children in terms of financial support and providing a
better learning environment as a result of the childcare programs not
only meeting licensing standards but adopting the more stringent Head
Start performance standards. These models meet the test of expanded
access and higher quality. CCDBG reauthorization could turn these
integrated models into business as usual. This approach should be
coupled with a requirement to not only allow States to access of
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) funds for childcare
subsidy, but to require that, at a minimum, 10 percent of the State's
TANF funds be reserved for childcare subsidy. Such an approach would
integrate the school readiness mission of a childcare/Head Start model
with the family support model of all the TANF programs.
the key is a qualified workforce and continuous program improvement
The final point is reserved for the quality component of the CCDBG.
Each State must set-aside, at a minimum, 4 percent of the State's
allocation for quality initiatives. Maryland's set-aside is slightly
higher and it has shifted the majority of these resources to workforce
development and continuous program improvement. The strategy was to
reverse a trend observed at the beginning of the last decade, when
talented and qualified providers were exiting the field, creating high
turnover and a depleted workforce in childcare. At the same time,
Maryland established a number of initiatives to improve the overall
quality of licensed childcare programs. Quality set-aside funds of the
CCDBG included accreditation support for childcare programs to become
accredited. For instance, in 2001 only a couple dozen childcare
programs were accredited, thereby meeting standards of high quality.
Today, almost 540 childcare programs are State or nationally
accredited. At the same time, childcare workers were encouraged to
enroll in the State's childcare credentialing program, a career ladder
and professional development program for childcare professionals, to
improve their qualifications through training and post-secondary course
work and degree achievement. Prior to the transfer of childcare to
MSDE, only 6 percent of childcare workers joined the credentialing
program. Today, almost 20 percent are enrolled in it, and the numbers
are growing. The CCDBG quality improvement component is providing
funding for credentialing incentives such as compensation bonuses and
training vouchers. The CCDBG reauthorization should refocus the current
quality set-asides and earmarks with a stronger emphasis on workforce
development and continuous program improvement, including a requirement
for States to establish performance benchmarks in those areas.
Maryland, like other States, navigates within the confines of what
is being provided in terms of funding, and Federal and State
requirements. The CCDBG, as it currently exists, has many positive
features--it offers flexibility, it has become a reliable, yet
underfunded resource, and States receive technical support from the
agency that administers it. But, from a State's perspective, it does
not exist in isolation. As State pre-kindergarten and Head Start
programs strive to stress the quality of early education, the CCDBG
must follow. Many States are in the process of reorganizing their
governance of early childhood education and consolidating all programs
and funding streams into one agency. One of the most important things
the reauthorization of the CCDBG can do is to initiate such a process
at the Federal level. Within the context of appropriating more adequate
funding, this would mean joint and blended funding to increase
coordination between childcare, Head Start, and TANF, resulting in
improved access to quality early education and care for the children of
working parents.
The first rule of order should probably be a reorganization of the
existing programs to allow for a more streamlined and consistent
support for children and their families. The reauthorization of the
CCDBG can play a historic role in this effort.
I thank you for the opportunity to speak before you and I am
available for questions.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, doctor.
Mr. Acord.
STATEMENT OF PHILIP ACORD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CHILDREN'S HOME,
CHATTANOOGA, TN
Mr. Acord. Madam Chairperson, the Children's Home has been
serving children in our community for over 140 years. On any
given day we have responsibility for about 700 children.
You have to really look back to appreciate the tremendous
impact CCDBG has made and to understand how the economic
downturn has challenged families and children. I was on the
State advisory committee back in 1990. We spent hours trying to
figure out how to serve the most children and still improve the
childhood education community services. We were really excited
about subsidy for those families that could only afford to pay
$25 or $30 a week because most of our budget's made up of only
one source of revenue, parent fees. These new dollars helped us
provide our staff with benefits, helped us increase our
salaries above the minimum wage. Funds were going to help us
recruit more qualified staff, enable us to purchase current
curricula for classrooms and upgrade equipment and materials.
Using quality set-aside funds, our State started the
Tennessee Early Childhood Training Alliance, providing all
staff entering the field 30-clock hours of training in early
childhood development. The State also increased the amount of
annual training required and made it available to the early
childhood education community.
During good economic times, the State expanded parent
access. Over the first 10 years, lots of early childhood
education programs sprung up across the State, many of them
adding infant care and toddler care, school-age care, in
addition to the 3- and 4-year-old care, all possible because of
CCDBG.
Tennessee faithfully conducted their annual market survey
and for a time reimbursed at the 75th percentile. Families who
needed it received subsidies. With CCDBG, the State also
focused on quality, licensing standards improvement, the ratio
of child-to-teacher fell so each child got more individual
attention from their teacher. The State lowered the caseloads
of licensing counselors, increased monitoring to six
unannounced visits annually.
There were concerns because funding for quality initiatives
also came from the CCDBG subsidy dollars that helped parents
pay for our service. But we also understood that every low-
income child needed and deserved access to good early childhood
education services and licensing was the foundation for that,
for that quality.
Later, Tennessee developed a quality rating and improvement
scale. As an incentive to programs serving CCDBG children, the
State paid more if a program achieved a higher rating.
Unfortunately, the rate we now receive is below, even with that
increase, is below the 75th percentile.
But when the economy turned, families' needs increased and
State and Federal resources fell short. My program, which
serves about 225 families, went from having 120 of those
families receiving subsidy to less than 50 of those families
receiving subsidy. Programs that served significant numbers of
low-income children had to close their doors because they
couldn't sustain themselves without a certain number of
subsidized children.
With the economic downturn, much progress has been lost.
The State reduced its reimbursement rates, programs had to turn
away families or cut corners. In Tennessee reimbursement rates
fell dramatically, as they did in other States. Tennessee now
provides no childcare assistance for low-income families not
receiving TANF, turning away those working poor families trying
to get subsidy.
It's hard on all of us, but it's especially hard on the
parents. I have parents in my office crying literally because
they can't get a CCDBG subsidy and they can't afford to pay my
fee, which is on a sliding fee scale according to their income.
Lots of families had their pay cut and without a subsidy they
could not afford childcare.
You can see that the impact of reduced resources on the
State's early childhood education system. Tennessee has about
half the number of regulated early childhood education programs
now as it did 6 years ago. That's the cumulative effect of
fewer families receiving subsidies, reduced reimbursement rate,
less grant money for program improvement, fewer training
dollars, and less money for support services. Although funding
was reduced, the quality requirements remain in place, meaning
our costs did not decline.
At my agency, I've had to make dramatic adjustments. We've
looked to the United Way, local government, in order to
maintain the quality of our services and still make it
available to low-income families that could no longer access
CCDBG. We're now subsidizing the fees of those parents, but our
agency is not typical. Most agencies are not able to do that
and generate those funds.
We also entered into collaborations with Head Start and
Early Head Start, as well as our State pre-K program. We took
on five smaller agencies that were in danger of going out of
business that served 100 percent below-poverty children to help
keep them functioning in our community.
So it's difficult to identify the improvements with limited
resources, but, looking ahead, the eligibility issue is big. It
just needs to be annual. We could allow them to also access it
through phone or online. We could help parents by providing
childcare while they're doing job search. We could allow them
to average their income. We could ask States to direct more of
their resources to supplement CCDBG, especially since
discretionary CCDBG requires no State matching requirements.
States also could be encouraged to promote collaboration
between childcare, Head Start, and State-funded kindergarten
and increase the use of contracts, especially for underserved
populations. It's a tough question to address without resources
and disrupting present families receiving CCDBG.
If we're serious about economic development, then we should
understand that CCDBG is one of the best economic development
programs out there. It allows parents to work, it helps support
an early childhood education workforce of nearly 2 million
nationwide, and it gives countless poor children access to
quality early childhood education, services which will equip
them with the skills to be successful in school and ultimately
successful in life as a contributing member of a skilled
workforce.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Acord follows:]
Prepared Statement of Philip Acord
summary
Principle Question To Be Addressed
What are the critical improvements that can be made to CCDBG:
1. With limited fiscal resources.
2. Without substantially disrupting families currently receiving
CCDBG.
How has CCDBG helped my programs in Chattanooga, TN and the impact
CCDBG has had on the Early Childhood Education Community and the
families and children receiving subsidy since 1990.
Added revenue to programs to help us serve low-income
parents and children using a sliding fee scale.
Allowed programs to initially increase salaries and add
benefits, at least while rates were being maintained or increased.
Provided basic training for new employees just entering
the field and ongoing training for those already employed.
Provided funds needed to purchase curricula and materials
to enhance early childhood education instruction.
Discuss the three areas that CCDBG forced us to evaluate in
relation to the funds CCDBG allocated to Tennessee.
Accessibility
Encouraged expanded hours of care--my program could
offer 24-hour care.
Provided increased rate for children under 3 and
support for school-age care.
Affordability
Even with new funds, we faced the challenge of
helping low-income parents afford care, while balancing:
at what income level the families maintained their
eligibility for assistance,
the size of parents' co-payments so those receiving
a subsidy could still afford care, and
the setting of rates that allowed providers to
remain in business.
Quality
In Tennessee some of the CCDBG funds were used to
hire additional licensing counselors.
Tennessee conducts six unannounced visits annually of
all regulated programs, the most in the Nation.
Tennessee used CCDBG funds to develop and implement a
QRIS system for all regulated programs, and we are one of only
a few States that require all regulated programs to go through
the QRIS annually.
Tennessee pays 20 percent above Market Rate for
those who have a Three Star rating; however, even with that
increase we are well below the 75th percentile.
Review the current State of CCDBG funds available verses the demand
for assistance in my programs and in Tennessee.
Fewer parents have access to CCDBG subsidy at a time when
their pay has been cut due to the economic downturn.
While demand has increased, Tennessee has frozen intake
for subsidies for low-income families who are not receiving TANF,
transitioning off TANF, teen parents in high school, and foster
children.
Agencies serving significant numbers of low-income
children have gone out of business because they have lost the families
receiving subsidies.
CCDBG subsidy rates have declined. In Tennessee rates have
not been at the 75th percentile since 2001. According to the National
Women's Law Center, the number of States paying at the 75th percentile
has declined from 22 in 2001 to 3 in 2011.
What has the Children's Home/Chambliss Shelter done in response to
the reduction in CCDBG funding?
Entered into collaborations and partnerships with Head
Start and with our State pre-kindergarten program.
Increased our fundraising efforts.
Worked with United Way to increase support.
Applied to Local Government for funding.
Reorganized our agency and made painful adjustments to
staff work load.
Gone 3 years without a salary increase for staff.
Closing Comment
In these incredibly tight fiscal times it is challenging to improve
CCDBG with limited resources without disrupting care for low-income
families and their children.
CCDBG offers us the funding to help families pay for care,
support to improve the quality of care provided, and support to run our
program.
We could help families and children by creating a 12-month
eligibility redetermination process that might assist in reducing State
administrative costs.
Some States provide contracts to increase stability for
partnership programs. We could encourage States to create policies and
guidelines to promote collaboration between childcare, Head Start, and
pre-kindergarten.
Direct States to focus more of their resources to
supplement CCDBG since discretionary CCDBG funds have no matching
requirement.
My State might reduce the number of its unannounced
visits, but that is not a national strategy.
The bottom line is that for over 20 years, CCDBG has been a
lifeline for millions of low-income families and their children. These
funds allowed parents to work and children to access quality early
childhood education programs. My board of directors and staff
understand that CCDBG is about giving low-income children access to
quality ECE programs which will equip them with the skills they need to
be successful in school so that they can become part of the skilled
workforce we need to keep America competitive in the Global
marketplace.
______
My name is Phil Acord and I am the president/CEO of the Children's
Home/Chambliss Shelter in Chattanooga, TN. The Children's Home has been
serving children in Chattanooga and surrounding area for over 140
years. On any given day we have responsibility for the care and
education of over 700 children and serve well over a 1,000 children
annually. I have been with this organization since 1971.
The question I have been asked to answer is ``what are the critical
improvements that can be made to CCDBG, with limited resources and
without substantially disrupting families currently receiving CCDBG.''
I was on the State advisory committee back in 1990 when we received
the CCDBG Regulations. We spent hours reading the regulations and
trying to figure out how we could serve the most children and improve
the early childhood education community. For most of us that operated
programs that served predominantly low-income children we were so
excited about receiving a subsidy for those families that could only
afford to pay us $25 or $30 a week. Most of our budgets had only one
source of revenue and that was parent fee payments. These new dollars
were going to allow us to provide our staff with benefits and maybe
even increase their salaries above minimum wage. Not only were these
funds going to help us recruit more qualified staff but we were also
able to purchase curriculums for our classrooms and upgrade our
equipment and other materials.
The State of Tennessee took some of the quality funds and started
the Tennessee Early Childhood Training Alliance, which provided all new
staff entering the field a 30-clock hour training program on early
childhood development. They also increased the amount of annual
training required and made that training available to the ECE
community.
Over the next 10 years lots of new programs sprung up across
Tennessee providing ECE services in rural areas. Many programs expanded
their services to serve infants and toddlers in addition to the 3 and 4
years they served. This was all made possible because of CCDBG funds.
Poor parents could not afford to pay the cost of care for children
under three but Tennessee paid a higher reimbursement for younger
children. Tennessee also was faithful to do an annual Market Survey and
reimbursed at the 75th percentile of that rate.
During the good economic times Tennessee was able to provide a
CCDBG subsidy to almost every low-income parent that applied. The State
then started focusing on the quality issue. They upgraded their
licensing standards and reduced the ratio of child to teacher. They
lowered the case loads of the licensing counselors and increased the
monitoring to six unannounced visits per year. We all were concerned
about these changes because it took away from the funds we had to
improve our services, our salaries and our facilities. But we also
understood that every low-income child deserved access to a good
quality ECE program and that a poor quality program was actually
harmful to a young child's development.
The next step Tennessee took, in the name of quality, was to
develop a Quality Rating and Improvement Scale that took a closer look
at the quality of a program in addition to the licensing standards. As
an incentive to programs serving CCDBG children the State agreed to pay
above the subsidy market rate if a program achieved a one-, two- or
three-star rating.
Then the economy had its' downturn and we began to experience a
reduction in the number of parents that could get a subsidy. My program
which serves about 225 families went from 120 of those families on
subsidy to less the 50 parents on subsidy. Programs that served
significant numbers of low-income children started to close their doors
because they couldn't sustain themselves without a certain number of
subsidized children.
We had worked hard to build an infrastructure that supported
quality ECE programs and gave low-income children access to quality ECE
services. The State stopped doing their Market Surveys and could no
longer pay at the 75th percentile. Next they froze intake for those
poor parents trying to get a subsidy allowing only TANF clients, teen
parents in high school and foster children access to the CCDBG-funded
subsidy.
I would have parents in my office crying because they couldn't get
a CCDBG subsidy and they couldn't afford to pay my fee which is based
on a sliding fee scale according to the parent's income. A lot of my
parents had their pay cut and without a subsidy could not afford to pay
for care.
Tennessee has about half the number of regulated programs they had
6 or 7 years ago. Although the CCDBG funds were decreased the quality
requirements they had put in place continued. There was less grant
money for program improvement, less money for training and less money
for support services.
CCDBG totally changed the Early Childhood Education community in
Tennessee, Chattanooga and at my agency and the programs we managed.
Because we did not want to reduce the quality of our services we began
to raise money to subsidize the fees of the parents that could not get
on CCDBG. We worked with the United Way to obtain additional funding,
we appealed to local government for assistance and we began to do
fundraisers. In order to maintain the quality of our services and still
make it available to the low-income families, that could no longer
access a CCDBG subsidy, we were now subsidizing the fees of those
parents.
We also entered into collaborations with Head Start and Early Head
Start as well as pre-K programs to help off-set our cost of operation.
We also took on five small agencies that were in danger of going out of
business without our help. Some of those programs served 100 percent
low-income children.
I listed in my outline some of the things that would streamline
some of the CCDBG requirements in Tennessee. Like only requiring
parents to go through eligibility redetermination annually, allow them
to do it by phone or on line. In Tennessee we might have to cut back on
some of our quality monitoring to put more money into the accessibility
pot. Ask States to direct more of their resources to supplement CCDBG.
Continue to encourage Head Start, pre-K and the Early Childhood
Education community to collaborate and partner around shared space,
monitoring and training.
To be honest with you it is a really hard problem to address
without adding more resources or disrupting the present families
receiving CCDBG subsidy.
If we are serious about economic development then we should
understand that CCDBG is one of the best economic development programs
the Federal Government has out there. It allows parents to work, it
helps support an ECE workforce of approximately 1.5 million nationwide
and it is giving poor children access to quality early childhood
educational services which will equip them with the skills to be
successful in school and ultimately successful in life as a
contributing member of a skilled workforce.
Presently only one out of every six poor children that need a CCDBG
subsidy has assistance. We don't know were the other five children are
and what type of preparation they are receiving as they prepare to
enter school. CCDBG is an investment in the future of America, we need
all six of those children to be successful in school and ready to be
members of America's workforce of the future.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to address your question
and to share the story of the Children's Home and its' quest to provide
quality early childhood education services to the children of
Chattanooga, TN . . . home of Senator Bob Corker.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Ms. Singerman.
But before you say a word, I know Senator Hagan wanted to
join in the chorus of welcoming you.
Statement of Senator Hagan
Senator Hagan. Thank you, Senator Mikulski, Madam Chairman.
I know Senator Burr has already sung your praises, but let
me just add a few things. One, we're delighted that you're here
today. I know that you've been in your position for about 15
years as president of the Child Care Resources, Inc. And I know
she did spend quite a bit of time, Senator Mikulski, in your
great State, too. And all the while, she has continued to be
involved in a variety of early care and education policy
development and planning committees at our local and State
level.
She really knows well that North Carolina emerged as the
leader in the area of early education and childcare after
making tremendous strides in the mid- to late-nineties, during
a time when our State was at the bottom of many of the national
rankings related to the health and well-being of children and
at that point in time, one of the worst quality childcare in
the country.
But State leaders recognized that if they were going to
have a chance at preparing students for the future, the wisest
investment that we could make was in the early years of a
child's life. In the year 2000, when our State first
implemented our quality rating and improvement system, at that
time only 10 percent of all children were in high quality
childcare programs. Today 64 percent are enrolled in a high
quality education program. So with hard work and the commitment
of leaders like Ms. Singerman, even despite budget cuts, North
Carolina continues to be a national model for quality early
childhood education.
I know that providing early quality childhood education
takes commitment, and we've got work to do. But I think that
you will agree that our State serves as an example that it can
be done.
So thank you very much for being here and we look forward
to your testimony.
The Chairman. Ms. Singerman.
STATEMENT OF JANET SINGERMAN, PRESIDENT, CHILD CARE RESOURCES,
INC., CHARLOTTE, NC
Ms. Singerman. Good morning. I want to thank the chairwoman
of the subcommittee, Senator Mikulski, and the Ranking Member
of the subcommittee, Senator Burr, for inviting me to testify
today. I'm proud to say, Senator Mikulski, that I was your
constituent when I lived in east Baltimore, and for the past 15
years I've been in North Carolina and I'm also proud to say
that I've been Senator Burr's constituent and Senator Hagan's
constituent. How lucky am I today that you're all on this
subcommittee. So I appreciate the opportunity and I'm honored
to speak today. I look forward also to any questions you may
have.
Child Care Resources is one of three agencies that comprise
North Carolina's Child Care Resource and Referral Council, and
that council leads our statewide high quality childcare
resource and referral system. Last year this system helped more
than 37,000 families understand how to better discern and where
to find quality childcare and early care and education programs
for their children. We provided professional development and
training to 32,500 childcare practitioners and we provided
quality improvement and technical assistance supports and
consultation to nearly 10,000 pre-school and school-age
classrooms across the State. We, in partnership with the North
Carolina Division of Child Development, are at the center of
quality childcare in North Carolina.
I'm also proud to say, as Senator Burr and Senator Hagan
have referenced, that North Carolina's advances in early care
and education provide a model for our Nation. That doesn't mean
the system is perfect. We work continuously day in and day out
to improve it.
And just like Rome, we didn't build our system in a day.
Through continuing State investment and CCDBG quality funds,
we've put into place an infrastructure to achieve quality early
care and education, and that infrastructure, the pillars of
that infrastructure, include our childcare resource and
referral system, include Smart Start, which is of course our
nationally recognized initiative to improve the school
readiness of children by addressing early care and education
issues, family support issues, and child health concerns.
We also put into place a tiered quality rating and
improvement system, which is embedded in licensure, one of four
States to embed this in licensure, and continues to be refined
as the quality of our State's childcare system advances.
Attached to that, we put in a tiered approach to childcare
subsidy reimbursement, so that the State reimbursement rate
pays more for programs that are delivering higher quality
services to low-income children.
We also have invested in workforce supports, such as Teach
Early Childhood Scholarship Program and the Child Care Wages
Program, which is a workforce salary supplement initiative. We
have early childhood associate degrees at all North Carolina
community colleges and birth to kindergarten certification
programs at 4-year colleges and universities. And we have NC-
pre-K, which is our public pre-kindergarten program, which is
housed in public schools, in Head Start, and in four- and five-
star community-based childcare centers.
So with no additional resources, increased access to
quality care is at best unlikely without serving fewer
children. North Carolina made that decision last year when the
legislature, without an infusion of new funds, decided to
restrict childcare subsidy access to higher quality and more
costly three-, four-, and five-star childcare programs.
I wish we had enough funding so that every eligible child
could receive a subsidy and that that subsidy would provide
access to quality care. Unfortunately, I think it's more a
zero-sum game in the States and nationally. Absent additional
resources, it is time for Congress to decide whether to serve
children well or to merely serve more children. I believe we
have a responsibility to ensure children are safe and in
settings that promote their healthy development and early
learning.
Given the fiscal constraints within which this committee
and this Congress is working, what's the minimum that should be
done within the reauthorization of CCDBG? No. 1, I think we
need to improve safety. We need to require those criminal
background checks to exclude those who should not be in the
business of providing childcare. And No. 2, we need to
incorporate minimum health and safety protections for children.
Not enough States do this.
We need to improve the quality, and one way to do that is
to raise the quality set-aside to 12 percent. You heard Linda
Smith say that on average States are already spending around 12
percent and the CCDBG only requires 4 percent to be spent. So
we need to raise this because otherwise we leave that 4 percent
and the current investment that exceeds 4 percent vulnerable to
cuts. And we also need to work to achieve parity with the
quality set-aside in Head Start over time.
We need to strengthen the childcare workforce and require
more initial and ongoing training and supports, to promote
attainment of child development associate credentials, degrees,
career advancement, and workforce retention.
We need to make childcare safer by ensuring monitoring and
conduct at least annual unannounced inspections, preferably
more, and post the results, the monitoring reports from those
inspections, on line to promote public transparency and
informed consumption of childcare.
Finally and importantly, we need to address subsidy rates.
Absent additional funding, at a minimum let's ask the National
Academy of Sciences to study the true cost of quality
childcare, not the fees currently charged, but the true cost of
quality childcare, and recommend options to develop a better
financed system.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Singerman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Janet Singerman
summary
Good morning. I want to thank the Chairwoman of the subcommittee,
Senator Mikulski, and the Ranking Member of the subcommittee, Senator
Burr, for inviting me to testify today. I am proud to say that I was a
constituent of Senator Mikulski's for 14 years when I worked at the
Maryland Committee for Children as the deputy director. For the past 15
years, I have been president of Child Care Resources Inc. (CCRI), a
nonprofit childcare resource & referral agency in Charlotte, and a
constituent of Senator Burr's. I am honored to appear before the
subcommittee and look forward to any questions.
CCRI is one of three agencies that comprise the North Carolina
Child Care Resource and Referral (CCR&R) Council, which leads our
statewide high quality childcare resource & referral system. Last year,
these agencies provided consumer education and referral to more than
37,000 families; provided professional development to 32,500 childcare
providers; and provided quality improvement technical assistance to
nearly 10,000 preschool and school-age classrooms statewide. We are at
the center of quality childcare in North Carolina.
I am proud to say that North Carolina is a model for our Nation.
