[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE FOUNDATION FOR SUCCESS: STRENGTHENING
THE CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT PROGRAM
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD,
ELEMENTARY, AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
AND THE WORKFORCE
U.S. House of Representatives
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MARCH 25, 2014
__________
Serial No. 113-54
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web:
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=education
or
Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
87-137 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
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 EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
JOHN KLINE, Minnesota, Chairman
Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin George Miller, California,
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Senior Democratic Member
California Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey
Joe Wilson, South Carolina Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Virginia
Tom Price, Georgia Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Kenny Marchant, Texas Carolyn McCarthy, New York
Duncan Hunter, California John F. Tierney, Massachusetts
David P. Roe, Tennessee Rush Holt, New Jersey
Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania Susan A. Davis, California
Tim Walberg, Michigan Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Matt Salmon, Arizona Timothy H. Bishop, New York
Brett Guthrie, Kentucky David Loebsack, Iowa
Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee Joe Courtney, Connecticut
Todd Rokita, Indiana Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio
Larry Bucshon, Indiana Jared Polis, Colorado
Trey Gowdy, South Carolina Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania Northern Mariana Islands
Martha Roby, Alabama John A. Yarmuth, Kentucky
Joseph J. Heck, Nevada Frederica S. Wilson, Florida
Susan W. Brooks, Indiana Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon
Richard Hudson, North Carolina
Luke Messer, Indiana
Juliane Sullivan, Staff Director
Jody Calemine, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD, ELEMENTARY, AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
TODD ROKITA, Indiana, Chairman
John Kline, Minnesota Carolyn McCarthy, New York,
Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin Ranking Minority Member
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,
Kenny Marchant, Texas Virginia
Duncan Hunter, California Susan A. Davis, California
David P. Roe, Tennessee Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio
Martha Roby, Alabama Jared Polis, Colorado
Susan W. Brooks, Indiana Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Northern Mariana Islands
Mark Pocan, Wisconsin
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on March 25, 2014................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Rokita, Hon. Todd, Chairman, Subcommittee On Early Childhood,
Elementary, and Secondary Education........................ 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Scott, Hon. Robert, C. "Bobby", a Representative in Congress
from the State of Virginia................................. 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Statement of Witnesses:
Golden, Olivia, Dr., Executive Director, Center for Law and
Social Policy (CLASP), Washington, DC...................... 90
Prepared statement of.................................... 92
Jarmon, Gloria, Deputy Inspector General for Audit Services,
US Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC. 97
Prepared statement of.................................... 99
Koos, Paula, Executive Director, Oklahoma Child Care Resource
& Referral Association, Inc., Oklahoma City, OK............ 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 10
Kostantenaco , Linda, President, National Child Care
Association, Washington, DC................................ 85
Prepared statement of.................................... 87
Additional Submissions:
Kline, Hon. John, Chairman, Committee on Education and the
Workforce:.................................................
National Child Care Association, prepared statement of... 124
Miller, Hon. George, Senior Democratic Member, Committee on
Education and the Workforce:
Child Care Assistance Spending and Participation (CLASP)
in 2012, prepared statement of......................... 131
Chairman Rokita questions submitted for the record to:
Ms. Jarmon............................................... 140
Ms. Koos................................................. 142
Mrs. Kostantenaco........................................ 144
Response to questions submitted:
Ms. Jarmon............................................... 147
Ms. Koos................................................. 152
Mrs. Kostantenaco........................................ 155
THE FOUNDATION FOR SUCCESS: STRENGTHENING THE
CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
----------
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary,
and Secondary Education,
Committee on Education and the Workforce,
Washington, D.C.
----------
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:06 a.m., in
Room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Todd Rokita
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Rokita, Kline, Scott, Davis,
Fudge, Polis, and Pocan.
Staff present: James Bergeron, Director of Education and
Human Services Policy; Cristin Datch Kumar, Professional Staff
Member; Nancy Locke, Chief Clerk; Daniel Murner, Press
Assistant; Krisann Pearce, General Counsel; Mandy Schaumburg,
Senior Education Counsel; Dan Shorts, Legislative Assistant;
Nicole Sizemore, Deputy Press Secretary; Alex Sollberger,
Communications Director; Alissa Strawcutter, Deputy Clerk;
Tylease Alli, Minority Clerk/Intern and Fellow Coordinator;
Jamie Fasteau, Minority Director of Education Policy; Scott
Groginsky, Minority Education Policy Advisor; Julia Krahe,
Minority Communications Director; and Megan O'Reilly, Minority
General Counsel.