That doesn't mean we are perfect; we continually work to improve. And,
just like Rome, we did not build our system in a day. Through State
investments and CCDBG quality money, we put in place an infrastructure
to provide quality childcare:
a statewide childcare resource and referral system;
Smart Start--a nationally recognized initiative to improve
the school readiness of children by addressing early care and
education, family support and child health issues;
a tiered quality rating and improvement system which is
embedded in licensure and continues to be refined as the quality of the
State's childcare system advances;
a tiered approach to childcare subsidy reimbursement to
pay more for higher quality programs;
Statewide investment in workforce supports such as
T.E.A.C.H. Early Childhood (a teacher scholarship program) and Child
Care WAGE$ (a workforce salary supplement program);
early childhood associate degree programs at all NC
community colleges and Birth-Kindergarten certification programs at 4-
year colleges and universities; and
the public pre-kindergarten program now known as NC Pre-K
which is housed in public schools, Head Start and 4- and 5-star
community-based childcare.
With no additional resources, access to quality care is not
possible without serving fewer children. NC made that decision when the
State decided to restrict subsidies to 3-, 4-, and 5-star care without
an infusion of funds. I wish we had enough funding so that every
eligible child could receive a subsidy and that the subsidy would
provide access to quality care. Unfortunately, it is more a zero-sum
game in the States and nationally. Absent additional resources, it is
time for Congress to decide whether to serve children well or merely
serve them. I believe we have a responsibility to ensure children are
safe and in settings that promote their healthy development and early
learning. Therefore, at a minimum, CCDBG reauthorization should
include:
Improving Safety--(1) require criminal background checks
to exclude those who should not be in the business of providing
childcare; and (2) incorporate minimum health & safety protections for
children (not enough States do this).
Improving Quality--raise the Quality Set-Aside to 12
percent (achieve Head Start parity over time).
Strengthening the Workforce--require more training and
supports to promote attainment of CDAs, degrees, career advancement and
workforce retention.
Ensuring Monitoring--conduct at least annual unannounced
inspections, preferably more; post monitoring reports online for public
transparency.
Addressing Subsidy Rates--at a minimum, ask the National
Academy of Sciences to study the true cost of quality childcare (not
the fees currently charged) and recommend options to develop a better
financed system.
______
Good morning. I want to thank the Chairwoman of the subcommittee,
Senator Mikulski, and the Ranking Member of the subcommittee, Senator
Burr, for inviting me to testify today. I am proud to say that I was a
constituent of Senator Mikulski's when I lived in east Baltimore and I
am currently Senator Burr's constituent. I am honored to appear before
this subcommittee and look forward to sharing what I know, present my
experiences, and respond to any questions that members may have.
As president of Child Care Resources Inc. (CCRI), a private, non-
profit childcare resource and referral agency based in Charlotte, NC, I
have on-the-ground experience with many facets of the early learning
and subsidized childcare world. CCRI works in Mecklenburg, Cabarrus,
Union, Rowan and Stanly Counties and is celebrating its 30th year of
serving children, families, early care and education and school-age
childcare practitioners and programs, government and employers
throughout the Central Carolinas. CCRI is also one of three
organizations that have responsibility for leading and coordinating
childcare resource and referral services across the State under
contract to the North Carolina Division of Child Development and Early
Education.
Prior to joining CCRI in 1997, I worked for 14 years at the
Maryland Committee for Children, a statewide child advocacy
organization based in Baltimore, and served as its deputy director and
as statewide project manager for the Maryland Child Care Resource
Center Network. Additionally, after several years on the board of
directors of the National Association of Child Care Resource & Referral
Agencies (NACCRRA), I was elected to the position of president and
served in this role from 2004-6.
At local, regional and State levels, Child Care Resources Inc.
works to increase access to, improve the quality of and help families
better afford the cost of early care and education and school-age
childcare programs. CCRI's fiscal year 2012 operating budget totaled
$7.4 million and, as childcare subsidy administrator for Mecklenburg
County, CCRI additionally administered in excess of $44 million in
childcare subsidy funding from Federal, State and local sources. These
funds enabled a monthly average of 7,756 children to enroll in higher
quality childcare and their families to be gainfully employed or in
training. While the amount of childcare subsidy funds administered by
CCRI is larger than any other county in North Carolina, demand for
childcare subsidies historically far surpasses available funds,
resulting in an ever present and growing waiting list of children whose
parents are eligible for this support, but for whom there are
insufficient funds to serve. For all but 2 weeks of the 15 years I have
served this organization, CCRI has had a waiting list for childcare
subsidy. Currently, this list totals 4,146 children and non-TANF
families typically remain on the waiting list for 2 or more years.
Last year, North Carolina's statewide childcare resource and
referral system (including CCRI) provided:
consumer education and referral to the families of more
than 37,000 preschool and school-age children (30,000+ children ages
birth to 5 and 7,000+ school-age children) who were seeking information
about early care and education and school-age childcare options that
met their needs, preferences and ability to pay;
professional development to an unduplicated count of
32,502 childcare practitioners (72 percent of the entire workforce);
and
quality improvement/maintenance technical assistance
supports to more than 9,500 preschool and school-age classrooms
statewide.
I have been in this field since 1983--long enough to have been part
of the early childhood advocacy community that pushed for the original
Child Care and Development Block Grant, which as you may know, was
first called the Act for Better Child Care or the ABC bill. In the 16
years that have lapsed since CCDBG was last reauthorized, we have
learned a great deal more about the brain architecture of young
children, the effects of toxic stress on young children, the impact of
high quality childcare on children's readiness for school, and the
unparalleled return that investments in early care and education yield,
particularly for children with risk factors such as poverty.
We also know more now about the differences between our State's
childcare systems. We have the benefit of childcare studies which
review, on a State by State basis, current requirements for childcare
centers and family childcare homes. As you know, State laws vary
greatly. And, overall, much improvement is needed. I am hopeful that
this committee will write an Act for Better Child Care. We need it.
Of course, we need significantly greater investment in childcare
and early education than is currently available and I am told that the
subcommittee is considering reauthorizing CCDBG without such additional
investment. While I support reauthorization, I am deeply concerned that
the current economic environment and national priorities will not
provide sufficient additional funding to significantly increase access
to high quality childcare, particularly for poor families.
In NC, 49.4 percent of all children are living in poverty, and
there are 373,968 children ages birth through kindergarten entry whose
families are low income. The depth of poverty and necessity to enable
more children to have access to quality programs in urban areas is
great. At the same time, 85 of North Carolina's 100 counties are
considered rural. Many families have lived in poverty for decades. We
need to figure out how to better meet the childcare needs of families
across our State and Nation--in both urban and rural areas alike.
Even in times of scarcity, our Federal Government can and should
put forward legislation that can improve the uneven array of childcare
that is available to families across our Nation. This hearing, entitled
``CCDBG Reauthorization: Helping to Meet the Child Care Needs of
American Families,'' is aptly named. What do families need?
First, with the number of women in the workforce today,
childcare is a vital workforce support, The fact of the matter is that
childcare as a workforce support has largely been where the Federal
Government and the States have focused.
Second, with the number of hours that children spend in
childcare (on average 35 hours per week), childcare is a critical
setting for early learning--and we can no longer ignore this fact.
We need to ensure that children are both safe and in settings that
promote their healthy development and early learning. We should not
continue to set goals to improve school readiness, reduce the
achievement gap, and increase high school graduation rates while
simultaneously ignoring the role that childcare settings play in the
development and school readiness of children. These aren't separate
silos; these are points along the spectrum of development. Children do
not begin learning at age 4 when most State pre-kindergarten programs
begin. As every parent knows, children begin learning at birth--and for
most children, childcare is a reality--part of daily life before school
entry.
I am proud to say that North Carolina's advances in early care and
education provide a model for the Nation. The system isn't perfect--
quality improvement didn't and doesn't happen overnight and it is not
easy. But we have done a lot of things right and we work, every day, to
continuously improve. What are the pillars of the North Carolina system
and how did we get there? Our path included the development of:
a statewide childcare resource and referral system;
Smart Start--a nationally recognized initiative to improve
the school readiness of children by addressing early care and
education, family support and child health issues;
a tiered quality rating and improvement system which is
embedded in licensure and continues to be refined as the quality of the
State's childcare system advances;
a tiered approach to childcare subsidy reimbursement which
pays more for services rendered at higher quality programs;
Statewide investment in workforce supports such as North
Carolina's T.E.A.C.H Early Childhood (a teacher scholarship program)
and Child Care WAGE$ (a childcare workforce salary supplement program)
that collectively help teachers acquire higher education, improve their
compensation, and remain in the field;
early childhood associate degree programs at all NC
community colleges and birth-kindergarten certification programs at 4-
year colleges and universities; and
the public pre-kindergarten program now known as NC Pre-K
which is housed in public schools, Head Start and 4- and 5-star
community-based childcare.
For the purposes of this hearing, I want to emphasize that no one
of these initiatives, by itself, is responsible for North Carolina's
tremendous progress and advances in quality. Rather, the quality of our
early care and education system has resulted from the multiplier effect
that these varied strategies, independently and braided, have achieved.
So, please allow me to highlight a few.
tiered quality rating improvement & reimbursement systems
North Carolina was one of the first States to develop a Tiered
Quality Rating and Improvement System (TQRIS) for childcare programs.
Ours is one of only four States (Michigan, North Carolina, Oklahoma,
and Tennessee) that is embedded in childcare licensing, which means
that licensed programs participate. This is a significant factor in
strengthening the quality of care and has been critical for both
consumers and providers. Parents are able to access objective
information about a program's quality and about what constitutes higher
quality childcare. Armed with this information, most consumers demand
higher quality programs. In turn, the market responds as providers use
their scarce resources to invest strategically in areas that (according
to research and the State's TQRIS) result in improved quality and
contribute to higher star ratings.
Most quality rating systems are voluntary. While the number of
quality rating childcare systems is growing, the number of childcare
programs that actually participate in such systems in most States is
quite small compared to the total number of licensed programs. That's
why having licensing as the bottom rung is really important. To
participate in a quality rating system, a program should be licensed.
As programs exceed licensing standards, they should receive higher
ratings.
According to the 2012 State Child Care Plans submitted to the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), 28 States have statewide
quality rating systems, 7 States are in a pilot or test phase, and
another 14 States are in the development phase. North Carolina is one
of only a few States that set higher subsidy reimbursement rates based
on the tiers of our quality rating system. North Carolina integrates
the two systems. We believe this creates an incentive for childcare
programs to continue to advance to higher star levels. And, we believe
it helps low-income families access higher quality care.
In 2000, when North Carolina implemented TQRIS, 10 percent
of all children (15,755) enrolled in regulated care were in high
quality programs (4 or 5 star programs). In June 2012, that percentage
has increased to 64 percent (164,829) of all children enrolled in
regulated care in high quality programs (4 or 5 star programs).
In State fiscal year 2006, 45 percent (70,328) of low-
income children in North Carolina, whose care was paid for using
Federal funds, were enrolled in high quality programs. In State fiscal
year 2012, that percentage has increased to 66 percent (85,351).
The table below shows the growth in higher quality care between
2000 and 2012, showing while few programs were high quality in 2000,
most are on the road to higher quality today.
Licensed Child Care by Star Level by Progression from 2000-12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Child Care Centers Family Child Care Homes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Star Levels 2000 2012 Star Levels 2000 2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 star...................................... 1,470 208 1 star........................ 5,176 621
2 stars..................................... 71 120 2 stars....................... 1 548
3 stars..................................... 1,272 1,008 3 stars....................... 96 715
4 stars..................................... 234 1,179 4 stars....................... 53 653
5 stars..................................... 94 1,725 5 stars....................... 39 393
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: NC Department of Health and Human Services.
In July 2011, despite the very difficult economic environment,
North Carolina's General Assembly passed legislation to restrict the
use of childcare subsidies to 3, 4, or 5 star programs. This means that
childcare programs with only a 1 or 2 star rating will no longer be
eligible to serve children receiving childcare subsidies. Clearly,
higher quality childcare is more expensive, so this decision was not
reached lightly. But the legislature decided that it was better to
ensure that children have access to higher quality care than to serve
more children poorly. As a result, there are now only 1,497 remaining
one and two star childcare centers and homes in NC's childcare system.
While I wish we had sufficient funds to ensure that all children
who were eligible could both receive a childcare subsidy and that the
subsidy could pay for high quality care, given current fiscal
realities, that was not a goal we could reach.
smart start
Smart Start was created in 1993 as a public/private partnership
between State government and local communities to advance a high
quality, comprehensive, accountable system of care and education for
every child beginning with a healthy birth. Independent, private
organizations work in all 100 North Carolina counties through the North
Carolina Partnership for Children, Inc., and 77 local partnership
organizations. Smart Start's goal is to improve children's early care
and education programs so that children are safe, healthy and provide
opportunities for children to learn skills they need to start school
ready to succeed; provide parents with tools that support them in
raising healthy, happy, and successful children; and ensure that
children have access to preventive health care. Smart Start delivers
outcomes by giving communities local control to determine the best
approach to achieving them and ensures accountability by tracking local
& State outcomes using a Performance Based Incentive System (PBIS)--a
comprehensive collection of 24 population-level indicators that track
healthy conditions for young children). North Carolina is the only
State to institute population outcomes for young children in every
county.
workforce supports
T.E.A.C.H Early Childhood North Carolina, implemented in 1990 by
Child Care Services Association, helps the early childhood workforce
afford college, improve their compensation and remain in a field
notorious for turnover (estimates range nationally from 25-40 percent).
In fiscal year 2011, T.E.A.C.H. helped more than 4,100 NC childcare
providers increase their education through receipt of a scholarship
(which covers partial costs for tuition, books and travel, ``release
time,'' and requires a bonus or raise upon completion of a minimum
number of credit hours). Individuals who receive a T.E.A.C.H.
scholarship must remain in their sponsoring program for an additional
year. In fiscal year 2011, 79,041 of North Carolina's children
benefited from consistent care provided by a teacher that was better
educated as a result of T.E.A.C.H. In fiscal year 2011, 22 States and
the District of Columbia provided T.E.A.C.H. scholarships; 18,478
scholarships were awarded, 125,742 credit hours were completed by
recipients, and 9,608 childcare, pre-kindergarten and Head Start
employers sponsored T.E.A.C.H recipients.
The Child Care WAGE$ Project, also an initiative of Child Care
Services Association, enables individuals working in 59 NC counties to
receive a salary supplement tied to the level of their attained
education and their commitment to their childcare program. In fiscal
year 2011, 6,792 childcare professionals working in 2,555 different
programs (serving approximately 90,000 children) received WAGE$ salary
supplements which are paid every 6 months as long as individuals remain
in their programs. This program is currently licensed and operating in
three additional States.
In 1993, only 28 of NC's 58 community colleges offered an
associate's degree in early childhood education. By 1998, all 58
colleges offered this degree, which meant statewide individuals could
have access to community college early childhood coursework.
Training and technical assistance is readily available to childcare
programs across the State through NC's childcare resource and referral
system, which partners with practitioners to help them increase
knowledge and improve skills and with program administrators and owners
to help them develop and implement program-wide quality improvement
plans to achieve and maintain higher star ratings. Funding for these
services comes from CCDBG, Smart Start and local public and private
sector investment.
public pre-kindergarten
In 2001, North Carolina implemented its State-funded pre-
kindergarten program (NC Pre-K, formerly More at Four), which is ranked
as one of the top 10 pre-K programs in the country by the National
Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER). North Carolina's pre-K
program differs from many State pre-K programs in that childcare is
embedded. To serve children through the NC Pre-K program, a licensed
childcare program must maintain a 4- or 5-star license and meet
additional high-quality standards that include a Birth-Kindergarten
licensed teacher compensated at a level on par with public schools,
smaller staff to child ratios and group sizes, and appropriate
curriculum and instructional assessment. About one-half of children
receiving North Carolina Pre-K funding are served in childcare and Head
Start programs.
background checks
North Carolina has long had a strong background check system for
licensed care as well as for providers receiving a subsidy. A few weeks
ago, Governor Perdue signed a bill into law that makes NC's background
check system even stronger. The law takes effect in January 2013 and
one key change was to require all individuals who volunteer on a
regular basis to have a background check, which includes a fingerprint
check against State and Federal records. In the State fiscal year 2012,
NC processed 38,000 background checks, of which 466 were disqualified
based on serious crimes. Background checks help weed out those who
should be excluded from caring for children. This is important for
child safety.
North Carolina did not build a quality system overnight. Progress
was made incrementally and included resources from the State beyond
funds from CCDBG's quality set-aside. With no additional resources or
only a modest increase in funds, at a minimum, the quality set-aside
needs to be increased. Second, Congress will have to decide if it is
better to ensure access to quality care for low-income children or,
continue along the path of allowing subsidies to be used for any care
available. Without significant increases, access to quality care is not
possible without serving fewer children. I would like to see more
children served. At the same time, I think serving children better is
an important policy goal. The childcare subsidy program can't continue
in a separate silo where we talk about quality care, but subsidies
often do not enable families to access quality care. Given the current
fiscal constraints, it is not an easy decision for Congress. But, I do
think it is important to serve children well and have accountability
for subsidy funding whereby the government knows it is purchasing safe
quality settings for children.
In most States, we do not know the quality of care that families
using a subsidy access. I think that's wrong. I think subsidies should
be tracked to ensure that our policy goals are aligned. Why should
subsidies be used in settings that may be unsafe or of poor quality for
children? This is not in the best interest of our children.
Given the fiscal constraints facing this committee, facing this
Congress, what is the minimum that should be done within the
reauthorization of CCDBG?
1. Improve the Safety of Children in Child Care:
Background checks: People who should not be in the
business of caring for unrelated children should not be. CCDBG should
require comprehensive background checks, based on fingerprints, such as
required by the bill introduced by Senators Burr and Mikulski.
Minimum health and safety protections for children: only
15 States meet each of 10 minimum health and safety protections for
children in family childcare homes and only 33 States meet them for
centers.
2. Improve the Quality of ChildCare
Increase the quality set-aside: Many States' quality
improvement expenditures already exceed the 4 percent set-aside
required by CCDBG. The set-aside should be increased to at least 12
percent. Head Start's set-aside for quality purposes is 25 percent.
Without significant additional CCDBG funds for increased access to
childcare subsidies or improved rates, childcare programs will
certainly need expanded training, technical assistance and other
supports to achieve and sustain higher quality.
3. Strengthen the Child Care Workforce
Require those who work in childcare programs to have a
minimum of 40 hours of initial training and 24 hours of annual training
in key areas such as: CPR, first aid, child development, child behavior
and guidance, learning activities, health and safety, and recognition
and reporting of child abuse.
Encourage States to develop programs that help the
workforce progress toward the Child Development Associate credentials,
Associate and Bachelor degrees.
Invest in the expansion of programs like T.E.A.C.H and
WAGE$.
4. Enhance Child Care Monitoring
Require at least annual inspections of licensed programs,
preferably more and unannounced.
Post inspection reports and complaint reports on line for
public transparency.
5. Address Subsidy Rates
Most families can't afford quality care. It is just too expensive
for families. Center-based infant care alone in 36 States exceeds the
cost of college. Current law requires that a market survey be conducted
but does not require that it be used in setting rates, nor does the law
require a specific level at which subsidy is to be set. I have been
told that this issue is likely too costly to address significantly at
this time. This is disappointing. At a minimum, I recommend that the
National Academy of Sciences be charged with studying the true cost of
high quality childcare (not just the fees charged today) and task them
with offering suggestions to consider for a better financed childcare
system that addresses the early care and education needs of working
families.
Thank you for your time today. I look forward to answering any
questions you may have.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Ms. Singerman.
Ms. Coro.
STATEMENT OF SUSANA CORO, ASSISTANT TEACHER, FALLS CHURCH-
McLEAN CHILDREN'S CENTER, FALLS CHURCH, VA
Ms. Coro. Thank you very much. I want to say thank you for
inviting me to testify here. My name is Susana Coro. I'm
married. I have two children: Max, 7 years old; Yadida, 4 years
old.
I'm coming to testify because my son is in the program at
Falls Church-McLean Children's Center. When I tried to find a
center, it was very hard for me, because my son has a speech
delay. I tried to find a center around my area, and I'd go and
talk with the persons, and I never found somebody who said,
``I'm going to help.''
When I went to the Falls Church-McLean Children's Center, I
found the right person. She said: ``What do you need?'' And I
said: ``I need a space for my son because he has a speech
delay, and I need to find somebody to help my son.'' And she
said: ``We don't have a space; can you wait?''
And I started hanging there and every day, every week, I
called and asked: ``Do you have a space, do you have a space?''
Because my son, he needed help. And she said: ``Yes, I find a
space for you and bring your son.''
Then when I went there, I said: ``I need help for my son;
he has a speech delay.'' And she said: ``Yes, let's work
together.'' And she started giving me referrals. And then I
find somebody to help my son with the speech. Then they started
working with the teachers in the center; my son, he received
help.
That's what I want to say. I put my son in the childcare
center because I needed help for him, and I needed to work. I'm
so happy to find the place where my son is safe. I'm so happy
to find a place to help me.
Now, I'm working like a nanny before. I received a subsidy
from the county. When I put my son in this center, they gave me
help with the subsidy to pay the tuition because it's very
expensive. At this time my income is not too high, and I
received--and I'm very comfortable. Then when I started working
and have more income, they stopped helping me.
The Chairman. They stopped helping you?
Ms. Coro. Yes.
The Chairman. Because you started making too much money?
Ms. Coro. Yes. And also I have another daughter, I have
another kid. And I said, now what can I do now. But I don't
want to pull my son out of the program because he receives a
lot of help, because he needs speech therapy and I can't pay
outside.
Then when my daughter is going into the program, I said,
``Now what can I do? I need to pay a lot of money.'' And they
say: ``No, you're not qualified any more.'' And I said: ``Well,
what can I do?'' I don't want to take my daughter from the
program, because it's a very, very, very good program. And my
director came to talk to me and she said: ``Don't worry; I'm
going to help. We do fundraising and I can help.'' And that's
why I keep my daughter in the same place.
But I come to say it's very hard for me to keep paying a
lot of money, but I have to pay because I want my daughter and
my son to have a very good start in life.
Also, I'm coming to ask to you, try to find a way to help
the families like my family. It's true, we don't have a lot of
money. But when we start having a little bit more, all the
services are cut. I have to pay the school for my daughter, for
SACC my son, but it's a lot.
Also, in the schools, my son here, he does not receive
lunch because they said, you're not qualified. Every week I
have to pay $20. Every month I have to pay $350 for SACC, the
program that's after school. Also, in the center I have to pay
$200 every week because this is the amount when I can pay. The
other part the school has paid for me. This is a lot of money.
The Chairman. A lot of money.
Ms. Coro. It's a lot of money. But I need to do it. You
know what, I'm working very hard, but I want to keep my
daughter in a safe place.
Also, this center for me is the best center, because the
staff is very kind. They work together with the speech
therapists, all the therapists there. Also, every time they
give me advice to help my son, and now for my daughter.
When I see these kind of things I say, ``No, I have to work
very hard and give that to my son.'' One thing my mother always
used to say, she told me:
``I don't have money, I don't have lands; just the
one only thing I can give for you is to study. Go to
the best school, do the best that you can, and then you
can have a very good life.''
That's why I'm coming to you and say, please help us,
because you have the power. You can come to help us, the
community.
We work very hard. I'm not coming to ask for food, I'm not
coming. But we need your help for the schools, we need, because
if we want this country to go up we need to help, and the
school's first.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Coro follows:]
Prepared Statement of Susana Coro
Good morning. I want to thank the Chairwoman of the subcommittee,
Senator Mikulski, and the Ranking Member of the subcommittee, Senator
Burr, for inviting me to testify today. I also want to thank the other
members of the subcommittee for listening to my story.
My name is Susana Coro. I am married and we have two children, Max
who is 7 years old and Yadida who is 4. For 10 years, I was a nanny to
a family with an autistic child. I've always been good with children
and the family sent me to have extra training to work with children
with special needs.
Over time when my son was a toddler, I came to think his speech was
not right. I looked everywhere for a center, but I thought to myself,
these were no places for my son. A friend told me about the Falls
Church/McLean Children's Center. She told me it was a great program--
accredited and 4 stars on Virginia's Quality Rating System. For months,
I went there and asked about openings. I literally begged them to take
my son.
Max was 3 when he started at the center. They helped me apply for
childcare assistance. They helped me contact the Infant & Toddler
Connection program under ChildFind in Fairfax County. Max was screened
and found eligible for speech services. The speech therapist came to
the center and worked with Max. The teachers at the center worked with
the speech therapist so they could better meet Max's needs as well.
There are so many things that I like about the center.
The staff are kind, professional, well-trained, and give
good advice to parents.
There aren't too many kids in the classrooms and each room
has three teachers.
The staff read to the children; there are lots of art
projects, a block area, a sand table, a housekeeping area; the staff
take the time to talk to each child, really connect with them.
At first, I was hired to work part-time in the center. When I was
promoted to full-time, the county called me. They said I made too much
money for subsidy. I didn't know what I was going to do. I didn't want
to move my children to a different program, but even making more money,
I could not afford the cost.
The director of the program told me not to worry. The Center raised
funds for special circumstances. She said they help families who lose
their childcare assistance, or who lose their jobs and need to look for
a new one. She said if I could pay the $800 that the monthly subsidy
would have paid, the center would cover the rest. The rates are $1,550
a month for 2-year-olds, $1,420 a month for preschool children. She
told me of the 70 children at the center, 45 are on subsidy at $800 a
month and the center pays the difference.
My daughter, Yadida is 4. I know this is a quality program for her.
We pay $800 a month for her and also another $325 for my son in SACC,
the school-age childcare program run by Fairfax County. If the center
did not give me a discount, my daughter would not be here. It makes no
sense that I could work in a program that I could not afford to send my
children.
I know that the Falls Church/Mclean Children's Center is a special
place and that most childcare centers cannot afford to subsidize the
families who participate. I feel lucky and I know my center is unique
in its ability to serve the community. I am thankful that they really
helped my son. And, now my daughter is at the center and she is really
happy. I am working toward my CDA. I know I will get it.
Getting a childcare subsidy not only helped me get my children into
a quality program, it really changed my life. Thank you.
The Chairman. We understand. We want to thank you, Ms.
Coro, for that pretty excellent testimony. You told us your
story and it was not easy. We thank you for being here. We
thank you for all the thought that you put into your
presentation. We thank you for the lessons learned that you
teach us here about this.
We also are a committee that believes you should reward
work and you should reward those people that want to have a
better life for themselves and for their children, and that if
you make a little bit more because of your own promotion,
because you can move up, or you earn because you get more hours
in what you do, you should not be penalized. And we need to
look how in our eligibility and so on that we acknowledge
people like yourself for the resources that we have, that we
don't punish people who are working and who are trying to
achieve both now and for their children tomorrow.
It took a lot to come here today and we want to acknowledge
your fortitude. I think that little boy and that little girl
should be very happy, not only because of the childcare that
they have, because the first provider of childcare is their
mother, and you're obviously a real advocate for them.
So thank you very much.
Ms. Coro. No, thank you.
The Chairman. We'll come back now and ask questions in a
minute. We're going to now turn to our panel and we'll have a
question for you.
Before I ask my questions, I'm going to be the wrap-up.
Senator Burr, do you want to have your questions, and then
we'll go to Senator Merkley? We welcome him today. Then I'll
have the last. I'll have the last word.
Senator Burr. I will do whatever the chairman instructs me
to do.
Janet, again thank you, and thank you to all the witnesses
for accommodating us today. Janet, if you will, can you talk
about why background checks are so important for the
population?
Ms. Singerman. As I said in my testimony, it is critical
that children in childcare are in safe settings. And background
checks are a mechanism of ensuring that those who work in
childcare are not in a position--aren't in a position to do
harm, haven't anything on their record that would place
children at risk. The responsibility I think we have through
childcare regulation and through criminal background checks is
to ensure that people who shouldn't be in settings with
children are not employed by those settings.
In our State, we recently passed legislation to improve our
criminal background checks for those who work in early care and
education settings in just this last session.
Senator Burr. Do you think most parents take for granted
that every State and every childcare facility does that?
Ms. Singerman. Absolutely. Absolutely, and there are
surveys that have been done that indicate just that.
Senator Burr. What are the common types of crimes that
exclude individuals in the North Carolina system from being
hired for childcare?
Ms. Singerman. Well, I have that here, but what we're
looking for are people who don't have violent offenses, there
aren't substantiated cases of child abuse and neglect. We don't
want to see sex offenders in childcare settings. We don't want
folks who have been involved in and engaged in behaviors that
really would put children at risk in those settings.
We want to see the use of fingerprints at the State level
and at the Federal level. We want to see that child abuse
registries are checked and sex offender registries are checked.
We want to use all of those mechanisms to screen out those
folks who really shouldn't be in childcare.
North Carolina has a screening process in place and last
year I believe it screened out more than 300 individuals from
working in childcare centers and childcare settings.
Senator Burr. From your life in childcare, if we didn't
have a criminal background check in North Carolina how many
people do you think additionally would try to be employed in
the field with a criminal history that would exclude them?
Ms. Singerman. I don't know that I can quantify it.
Senator Burr. Do you think some people never apply because
they----
Ms. Singerman. Absolutely. Absolutely.
Senator Burr. It's a deterrent just to have it.
Ms. Singerman. It is absolutely a deterrent to have a
criminal background check.
Senator Burr. I say this for my colleagues. It shocked me
when I checked to see how many States actually check the sex
offender registry. Only 31 States.
Ms. Singerman. That's right.
Senator Burr. Only 31 States check to see if an individual
has a sex offense charged against them.
Madam Chair, as we go through this reauthorization--and you
have been incredibly accommodating to me and supportive--I hope
that the one thing that we will not let get jettisoned is this
requirement for criminal background checks. I think it is
absolutely essential that our systems live up to what parents
believe they have today, but in reality many States aren't
there yet.
I also say this for the chair's purposes, and I think Janet
has alluded to this: North Carolina didn't reach the level of a
model for the country overnight. This has been in the work for
over a decade. In our expectations as we institute new goals,
requirements, in the reauthorization, we can't expect States to
start from 0 and end up at 64 percent next year. But it's
absolutely crucial that we have a starting point and that we
make a national commitment that safe and quality childcare is
available everywhere.
I think we're on the right track. I think we've got to get
this reauthorization through and, more importantly, we've got
to look at the future generations and know that not only will
they be safe, but a quality education will be somewhat like Ms.
Coro has described in the facility her children are in. I think
that's achievable in this legislation.
I thank the chair.
The Chairman. That was excellent. I just want to say to my
colleague from North Carolina that safety is the anchor to
quality. You cannot have quality unless parents feel confidence
in the facility and children feel safe and secure. For many
children, this will be one of the more safe and secure
environments that they're in. So believe me, I feel the same
sense of insistence that you do.
Senator Merkley.
Statement of Senator Merkley
Senator Merkley. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And thank you to all of you for the ideas you're presenting
on how we can strengthen our childcare system, which is so
important to working families.
Ms. Coro, you commented on the emphasis on the opportunity
that's created through the schools. It reminded me of my own
father, who as a working class parent, he took me down to the
school, he said: ``You go through those doors and you work
hard, here in America you can do almost anything.'' The fact
that you're carrying that message to your children is very,
very powerful.
I did want to ask a couple questions. In regard to, Mr.
Acord, you noted some points about Tennessee's requirement for
40 hours of training for new childcare staff. I wanted to ask a
couple details about that. Specifically, does it cover all the
childcare providers, including the family, friend, and neighbor
providers? And if so, in some cases do providers get assistance
in covering the costs of that training? And then, third, when
those providers are at training is there a system for kind of
covering them, especially in this family, friend, and neighbor
system, how the children would be cared for?
Mr. Acord. The training is actually paid for through the
CCDBG, so it is free to all early childhood educators, both
center and home care. At the end of the 30 hours they receive a
certificate verifying. And it's not just for the early
childhood educators. There's also a separate training developed
under that same path for the administrators, because
leadership, administration, is very important; and also for the
school-aged, those working with school-aged children.
So we've tried to look very comprehensively at what the
needs are out there in the early childhood community to make
sure that they have access to that. In some centers, yes, there
are funds available to pay for substitutes while they're
attending the training if it's during the course of the week.
Those trainings are also offered on weekends, too, Saturdays,
and sometimes at night.
So I think it's essential if you're looking at quality and
if you're looking at improving the industry in the area of
qualifications. That training also then is articulated into
hopefully helping the individual get a CDA and then articulated
into community colleges if they want to pursue an associate
degree, and then on to a BA degree, too.
Senator Merkley. So the training requirement is to cover
the family, friend, neighbor providers?
Mr. Acord. Yes, home providers, yes.
Senator Merkley. So when you talked about some centers
providing substitutes, are substitutes provided in that setting
also?
Mr. Acord. I'll find out about that. I'm not confident
whether they are in those particular settings. I know they are
in centers and in group homes. We have group homes, we have
family daycare homes, and then we have the unregulated, too.
Senator Merkley. Thank you all very much. I appreciate your
thoughtfulness in bringing these ideas forward.
Mr. Acord. Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Franken.
Senator Franken. Thank you, Madam Chair.
This is for anyone who thinks they have the answers to
these questions. With the tension between access and quality
that we're hearing as a constant refrain here, and also the
constant reference to fiscal restraint, just what percentage of
kids who need subsidies for childcare in this country receive
it?
Mr. Acord. Well, are you going to go for it? Go.
Ms. Singerman. One out of every six.
Mr. Acord. That's what I was going to say, too.
Ms. Singerman. One out of every six.
Senator Franken. OK, so one out of every six children who
needs subsidies. How do you define that? And then what
percentage of kids who need childcare get childcare?
Ms. Singerman. Well, there is the threshold of 85 percent
of State median income at the Federal level. In our State
childcare subsidy eligibility is up to 75 percent of the State
median income. So that would be the universe of children we're
talking about in terms of who is allowed to be eligible through
the Federal legislation.
Our agency serves as the childcare subsidy administrator
for Mecklenburg County, which is the single largest county
childcare subsidy program in North Carolina. We administer
about $43, $44 million of childcare subsidy funds, and we're
serving an average of just over 7,000 children monthly. Right
now we have over 4,000 children on our waiting list waiting to
be served. That's not the universe of eligible. Those are just
the families that have come to our door that presented as
eligible.
Senator Franken. How does this compare to European
countries? Does anybody know that?
Ms. Singerman. Entirely different systems.
Senator Franken. Well, I know it's an entirely different
system.
Mr. Acord. Some European countries, France for example,
it's available to everyone.
Senator Franken. Again, we've all agreed that early
childhood care is crucial to kids' intellectual development and
readiness to learn. So from infancy to age 3 an incredible part
of your intellectual development takes place. So we're talking
about our economy--let's just talk about our economy here.
Let's just go straight to it. Forget human beings. Let's just
talk about money.
Obviously, what I'm saying here is the reason that our kids
should be getting this high quality childcare is for their
intellectual development, for their readiness to go to
kindergarten so that they can become productive citizens.
That's one reason.
There's another reason, which is that kids are beautiful,
kids are wonderful.
Ms. Coro. Sir, can I say something?
Senator Franken. Yes.
Ms. Coro. Sorry. I think the earlier the kids start going
to learn something new is the best. When you said 2 to 3 years
is the more power time, you can teach whatever you want. That's
why I think the childcare or the pre-schools, if our kids start
early they're going to have better opportunities in their
lives.
I tell this because I know my son I read a lot to. I don't
have too much information, but I put in practice whatever I
learn. Whatever I learn, I put in practice on my kids. I know
my daughter, she is 4 years old, and she acts like 6 or 7 years
old because I teach her from when she started, 3 months to now.
She knows a lot. That's why I say, when you put your kids in
childcare and programs like the high quality, they learn a lot.
Senator Franken. Well, she's lucky to have you as a mom.
Ms. Coro. Thank you. But that's why I say to you----
Senator Franken. And she's lucky to be in----
Ms. Coro [continuing]. Please help us to put not only my
child, another child. I know we don't have enough money, but I
know you have the power, I say it again, you have the power to
try to find the way to help us.
Mr. Grafwallner. Senator Franken, I wanted to respond to
your question also. Two years ago in 2010, UNESCO issued a
report that gets to the question that you raised as to what are
the benchmarks and how do States rank within the OECD countries
on 10 benchmarks in terms of quality and access to early
childhood education. The United States meets 3 of those 10. At
the very top are Finland and the Scandinavian countries.
England is somewhere in the middle.
Senator Franken. And we know that Finland has, among the
OECD countries, the highest, along I guess with South Korea,
the highest academic achievement, and it's probably no
accident.
I know my time is up. I want to thank you for your
commitment to this work, and I wish that we made this
commitment to this work, because I think that our Nation's
future is very much tied up--I think it's obvious--is tied up
with this issue of access to quality childcare. I wish we would
wake up.
Thank you.
The Chairman. First of all, I really want to thank the
panel, each and every one of you. For those of you who have
administrative responsibility, the creativity that you've had
to meet really compelling human need and the challenges both
fiscally, a changing society, where there's less social network
at the grassroots level, less family support, all of your work
has been quite ingenious.
We thank you for your ideas and recommendations. It goes
along with the keeping, I know shared by Senator Burr and
myself, which is that the best ideas come from the people.
Now, I have a question for the three administrators before
I come back to Ms. Coro. Tell me what is the waiting list in
your States for childcare, these childcare subsidies? Rolf?
Mr. Grafwallner. Yes. It's a serious issue. We right now
have a waiting list since March 2011 and it's approaching
20,000 families that cannot access the program.
The Chairman. OK. I just want to keep going down. So it's
20,000 in Maryland. Tennessee?
Mr. Acord. In Tennessee, as I said in my testimony, now
we're using CCDBG funds to only support recipients who are in
TANF. So that means no working poor. If I have a parent who
comes to me with a job that doesn't qualify----
The Chairman. I understand that. So tell me what is the
official----
Mr. Acord. Well, the last when we were keeping records it
was like 37,000.
The Chairman. OK.
Ms. Singerman.
Ms. Singerman. 37,600.
The Chairman. Could you use the microphone, please?
Ms. Singerman. More than 30,000.
The Chairman. So it's roughly 20,000 or 30,000 in each
State. Then in a State like Tennessee, we go against
essentially an American value. The American value--that's not
meant to be accusatory or snarky. The fact is that in our
society we want to reward work, we want to reward initiative.
We're in a society that says we need to give tax breaks to
billionaires because we want to reward their entrepreneurship.
Well, there are family entrepreneurs, getting up every day,
doing strenuous jobs at very often modest pay. So the fact that
it would be limited to TANF--and again, I don't want to get
into each State and the Governor and the legislature. But I
believe that one of the things that we need to do in our bill
is to look at eligibility. One, let's not do it every year;
let's put money into childcare, not into childcare bureaucracy
for eligibility, which gives us no value.
The second thing is, though, to really reward work and the
ups and downs in a wage earner's salary. You could be a
certified nursing assistant in a long-term care facility, get
more hours. There might have been something where you've got a
lot of overtime. It skews your eligibility for a very short
period of time.
The other is we want to reward those people who start out
maybe with a GED, had that chance to go to the community
college, be able to move up in a supervisory role, but they're
not going to be making $75,000, $85,000, $125,000. So we need
to have, I think, flexibility.
We know that we don't want to get into a big fight over the
States, but I do think we need to reward work and going to work
and then for those who within work want to improve their
situation.
Would you say that that has to be one of the ways also we
bring good people into childcare, good people into serving
long-term care, particularly in the human service field?
Tremendous pent-up demand for home health care. So these are
jobs out there, but people who are working need some help, that
while they're helping others they need help for themselves. Am
I correct in that?
Mr. Acord. Right, you're correct.
The Chairman. Now, let me go to you, Rolf. I'd like to
share with the committee and have on the record, the Judy
Center. The Judy Center is a facility that I visited, and you
were there that day. It was a great day. This is a program that
was initiated by the State of Maryland under the advice of Judy
Hoyer, Congressman Hoyer's wife, and they've become some great
models.
This in my mind is the ideal. Would you describe what it is
and how much it costs per child to actually have a Judy Center
or a center, so that we get kind of a benchmark? We've been
looking at the bare minimums. What would be a model for
essentially the dream team?
Mr. Grafwallner. Thank you. Envision the Judy Centers as a
Title 1 school that enters into a formal partnership with its
early childhood programs that are located in the attendance
area of the Title 1 school. So that includes childcare
programs, family childcare centers. It includes Head Start, it
includes home visiting programs, family support programs, and
so on, and of course programs that are supporting children with
disabilities.
They are all coming together to basically make sure that
children from birth to entering, at the time when they enter
school, are fully prepared for school success. There are a lot
of things that go into that that not only relate to the early
learning and to the child development, but also to the support
to families. It's really a dual generation kind of, two
generation kind of approach.
What that does, it does coordinate not only the services,
but it also leverages funding for making the best condition for
a child to grow up in and supporting the family as well as the
children. It's a very focused approach and what we have seen is
very beneficial outcomes for children. Especially English
language learners benefit from this environment.
The actual resources that we put in at the State level for
each of these 25 Judy Centers we have at the State, impacting
40 elementary schools, is $320,000. That's an enhancement, but
what it does, it coalesces the groups that work together in the
partnership and basically taps in all the funding sources that
already exist.
The Chairman. It pulls everything together.
Mr. Grafwallner. Yes.
The Chairman. So it's $300,000 in addition to what?
Mr. Grafwallner. In addition to the existing funding
streams that come from Head Start, from pre-kindergarten, from
childcare. And in many instances the $300,000 do support
families in emergency situations, in crisis, and that sort of
thing, but it primarily goes toward the actual coordination, to
having a coordinator and a family support worker at the school
to work with the families and for the coordinator----
The Chairman. So it leverages it. It deals with those
populations, Mr. Acord, that you deal with, the non-traditional
hour person. In my observation, the non-traditional hour people
either work in public safety--they're police officers, they
could be working in other areas--or they're involved in the
delivery of health, some form of health care, nursing homes. Am
I correct in that assessment?
Mr. Acord. Yes, you are correct. Police officers, health
care workers, retail workers, fast food workers. I mean, every
time you go out after 6 o'clock to a meal or to get a service,
look at the person who's helping you and wonder where their
child is. So extended hours. We operate 24 hours, 7 days a
week, 365 days a year, and still charge on a sliding fee scale.
But we have to go out there and raise over $600,000 a year
ourselves to supplement that, because we're not able to get the
help because of the reduction in the CCDBG subsidy and
Tennessee not offering to the working poor now. You're exactly
right, it's contrary to the intent, I think, of what CCDBG was
all about, and that is helping find quality childcare for
working parents.
The Chairman. And that was one of its original initiatives.
Mr. Acord. Absolutely.
The Chairman When we were working on welfare reform with
President Bill Clinton, and our viewpoint was that welfare--
when President Clinton said he wanted to end welfare as we knew
it, he did not want a punitive approach, but an empowering
approach. His whole philosophy, which we worked on--Senator
Moynihan, Kennedy, me--to move people from welfare to work and
to make work worth it by these supportive systems, which I
think we've got to get back to.
Well, the time is coming to a close. Ms. Singerman, did you
want to add anything, and then I want to go to Ms. Coro.
Ms. Singerman. No. I thank you very much for the
opportunity.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Ms. Coro, I'm chairing this committee. You said that I have
the power. We do have power, but I believe in the power of the
people and the power of the grassroots. So I think the last
word should belong to a mother. So in your last words to the
Congress of the United States of America, we invite you to have
the last word at this hearing. What would you like to say to
wrap up?
Ms. Coro. I would like to say we need support from the
Senators for help to raise our kids, especially in the schools.
We work very hard. We don't have to--we don't have to--sorry, I
can't say it. I have many things in my head.
The Chairman. Just take your time. So you work hard.
Ms. Coro. We work hard.
The Chairman. And also----
Ms. Coro. We want the best for our kids, not only for me,
for my kids. We want for every kid in this country. I know this
country has a lot of things to do and improve our lives. That's
why always we come to you. You represent us. You can go to talk
with more people and make the decision. Please help our
children to be successful in this life.
The Chairman. Well, thank you very much, Ms. Coro. I think
that is an appropriate last word, which is: Don't forget the
children, and in a great country that should have a great
future, the biggest public investment is in our own people. So
thank you for what you do.
I really want to thank the people who appeared today and
all that you represent. You know, we have 50 States and
territories. We have military bases. We really want to thank
those who every day in every way get up and think about this,
think about what they can do to expand access within these
budget constraints. We need to think as hard and work as hard
as you. So thank you for what you do.
We look forward to working with all of you. Please feel
free to submit additional remarks or additions based on what
you heard. We're going to leave the record open for 10 days,
and the hearing of the Subcommittee on Children and Families is
recessed subject to the call of the chair.
[Additional material follows.]
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Prepared Statement of Senator Casey
Madam Chair, thank you for convening this hearing to
continue our discussions on reauthorization of the Child Care
and Development Block Grant (CCDBG). I would like to thank your
staff as well, whom I know have been putting a lot of time and
effort into this reauthorization.
While CCDBG is, first and foremost, a work support program
providing parents with the peace of mind that their children
have a place to go while the parents are at work, we have
learned so much about child development since 1996, when the
program was last reauthorized. CCDBG is still providing that
fundamental support for lower-income working families, but it
is also about ensuring that children are in a safe and
stimulating environment that is conducive to their healthy
development.
As Senator Mikulski discussed in her opening statement, the
focus of this hearing, which is the third she has chaired on
this critically important topic, is about how we can improve
the quality of care that children receiving CCDBG subsidies
receive, without sacrificing access. In other words, how can we
encourage States to pursue high quality childcare in
conjunction with creating access to childcare?
While I think we should be making a larger Federal
investment in childcare, I am well aware of our Nation's fiscal
reality. So we need to be smarter with our investments, making
sure that every dollar we invest in childcare is well-spent.
The first years of a child's life are critical to her future
development; we cannot afford to ignore the importance of
quality care in the early years.
Like many Senators on this subcommittee, I have introduced
legislation to advance our discussion of what Federal support
of childcare for lower income working parents should look like.
My bill, the Starting Early, Starting Right Act, touches on the
need to improve the quality of childcare by requiring childcare
providers who are licensed or registered to participate in 40
hours of training before they work with children as well as 24
hours on an ongoing annual basis; improving access to high
quality care for infants and toddlers by setting aside 30
percent of the bill's funding for this underserved group of
children; and encouraging more States to adopt quality rating
provisions, such as the successful Pennsylvania STARS program,
which give providers benchmarks as well as resources to
continually improve the quality of childcare.
It is my understanding that key stakeholders have developed
an understanding that certain issues must be addressed within
this context, like establishing basic health and safety
standards for providers accepting Federal subsidies and
improving coordination between all early childhood programs,
including CCDBG, Head Start and State pre-kindergarten
programs. I believe that these are critical elements of this
reauthorization, and I am pleased that we are starting from
such a strong place of agreement. I hope that this is
indicative of a determination among my colleagues to continue
working together to draft a strong reauthorization of CCDBG.
I appreciate the attention Senator Mikulski has shown
toward CCDBG reauthorization. I look forward to hearing the
testimony of the witnesses today, and to continuing our work to
reauthorize CCDBG.
Prepared Statement of the American Public Human Services Association
(APHSA), Submitted by Tracy L. Wareing, Executive Director, American
Public Human Services Association; and Linda Saterfield, Chair,
National Association of State Child Care Administrators
Chairman Mikulski, Ranking Member Burr, and Honorable Members of
the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee on
Children and Families, on behalf of the American Public Human Services
Association (APHSA) and its affiliate, the National Association of
State Child Care Administrators (NASCCA), we respectfully submit this
statement for the record and urge Congress to reauthorize the Child
Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) as a key priority.
NASCCA represents the 50-state lead agencies responsible for the
administration of the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) law. The
CCDF program provides a vital economic and work support for America's
families while simultaneously ensuring that today's children are
prepared to be tomorrow's leaders. States have been able to use CCDF
funds to improve childcare quality and achieve better outcomes.
However, Federal childcare funding levels have not aligned with program
needs and the expenditures related to childcare costs. This has become
extremely problematic for States, especially with rises in inflation
and budget cuts. For years, States have faced challenges with achieving
an appropriate balance for providing high-quality childcare and
maximizing access.
NASCCA's recommendations for CCDBG call for State flexibility;
improving quality; expanding access and promoting continuity of care;
strengthening program integrity; and ensuring a seamless approach for
better coordination among early childhood programs through alignment of
program goals and priorities. The focus should be on gainful employment
and sustained child well-being, which are the outcomes we seek and that
a revitalized human service system can achieve as outlined in APHSA's
Pathways: The Opportunities Ahead for Human Services.\1\ We recommend
the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ American Public Human Services Association (2012). Pathways:
The Opportunities Ahead for Human Services. http://www.aphsa.org/
Policy/pathways.asp.
1. Provide adequate funds to ensure access and promote continuity
of care. In addition, adjust CCDF funds to keep pace with inflation
using the Consumer Price Index. This would minimize service disruptions
and expand the number of eligible children and families needing
services. CCDF should support a broader concept of work, education, and
self-sufficiency along with stability for children.\2\ Adequate support
for flexible mechanisms, like CCDF, is needed to better align with
program needs and current expenditures to ensure families' access to
childcare and stable childcare arrangements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Urban Institute (2010). Child Care Instability: Definitions,
Context and Policy Implications. G. Adams and M. Rohacek. http://
www.urban.org/publications/412278.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States must have the ability to ensure that subsidies' purchasing
power reflects the current costs of childcare. However, funding
constraints have added pressure on States to make policy changes and
tightly monitor eligibility. According to a 2005-09 U.S. Census Bureau
survey, approximately 15 million, or 62 percent of children under age
6, potentially are in need of childcare. Providing States with
additional Federal resources and adjusting mandatory CCDF funds to be
annually indexed for inflation would immediately address this problem.
Maintain CCDBG's flexibility so States can leverage Federal dollars
to meet the unique needs of children and families served by CCDF.
Decisions on programmatic and financing eligibility and authorization
are best made on a local or State level and based on families'
employment needs and children's developmental needs. State childcare
policies can be designed to address the dynamics of urban and rural
communities and meet the economic priorities of individual States.
National data on the characteristics of families served do not
accurately capture the degree of variation among States.\3\ However,
States can use CCDF funds and other Federal funding streams to the best
advantage of both recipients and the larger stakeholder community.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2012).
Characteristics of Families Served by Child Care and Development Fund
(CCDF) Based on Preliminary FY 2010 Data. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/
programs/ccb/data/ccdf_data/data_fact_sheet.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Health and Human Services fiscal year 2010 data show that
approximately 1.7 million children and 998,600 families per month
received childcare assistance.\4\ This represents 18 percent of those
eligible. In addition, an estimated 2.6 million children were served
using additional funding sources such as the Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF) program direct spending on childcare, Social
Services Block Grant, and excess TANF Maintenance-of-Effort childcare
expenditures. The flexibility to blend these funding streams has
afforded States the ability to expand access, improve quality, and
serve additional eligible children that CCDF could not support.
However, should sequestration occur, Federal childcare funding would be
reduced by approximately $177.7 million in fiscal year 2013, serving
about 80,000 fewer children in that year.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Ibid.
\5\ U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee Majority Staff (2012).
Under Threat: Sequestration's Impact on Non-Defense Jobs and Services.
Sen. Tom Harkin, Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on
Labor, Health, Human Services, Education and Other Related Agencies.
http://harkin.senate.gov/documents/pdf/500ff 3554f 9ba.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Raise the quality set-aside, and blend targeted funds within the
set-aside, so States can flexibly invest in quality improvement systems
and other changes that promote quality. The Administration for Children
and Families' (ACF) fiscal year 2012 Budget reports that in fiscal year
2009, States spent approximately $988 million or 11 percent of CCDBG
funds on quality improvement activities, which exceeds the statutory
quality spending requirement. Raising the set-aside and blending the
targeted funds (i.e., infant and toddler care, school-aged care, and
childcare resource and referral services) can help States maximize
quality investments and strengthen standards. This should be blended
with additional discretionary funds and incentives to improve childcare
workforce, health, and safety standards including those involving
nutrition and physical activity, early learning guidelines, and quality
rating and improvement systems.
States view these elements of quality as interconnected, and
continuously work to ensure that the right mix is provided to address
the specific needs of children and families in their communities.
Limited resources have affected the ability of State and local agencies
to achieve high quality in all programs, but their efforts continue
with an emphasis on leveraging resources across programs and sectors.
Results from a 1996 Princeton University survey on childcare costs
and quality suggest that raising quality by 25 percent (from mediocre
to good) would increase the total variable costs about 10 percent--that
is, by 13 cents per child per hour or about $300 per child per year.
For a childcare center of average size, this would mean an increase of
$18,000 per year.\6\ We know that these figures have grown since the
1996 CCDBG reauthorization. However, there is a need for further
research on the correlation between quality childcare, its cost, and
other economic variables based on the current environment.\7\ Giving
States the flexibility to establish subsidy payment rates on factors
other than a market rate survey could help States better ensure equal
access for eligible children to comparable services as children not
eligible for subsidy. States need adequate resources to stabilize the
current supply of quality care, and not be forced to pay for improved
quality by reducing the number of children served.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Princeton University. Child Care Costs and Quality (1996).
Helburn, S., and C. Hows. http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/
publications/docs/06_02_03.pdf.
\7\ Troy University (2012). Child Care in the American South:
Poverty, Costs and Quality. V. Collins. http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v14n1/
collins.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Consolidate and streamline Federal standards and requirements
that focus on improving quality in early learning programs to reduce
inefficiencies and duplication of efforts. For many children,
especially those considered low-income, early care and education
involve enrollment in programs such as home visiting, subsidized
childcare, Early Head Start, and Head Start and Pre-Kindergarten.
Collaboration and coordination between the human service and education
sectors for these early learning programs can foster effective
alignment of early learning standards and promote school readiness and
preparation for kindergarten entry.
The Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge has supported States'
efforts to align school readiness standards and integrate early care
and education programs to improve quality. However, there are currently
minimal Federal dollars available for all States to successfully meet
these standards and receive adequate technical assistance to move
programs in this direction.
4. Policies must support accountability that enables continuous
quality improvement and provide accurate means for evaluating State
performance. The CCDF State Plan should be amended and submitted tri-
annually to avoid duplication and allow adequate time for program
improvements and implementation of new Federal initiatives. An increase
in CCDF administrative funds could be used to improve data systems.
Compliance with additional reporting requirements other than those
specified in statute should be on a voluntary basis.
Furthermore, there must be a shift toward incentivizing positive
performance throughout State childcare systems. Improper Payments
Information Act desk audit reviews must be improved to capture accuracy
and performance based on the uniqueness of State systems and the
flexible practices that the block grant allows. This shift in focus
must also allow States to maintain authority to design program
integrity strategies, seek ACF technical assistance, and focus on
broader initiatives that improve the detection and reduction of
improper payments.
We look forward to working with Congress on these recommendations.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit our comments and for your
interest in reauthorizing CCDBG. If you have any questions, please
contact Rashida Brown at (202) 682-0100 x225 or
[email protected].
Prepared Statement of Helen Blank, Director of Child Care and Early
Learning, National Women's Law Center
Childcare is an essential support for children and families. It has
two important goals: helping families work and helping children
succeed. These are equally important and interrelated. When parents do
better, children do better. There is also strong evidence that when
low-income children participate in high-quality early learning
programs, it increases their chances of succeeding in school and in
life.
For families, the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) is
a lifeline that allows them to work and their children to learn.
Despite the benefits of providing help with childcare costs, only one
out of six children eligible for Federal childcare assistance received
it in 2006.\1\ The unmet need has likely grown as the number of low-
income families has increased while the number of children receiving
childcare assistance has stagnated or decreased. Without additional
investments, the number of children able to receive childcare
assistance is projected to decline next year to the lowest level since
1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Human
Services Policy, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and
Evaluation, Estimates of Child Care Eligibility and Receipt for Fiscal
Year 2006 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, 2010), available at http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/10/cc-
eligibility/ib.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many families who need help paying for childcare are unable to
receive it because their States set restrictive eligibility criteria or
place eligible families on waiting lists. One-third of States set their
income limits to qualify for assistance at 150 percent of poverty or
lower, and two-thirds of States set their income limits to qualify for
assistance at 200 percent of poverty or lower,\2\ even though studies
show that families in most communities need an income level at least
this high to meet their basic needs.\3\ In 22 States, families who
apply for childcare assistance are placed on waiting lists for
assistance or are turned away without having their names placed on a
list.\4\ Some of these lists are exceedingly long. For example, in
Florida, the waiting list is over 75,000 children.\5\ Maryland's
waiting list is almost 19,000 children.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Karen Schulman and Helen Blank, State Child Care Assistance
Policies 2011: Reduced Support for Families in Challenging Times,
available at http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/
state_child_care_assistance_policies_report2011_final.pdf. [hereinafter
State Child Care Assistance Policies 2011]
\3\ National Women's Law Center analysis of data from Economic
Policy Institute, Basic Family Budget Spreadsheets (2007), available at
http://www.epi.org/pages/budget_calculator_intro
/; and from James Lin and Jared Bernstein, What We Need to Get By
(Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute, 2008), available at http://
www.epi.org/publications/entry/bp224/; Sylvia Allegretto, Basic Family
Budgets: Working Families' Incomes Often Fail to Meet Living Expenses
Around the U.S. (Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute, 2005),
available at http://www.epi.org/page/-/old/briefingpapers/165/
bp165.pdf.
\4\ State Child Care Assistance Policies 2011.
\5\ National Women's Law Center, Child Care Fact Sheet: Additional
Child Care Funding is Essential to Stop State Cuts (July 2012)
available at http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/
childcarecutsfactsheetjuly2012.pdf.
\6\ Email from Debbie Moore, Senior Policy Analyst, Maryland Family
Network, to Helen Blank, Director of Child Care and Early Learning,
National Women's Law Center (July 19, 2012) (on file with NWLC)..
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research is clear that parents are more likely to work when they
have reliable childcare, and they find it challenging to work when they
do not. Simply put, helping families pay for childcare makes it more
likely they can get and keep a job. Several past waiting list studies
indicate that without childcare assistance, parents turned to welfare.
In a 1998 study of parents waiting for childcare assistance in Santa
Clara County, CA, about 40 percent reported that they had given up
looking for work because they could not find affordable childcare.\7\
In North Carolina, about one out of four families on the State's
waiting list for childcare help had lost or had to quit their job while
waiting for assistance, according to a 1998 study.\8\ One-quarter of
the families on the waiting list for childcare assistance in Hennepin
County, MN turned to welfare in order to survive, according to a 1995
study.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Casey Coonerty and Tamsin Levy, Waiting for Child Care: How Do
Parents Adjust to Scarce Options in Santa Clara County? (Berkeley, CA:
Policy Analysis for California Education, 1998).
\8\ Jeffrey D. Lyons, Susan D. Russell, Christina Gilgor, and Amy
H. Staples, Child Care Subsidy: The Costs of Waiting (Chapel Hill, NC:
Day Care Services Association, 1998).
\9\ Greater Minneapolis Day Care Association, Valuing Families: The
High Cost of Waiting for Child Care Sliding Fee Assistance
(Minneapolis, MN: Greater Minneapolis Day Care Association, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research also provides substantial evidence that access to
childcare assistance increases the likelihood that parents are employed
and that they may remain employed for longer periods of time. One study
found that across both rural and urban counties in Oregon, families who
used childcare assistance had relatively stable employment over a 3-
year period.\10\ Parents who receive childcare subsidies appear to work
longer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Elizabeth E. Davis, Deana Grobe, and Roberta B. Weber,
``Rural-urban differences in childcare subsidy use and employment
stability,'' Applied Economics Perspectives and Policies, 32(1), 2010,
135-53.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Helping parents afford childcare so they can work and earn income
is important because family income can have a major effect on children
as they grow. A study found a relationship between an increase in
family income and children's achievement--the results suggested that a
$1,000 increase in a low-income family's annual income increased young
children's achievement by 5 to 6 percent of a standard deviation.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Greg J. Duncan, Pamela A. Morris, and Chris Rodrigues, ``Does
money really matter? Estimating impacts of family income on young
children's achievement with data from random-
assignment experiments,'' Developmental Psychology, 47 (5), 2011, 1263-
79.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to helping families pay for childcare and go to work,
CCDBG quality dollars undergird early childhood systems in the States,
supporting families at all income levels. The quality dollars help fund
T.E.A.C.H. and other programs that assist childcare teachers with the
cost of going to school and attaining credentials as well as reward
them for their efforts. The quality dollars are also used to support
the monitoring of childcare programs to ensure children's health and
safety. In addition, the quality set-aside supports resource and
referral services to help families searching for care and to assist
community childcare providers; helps purchase basic materials, books,
and equipment for family childcare homes and centers; and assists in
the costs associated with starting and operating quality rating and
improvement systems.
The quality of childcare that programs and providers can offer is
not only linked to the quality set-aside but also inextricably tied to
the reimbursement rates they receive for children receiving childcare
assistance. The decline in reimbursement rates is extremely troubling.
As of February 2011, only three States paid rates at the federally
recommended level, the 75th percentile of current market rates,
compared to 22 States in 2001.\12\ While 31 States report that they pay
higher rates for higher-quality care, or tiered rates, in approximately
four-fifths of these States, the reimbursement rate at even the highest
quality is below the 75th percentile of current market rates.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ State Child Care Assistance Policies 2011.
\13\ State Child Care Assistance Policies 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There continues to be, as a result of inadequate investment in
childcare, a constant tension between serving more eligible children
and improving quality.
Given the importance of safe and affordable childcare to the two
critical goals of helping parents work and support their children and
ensuring that children have the early learning and after school
experiences they need to succeed, national and State organizations have
developed an Agenda for High-Quality Affordable Child Care (available
here: www.nwlc.org/childcareagenda) that would put the Nation on the
path toward developing the early childhood system our children and
families deserve.
In a reauthorization that would be a small step toward these goals,
yet incur less cost than the more expansive Agenda, we would recommend:
Strategies to ensure continuity of care for families and
children that support parents' work and children's healthy development
by requiring States to:
Establish a 1-year eligibility determination period
that is in effect, regardless of a change in parent's income or
work status.
Establish a higher exit eligibility level that allows
families to stay on childcare assistance even if their incomes
grow to exceed the initial eligibility limit.
Ensure that payment practices for childcare providers
reflect generally accepted payment policies that providers use
for their private-pay parents.
Strategies to expand low-income children's access to
higher-quality childcare by requiring States to:
Develop and implement strategies to increase the
supply and improve the quality of childcare in underserved
areas such as higher payment rates and bonuses, direct
contracting, grants, or other means of increasing the supply of
high-quality care in particular areas of the State or for
particular categories of children such as care in low-income
and rural areas, care for infants and toddlers, school-age
children, children with disabilities and other special needs,
and children in families with limited English proficiency, and
care during non-standard hours, if shortages of these types of
care are identified, and report annually to the Secretary of
Health and Human Services on how these strategies are being
used to expand the supply of care.
Demonstrate efforts to coordinate Early Head Start,
Head Start, State-and locally funded pre-kindergarten and
childcare assistance in order to encourage full-day, full-year
programs.
Demonstrate that initiatives to improve the quality
of childcare give priority to providers and programs in which a
significant share of children served are low-income (or receive
federally funded childcare assistance) and include sufficient
financial and other resources to support strategies that help
providers at all levels of quality improve, including increased
rates linked to the quality of a provider or program,
initiatives to support the education of teachers tied to
increased compensation, and ongoing financial resources to
providers to improve the quality of care.
Strategies to make special efforts to address the shortage
of high-quality childcare for infants and toddlers by:
Permanently authorizing a minimum of $106.8 million
or 5 percent of CCDBG discretionary funds (whichever is larger)
for supports to programs serving infants and toddlers, as
described in S. 3436.
Strategies to focus on the need to provide adequate
reimbursement rates to programs by:
Requiring the Department of Health and Human Services
to provide technical assistance to States on alternative
payment mechanisms, developing and conducting statically valid
and reliable market rate surveys, and identifying acceptable
approaches to use in developing and conducting market rate
surveys to reflect cost variations by geography, age of
children, children with disabilities and other special needs,
children with limited English proficiency, hours of operation
including non-standard hours, and provider type. HHS would also
provide information on alternate costing mechanisms to help
States begin to tie rates to the cost of implementing quality
standards and/or within tiers, beginning with licensing.
Strategies to strengthen the childcare workforce by
requiring States to create a plan for integrated professional
development system that includes:
Professional standards that specify the
qualifications, content of education and ongoing development of
early childhood education professionals.
Career pathways of routes of continuous progress for
early childhood professionals to achieve increased
qualifications, understand professional opportunities, and to
receive appropriate compensation.
Articulation/transfer of professional development
credentials, courses, credits, degrees, and student
performance-based competencies.
An advisory structure to examine needs and provide
policy recommendations.
Workforce data to gauge impacts and system change and
inform planning and to use in evaluation and quality assurance,
including all settings.
Financing of the integrated professional development
system, including supports for programs, individuals, and the
system's infrastructure.
This system shall promote access to training, professional
development and education (including initial and ongoing professional
development) for all types of providers. Barriers such as costs, hours
of work for providers, language, and culture shall be taken into
account; and public financing shall be included.
Strategies to ensure that children have the early help
they need to succeed by requiring States to demonstrate efforts to
increase developmental screening for children.
Strategies to ensure that children are protected by
requiring States to:
Require comprehensive State and Federal criminal
background checks that are done in a timely fashion and that
are portable from program to program. Providers cannot be
charged more than $40 in combined fees for application and
administration of the checks. These must include an appropriate
appeals process, and other protections.
Inspect and monitor all licensed and regulated
providers at least twice a year, one unannounced and one
announced, one to address health and safety and one to address
issues affecting quality.
Strategies to ensure that there is coordination among
early childhood programs by requiring States to:
Submit the State plan for CCDBG to the State Advisory
Council on Early Care and Education for comment before the plan
is submitted to HHS for funding. The plan must describe
coordination among childcare, Head Start, State pre-
kindergarten programs, State-funded infant and toddler systems,
home visiting, and the Early Intervention Program for Infants
and Toddlers with Disabilities (Part C) and Preschool Grants
for Children with Disabilities (part B, section 619) under the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, including the ways
in which Federal and State resources are to be used to help
childcare providers meet the State pre-kindergarten
requirements and to help children enrolled in part-day pre-
kindergarten programs receive full-day services as needed.
Strategies to ensure that the numbers of families
receiving childcare assistance and reimbursement rates for providers do
not decline by requiring States to guarantee that they will at a
minimum maintain the number of children receiving federally funded
childcare assistance as of fiscal year 2008 and reimbursement rates
paid to childcare providers receiving Federal childcare funds as of
fiscal year 2008.
Establishing the Child Care Facilities Financing Act
authorizing the Secretary of HHS to award competitive grants to
eligible entities to deposit into childcare capital funds for technical
and financial assistance to eligible childcare providers to pay the
costs of acquisition, construction, or improvement of childcare
facilities or equipment, or for technical assistance to such providers
to help undertake facilities improvement and expansion.
Prepared Statement of Hannah Matthews, Director of Child Care and Early
Education, Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP)
Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony for the record on
this important topic. CLASP develops and advocates for policies at the
Federal, State, and local levels that strengthen families and create
pathways to education and work to improve the lives of low-income
people. Our childcare and early education work promotes policies that
support both child development and the needs of low-income working
parents.
Childcare subsidies make quality childcare more affordable, support
the healthy development of children, and help low-income parents access
the childcare they need to go to work or to school to support their
families.
The Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) is the largest
source of childcare assistance funding and helps nearly 1 million low-
income families. Childcare assistance makes a critical difference as to
whether they are able to go to work each day, and it makes a difference
for the quality of their children's care. In 2010, the latest year data
are available, nearly half of these families had incomes below the
Federal poverty level (about $18,310 for a family of three in 2010),
and nearly all (93 percent) received help because they were working or
in training or education programs.
Decades of research show that childcare assistance helps stabilize
employment and leads to increased earnings, making a difference in the
economic health and security of families.\1\ Access to subsidies allows
working poor families to use their limited income to meet other basic
needs such as food, rent, and household utilities. When low-income
families receive help meeting childcare costs they are more likely to
enter and remain in the workforce and may work more hours. For example,
a study of a representative sample of low-income single mothers found
that receipt of childcare subsidies increased the probability of
employment by 15 percent.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Matthews, Child Care Assistance Helps Families Work: A Review
of the Effects of Subsidy Receipt on Employment, CLASP, 2006, http://
www.clasp.org/publications/ccassistance_employ
ment.pdf.
\2\ Erdal Tekin, Child Care Subsidy Receipt, Employment and Child
Care Choices of Single Mothers, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Childcare subsidies benefit children as well. Subsidies make
quality childcare more affordable. Most children (80 percent) receiving
CCDBG assistance are cared for in licensed settings with the majority
(66 percent) in center-based care. These children are more likely to
experience stability in their care arrangements, which support healthy
development. Without a subsidy, many low-income families are unable to
afford even minimal quality childcare, and they surely cannot afford
settings that foster healthy development and early learning to close
the achievement gap.
As recent as last month, new research published in the Child
Development journal confirmed the importance of childcare subsidies for
working families. Families receiving childcare assistance accessed
better quality care than the care accessed by comparable families who
were unable to get help.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Johnson, Ryan, and Brooks-Gunn, ``Child-Care Subsidies: Do They
Impact the Quality of Care Children Experience?'' Child Development,
June 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be sure, there is room for improvement in the program. Stagnant
funding for the block grant has led States to design their childcare
programs in ways that make accessing quality childcare difficult for
families. Rates paid to providers are far below the federally
recommended levels, making it difficult for providers to support the
costs of providing quality care. States have restricted income
eligibility and other policies in order to manage funding shortfalls.
Fundamental policy changes could be made in the program that would
improve continuity for children and their parents.
Given the strong research base of the critical role childcare
assistance plays in helping low-income parents find and retain work and
the benefits that affordable quality care has for children, it's
critical that any improvements not be made at the expense of reducing
access to childcare assistance, particularly as the country continues
to recover from the Great Recession. Even at current funding levels,
only one in six federally eligible children receive assistance. More
resources for childcare assistance are greatly needed.
essential improvements for reauthorization
CLASP supports the following policy recommendations, developed by a
coalition of national organizations, Essential Improvements to the
Child Care and Development Block Grant. While not without costs, these
improvements would help stabilize families receiving assistance,
improve the quality of care for more low-income children, and support
caregivers in providing higher quality care.
Many of the below recommendations would improve the continuity of
care for children, supporting positive child development and parental
employment. Provisions such as requiring inspections for childcare
programs, training for providers, and stronger professional development
systems would provide basic health and safety assurances and increase
the quality of available childcare. Strategies such as expanding higher
quality care in low income and underserved areas are vital to making
quality childcare available to additional high needs children. Finally,
policies that make it easier for families to keep subsidies, such as 1
year eligibility, and better coordination between childcare and Head
Start and State pre-kindergarten would improve both families' access to
the program and strengthen the early childhood system as a whole.
Essential Improvements to the Child Care and Development Block Grant
The goals of this subchapter are to support States in ensuring that
children receive high-quality childcare/early learning and after-school
experiences in developmentally supportive, safe and healthy settings
and that low-income parents receive the assistance they need to afford
childcare so they can work or participate in education, training, or
other activities that will enable them to work.
States will be required within 3 years from the date of enactment
to:
Require comprehensive State and Federal criminal
background checks that are done in a timely fashion and are portable
from program to program. Providers cannot be charged more than $40 in
combined fees for application and administration of the checks. These
must include an appropriate appeals process, and other protections.
Inspect and monitor all licensed and regulated providers
at least twice a year, one unannounced and one announced: one to
address health and safety and one to address issues affecting quality.
Create an integrated professional development system that
includes (1) professional standards that specify the qualifications,
content of education and ongoing development of early childhood
education professionals; (2) career pathways of routes of continuous
progress for early childhood professionals to achieve increased
qualifications, understand professional opportunities, and be
appropriately compensated; (3) articulation/transfer of professional
development credentials, courses, credits, degrees and student
performance-based competencies; (4) an advisory structure to examine
needs and provide policy recommendations; (5) workforce data to gauge
impacts and system change, inform planning, evaluation and quality
assurance, including all settings; and (6) financing of the integrated
professional development system including supports for programs,
individuals, and the system's infrastructure.
Such system shall promote access to training,
professional development, and education (including initial and
ongoing professional development) for all types of providers.
Barriers such as costs, hours of work for providers, language,
and culture shall be taken into account; and public financing
shall be included.
Develop a system that ensures that all children receiving a subsidy
as well as all children in childcare centers and family childcare homes
receive a valid and reliable developmental screening and referral for
appropriate services within a reasonable time of their entry into care.
Establish a 1-year eligibility determination period that
is in effect, regardless of a change in parent's income or work status.
Establish a higher exit eligibility level that allows
families to stay on childcare assistance even if their incomes grow to
exceed the initial eligibility cutoff.
Ensure that payment practices for childcare providers
reflect generally accepted payment policies that providers use for
their private pay parents.
Develop and implement strategies to increase the supply
and improve the quality of childcare in underserved areas such as
higher payment rates and bonuses, direct contracting, grants, or other
means of increasing the supply of high quality care in particular areas
of the State or for particular categories of children such as care in
low-income and rural areas, care for infants and toddlers, school-age
children, children with disabilities and other special needs, and
children in families with limited English proficiency, and care during
non-standard hours, if shortages of these types of care are identified,
and report annually to the Secretary of Health and Human Services on
how these strategies are being used to expand the supply of this care.
Demonstrate efforts to coordinate Early Head Start, Head
Start, State- and locally funded pre-kindergarten and childcare
assistance in order to encourage full-day and full-year programs.
Guarantee that they will at a minimum maintain the number
of children receiving federally funded childcare assistance as of
fiscal year 2008 and reimbursement rates paid to childcare providers
receiving Federal childcare funds as of fiscal year 2008.
Submit the State childcare plan for CCDBG to the State
Advisory Council on Early Care and Education for comment before the
plan is submitted to HHS for funding. The plan must describe
coordination among childcare, Head Start, State pre-kindergarten
programs, State funded infant and toddler systems, home visiting and
part C and section 619 programs, including the ways in which Federal
and State resources are to be used to help childcare providers meet the
State pre-kindergarten requirements and to help children enrolled in
part-day pre-kindergarten and Head Start programs receive full-day
services as needed.
Demonstrate that initiatives to improve the quality of
childcare give priority to providers and programs in which a
significant share of children served are low-income (or receive
federally funded childcare assistance) and include sufficient financial
and other resources to support strategies that help providers at all
levels of quality improve, including increased rates linked to the
quality of a provider or program, initiatives to support the education
of teachers tied to increased compensation, and ongoing financial
resources to providers to improve the quality of care.
The legislation will:
Permanently authorize a minimum of $106.8 million or 5
percent of CCDBG discretionary funds (whichever is larger) for supports
to programs serving infants and toddlers. These funds will be used for:
Establishing or expanding neighborhood-based high-
quality comprehensive family and child development centers;
Establishing and operating community- or
neighborhood-based family childcare networks;
Supporting statewide networks of infant-toddler
specialists;
Initiatives to improve the quality of the infant-
toddler workforce; and
Development of infant-toddler components within
regulatory and quality improvement systems and support to reach
higher levels of quality.
Require that HHS provide technical assistance to States on
alternative payment mechanisms, on developing and conducting
statistically valid and reliable market rate surveys, and identifying
acceptable approaches for States to use in developing and conducting
market rate surveys to reflect cost variations by geography, age of
children, children with disabilities and other special needs, children
with limited English proficiency, hours of care including non-standard
hours, and provider type. HHS will provide information on alternate
costing mechanisms to help States begin to tie rates to the cost of
implementing quality standards and/or within tiers, beginning with
licensing.
Authorize a certain amount of mandatory funding.
Authorize such sums as necessary.
Authorize the Child Care Facilities Financing Act to
authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to award
competitive grants to eligible entities to deposit into childcare
capital funds for technical and financial assistance to eligible
childcare providers to pay the costs of acquisition, construction, or
improvement of childcare facilities or equipment, or for technical
assistance to such providers to help them undertake facilities
improvement and expansion.
Responses by Linda K. Smith to Questions of Senator Murray,
Senator Sanders and Senator Casey
senator murray
Question 1. What benefits has the Child Care Aware Hotline and Web
site provided over the years to families, childcare providers, and the
Federal Government?
Answer 1. Over the years, the Child Care Aware hotline and Web site
(http://childcareaware.org/), a project of Child Care Aware of America
(formerly the National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral
Agencies or NACCRRA), has provided parents with information about
provider background checks, local childcare regulations, specialized
services for military families, and tools for choosing a childcare
provider. In program year 2010-11, over 76,000 families contacted the
hotline, and the Web site helped make over 111,000 connections between
parents and local childcare resource and referral agencies. The Child
Care Aware hotline and Web site have also provided military families
with targeted referrals and have administered the Military Fee
Assistance program, which helps those who serve in the military find
and afford childcare that meets their needs. In addition, the hotline
and Web site have supported childcare providers through training
webinars and other publications for professional development. All
parent and provider resources are available in English and Spanish.
Since fiscal year 2000, the annual appropriations law for funding
of the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) has provided
resources for a national childcare hotline. In most years, the funding
was specifically designated in the law for Child Care Aware. However,
the fiscal year 2012 appropriations law indicated that $1 million was
available for a competitive grant for the operation of a national toll-
free hotline and Web site to develop and disseminate childcare consumer
education information for parents and help parents access childcare in
their local community. In late June, the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) Office of Child Care published a Funding Opportunity
Announcement (FOA) seeking applications by August 15, 2012.\1\ Once
awarded, this funding will support a National Child Care Consumer
Education Referral Hotline and Web site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The HHS Administration for Children and Families' Deputy
Assistant Secretary and Inter-Departmental Liaison for Early Childhood
Development was previously the executive director of NACCRRA. She has
recused herself from any involvement in the competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Child Care Consumer Education Referral Hotline and Web
site gives us the opportunity to incorporate the latest knowledge in
childcare and to build on innovative State and local consumer education
efforts, like indicators included in quality rating improvement systems
(QRIS). The new FOA places stronger emphasis on transparency so that
parents will be provided with clear information on quality indicators
to help them make informed decisions about childcare. In addition, the
FOA asks the grantee to focus on the hardest to reach clients--low-
income children receiving childcare subsidies who, research shows, will
benefit the most from quality placements. The new Web site and hotline
will help parents make informed childcare decisions by providing
information, either directly or through links to local entities, on the
following:
The full range of childcare choices available, including
both home-based and center-based options;
State health and safety requirements, including background
on the standards and how they are enforced, and each provider's history
of compliance; and
Provider-specific information or indicators about quality
of childcare. This includes the provider's status under a State or
local QRIS or other quality indicators. Over half the States have
implemented QRIS as a framework for organizing and guiding the progress
of early care and education quality initiatives and communicating the
level of quality to parents.
Question 2. Based on your experience improving the quality of
military childcare during your time at the Department of Defense, what
would be the optimal decision points providing balance of resources
dedicated to quantity and quality?
Answer 2. Quantity and quality are both essential to an integrated
childcare system. Too often discussions about childcare reform are
burdened by a false dichotomy between access for children and quality
of care--when they are actually one in the same. We need to improve
access, but equally important is ensuring that low-income children
supported by tax-payer dollars are in safe settings that promote their
healthy development and school readiness.
It is not sufficient to view childcare as merely a work support for
parents, and thus focus only on the number of families receiving
assistance--investing in high-quality childcare is a key opportunity to
give our most vulnerable children the support they need to reach their
full potential and lay the foundation for success in school and beyond.
For millions of children, childcare is the primary preschool setting
and yet many childcare teachers and programs do not have access to the
training, assistance, and support they need. Childcare should be a
place that engages children's minds, sparks their curiosity, and begins
to develop their cognitive and social skills.
While at the Department of Defense (DOD), I played a leading role
in implementing the Military Child Care Act of 1989. Through this Act,
DOD developed a system of high-quality childcare that provides minimum
health and safety protections for children and allows parents choice
among a variety of settings. During the first 2 years after passage of
the Act, DOD invested resources to improve the quality of care while
holding access constant. Once the quality was improved DOD became
aggressive in expanding the access. Within the Act, there are four key
provisions that built this framework of high-quality care:
Adequate financing to ensure access for all military
families. Fees are based on total family income and parent fees are
matched with adequate Federal funding;
Workforce preparation that is competency-based, conducted
onsite and linked to higher wages. Everyone (center-based and family
childcare) is required to complete minimum trainings that include:
early childhood development, activities and disciplinary techniques
appropriate to children of different ages, child abuse prevention and
detection, and CPR and other emergency medical procedures;
Regular inspections of all childcare programs, including
quarterly unannounced visits; and,
A hotline for parents to call to report safety and child
abuse violations.
These four provisions allowed the Department of Defense to set the
bar for quality childcare, providing both access and quality in
military childcare.
Question 3. During the hearing, I questioned you about homelessness
and the unique needs of childcare for homeless families. My bill, the
Improving Access to Child Care for Homeless Families Act of 2012, would
require States to describe in their childcare plan how the unique needs
of homeless families will be met, including the dissemination childcare
subsidy information to homeless parents. In addition, it prioritizes
homeless children for access to childcare, and creates a State pilot
program to identify best practices for improving access to and
continuity of care for homeless children. In addition to addressing
these areas, what provisions of CCDBG present unnecessary barriers to
access for these, our most vulnerable, families and children?
Answer 3. We appreciate our ongoing dialog with you and with
service providers who work with families experiencing homelessness.
Childcare assistance can help stabilize a family during a period of
homelessness when parents need to search for new housing and when
children can experience significant disruptions to their daily routines
and early education. As a block grant, CCDBG offers significant
flexibility for State implementation, and therefore by itself does not
impose unnecessary barriers to serving the homeless population. The
flexibility within CCDBG offers significant opportunities to serve
homeless families and children. However, not all States take advantage
of these opportunities, and barriers may exist depending on a State's
policies. Through the dialog, we have identified options that we would
encourage States to take within current law to better provide seamless
early childhood education and afterschool services to homeless
children. Below are examples of areas of flexibility within current law
that States can use to increase services to homeless families and
children.
Offering a grace period for the documentation of
requirements (e.g. written documents necessary to establish
eligibility): Homeless families may need additional time to access and
provide copies of pay stubs or other documents.
Serving homeless children under the protective services
category: Under Child Care Development Fund (CCDF) regulations, Lead
Agencies can waive income requirements and co-payment requirements for
children categorized as ``protective services'' or ``in need of
protective service.'' Lead Agencies have the flexibility to include
homeless children in this protective service category. Currently, 10
States take advantage of this flexibility to include homeless children
under this category.
Offering priority for services through ``special needs''
definition: CCDF regulations allow Lead Agencies to offer priority for
services to very low-income families and children with special needs.
Lead Agencies have the flexibility to define ``special needs,'' which
can include homeless children. According to a preliminary analysis of
CCDF State plan data, eight States currently offer priority to homeless
children through their definition of special needs.
Expanding the definition of working to include job search:
The Lead Agency can allow a family to retain their childcare subsidy
during some period of job search. Since employment status and
homelessness often go hand in hand, this policy offers key support for
vulnerable families. Fifty States and territories (out of 56) have
adopted this policy, but the length of time that families can retain
childcare assistance during a job search period varies significantly.
Waiving co-payment for low-income families: CCDF
regulations allow Lead Agencies to waive the co-payment requirement for
families at or below the poverty level. Since homeless families
typically fall within this range, this policy would have a significant
financial impact on the homeless population. Currently, 14 explicitly
waive co-payments for families at or below poverty level.
We have established a work group at the Administration for Children
and Families (ACF) to identify other opportunities we have to ensure
that homeless families have access to childcare. We appreciate your
leadership on this issue legislatively and look forward to continuing
to work together to serve our most vulnerable children.
senator sanders
Question 1. Current law provides for the possibility of
automatically enrolling children in public health care (SCHIP or
Medicaid) when they are found eligible for a childcare subsidy, but no
States have adopted this option. They could be required to do so.
Meanwhile, we know that many kids arrive at kindergarten with
undiagnosed learning disabilities and developmental delays. Childcare
providers could be required to screen children entering their care for
disabilities that would make them eligible for additional services. Can
you comment on either or both of these proposals?
Answer 1. HHS has a long history of supporting partnerships between
childcare programs and Medicaid. We have also been part of an
interdepartmental collaboration aimed at meeting the Secretary's
challenge of enrolling all eligible children in Medicaid and the
Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) by 2015. We recognize that
automatically enrolling children in CHIP or Medicaid when they are
found eligible for assistance through CCDF can help streamline the
eligibility determination process for families and administrators.
However, State flexibility provided by CCDF means that States vary in
what eligibility questions are asked of parents, who performs the
eligibility determination, and how the State shares data with other
agencies. These variations and the program's focus on State flexibility
would make requiring States to automatically enroll children into CHIP
and Medicaid as part of their CCDF automatic enrollment systems
difficult.
States vary on the degree to which developmental screenings are
required in their childcare programs. According to the CCDF State Plans
for fiscal year 2012-13, 28 States encourage or require childcare
programs to conduct developmental screening and referral for children
participating in childcare programs. In several States, developmental
screenings are required for childcare providers to reach the top level
of the State's quality rating and improvement system (QRIS).
We continue to work with States and providers to expand the
integration of developmental screenings into childcare programs while
recognizing the training, tools, and resources providers need to
conduct such screenings successfully. Screening tools can be costly to
administer and difficult for childcare providers to use, especially in
family childcare settings. ACF is currently working with other agencies
[including the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)] to explore
lower cost, high-quality screening and referral tools for use in early
care and education settings. OCC and some States have used CDC's
``Learn the Signs. Act Early.'' free, research-based materials to raise
awareness on developmental screenings and tracking, though these
materials are not formally validated identification tools.
Additionally, HHS and the Department of Education recognized the
importance of such screenings in the Race to the Top Early Learning
Challenge (RTT-ELC) grant competition, which encouraged States to use
the grant to incorporate developmental screening into their early
childcare and education (ECE) systems. Four of the nine RTT-ELC States
funded in fiscal year 2011 (California, Delaware, Maryland, and North
Carolina) are incorporating developmental screenings into their early
care and education (ECE) systems. One of the five States eligible to
apply for Phase 2 RTT-ELC grants (Oregon) submitted a fiscal year 2011
RTT-ELC application proposing to incorporate developmental screenings
into its ECE system.
In California, screening efforts at the local level will
be elevated through RTT-ELC to enable improved guidance and to support
screening for children in ECE settings. The California Early Childhood
Educator Competencies, which describe the knowledge and skills early
childhood educators read to provide high-quality care, include:
``Observation, Screening, Assessment, and Documentation.'' This
competency ensures that health and behavioral screenings are well-
integrated with other State ECE initiatives.
In Delaware, RTT-ELC funds will enable the State to scale
up a continuum of enhanced community engagement, expanded screening,
and capacity for followup services. Delaware utilizes Help Me Grow
(HMG), run by the Division of Public Health, which provides a
comprehensive framework for screening, referral, and followup,
especially for children with high-needs. New State law requires private
insurers to compensate physicians for conducting evidence-based
screening. Home visiting is being used as a mechanism for reaching and
screening the hardest-to-engage populations in the highest-need
neighborhoods. The State will provide a common comprehensive evidence-
based screening tool for all ECE programs participating in its Quality
Rating and Improvement System.
In Maryland, health-related screenings and service
referrals for children with high needs are performed through the
statewide system of ``Judy Centers'' located in public elementary
schools. Each Judy Center must make screenings available to any child
enrolled in or receiving services through kindergarten, pre-
kindergarten, an infants and toddlers program, preschool special
education, or licensed childcare. In addition, each Judy Center may
provide screenings and referrals to children with high needs who are
enrolled in programs operated by local partnership agencies such as
Family Support Centers, Early Head Start/Head Start, or Parents as
Teachers. By 2013, Maryland will require the use of State-recommended
developmental screening instruments for all licensed childcare
programs. Maryland will begin training cohorts of pediatricians on
developmental screening in collaboration with families and program
staff.
North Carolina utilizes the Assuring Better Health and
Child Development (ABCD) model in primary care settings and integrates
screening into all well-child visits. In ABCD practices, 99 percent of
the children receive developmental screenings. ABCD currently operates
in 16 counties with eight coordinators providing training and onsite
technical assistance. With its RTT-ELC grant, the State will expand
ABCD statewide by increasing the number of coordinators and linking to
the Community Child Care Network of NC, a quality assurance network of
physicians using Medicaid to provide incentives for improved care based
on Bright Futures National Standards (American Academy of Pediatrics).
In Oregon, as part of the Governor's early learning
redesign and health care reform agendas, the Early Learning Design Team
recommended that a set of standardized screening tools be applied at
universal access points at prescribed intervals and be offered in a
variety of settings by home visiting staff, ECE providers, and health
care professionals. Oregon is one of five States participating in the
ABCD III Initiative of the National Academy of State Health Policy.
ABCD III will be developing and implementing community-level projects
with eight managed-care organizations in Oregon to improve screening
and followup care for children under 3 years.
Lessons learned from these States will contribute to a blueprint
for wider implementation.
Question 2. Rural areas pose particular challenges for childcare
providers, including transportation across potentially large distances,
whether from home to childcare, from childcare to Head Start, and so
on. In addition, both rural and high poverty areas may face a shortage
of qualified care providers. Are you aware of any strategies to improve
the supply and quality of care in rural and high poverty areas?
Answer 2. We recognize the unique circumstances of rural
communities, including the challenges of developing an adequate supply
of quality early care and education providers, providing access to
training and professional development for teachers and practitioners,
and addressing transportation barriers. An analysis of CCDF data showed
that rural children receiving childcare subsidies were in care fewer
hours per week and were more likely to be in family childcare
arrangements than in center-based care. Additionally, we know that
families in rural and high-poverty areas have fewer high-quality
childcare options, particularly for infants and toddlers, school-age
children, children with disabilities, and children in families with
non-traditional work hours.
ACF has worked with States, childcare providers, researchers, and
other stakeholders to identify additional strategies and best practices
for ensuring that families in rural areas have access to high-quality
childcare choices. In 2010, we sponsored a Rural Early Childhood
Institute that aimed to bring visibility to the challenges facing rural
communities and explore promising practices that support the success
and well-being of young children and their families in rural areas.
Also, this year the HHS National Advisory Committee on Rural Health and
Human Services focused on early care and education with presentations,
discussions, and site visits during its recent meeting in Kansas City,
MO. Through this work, we have identified some strategies to improve
the supply and quality of care in rural communities.
One strategy States are using to increase the supply of high-
quality childcare and to address the unique needs of rural communities
is to award grants to or enter into contracts with providers or
provider networks for direct services. While the majority of children
receiving childcare subsidies receive assistance in the form of a
voucher, 21 States are using grants or contracts to provide childcare
assistance to families. Often States use these grants and contracts to
support specific populations or geographic areas where childcare may be
lacking. Grants and contracts are also used to fund wrap-around
services for children in Head Start or public pre-kindergarten programs
to provide full-day, full-year care and to fund programs that provide
comprehensive services, such as transportation, health screenings, and
nutritional support.
By providing a guaranteed funding stream to providers for a set
period of time, contracts and grants can be an effective tool to
encourage entities to establish childcare businesses or nonprofit
organizations. Grants or contracts may provide greater financial
stability for childcare providers by funding a specified number of
slots even if individual children leave the program. In contrast,
because vouchers are portable, when parents leave a given provider, the
provider loses the funding associated with that voucher. Without stable
funding to pay for the higher costs of quality, most childcare
providers, especially those in low-income or rural areas, cannot afford
the qualified staff, equipment, and facilities that good program
standards require. With greater financial stability, providers may be
more willing to provide higher-cost care, such as for infants and
toddlers, or to locate in low-income or rural communities.
In order to increase the supply of high-quality childcare in
underserved communities, some States also provide financial support to
assist with high startup costs, facilities upgrades to meet licensing
requirements, and quality investments. Some examples of how States use
financial supports to build supply are expansion grants to increase the
number of available infant and toddler slots, equipment grants to
providers that participate in professional development programs, and
low-cost, short-term loans to help cover the cost of minor renovations
in childcare facilities. A number of States also support family
childcare networks, which provide training, coaching, and other
supports to promote sustainability and quality in family childcare
homes, including in rural areas that lack the population base to
support center-based programs.
As one example of a comprehensive initiative supported by the Race
to the Top-Early Learning Challenge, North Carolina is creating a
Transformation Zone made up of a set of rural, distressed counties with
high needs in the northeastern part of the State. After a thorough
application process to demonstrate interest and level of commitment of
the critical stakeholders in their communities, the State expects that
four to six counties will come together to form the initial
Transformation Zone to improve outcomes for young children and families
in the participating communities. Through community-building,
infrastructure development, and implementation of evidence-based
programs and practices, these communities will implement more effective
ways of working together for shared accountability and better results.
Specific activities may include: providing an infant/toddler specialist
as a resource; providing incentives to add high-quality infant/toddler
slots; providing a healthy-
behavior specialist to support positive social-emotional development in
childcare settings; and providing teacher salary supplements, rewarding
the childcare workforce for increasing the level of educational
attainment.
Question 3. One way we can truly improve our childcare in America
and in Vermont is to treat childcare providers as the true
professionals they are. Too often, childcare providers are paid too low
and with poor benefits, factors that discourage talented professionals
from entering the profession. We must pay our childcare workers like
any teacher, give them great benefits, and assist them with paying off
student loan debt. Unfortunately, investing the amount of resources
necessary to make this happen is not possible in the current budget
climate. What can we do today to improve the childcare workforce
without having a significant negative impact on access to care? Do you
agree that we should require a minimum level of training which includes
principles of early learning and child development?
Answer 3. We agree that a well-trained workforce is necessary to
ensure that children are in high-quality childcare programs. The
President's fiscal year 2013 budget request outlines principles for
reauthorization of the CCDBG Act, including supporting use of quality
funds to expand professional development opportunities for the
childcare workforce.
Quality childcare hinges on building an effective workforce trained
on early learning and child development to support healthy interactions
between children and providers. Mounting evidence shows that
strengthening teacher-child interactions is integral to improving child
outcomes. From a protection standpoint, research has shown that basic
health and safety trainings, including CPR and first aid, are
associated with lower instances of accidental injury or death in
childcare settings.
In February 2012, the Government Accountability Office issued a
report indicating that the paid early childcare and education (ECCE)
workforce was made up of approximately 1.8 million workers in a range
of positions, most of whom had relatively low levels of education and
income. For example, nearly half of all childcare workers had a high
school degree or less, as did 20 percent of preschool teachers. Average
yearly income ranged from $11,500 for a childcare worker working in a
child's home to $18,000 for a preschool teacher.
The Department of Health and Human Services recently partnered with
the National Academy of Sciences to sponsor a workshop and report on
the ECCE workforce, which focused on ways to build ECCE as a
profession, including developing administrative and data systems,
quality standards, and professional development activities.
To address the importance of childcare provider training, many
States have begun implementing professional development systems that
promote the use of evidence-based practices and provide pathways for
teachers and caregivers to improve their knowledge and skills.
Professional development systems support the workforce by providing
increased benefits, scholarships, and financial incentives to providers
as part of career pathways that lead to a publicly recognized
credential. States are also supporting professional development through
quality improvement initiatives for childcare programs. For example, 32
States and territories provide increased subsidy payments to childcare
programs with higher quality; the indicators of quality (such as
achieving higher levels under a State's quality rating and improvement
system) often include staffing qualifications. It is also important for
States to assess the capacity of local and community colleges to
provide early care and education class offerings, as well as other
training opportunities, for providers. Finally, as States design
professional development initiatives, it may be useful to distinguish
between requirements for different roles (such as director, teacher,
aide) and for different types of care (such as centers versus family
childcare).
We look forward to working with the committee to determine the best
approach to ensuring that providers have the necessary knowledge and
skills to provide safe and enriching environments for the children in
their care.
senator casey
Question 1. In your testimony and the questions that followed, you
talked about making information about quality childcare readily
available to parents. Do we know what works best with regards to how to
share this information? Are there examples you can point to of how this
consumer information is being effectively transmitted to parents?
Answer 1. Providing parents with information about the quality of
childcare available to them is necessary to ensuring that parents can
make informed childcare choices. States have taken a variety of
approaches to providing consumer education to parents and the general
public.
One consumer education practice that many States use is to post
licensing and regulatory requirements and compliance reports on a
public Web site. Research suggests that online publishing of licensing
violations and complaints impact both inspector and provider behavior.
One study found that after inspection reports were posted online, there
was an improvement in the quality of care, specifically the classroom
environment and improved management at childcare centers serving low-
income children.\1\ In the fiscal Year 2012-13 CCDF Plans, at least 30
States and territories reported making all licensing information,
including compliance records, available to parents and the public
online, and 10 States and territories reported making at least some
licensing information available on a public Web site or other online
tool, such as a provider registry. Making available a Web site with
accessible, easy-to-understand basic information about how childcare is
regulated and monitored, as well as regulatory requirements met by
individual childcare providers, can improve transparency and greatly
reduce burden on families.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Witte, A. & Queralt, M., What Happens When Child Care
Inspections and Complaints Are Made Available on the Internet? NBER
Working Paper No. 10227, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A quality rating and improvement system (QRIS) is another consumer
education tool that has been adopted by more than half of the States to
provide information about quality indicators to parents. A QRIS is a
framework for organizing and guiding the progress of early care and
education quality initiatives and communicating levels of quality to
parents. The majority of QRISs use a symbol, level, or number to
indicate different levels of quality, such as one star, two stars, or
three stars. These simple-to-understand ratings allow parents to
differentiate among childcare programs, based on measures of quality.
The QRIS framework includes five common elements: (1) program
standards to define expectations for quality and quality indicators
indicating different levels of quality; (2) supports, training, and
technical assistance to help childcare programs in meeting childcare
quality improvement standards; (3) financial incentives and monetary
supports to assist childcare programs in meeting childcare quality
improvement standards; (4) quality assurance and monitoring to measure
childcare program quality over time; and (5) strategies to promote the
childcare quality improvement standards to parents, programs, and the
general public. These content areas align with the definition of
``Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System'' included in the Race
to the Top-Early Learning Challenge (RTT-ELC).
Parents in all 50 States also have access to childcare resource and
referral (CCR&R) services that provide information on quality. Through
a grant provided by CCDBG funds, a national toll-free hotline and Web
site links parents to State and local CCR&R services. These agencies
provide information on adult child ratios, training and inspection
requirements and other quality-related information. While consumer
education is essential for all families, some States have implemented
additional efforts specifically targeted to parents receiving childcare
subsidies. Several States include discussion of provider options during
intake interviews and mail notices. States may also send parents on the
waiting list for subsidy information about choosing quality care or the
State's QRIS. They may also host orientations or workshops for subsidy
parents to help them learn about quality childcare. Twenty-two States
and territories reported in their fiscal year 2012-13 plans that
quality ratings were used in targeted consumer education for parents
applying for or receiving childcare subsidies.
Question 2. You noted that disparities between low-income and
higher income children start as early as at 9 months of age. How does
dealing with this gap earlier in life compare in effectiveness to
dealing with it later in life? Can you talk about the impact earlier
investment could have on the Federal budget?
Answer 2. High-quality early education programs promote the
development of young children and provide a high return on investment
because they are linked to increased school readiness and achievement,
reduced use of special education, reduced use of public assistance, and
reduced rates of juvenile crime. Research by Nobel Prize-winning
economist, Professor James Heckman of the University of Chicago on the
high-quality HighScope Perry Preschool Program shows a 7 to 10 percent
per year return on investment.\2\ A study of the Chicago Child-Parent
Center preschool program found an 18 percent annual return.\3\ Arthur
Rolnick of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, who testified
before the subcommittee last summer, has concluded that early care and
education is the best investment that this country can make.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Heckman, J. & Moon, S.H. & Pinto, R. & Savelyev, P. & Yavitz,
A. ``The rate of return to the HighScope Perry Preschool Program,''
Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(1-2), February 2010.
\3\ Reynolds, A.J., Temple, J.A., White, B.A., Ou, S., Robertson,
D.L. ``Age 26 cost-benefit analysis of the Child-Parent Center early
education program,'' Child Development, 82, 379-404. 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research has also shown that the earlier a child enters a high-
quality early care and education program, the greater return on
investment both in terms of child outcomes and the economy as a whole.
As I mentioned in my testimony, disparities in child outcomes are
evident as early as 9 months and grow larger by 24 months of age.\4\
Children at highest risk for falling behind are those who grow up in
low-
income homes, and the more risk factors a child has, the wider
disparities. There also is an increasing body of research that shows
that chronic stress can disrupt the development of brain architecture
from the earliest years, and that children in poverty are at higher
risk for adverse physical and mental outcomes resulting from the
accumulated stressors of living in economically disadvantaged
circumstances.\5\ In fiscal year 2010, half the children served by CCDF
lived below the Federal poverty line, putting them at risk of falling
behind their peers. However, these children can also have biggest gains
from attending a high-quality childcare program, and the longer a child
is in a high-quality program, the more the child will get out of the
program. An evaluation of 12 Educare programs showed that kindergarten-
bound children who began the program between birth and 2 years old
score higher on school readiness tests than children who began the
program at 3 or 4 years old.\6\ Heckman's research has also found that
investments in early childhood education have larger economic gains
than programs targeted at adults.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Halle, T., Forry, N., Hair, E., Perper, K., Wandner, L.,
Wessel, J., & Vick, J. Disparities in Early Learning and Development:
Lessons from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study--Birth Cohort
(ECLS-B), Child Trends, 2009.
\5\ Garner, A., Shonkoff, J., Siegel, B., Dobbins, M., Earls, M.,
McGuinn, L., Pascoe, J., & Wood, D. ``Early Childhood Adversity, Toxic
Stress, and the Role of the Pediatrician: Translating Developmental
Science into Lifelong Health,'' Pediatrics, vol. 129(1), January 2012.
\6\ Yazejian, N., & Bryant, D.M. Promising Results: Educare
implementation study data, Chapel Hill: FPG Child Development
Institute, UNC-CH, June 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response by Rolf Grafwallner to Questions of Senator Murray,
Senator Sanders and Senator Casey
senator murray
Question 1. Having a stable childcare situation could do wonders
for a homeless family--it would allow parents time to work, and
hopefully get the family into a home. And childcare could also lessen
the time a homeless child spends at a shelter, campground, or in a
car--wherever the family is living. What kinds of specific outreach do
your programs make to find and serve families who are homeless?
Answer 1. The Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) and the
Maryland Department of Human Resources (DHR) formally work together to
learn who and where the homeless are in each county. This is being
facilitated by a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for each county that the
agencies use to work together to serve families. Judy Centers are
especially helpful, as are local departments of social services.
Homeless 4-year-olds are automatically eligible to be enrolled in the
pre-kindergarten programs operated by the county-wide local boards of
education.
Question 2. How do you identify and serve these homeless families?
What are some of the unique barriers to serving homeless families?
Answer 2. Many of the homeless families also request other
services, so local social service agencies often identify them through
a social or income assistance worker. MSDE, through the local
departments of social services, assists the families by offering them a
childcare subsidy voucher and working with the regional Resource and
Referral Agencies to find care. Due to the unique mailing address
issues for homeless families, the vouchers are often available for pick
up or given to a social worker to deliver.
Some of the unique barriers to serving homeless families are
transportation which includes getting the child to and from the care
arrangement, and finding a quality care setting for them due to
providers sometimes not having or wanting to fill a slot short-term due
to the transiency of homeless families.
Question 3. What role does 12-month authorization for childcare
subsidy play in providing greater stability in childcare for low-income
families, and for other families in poverty?
Answer 3. A 12-month authorization for childcare subsidy would help
low-income families to participate in more stable care. If the change
reporting requirement could be updated, and a change like the one for
SNAP--simplified reporting or periodic review forms completed by the
customer--could be instituted so that only changes reaching a certain
income threshold would have to be reported it would be a great
enhancement for all parties. This would create less frequent
redeterminations for customers, greater consistency of care for
children, stability for big or small business childcare providers and
increased efficiency for childcare case managers.
Question 4. Regarding childcare for homeless families, what are we
seeing happen on the ground? What challenges are faced in proving
continuous access for homeless families?
Answer 4. The homeless family's circumstances are quite tenuous.
They are often discovered when they approach social services for some
kind of other assistance. They request TANF or need shelter because
they come from domestic violence situations or are unemployed.
Childcare is one of the supports they need in order to pursue or
continue work, or just to stabilize their lives and know that their
children are safe and in a healthy childcare environment.
Continuous care for families is challenging because providers often
do not want to accept a child for a short-term arrangement. Other
challenges include having to continue to prove proof of income,
identity, etc. Social services does a good job of obtaining this
information for other sources in an attempt to assist families, but it
is still a burden causing unnecessary stress on families.
In regard to Head Start, Federal law does not require enrollment of
homeless children, but guidance from ACF tries to resolve the issue of
group size, ratio, and the needs of homeless children. Federal policy
about homeless children in Head Start differs from Maryland's in that
local school systems are required to enroll homeless children in pre-
kindergarten regardless of group size. Aligning Federal policies
regarding homeless children with the State policies for pre-
kindergarten would provide consistent access to these programs and
prevent unintended barriers established by the lack of Federal policies
regarding homeless children.
Question 5. What is the size of the current wait list in your State
and on average how many months are families waiting for childcare
subsidy? From your perspective, are there things the Federal Government
can be doing to decrease the wait list, aside from additional funding?
Answer 5. The size of the waiting list in Maryland is 12,362
families and 18,909 children. The wait list has been in effect since
March 2011. The term wait list is a misnomer. Maryland has actually
instituted a freeze on non-TANF customers. Families wait until there
are enough funds available to serve all or most of the children on the
list.
If the reauthorization incorporates the McKinney-Vento definitions
of homelessness and makes homeless children a priority for subsidies,
that should raise awareness and outreach. Allowing a little cap
flexibility should also prove helpful. Requiring mandatory TANF
transfers from agencies that administer the subsidy program, but do not
manage the regulations or the budget would also help, because the CCDF
funds could be used for the wait list customers. (This is not the case
in MSDE after TANF funds have been redirected for fiscal year 2013,
thereby eliminating TANF for childcare subsidy.)
senator sanders
Question 1. Current law provides for the possibility of
automatically enrolling children in public health care (SCHIP or
Medicaid) when they are found eligible for a childcare subsidy, but no
States have adopted this option. They could be required to do so.
Meanwhile, we know that many kids arrive at kindergarten with
undiagnosed learning disabilities and developmental delays. Childcare
providers could be required to screen children entering their care for
disabilities that would make them eligible for additional services. Can
you comment on either or both of these proposals?
Answer 1. Maryland was not aware of the possibility of enrolling
children in Medicaid when they are found eligible for a childcare
subsidy. Perhaps other States are not aware of it either. Making it a
requirement is an excellent way to gain access to the health care many
children so desperately need.
Maryland Child Care Regulations require that a health and
developmental screening be completed by the child's pediatrician/health
care provider prior to enrollment in childcare. This screening may or
may not identify developmental delays or learning disabilities. As part
of Maryland's Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge Grant, four
State-recommended valid developmental screening instruments for
children birth-5 years will be introduced and training on their use
will be provided to pediatricians and childcare providers with the goal
of identifying children in need of additional services. Childcare
programs will be required to implement the use of an approved screening
tool by 2013 (for those participating in Maryland's Quality Rating and
Improvement System) and by 2014 for all other childcare providers.
Procedures will be in place for pediatricians and childcare providers
on how to followup on children who are identified with potential
learning disabilities who may be eligible for additional services.
Question 2. Rural areas pose particular challenges for childcare
providers, including transportation across potentially large distances,
whether from home to childcare, from childcare to Head Start, and so
on. In addition, both rural and high poverty areas may face a shortage
of qualified care providers. Are you aware of any strategies to improve
the supply and quality of care in rural and high poverty areas?
Answer 2. Maryland employs several strategies to improve the
quality of care in rural and high poverty areas including:
Judy Center Model/Judith P. Hoyer Early Child Care and
Education Enhancement Program;
Breakthrough Center Approach--Title 1 School Attendance
Areas;
Strong outreach to programs, providers and local childcare
associations by childcare resource and referral agencies;
Quality improvement--a key component in Maryland's Quality
Rating and Improvement System will be the addition of Quality Assurance
Specialists, located throughout the State in regional childcare
licensing offices, tasked with outreach, recruitment and support of
programs embarking on quality improvement.
Question 3. One way we can truly improve our childcare in America
and in Vermont is to treat childcare providers as the true
professionals they are. Too often, childcare providers are paid too low
and with poor benefits, factors that discourage talented professionals
from entering the profession. We must pay our childcare workers like
any teacher, give them great benefits, and assist them with paying off
student loan debt. Unfortunately, investing the amount of resources
necessary to make this happen is not possible in the current budget
climate. What can we do today to improve the childcare workforce
without having a significant negative impact on access to care? Do you
agree that we should require a minimum level of training which includes
principles of early learning and child development?
Answer 3. The quality of childcare is only as good as the
environment, activities and relationship between the childcare provider
and the child and family. In order to recruit and retain the best
people for childcare, those working in the early education field must
be able to meet their own economic needs with a living wage and means
for advancement. A portion of the set-aside funds could be designated
for workforce development within a range and up to a certain
percentage, for activities that would directly impact the childcare
provider and the quality of care. An example of a program that works is
Maryland's Child Care Credentialing Program that pays cash bonuses to
childcare providers who continue working in childcare, meet specific
annual training and professional activity requirements and offers a
career ladder with increased bonuses available as additional
requirements are met. The Maryland Credentialing program provides
training vouchers and/or reimbursement for State-approved training up
to an annual amount for participating childcare providers.
A minimum level of training is essential for childcare providers to
understand child development and developmentally appropriate learning
activities. This is the ``what we do and why we do it'' minimum level
of training that all families should expect of those they entrust with
the care of their children. Maryland's childcare licensing regulations
require all persons wishing to become licensed childcare providers or
to work as teachers in licensed childcare centers to complete a minimum
amount of training or academic coursework in the principles of early
learning and child development before being permitted to serve children
in care, and to complete continued training in this area during each
year thereafter.
senator casey
Question. Maryland, by housing CCDBG in the Department of
Education, appears to have done a good job at aligning CCDBG with State
educational goals. Could you explain in greater detail some of the
steps Maryland has taken to encourage communication and promote
alignment between CCDBG, other early education programs, and the
elementary and secondary school systems? Within the context of CCDBG
reauthorization, how do you think we can promote such alignment in
other States?
Answer. Since 2006, the Maryland State Department of Education
(MSDE) has had oversight of all early childhood programs, including
childcare. The promotion of the alignment between CCDBG and other early
learning programs as well as
K-12 education includes the following:
MSDE Standards for Implementing High Quality Early Childhood
Programs for Kindergarten, pre-kindergarten (at public schools), Head
Start and Child Care Centers. These Standards are used for State
program accreditation.
MSDE is using childcare subsidies and CCDBG quality funds for
childcare centers that are pursuing or have obtained program
accreditation. For instance, licensed childcare programs have access to
accreditation support (which essentially pays for application fees,
materials and planning time to achieve program accreditation) through
Maryland's Child Care Credentialing Program.
MSDE Early Learning Standards (Birth to pre-kindergarten) align
with the Maryland State Curriculum Standards and will align with the
new Maryland Common Core Standards (K-12). MSDE is using CCDBG quality
funds for developing the standards for children, birth to 48 months,
funding infant/toddler specialists for all regions of the State,
working with childcare providers and early Head Start, and promoting
the use of early childhood curricula (which align with the early
learning standards) in childcare centers and family childcare homes.
MSDE's Child Care Workforce System aligns with the State's teaching
certification requirements by using a career ladder system which
creates levels of credentials and links up to the State teacher
certification through an alternative pathway model available to
individuals holding 4-year degrees and employed in childcare (The
alternative pathway model is currently being implemented as part of the
Race to the Top--Early Learning Challenge Grant). MSDE spends a third
of its CCDBG quality funds on the credentialing system (including
bonuses, training vouchers, and scholarships).
Maryland also created program partnerships which blend/combine a
variety of funding streams. These are:
Judy Center Partnerships (i.e., Title I schools entering into a
formal partnership with Head Start, childcare, health services, etc.)
to promote school readiness for children of low income, those with
disabilities, and English language learners. The funds include State,
Head Start, and CCDBG funds to implement the partnership. All the early
childhood programs in the Partnership, including pre-K and kindergarten
must obtain program accreditation and implement an early childhood
curriculum.
Childcare and pre-kindergarten (Preschool for All model). MSDE
issues State funds to accredited childcare centers (among others) to
incorporate a pre-kindergarten (either half-day or full-day) in the
childcare center. The pre-kindergarten must meet State pre-kindergarten
regulations (including a State certified teacher). This model is
currently in a pilot phase. The childcare centers use childcare subsidy
to enroll children from low-income families. The State funding offers
tuition breaks for families below 300 percent of FPG (thus providing
relief in terms of childcare costs in addition to childcare subsidy for
a segment of wage earners that do not have access to any financial
support).
There are a number of States who have instituted similar programs
and models. We propose that the CCDBG reauthorization, aside from
requiring licensing standards, criminal background checks and providing
automatic access for children who are homeless, consider the
aforementioned models and advancements among the top tier States as the
guide to steer Federal dollars toward improving the quality of the
childcare system.
For that purpose, we propose the following:
Development of a formal Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between all
major child serving agencies for the purpose of developing a 3-year
high quality State plan (replacing the current State plan cycle) which
will facilitate interagency coordination, streamline monitoring, and
allocate resources, including those from other Federal or State funds,
to increase the number of children with high needs having access to
high quality programs. The plan should include specific benchmarks
regarding increased enrollment of children with high needs in CCDBG-
funded programs, as well as benchmarks on improving the overall
workforce in childcare.
As part of the 3-year State plan, all of a State's childcare
programs receiving CCDBG funds should participate in the State's
quality improvement system. Those States, that do not have a quality
improvement system in place, should submit a plan to establish such a
system within 3 years.
Since there are States that reject the notion of a quality
improvement system, States should have the option to request a waiver
to be exempted from this requirement. In terms of funding, it is
suggested to create base level funding allocation for all States and,
in addition, ``demonstration grants'' to those States that have
established or agree to embark on developing a quality improvement
system.
Provide sign-off of the CCDBG State plan by the State's early
childhood advisory council, the State's Chief State School Officer, and
the State's Governor's office.
Response by Phillip Acord to Questions of Senator Murray,
Senator Sanders and Senator Casey
senator murray
Question 1. Having a stable childcare situation could do wonders
for a homeless family--it would allow parents time to work, and
hopefully get the family into a home. And childcare could also lessen
the time a homeless child spends at a shelter, campground, or in a
car--wherever the family is living. What kinds of specific outreach do
your programs make to find and serve families who are homeless?
Answer 1. The Children's Home/Chambliss Shelter works with several
programs in the community that serve homeless children. Those children
are given a priority and bypass our waiting list. Presently, the
program where the family is living pays the minimum childcare fee but I
would suggest that CCDBG funds be available for those children.
Question 2. How do you identify and serve these homeless families?
What are some of the unique barriers to serving homeless families?
Answer 2. Because we mainly serve these children in conjunction
with another agency whose primary focus is serving homeless children we
don't have to worry about identifying those families. Barriers are
transportation, employment, and hours of employment--they usually have
to take jobs that cause them to work nights and weekends, if they are
living at a homeless shelter then food and clothing is not an issue but
if they are truly homeless then food and clothes is an issue. Being
able to secure childcare for the hours they have to work that care for
the ages of their children and charge on a sliding fee scale is a major
barrier.
Question 3. What role does 12-month authorization for childcare
subsidy play in providing greater stability in childcare for low-income
families, and for other families in poverty?
Answer 3. Requiring States to authorize childcare for an eligible
family for a year--instead of requiring checks multiple times each
year--would go a long way to make a difference for families.
Requiring authorization more frequently is a barrier because
families that typically qualify for CCDBG get jobs that do not give
their employees a lot of time off and what they get they use for when
their children are sick. If they could be reauthorized by phone or
online that would really help, too.
With a plan in place to be eligible for a year, the parent would
know that their child's placement in a program like Children's Home can
continue uninterrupted, which means that child will be with the same
caregiver or teacher throughout the year, forming stronger bonds,
avoiding the disruption that works against learning and development and
that's too common when parents have to renew eligibility every few
months.
States have the option to do this in current law but my State--
Tennessee--does not; nor does Washington State. This should be a
requirement in all States.
Question 4. What do you see as the biggest barrier to improving
quality and what steps would you recommend for overcoming these
barriers?
Answer 4. We know that the quality of a program is mainly
determined by the skill level of the teacher. So, first I have to be
able to pay a livable salary to attract and retain good teachers.
As a provider, the biggest barrier to improving quality is the low
reimbursement rates States use to pay providers for care. What I'm able
to do in my program--who I can hire in the classroom and how much I can
pay them, what curriculum and materials we can afford, all of it--is a
question of the revenue available, of what parents and the State pay
me.
It helps when States pay more for higher quality care like what
occurs in my State's Quality Rating and Improvement Scale, which
rewards programs that have achieved a star rating. This is definitely a
step in the right direction, but even in States that reward higher
quality programs with higher rates, those rates usually don't come
close to the federally recommended level.
I want my teachers to have some type of credential, a CDA, an
Associate Degree or Bachelor Degree. I'm competing with the public
school system and Head Start so I have to have a subsidy of some type
to have the funds I need to hire and retain good teachers which are the
heart and soul of a quality Early Education Program.
Question 5. What other Federal or State resources do you rely upon
to provide high-quality care and how difficult is it to access and
combine those funding streams?
Answer 5. The Children's Home/Chambliss Shelter collaborates with
Head Start and Early Head Start as well as with the public school
system in relation to pre-K classrooms being located in our building.
We utilize our local Child Care Resource and Referral agency that is
funded through CCDBG.
If I'm serving a Head Start child then I can only get CCDBG funding
for the non-Head Start hours. I can get CCDBG support for the child
that is in the pre-K classroom because that is funded with State
dollars. Bringing these together is an administrative and reporting
challenge. It is also a programmatic challenge, with differing
standards and requirements. Each of the programs also has its own
monitoring requirements and routines.
Question 6. What is the one thing that your State has done in the
last 5 years that has most significantly impacted quality in the
childcare program, positive or negative? What was the cost associated
with it?
Answer 6. Tennessee was one of the first States to establish a
Quality Rating Improvement Scale (QRIS). Every State-regulated program
in Tennessee has to be assessed annually. The results of that
assessment along with the results of the State licensing results
determines if you receive one, two or three stars.
If you serve CCDBG clients then you receive 10 percent more in
reimbursement for a one star, 15 percent more for a two star and 20
percent more for a three star.
In addition to QRIS and the increased reimbursement for better
quality programs, we also have six unannounced visits every year for
all regulated programs in our State.
I think these three components have contributed to increased
quality ECE services to low-income children in the State of Tennessee.
All of these initiatives are funded through the quality part of the
CCDBG funds. I don't know the exact cost but I do know that Tennessee
puts about 15 percent of their funds into quality and at one time it
was 17 percent, as contrasted against the 4 percent required.
I'm distressed that all the CCDBG funds in Tennessee are used to
support the TANF clients and not the working poor because there aren't
enough funds to reach these families. Without access to subsidy, many
families will be forced into cheaper, low-quality options and children
will suffer. With fewer children enrolled through subsidy, many
programs are hard pressed to maintain budgets, deliver quality, and in
some cases even stay open.
Question 7. Traditionally, States have been the primary enforcers
of health and safety standards, while the Federal role has focused on
quality standards. In your view, is this the appropriate role for State
and Federal Governments?
Answer 7. Yes, I think that health and safety is a more appropriate
State responsibility but I think the Federal role should be quality and
access.
State regulatory requirements are the foundation of quality, the
starting place. Because there is not consistency between the States I
think CCDBG should establish a minimum requirement for health and
safety that the States have to establish in order to receive 100
percent of the CCDBG funds. The Federal Government is going to have to
take the lead to help States ensure that all low-income children have
access to quality early childhood education programs and services.
senator sanders
Question 1. Current law provides for the possibility of
automatically enrolling children in public health care (SCHIP or
Medicaid) when they are found eligible for a childcare subsidy, but no
States have adopted this option. They could be required to do so.
Meanwhile, we know that many kids arrive at kindergarten with
undiagnosed learning disabilities and developmental delays. Childcare
providers could be required to screen children entering their care for
disabilities that would make them eligible for additional services. Can
you comment on either or both of these proposals?
Answer 1. I'm not that sure about the SCHIP or Medicaid eligibility
issue but I do agree that every child should be screened while they are
in a regulated early education program.
In Tennessee we have a program called Tennessee Early Intervention
Screening that works with ECE programs across the State, they focus on
screening children under 3 years of age and then making the appropriate
referral. We work with the United Way to do assessments on all of our
children twice a year.
If the goal is to make sure every low-income child has access to
quality early childhood education then certainly there should be some
mechanism to automatically enroll them if they meet the criteria for
another program that has the same eligibility requirements.
Question 2. Rural areas pose particular challenges for childcare
providers, including transportation across potentially large distances,
whether from home to childcare, from childcare to Head Start, and so
on. In addition, both rural and high poverty areas may face a shortage
of qualified care providers. Are you aware of any strategies to improve
the supply and quality of care in rural and high poverty areas?
Answer 2. Actually CCDBG was that strategy but it takes a critical
mass of children in those rural areas receiving CCDBG in order for a
program to sustain itself. With the reduction in CCDBG funds (and in
Tennessee restricting those funds to only TANF clients) and the
implementation of the pre-K program which diverted the poor 4-year-old
children to the public school system, there was not that critical mass
to help sustain those programs.
Our 30-hour training requirement on the front end and our
monitoring and QRIS helps improve the quality of the service if we had
the CCDBG subsidy to help establish and sustain those rural programs.
Question 3. One way we can truly improve our childcare in America
and in Vermont is to treat childcare providers as the true
professionals they are. Too often, childcare providers are paid too low
and with poor benefits, factors that discourage talented professionals
from entering the profession. We must pay our childcare workers like
any teacher, give them great benefits, and assist them with paying off
student loan debt. Unfortunately, investing the amount of resources
necessary to make this happen is not possible in the current budget
climate. What can we do today to improve the childcare workforce
without having a significant negative impact on access to care? Do you
agree that we should require a minimum level of training which includes
principles of early learning and child development?
Answer 3. All of my ECE teachers and assistant teachers have to
have 30-clock hours of training within the first year of employment,
according to State regulation.
In addition to that training we require all of our teachers to
complete a course called Tennessee Early Learning Development System
(TNELDS). This is a one-time course that focuses on early development
stages and behaviors. It is about a 3-hour class per age group: infants
and toddler, 3- and 4-year-old children, and school age. Plus, my
program requires all staff, full-time and part-time to complete 24
hours of training each year.
Early Education Teachers are professionals and we do need to pay
them accordingly, provide benefits and require ongoing training like
their counter parts in the public school system. But at the current
rate of investment in these programs, and the mix of low reimbursement
rates and parent fees, this will continue to be hard to come by.
senator casey
Question 1. You discussed how many parents have been cutoff from
CCDBG subsidies in recent years, due to budget cuts. How do parents
adapt when their children are removed from subsidized childcare? Where
do those children end up when their parents are at work? How does it
impact their parents' ability to maintain employment?
Answer 1. Studies of low-income families on waiting list for
childcare assistance show a range of negative consequences: families
are unable to work, face tremendous financial pressures, or use care
that is less than satisfactory or unstable.
I have had many parents sit in my office and cry because they were
not able to get a CCDBG Child Care subsidy and they could not afford my
fee which is established using a sliding fee scale based on their
income and the number in the family.
A typical family in need of a CCDBG Child Care subsidy could be a
single mother, whose husband has deserted her and his three children.
She has limited skills and is only able to get a job making minimum
wage, which is $7.25 per hour or $15,080 annually if she works 40 hours
per week. Her net take-home pay is about $12,064 or $232 per week.
There is no way she can pay for high-quality childcare and have money
to pay her other bills. Even with food stamps and a housing subsidy she
can't afford to pay for a good early childhood education for her
children, she has to have a CCDBG Child Care subsidy to make it work.
Working poor parents do whatever they have to in order for their
children to get a good start in life and a good education. Following
are some things that my parents tell me that they do in order for their
children to attend my early childhood education program:
They work two jobs or more.
They go without necessities for themselves, such as food
and medicine.
They borrowed money and go into debt to pay their
childcare fee.
They put off paying other bills, resulting in them having
to move frequently or having their utilities shut off or losing their
vehicle.
If they were in school they had to drop out or cut back to
one class.
If they were fortunate enough to have some money saved
when they experienced a divorce or desertion then they would spend
their savings on childcare.
A lot of our parents end up filing for bankruptcy. Many
have their wages garnished.
Many parents have to put their children in substandard
childcare that they know is negatively affecting their children.
A lot of school-age children become ``latch key''
children, and in the summer elementary-age children watch their pre-
school age siblings because their parent can't get a CCDBG Child Care
subsidy.
When Tennessee stopped maintaining a waiting list there were 37,000
families on the waiting list. This situation exists in most every State
in our Nation. Working poor families have to have childcare in order to
work and they have to have a CCDBG Child Care subsidy in order to pay
for childcare that provides a good early education. It is very sad that
we are forcing parents to go without food or to file for bankruptcy
because the CCDBG program is woefully under-funded.
Response by Janet Singerman to Questions of Senator Murray,
Senator Sanders and Senator Casey
senator murray
Question 1. Having a stable childcare situation could do wonders
for a homeless family--it would allow parents time to work, and
hopefully get the family into a home. And childcare could also lessen
the time a homeless child spends at a shelter, campground, or in a
car--wherever the family is living. What kinds of specific outreach do
your programs make to find and serve families who are homeless?
Answer 1. Child Care Resources Inc. (CCRI) operates Child Care
Search, a consumer education and referral (CER) service to help all
families, including homeless families with children, to access
information about early care and education and school-age childcare
programs across the five counties served by the agency. Additionally,
our CER staff engage in extensive community outreach to increase the
visibility of this service, including providing phone-based, walk-in,
Internet accessible and, as-need warrants, onsite referrals at
community social service agencies. Homeless families access CER
services either directly or through caseworkers to whom they may be
assigned at a local department of social services, community non-profit
agency, and/or area shelters.
Child Care Resources Inc. also serves as childcare subsidy
administrator for Mecklenburg County and as such, manages the largest
county childcare subsidy allocation in NC. However, due to inadequate
Federal and State funding, CCRI only received enough funding in fiscal
year 2012 to serve a monthly average of 7,116 children or 24 percent of
all eligible children.
When funding is inadequate to serve all children, a waiting list
must be established and access to childcare is granted through priority
needs. A committee convened by the local department of social services
determines Child Care Subsidy Priority Populations every 2 years as
part of the local WorkFirst (TANF) plan. As of August 1, there were
more than 4,100 children on CCRI's waiting list for childcare subsidy
dating back to January 2010.
In such an environment, homeless families would languish on the
waiting list as long as other non-priority populations of children and
families (e.g., non-TANF working poor families). However, CCRI has been
authorized by Mecklenburg County to provide priority childcare subsidy
access to caseworker-approved families residing in one of four local
shelters who are employed at least 20 hours per week. This means that
such families, once determined to be eligible, receive immediate access
to childcare subsidy which enables them to select and use a three-,
four- or five-star (higher quality) licensed childcare program. When a
family leaves a shelter for more permanent housing, the child can
continue to receive childcare subsidy, but his/her family is required
to meet the regular guidelines of employment of at least 30 hours per
week with a household income less than the NC income eligibility
household limits.
Working poor homeless families who do not qualify for TANF, do not
have an active child protective services case, or are not connected to
one of the shelters referenced above are currently not likely to access
childcare subsidy when a childcare subsidy waiting list is in effect.
At the State level, the North Carolina Division of Child Care and
Early Education has been meeting for more than a year with a coalition
of individuals representing the interests of homeless children and
families and anticipates that in the near future, a policy will be
adopted at the State level that will classify income/work eligible
homeless children as a statewide priority population to be served
(averting the placement of such families on waiting lists for access to
childcare subsidy).
Question 2. Have you seen barriers to childcare access for those
families?
Answer 2. Families with children are the fastest growing group
among the homeless. A community needs assessment is one of the first
steps to identify the magnitude of the challenge to serve homeless
families and to identify where they are located and their general cause
of homelessness. Establishing partnerships between CCR&R agencies and
organizations that serve the homeless is critical to ensuring these
families have access to the information they need about childcare and
to assisting them in accessing available services (i.e., assist in
connecting them with subsidy agencies, caseworkers to help them with
childcare and TANF potential eligibility as well as food stamps,
Medicaid and other essential supports for which they may be eligible).
Typically, parents can't look for a job with children in tow.
CCR&Rs work with shelters to ensure that children can be cared for
onsite or families have access to childcare in the community. A recent
example of this was CCRI's provision of planning and startup assistance
to Hall House, a transitional housing site that was a collaborative
effort of a variety of Charlotte-based nonprofits led by a local agency
that exclusively serves homeless children and their families.
While access to childcare subsidy funding is the most significant
barrier to accessing childcare faced by such families, there are a
myriad of simple details that must also be addressed (for example, a
physical and mailing address is needed when making an application for
assistance). Being homeless is not just about being without a home.
There are physical, psychological, and other challenges when working
with a family who has lost everything. For women, there may be a
domestic violence situation that the family has left. For some
families, there may be a series of economic problems that have led to
homelessness, a divorce or separation, addiction or mental health
challenges. In some areas of the country following a natural disaster,
families can become homeless overnight and need to put their lives back
together, which begins with the cleanup or salvage of whatever may be
remaining of their current home while making plans to begin anew.
Understanding the reasons for homelessness for families guides efforts
to assist them.
In Mecklenburg County, there is sufficient access of quality
childcare, so supply side issues are not a barrier. Similarly, many
childcare providers serving children birth to five provide
transportation to and from their program from shelters. Also, due to
the McKinney-Vento Act, Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools provide
transportation for school-age children from school to the childcare
program of the family's choice.
Supporting Families and Child Care Programs in the Aftermath of Natural
Disasters
Childcare resource and referral agencies throughout the country
have played a critical role in assisting families with childcare as
communities rebound from floods and hurricanes. During emergency
situations, CCR&Rs have helped set up temporary childcare programs to
enable parents to wait in line for government assistance, fill out
forms, ask questions of various agencies, clean up their current
property (where it may be unsafe for small children to accompany them)
as well as look for employment. Child Care Resources Inc. was one of
the first CCR&Rs to do just this when it set up emergency childcare
during Hurricane Hugo, Hurricane Floyd, in preparation for Y2K issues,
and for Hurricane Katrina evacuees who were temporarily housed at
Charlotte's Coliseum.
CCR&Rs have trained childcare staff working in temporary childcare
programs to be better prepared to address the challenges of caring for
children who may have suffered a traumatic experience or who are
reacting to their parents who are reacting to a traumatic experience.
These children benefit from caregivers who are trained to work with
them and, when appropriate, refer their families to available mental
health services. In addition, CCR&Rs work with childcare providers
after a disaster to assist them in getting the help they need to remain
open for business, engage in activities to repair their programs, or
otherwise ensure that the supply of childcare is available to ensure
that parents can have access to childcare while they restore their
lives. Childcare is critical following a disaster for the restoration
of a community.
Question 3. What role does 12-month authorization for childcare
subsidy play in providing greater stability in childcare for low-income
families, and for other families in poverty?
Answer 3. The continuity of care that children receive during their
early years is critical to their healthy development as they learn to
form secure attachments and bond with their primary caregivers (parents
and others). A 12-month certification period is not only more family
friendly (enabling parents to stay at work rather than leave for
appointments to re-determine their eligibility on a quarterly or semi-
annual basis), but also ensures that young, at-risk (due to their
family income) children can remain in the same childcare program for at
least a year before their care could be interrupted due to a change in
family status. Such continuity of care will positively impact their
social emotional development and enable families to avoid having to
search for new and perhaps, less reliable, childcare placements.
A 12-month certification period would provide greater stability for
both low-
income families and children and families in poverty. Head Start (which
has lower income eligibility thresholds than childcare subsidy) already
utilizes a 12-month certification period.
With regard to homeless families who encounter many transitions, a
12-month certification period would support children who desperately
need stability and continuity of care as their families work to restore
their lives. Childcare can and does provide a caring and nurturing
refuge that helps to offset the crisis caused to their families by
virtue of homelessness. For any family living in poverty, access to
quality care that is for a more stable amount of time can help make a
difference in a child's sense of security and healthy development.
Question 4. Can you elaborate on the role of Child Care Resource
and Referral programs in improving the quality of childcare available,
especially to low-income and homeless families?
Answer 4. The CCR&R system is a network that spans local, State and
national levels and fills a unique systemic niche. At the local level,
a childcare resource and referral agency is a community-based
organization whose purpose is to deliver coordinated direct services
that: facilitate access to early care and education and school-age
childcare options to families, improve the quality of those options
through a variety of services to providers, employers and communities,
and provide objective information for planning and policy development
to public and private sectors.
Across the Nation, there are more than 600 childcare resource and
referral agencies in 48 States and the District of Columbia that
provide an array of supports designed to improve the system of early
care and education and school-age childcare in the communities they
serve. Childcare resource and referral (CCR&R) agencies are the primary
organization in a community that works with and relates to all parts of
the early care and education and school-age childcare delivery system--
families, early care and education and school-age childcare
professionals, schools, business, government, advocates and
policymakers.
Childcare resource and referral agencies deliver an interrelated
set of ``core'' services to families, childcare providers, and
communities. The data and insights derived from the delivery of these
connected core services together inform and strengthen a complex and
often fractured early care and education and school-age childcare
system.
1. CCR&Rs help parents find childcare.--Choosing childcare is one
of the most important decisions families make, but all too often they
must rely on word-of-mouth. Local CCR&R organizations help parents take
the guesswork out of choosing care--giving them referrals to local
childcare providers, information on State licensing requirements,
availability of childcare subsidies, and information about child
development, SCHIP, WIC, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and a wide array
of parenting resources. CCR&Rs also support families who choose
relatives and neighbors to care for their children while the parents
work. CCR&Rs provide guidance by phone, in person, and in other ways,
such as the Internet, that are tailored to each individual family.
CCR&Rs put added emphasis on assisting families who have difficulty
finding care such as those with infants and toddlers, those with
special needs children, those transitioning off of welfare, and those
needing care during irregular or non-traditional hours. Because all
childcare needs are not alike and because all childcare resources are
unique to each community, ensuring that R&R counselors meet the needs
of individual families and communities is a priority.
2. CCR&Rs support families to raise healthy children.--By talking
with parents, CCR&R childcare specialists gain a unique understanding
of the delicate balance of family life, particularly for low-income
families. They understand the myriad of challenges that young families
face and help them to understand that finding high-quality childcare is
an important first step to raising happy, healthy children. Through
one-on-one consultation, parent/family workshops, hot lines, Web sites,
walk-in counseling and referral sites, mobile applications,
newsletters, public awareness campaigns and more, CCR&Rs reach out to
parents with trusted, local information that enables them to make
informed choices.
3. CCR&Rs build the supply of childcare.--In many communities,
demand for childcare far outstrips supply. CCR&Rs provide an entry
point to the childcare field, helping providers meet and exceed
licensing requirements. CCR&Rs also support providers by offering low-
cost or free training in diverse topics like health & safety, child
development, licensing requirements, child nutrition, sound business
practices and more. CCR&Rs work with local and State governments and
the private sector to leverage resources for building and maintaining
the supply of quality childcare.
4. CCR&Rs improve the quality of childcare.--No one has a greater
impact on the quality of care than the people who work with children
every day. That is why CCR&Rs across the country provide ongoing
professional development opportunities to childcare providers and
staff. By supporting accreditation and quality improvement programs,
helping create financial incentives for education, partnering with
higher education, and advocating for better compensation for providers,
CCR&Rs help improve the quality of care for all children.
5. CCR&Rs bridge childcare and education.--High-quality childcare
has many benefits, including preparing children for school. CCR&Rs
strive to create childcare settings that help children grow and learn.
Educating parents about early learning and the components of quality
care is also a major part of CCR&R services. Partnering with schools to
support early learning programs and children's transition from early
care and education into kindergarten is also part of what CCR&Rs do to
support young children. CCR&Rs are dedicated to informing communities
about the important links between early learning and later success in
school.
6. CCR&Rs document childcare needs and trends.--What makes CCR&Rs
unique is their ability to gather information to better understand
family needs. CCR&Rs are the major source of information about the
local supply, cost and features of childcare. CCR&Rs are also able to
track trends about the changing needs of families and to analyze the
strengths, weaknesses and gaps in early care and education and school-
age childcare and routinely publish/disseminate this information to
help local and State public policymakers, employers, funders and others
make good decisions about systemic and strategic investment.
7. CCR&Rs engage new partners.--High-quality childcare does more
than benefit children; it can create positive results for entire
families and for communities as a whole. By reaching out to business
leaders, law enforcement, school teachers, and others, CCR&Rs help make
childcare an issue the entire community cares about. CCR&Rs collaborate
with other family support services to promote a holistic vision of
childcare that includes health, literacy, and special needs.
8. CCR&Rs tell the childcare story.--By providing resources,
documenting community needs, and creating new ways to meet those needs,
CCR&Rs bring the voices of children, families, and childcare providers
to the public in order to galvanize support for addressing the needs of
families, employers, childcare providers and others concerned about
childcare issues.
In the broadest sense, the field of community-based childcare
resource and referral (CCR&R) defines its mission as ``doing whatever
it takes to make early care and education and school-age childcare work
for families and communities'' from within the community served. The
specific services that each CCR&R offers as it pursues this mission are
determined by community needs and by the kinds of structures and
activities that local leaders and planners envision and develop.
Core CCR&R services include:
Consumer Education and Referral
CCR&Rs provide free standard, consumer education referrals to all
parents utilizing a provider database which contains comprehensive data
gathered from area early care and education and school-age childcare
programs. Standard referrals include lists of approximately 10-15
providers who meet the stated needs and preferences of the family, such
as the age of the child, the star level of the program desired,
location, hours, cost and desired program features. In addition to
early care and education and school-age childcare referrals, CCR&Rs
often provide families with referrals to a wide array of supportive
community services. Referrals are accessible in person, over the
telephone, and increasingly have become available through CCR&R agency
Web sites. Referral services are typically staffed by degreed early
childhood professionals. CCR&Rs are expected to reach 20 percent of all
families receiving referrals to conduct followup evaluative interviews
that document the type of care found, levels of satisfaction with
services provided and help identify market strengths and needs.
In North Carolina, CCR&Rs play a key role in educating parents
about the star-rated childcare licensing system and its components, as
well as encouraging parents to select higher star-rated facilities.
Professional Development
CCR&Rs typically conduct annual training surveys to determine the
training needs of early care and education and school-age childcare
professionals. Based on survey findings and knowledge of the field's
needs, CCR&Rs typically offer a calendar of training opportunities that
are available at low or no cost to participants that address the topics
approved by the State's childcare licensing department. Training
participants receive licensing credit toward the fulfillment of annual
licensing requirements and/or continuing education credit through a
community college system or an IACET (International Association of
Continuing Education and Training) approved training organization.
Training delivered through CCR&Rs can be seated, at community sites, at
individual ECE/SACC programs, at community colleges or delivered via
the Internet or other distance learning or hybrid learning
methodologies.
In addition, CCR&Rs work to promote the higher education and
compensation of the early care and education and school-age childcare
field by partnering with community colleges, TEACH and other
scholarship and wage enhancement programs, and by creating career
lattice/professional development plans for the communities served.
CCR&Rs author a variety of publications and newsletters to keep the
field abreast of new issues and training opportunities. Finally, CCR&Rs
partner with professional associations to support their ability to
serve early childhood and school-age childcare programs and
practitioners.
In North Carolina, CCR&Rs are relied upon to deliver Division of
Child Development and Early Education-approved training that enables
programs to meet and exceed licensing requirements. In addition, CCR&Rs
are involved in supporting practitioner advancement in higher education
which research studies demonstrate leads to improved childcare program
quality.
In addition, many CCR&Rs offer parenting, child/development, and
work/life balance training to employees at their worksite. Another
example of CCR&R training is college-credit bearing coursework
delivered by CCR&R trainers that have been approved as adjunct
instructors of local community colleges. In this instance,
practitioners are able to access community college credit-bearing
coursework at the CCR&R and this training is often paired with
technical assistance that supports the participant's application of
theory acquired to practice within the classroom.
CCR&Rs are increasingly involved in accessing, arranging for and/or
delivering training on specific curricula to help childcare programs
identify and implement curricular strategies to improve the quality of
care delivered to children.
Technical Assistance
CCR&R technical assistance (TA) services include the provision of
assistance with the startup of childcare programs, support to programs
that have self-identified a technical assistance need, mandatory
targeted assistance to a program as a result of a licensing violation
or abuse and neglect substantiation, and/or responding to a program's
or individual teacher's request for information to improve the quality
of care delivered. Typically, such technical assistance is delivered at
no or low cost to the provider/program and does not require intensive,
repeated quality improvement services of an extended time period.
Examples of episodic, short-term TA services include responding to a
call from a provider about discipline, accommodating a child with
special needs, biting, parent/provider relations, explaining specific
requirements of a higher star-rated license, or addressing problems
with a specific classroom.
Enhanced TA services typically involve more intensive work such as
providing in-depth services to support the startup of a childcare
program or working with a program on the development and execution of a
quality improvement or maintenance plan to achieve and sustain higher
quality. Another example of an enhanced technical assistance project is
CCR&R sponsorship of a Family Child Care Network across a community,
county or region. Such work is labor-intensive and usually requires a
specific ``enhanced'' funding source in order for it to be available
within a community. Smart Start is a primary funder of such more-
intensive TA quality improvement/maintenance initiatives in North
Carolina and CCR&Rs' success in delivering such services has
significantly improved the quality of early care and education programs
in the regions served.
Other examples of enhanced technical assistance services include
conducting a market-needs assessment analysis to determine the need for
a childcare facility in a proposed setting, consulting on the design of
a childcare facility, developing a request for proposals for an
operator of a childcare program, assisting a sponsor with the selection
of an operator, developing a marketing plan for a new childcare
program, assisting in the ordering of materials and equipment for a new
facility and/or consulting with the facility to develop staff and
parent handbooks, etc.
North Carolina's CCR&Rs are also contracted to provide a cadre of
trained school-age childcare, infant toddler, and behavior specialists
to provide training and consultation services to ECE/SACC programs
across the State. Childcare health consultants are also, at times,
housed within CCR&Rs, as are inclusion specialists.
Data Collection, Analysis, Reporting & Community Education
Through the provision of core services, CCR&Rs gather a great deal
of information about the unique characteristics, strengths and needs of
families, children, early care and education and school-age childcare
programs and practitioners, and communities served. CCR&Rs mine this
data for its planning and policy relevance and use it to inform
strategies to address community, regional and Statewide needs. CCR&Rs
also report such data to public and private sector stakeholders to
leverage interest in and attention to the needs of young children and
those who care for them.
Child Care Subsidy Administration
More than 40 percent of CCR&Rs across the Nation are involved in
some form of childcare subsidy administration as an enhancement of
CCR&R core services. In North Carolina, several CCR&Rs assume this role
in managing the county and local Smart Start, United Way, and/or other
publicly or privately funded childcare subsidy programs. CCR&R
management of such services de-stigmatizes access to childcare
financial assistance for families and enables families to receive
counseling and referral services from child development experts.
Childcare subsidy services managed by CCR&Rs emphasize the importance
of higher quality childcare, resulting in parents' increased tendency
to enroll their children in higher star-rated facilities that better
prepare them for school.
Question 5. How have Child Care Resource and Referral agencies
informed public policy and connected community efforts in eliminating
both the ``preparation gap'' for children birth to age five and the
``opportunity gap'' for all children to succeed in school and life?
Answer 5. Child Care resource and referral agencies work
individually to inform public policy at the local and regional level
and collectively, at the State level (through each State's childcare
resource and referral network) and at the national level through the
National Association of Child Care Resource & Referral Agencies (now
doing business as Child Care Aware of America) to inform public
policy. CCR&Rs work daily to improve the quality of childcare in
communities and to promote the healthy development and school readiness
of young children.
CCR&Rs work with parents to better understand the questions to ask
providers, what to look for in a quality setting, and the options
available in a community. CCR&Rs work with childcare providers to
strengthen the quality of care that is offered. CCR&Rs partner with the
State and other organizations within the State to strengthen the
quality of care within communities to meet the needs of parents who
must balance work and family. Many CCR&Rs work with or are on State
early care and education councils to promote quality early care and
education that meets the needs of families.
CCR&Rs collect real-time data on the demand and supply of childcare
within communities. Many of these agencies use this data to draft
reports to their State and to the public about childcare use, demand,
and condition to better inform public policy to promote the
availability of affordable, quality childcare. With the data from
CCR&Rs, NACCRRA has released six studies about State licensing and
oversight, seven annual price reports--the cost of care for infants,
preschoolers, and school-age children in centers and family childcare
homes, an annual State-by-State childcare fact book, as well as other
research reports that emanate from CCR&R data that serve to promote
better quality childcare for all children, particularly low-income
children who can most benefit from a quality setting.
Question 6. In your testimony you mentioned tiered-subsidy
reimbursement. How does tiered-subsidy reimbursement operate and how
does it affect childcare quality?
Answer 6. North Carolina was one of the first States in the Nation
to establish a tiered quality-rating improvement system and since
inception it has been embedded in childcare licensing. All programs
that are 75 percent compliant with childcare licensure have a star
rating of at least one star. Programs may earn up to five stars based
on the quality of the program and the educational attainment of program
staff. If a program meets minimum licensing standards, it is awarded a
one-star license. In order to achieve a higher star-rated license, a
program must exceed floor licensing quality standards (as reflected
through objective measurement of classroom/program quality utilizing
environment rating scales) and its teaching staff must engage in and
achieve higher levels of advanced (college) education.
North Carolina's tiered reimbursement system differentiates
childcare subsidy reimbursement rates paid to childcare programs based
on the type of program (e.g., childcare center or family childcare
home), the age of child, the county where the childcare program is
located, and the program's star level. The reimbursement rate for
childcare subsidy (which is based on market rate survey data) is also
progressively differentiated based on the specific star level achieved
by the program.
Quality childcare is more costly to deliver than childcare that
meets the State's minimum licensing standards. Accordingly,
reimbursement rates are set to recognize the differential cost of
delivering higher quality childcare. The combined strategies of a
tiered quality-rating improvement system and a tiered childcare-subsidy
reimbursement system have worked to greatly advance and improve the
quality of North Carolina's childcare system. Today, 64 percent of all
children enrolled in licensed NC childcare programs are in higher
quality (4- and 5-star) childcare programs and 66 percent of low-income
children whose care was paid for using Federal funds are enrolled in
higher quality (4- and 5-star) programs.
As I mentioned in my testimony, NC's General Assembly passed
legislation in fiscal year 2011 that prohibits the payment of childcare
subsidy for services delivered in one- and two-star childcare program
settings. Despite a challenging economic environment, this State has
decided to invest in the provision of higher quality childcare for low-
income children.
senator sanders
Question 1. Current law provides for the possibility of
automatically enrolling children in public health care (SCHIP or
Medicaid) when they are found eligible for a childcare subsidy, but no
States have adopted this option. They could be required to do so.
Meanwhile, we know that many kids arrive at kindergarten with
undiagnosed learning disabilities and developmental delays. Childcare
providers could be required to screen children entering their care for
disabilities that would make them eligible for additional services. Can
you comment on either or both of these proposals?
Answer 1. I believe that requiring the developmental screening of
children enrolled in childcare would be beneficial for all children
enrolled (and is currently the Federal requirement for Head Start
children), but such a requirement must be accompanied by funding to
ensure that:
1. There is sufficient initial and ongoing training in basic child
development required of and available to the early childhood workforce;
2. Childcare programs have access to age-appropriate developmental
screening instruments;
3. Childcare practitioners are able to access initial and ongoing
training to properly utilize such tools and learn how to appropriately
convey screening results to parents; and
4. Resources are available to appropriately refer children and
families to community resources for needed services.
One such screening tool that is utilized in North Carolina through
a variety of initiatives is the ASQ--the Ages and Stages
Questionnaire. The tool is a developmental and social-emotional
screening instrument for children from 1 month to 5\1/2\ years of age.
According to its authors, it is ``highly reliable and valid, and looks
at children's strengths and trouble spots, educates parents about
developmental milestones, and incorporates parents' expert knowledge
about their children.'' One reason why ASQ works is that it begins with
a parent questionnaire. Based on a parent's responses, a trained
practitioner can identify a child's developmental need that may benefit
from additional screening and make appropriate referrals for the child.
In North Carolina, this tool is being used in pediatrician's
offices and in several initiatives that focus on identifying children
with challenging behaviors or developmental delays. Clearly, funding
would be needed to scale the use of such a tool across the Nation's
early care and education system, but the return on investment would be
significant in terms of earlier identification of children with
developmental delays and/or undiagnosed learning disabilities.
Question 2. Rural areas pose particular challenges for childcare
providers, including transportation across potentially large distances,
whether from home to childcare, from childcare to Head Start, and so
on. In addition, both rural and high poverty areas may face a shortage
of qualified care providers. Are you aware of any strategies to improve
the supply and quality of care in rural and high poverty areas?
Answer 2. Improving the supply and quality of care in rural and
high poverty areas is difficult and complicated human service work. As
parents learn, through childcare resource and referral and other
sources, about the impact of higher quality childcare on children's
healthy development and school readiness, they want the market to
provide such care. However, parents are typically in their early
earning years when their children are in their early learning years--
and have difficulty affording the cost of higher quality childcare. In
North Carolina, the average cost of care for one infant in a childcare
center was $9,185 last year. For middle income, high poverty and rural
families, this is difficult to afford. In high poverty urban and rural
communities alike, childcare providers are more likely to set their
fees based on what they determine parents can pay for care, not what it
actually costs the provider to deliver the care.
Childcare subsidy reimbursement through the Child Care and
Development Block Grant (CCDBG) is not determined by the cost of
quality. Rather, reimbursement rates are tied to what parents can
afford to pay (the CCDBG required bi-
annual market rate study recommends that States set reimbursement rates
so that parents have choices among 75 percent of the providers in the
community). Therefore, the per capita income of the community is the
driver of the market rate, not the true cost of quality care. Thus,
poor communities (whether urban or rural) are more likely to have a
depressed market rate, which in turn, makes it difficult to achieve and
sustain quality. Some States do not use the market rate survey in
setting subsidy rates. There is a requirement to do one, but not to use
it. Due to inadequate funding levels, many States use an out-dated
market rate survey, some by as much as 10 years.
An alternate strategy could be employed to determine CCDBG
authorized reimbursement rates that would be differentiated based on
the actual cost of distinct quality levels, not what parents can afford
to pay. The current system relies on an undercompensated workforce and
program operators, and a patchwork of fledgling supportive programs
that must constantly look for funding to sustain the availability of
quality improvement and/or maintenance services needed by childcare
programs. While North Carolina has prioritized public policy and
investment in young children's school readiness, this commitment is not
matched in most States and Federal action is required in order to
ensure the economic productivity of families with young children and
the healthy development and school readiness of children.
North Carolina has worked, utilizing both State, Federal and local
public and private sector funds, to improve the quality and
availability of childcare across the State, including high poverty and
rural areas. These areas have special challenges--such as access to
recruiting, hiring, and maintaining a trained and educated staff.
Programs like the T.E.A.C.H. Early Childhood scholarship programs and
the WAGE$ salary supplement program play a critical role in advancing
the qualifications of the early childhood workforce. Additionally,
childcare resource and referral agencies training and technical
assistance services are also made available across the State, including
rural and high poverty areas, to strengthen and stabilize childcare
quality.
The childcare community must unite to urge the development of
public will and policy to support further development of childcare
resources for both rural and high poverty areas. Attention should be
paid to developing and engaging cross-sector early care and education
leadership. Years ago, there was a multi-year leadership training
effort in NC that resulted in the development of nearly 200 early
childhood leaders (many of whom went on to assume key roles in local
CCR&Rs and Smart Start partnership organizations).
North Carolina early childhood advocates have always tried to
establish public policy and programs that provide equal access for its
high poverty and rural communities. These communities must also have
local leaders who value quality early childhood education and have the
knowledge and skills to move public will. Furthermore, these leaders
must do their ``homework'' to have specific program strategies at hand,
which are research-based or evidence-informed, that can produce lasting
systemic gains and have the influence, funding and capacity to
implement such strategies.
Question 3. One way we can truly improve our childcare in America
and in Vermont is to treat childcare providers as the true
professionals they are. Too often, childcare providers are paid too low
and with poor benefits, factors that discourage talented professionals
from entering the profession. We must pay our childcare workers like
any teacher, give them great benefits, and assist them with paying off
student loan debt. Unfortunately, investing the amount of resources
necessary to make this happen is not possible in the current budget
climate. What can we do today to improve the childcare workforce
without having a significant negative impact on access to care? Do you
agree that we should require a minimum level of training which includes
principles of early learning and child development?
Answer 3. Yes, I agree. The quality of childcare cannot be
strengthened without addressing the quality of the workforce. Training
and education are key to advancing the quality of our Nation's
childcare system. All paid childcare providers who care for unrelated
children on a regular basis should be required to complete a specific
number of hours of initial competency-based training and engage in a
specific number of hours of in-service training annually. The childcare
resource and referral field is advocating for 40 hours of initial
training and 24 hours of ongoing training on an annual basis:
Topics should include: CPR, child guidance/behavior, child
abuse prevention, detection, and reporting, child development, learning
activities, and business practices and licensing requirements (for
directors and family childcare home providers);
Training should be intentional, sequential, and evidence/
research-based and lead to effective practice: Training should enrich
and extend understanding of child development and the delivery of
quality early care and education and should focus on strengthening
practitioner knowledge and skills;
Training should utilize traditional and new delivery
methodologies: States should be encouraged to ensure that there are
multiple modes of access to training, including both seated and
electronic/on-line course/class work, to increase access to training
opportunities particularly in more remote areas;
Professional Development should lead to identified
milestones of educational attainment: States should develop programs
that help the workforce progress toward a Child Development Associate
credential, certificate programs in areas of specialization (e.g.,
infant/toddler, school-age, administration), Associate and Bachelor
degrees, and that enable the workforce to achieve early educator
certification which recognize the educational attainment of the
individual worker; and
Scholarship and Compensatory Initiatives: Invest in the
expansion of programs like T.E.A.C.H and WAGE$ (referenced above) which
help make engagement in higher education affordable for the workforce,
increase the return on investment for higher education, provide
incentives to remain in the workforce after engaging in higher
education, and enhance the continuity of care that children in
childcare receive.
Quite simply, the advances needed cannot be fully achieved without
significant increases in the Child Care and Development Block Grant.
Yet, steps can and should be taken to ensure that whatever the level of
Federal investment is in childcare, funding is spent on strategies and
services that well serve (rather than just serve) young children and
their families. To do otherwise would be to ignore the ever-
increasing volume of brain development, school reform, and economic
research which conclude that public investment in the education of
young children produces unparalleled returns--in the short and long
term--for our Nation.
senator casey
Question 1. In your testimony, you talked about North Carolina's
consumer education and referral efforts, making information about
quality childcare readily available to parents. Can you provide more
detail about how you have effectively done so in North Carolina? What
have you found to work well? Are there specific examples you can point
to of how this consumer information is being effectively transmitted to
parents in North Carolina?
Answer 1. In North Carolina, childcare resource and referral
(CCR&R) activities, including consumer education and referral, are led
and managed at the State level by the North Carolina Child Care
Resource and Referral Council (which functions as a State network)
under contract to the North Carolina Division of Child Development &
Early Education with funding primarily provided by CCDBG. Our State's
CCR&R system is organized into 14 regions, each of which is led by a
regional lead CCR&R agency. In most regions, there are also local CCR&R
agencies that work under contract to the regional lead agency to help
ensure access to core CCR&R services (e.g., consumer education and
referral, training, technical assistance, and public education) across
the communities served.
To ensure the consistent quality of consumer education and referral
(CER) service delivery statewide, all CCR&R agencies delivering CER
services:
agree to meet annually determined service delivery
utilization expectations that are tied to key demographic variables
(e.g., size of child population by age and number of households with
children under the age of 12 in which all adults present are employed);
utilize NACCRRAware, a software tool offered by NACCRRA
(now doing business as Child Care Aware of America) that tracks
referrals by numerous fields of information including age of the child,
type of care preferred, regulatory status, desired program quality
level (including education levels of staff and program engagement in
quality improvement technical assistance), et cetera;
fulfill requests for assistance via the phone, Internet
and face-to-face;
are guided in their work by a State-specific manual that
defines CER service delivery expectations (including what must be
addressed within a referral request) and protocols for case
fulfillment;
are required to collect commonly defined data sets about
early care and education and school-age childcare (ECE/SACC) program
features and consumer needs;
receive consistent training from and are monitored by NC's
statewide CER specialist; and
obtain evaluation of services provided from at least 20
percent of the consumers who access CER phone/face-to-face service.
North Carolina has 100 counties. CCR&R regions are comprised of
anywhere from three to 13 counties (regions with a smaller number of
counties tend to be more urban than other regions) and there are 68
CCR&R agencies across the State. Until this past year, nearly all of
these agencies were engaged in the delivery of consumer education and
referral (CER) services. To further enhance cost and quality
efficiencies, beginning in State fiscal year (SFY) 2013, NC's 14
regional lead CCR&R agencies are serving as the hub for the fulfillment
of CER requests for assistance within their regions (exceptions to this
practice have been granted in four NC counties based on extenuating
circumstances; as a result, 18 vs. 68 CCR&R agencies are now fulfilling
CER requests for assistance).
North Carolina's childcare licensing system awards programs one to
five stars based on progressively higher levels of quality achieved.
When parents call childcare resource and referral agencies to access
consumer education and referral services, they: (1) learn about the
importance of high quality early care and education and (2) how to
discern quality differences between ECE/SACC programs and they receive
referrals to ECE/SACC programs that meet their needs, preferences and
ability to afford. After receiving such information, consumers
consistently prefer and choose higher quality programs. In State fiscal
year 2012, 93 percent of parents responding to followup questionnaires
sent pursuant to receipt of CER services indicated that as a result of
the information provided, they sought and selected 3-star or higher
rated childcare programs.
Question 2. North Carolina appears to have done a good job at
aligning the different programs that serve young children. What would
you say are the three most important elements of promoting or
establishing alignment between programs such as CCDBG, Head Start, and
State pre-K programs?
Answer 2. The term ``alignment'' means different things to
different people. Not all of North Carolina's or other States'
expectations for early care and education programs are aligned.
However, NC has been successful in working incrementally toward better
alignment and the integration of CCDBG-funded programs, Head Start and
State-funded pre-K. For example:
all early care and education programs funded through
CCDBG, Head Start and NC Pre-K are required to be regulated;
maximum income eligibility for NC Pre-K and CCDBG-funded
childcare is set at 75 percent of State median income;
a child's eligibility for NC Pre-K and Head Start is for a
1-year period; and
while staff education requirements differ across the three
categories of ECE programs referenced, the early care and education
workforce is similarly able to access early care and education higher
education coursework through a robust statewide community and 4-year
college system and higher education scholarships and incentives/awards
such as those available in NC through the T.E.A.C.H. Early Childhood
Project and the Child Care WAGE$ Project.
Accordingly, it is important to:
1. Require early care and education settings, regardless of funding
stream, to be regulated. Regulation establishes at least a minimum
floor on the quality of early care and education programs. There should
be common expectations for the health and safety of children enrolled
in early care and education programs regardless of the program's
funding stream. There should also be common minimum monitoring of early
care and education programs regardless of their funding source.
Moreover, when tiered quality rating and improvement systems are
embedded in childcare regulation (as is the case in North Carolina),
regulation also provides a common framework within which to align
strategic and systemic investment in quality improvement.
[One cautionary note: the term regulation is defined differently
among States. For example, in some States, regulation means licensing
(for example, in North Carolina). In other States, the term regulation
does not equate to licensing. In South Carolina, small family childcare
homes are registered (a form of regulation, but below licensing
standards). In Texas, homes caring for 1-3 children are ``listed.'' The
list is a form of regulation but is a lower standard than licensing.
Regulation ``sub-licensing'' is insufficient.]
2. Incent/require ECE workforce supports so that ECE practitioners
have access to a continuum of training and higher education that helps
them to acquire the knowledge and skills they need to better serve
children and families (regardless of the funding stream that supports
the program in which one works). Such supports include training that
counts toward meeting regulatory requirements (including childcare
resource and referral agency delivered licensing-credit bearing
training, C.E.U. courses, and higher education accessible at 2- and 4-
year colleges), teacher scholarship programs, and wage incentive
programs that improve workforce retention.
3. Align child certification periods (and/or recertification
requirements) across all early care and education programs (currently
in North Carolina, children are determined eligible for a 1-year period
for Head Start and the State's pre-K program, but a child's eligibility
for CCDBG-funded childcare can be interrupted at any time due to
changes in the work/training/income of a child's responsible adult and
re-certification policies and practices at State and local levels--
regardless of whether there has been a change in family income).
Response by Susana Coro to Questions of Senator Murray
and Senator Sanders
senator murray
Question 1. Having a stable childcare situation could do wonders
for a homeless family--it would allow parents time to work, and
hopefully get the family into a home. And childcare could also lessen
the time a homeless child spends at a shelter, campground, or in a
car--wherever the family is living. What kinds of specific outreach do
your programs make to find and serve families who are homeless?
Answer 1. The childcare center that I work in, the Falls Church-
McLean Children's Center, does not engage in outreach to homeless
families. Our program receives referrals from the Fairfax County Office
of Children and we hear from parents who have heard about our program
from friends, neighbors, and other parents who use the center. We do
not advertise at this time. We actively work with the Office of
Children to serve low-income children. We are told by the Office of
Children that they can only give out a list of childcare programs, that
they cannot give recommendations or steer parents to our program. They
have to stay neutral and cannot make referrals to specific programs or
types of programs. I understand that the government can't seem to favor
one program over another, but it seems to me that parents aren't
looking for favoritism. They are looking to find quality care and are
hoping that the list they get of places that might have openings for
children are quality places.
Question 2. How do you identify and serve these homeless families?
What are some of the unique barriers to serving homeless families?
Answer 2. My program does not currently serve homeless families.
The program serves low-income families, but none are currently
homeless. I can imagine this would be difficult, but we do not have
that experience yet.
Question 3. What role does 12-month authorization for childcare
subsidy play in providing greater stability in childcare for low-income
families, and for other families in poverty?
Answer 3. I believe 12-month eligibility for childcare assistance
would be better for families, less disruptive, and serve to better
promote continuity for children. In my case, I can tell you that there
is a lot of paperwork. It's difficult because families may not be able
to take off from work. I know that the government is concerned about
fraud--giving assistance for families who don't really qualify. But,
the process is hard on families. You have to take off from work, not
for 1 hour--but you have to wait for a long time. There are no
appointments, first come-first served--sometimes you wait all day. It's
a lot of work. Also, families need to bring a lot of papers to prove
eligibility like a birth certificate, income information, work
information). Everything must be reviewed. You can lose assistance for
not having all your paperwork. When I had to take off from work to
requalify, my childcare center had to have someone cover for me. The
more frequently you have to prove you still qualify, the harder it is
on your employer because the employer has to find coverage. There needs
to be a better process.
At my center, the staff help the parents get the paperwork ready
for recertification. If the families don't get recertified, the center
doesn't receive funding. The staff help to make sure everything is in
order before the parents go to the government to prove they are still
eligible. Some parents don't read English, some don't write English.
Staff spend several hours a week helping parents get all the
information they need together and helping them to fill out forms,
otherwise, the families lose assistance and the center doesn't get
paid. Families who can't pay have to leave. In my center, the center
tries to cover as much as they can, but most centers can't do that.
They don't have the money.
Question 4. If you had unreliable childcare, would you feel
comfortable heading to work in the morning?
Answer 4. Families need reliable childcare. I can't work when I'm
worried about my kids. One time I found a lady to take care of my son.
She had some type of family emergency during the day but she never
called me. She left my son with a person I did not know, a stranger. It
just wasn't right. She should have told me. She should have let me know
what was going on with my son. When I came to pick up my son at the end
of the day, someone different was caring for him. I didn't know her and
I was very uncomfortable. I couldn't trust a person who would do that
and not let me know, so I never brought my son back. I was done with
that provider. Reliability is very important. Communication is very
important. Children should not be passed off to a stranger without the
parent knowing. It's wrong.
Question 5. When choosing childcare, what are the most important
factors to you?
Answer 5. First, the person must be kind. I want to know that they
will be warm and loving with my son like I would be. I also want to
know how many adults work with the children. Does the childcare
provider care for too many kids? Does she have help? If care is
provided in a center, how many adults are in the room with the kids? I
want to know that my kids will be safe.
I want to know that the provider is a professional, that she has
had some training. I want to know that she knows how to work with kids
and how to handle situations that come up with kids. I want the
director and the staff to talk to me kindly, to care about me, and to
care about my kids. I want them to be honest and trustworthy. I want
the place to be clean. I know that kids will be playing, but I want the
place to be organized and clean, safe for children. Then, I know the
place will be good for my son.
I think it's important to give parents information because parents
aren't experts. They don't know what to ask. This is not because
parents aren't smart, they are. But, parents need help understanding
what to ask, what to look for. Parents don't need a list of places.
They need to know which places are good. I know I didn't have a lot of
time to find childcare, but I tried to look at several places. If I
knew which places were good places to start with, I would not have
wasted so much time looking. I needed help, not a list.
senator sanders
Question 1. Current law provides for the possibility of
automatically enrolling children in public health care (SCHIP or
Medicaid) when they are found eligible for a childcare subsidy, but no
States have adopted this option. They could be required to do so.
Meanwhile, we know that many kids arrive at kindergarten with
undiagnosed learning disabilities and developmental delays. Childcare
providers could be required to screen children entering their care for
disabilities that would make them eligible for additional services. Can
you comment on either or both of these proposals?
Answer 1. This is a hard question. The center I work in is
different from most centers. I think it is a very good idea for
screening of children for disabilities or delays. Our center is not the
typical center. We have consultants who work with us. We have a speech
therapist, an occupational therapist, and a counselor on staff. Centers
don't generally have funding for consultants, special positions, or to
train staff for screening. My center does have this funding because the
board and the director spend a lot of time fundraising.
Parents have to be partners in the screening process. Parents know
their children best. At the same time, parents may not know how their
children are with other children in a center, in a social setting with
other kids. So, the providers and the parents need to work together.
Our center is very unusual. Staff have a 2-3 hour training in order to
conduct the Denver Developmental Screening Test. Staff from the Office
of Children train our staff on this screening tool. They provide us
with technical assistance and they do not charge our center. The
screening enables us to better work with the children and refer some to
programs like Child Find.
Question 2. Rural areas pose particular challenges for childcare
providers, including transportation across potentially large distances,
whether from home to childcare, from childcare to Head Start, and so
on. In addition, both rural and high poverty areas may face a shortage
of qualified care providers. Are you aware of any strategies to improve
the supply and quality of care in rural and high poverty areas?
Answer 2. We do not serve rural areas.
Question 3. One way we can truly improve our childcare in America
and in Vermont is to treat childcare providers as the true
professionals they are. Too often, childcare providers are paid too low
and with poor benefits, factors that discourage talented professionals
from entering the profession. We must pay our childcare workers like
any teacher, give them great benefits, and assist them with paying off
student loan debt. Unfortunately, investing the amount of resources
necessary to make this happen is not possible in the current budget
climate. What can we do today to improve the childcare workforce
without having a significant negative impact on access to care? Do you
agree that we should require a minimum level of training which includes
principles of early learning and child development?
Answer 3. There should be minimum training for staff and for
directors. Providers need training in both typical child development
and atypical so that they can recognize and address both. School
teachers make good money but providers who work with young children,
who are also teachers, do not. The early years are important for later
success. We need to make salaries for early childhood a priority. The
subsidy rates are too low. They fall way below the actual cost of care.
My center would not be a quality center if it weren't for private
fundraising. We would not be able to operate on the subsidy levels
alone.
My center just hired a new teacher who had been with a for-profit
childcare center. She has a CDA and is in school to get an AA. She was
making $11 an hour. My center offered her a higher salary, 16 kids (not
20) in a classroom, and 3 teachers in each classroom. The for-profit
she came from paid $11-an-hour and she never knew who her teaching
assistant would be from day to day because the turnover was so high. We
pay $180 a month toward health coverage for each employee. But, to make
this all possible, my center raised $300,000 last year.
[Whereupon, at 12:04 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]