Chairman Rokita. Good morning. A quorum being present, the
subcommittee will come to order.
Welcome.
I would like to thank our witnesses for joining us to
discuss opportunities to improve the Child Care and Development
Block Grant Program.
My apologies for not being able to visit with you before
the hearing. We will hopefully get some time to visit
afterwards, but again, thank you all for being here.
As you may know, the full committee recently held a hearing
to review the federal investment in early childhood care and
development. During the hearing, we explored opportunities to
streamline and improve existing programs to better serve
children and their families.
Today we will continue that discussion as we examine one of
the largest and most critical programs in the nation's network
of early childhood programs, called the Child Care and
Development Block Grant, or CCDBG as we call it here in
Washington and other places.
Authorized in 1996 under the Child Care and Development
Block Grant Act the CCDBG program provides funds to states to
help low-income families access child care.
Parents receive funds in the form of vouchers or
certificates to pay for the child care provider of their
choice, be it public or private, secular or religious, or in a
home-based or center setting.
CCDBG is invaluable to parents who are struggling to
provide for their families. As a father of two boys myself, I
know firsthand child care isn't just finding a place for your
kids to go during your work day. It is a far more difficult
decision about choosing a provider where you can trust trained
professionals who will care for your child in a safe
environment.
Unfortunately, this is where CCDBG falls short. In the
nearly two decades that have passed since the last
reauthorization of the law, it has become increasingly clear
the CCDBG program fails to ensure states develop or adequately
enforce the health and safety, training, and inspection
standards that really are the foundation for quality child
care.
Last year Child Care Aware of America released a report
ranking the child care center regulations and oversight. The
report found 10 states failed to conduct monitoring visits or
inspections at least once a year. Even more troubling, five
states do not check the child abuse registry before allowing an
individual to even work in the center.
With nearly 1.5 million children and their families
participating in the CCDGB program, federal policy makers must
take steps to strengthen the program and ensure enhanced
program quality and accountability are the focus and the
outcome.
As many of you know, our colleagues in the Senate recently
approved the Child Care and Development Block Grant
Reauthorization Act of 2014. As Chairman Kline noted in our
previous hearing on early care programs, the Senate legislation
presents a solid foundation for reform, and I agree.
I am pleased the Senate legislation includes language to
raise the standards for child care providers, requiring states
to implement minimum training requirements and conduct annual
inspections of licensed providers.
These provisions will help ensure caregivers are equipped
to handle common health conditions and emergency situations,
while also promoting facilities that are cleaner and safer for
our nation's children.
The Senate legislation also takes important steps to
enhance transparency and better inform parents of their child
care options. Under the bill, states are required to make
public information on a range of key issues, including
availability of child care services, the quality of providers,
data on childhood development research, and general best
practices.
While many of these provisions will help to improve the
quality of child care, we must also take steps to ensure these
new requirements will help and not hinder, as is often the
case, states in meeting the needs of children and their
families.
I also hope today we can discuss policy changes that work
to streamline the federal early childhood system and help
increase coordination among existing programs.
If we are truly here to fight for people, and to empower
people, so that they can build better lives for themselves and
their families, access to quality child care is something we
must address and frankly it is something we can do.
The reauthorization of the Child Care and Development Block
Grant Act provides that opportunity to work together to advance
bipartisan legislation that will help our nation's most
valuable children and families.
I also look forward to examining the strengths and
weaknesses of the CCDBG program and discussing opportunities
for consensus between House priorities for reauthorization and
the already-passed Senate legislation.
Once again, I thank our witnesses for joining us today. We
look forward to your testimony and a productive discussion on
this important matter.
I will now yield to my distinguished colleague and friend
from Virginia, Mr. Scott, for his opening remarks.
Mr. Scott?
[The statement of Chairman Rokita follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Todd Rokita, Chairman, Subcommittee On Early
Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education
As you may know, the full committee recently held a hearing to
review the federal investment in early childhood care and development.
During the hearing, we explored opportunities to streamline and improve
existing programs to better serve children and their families.
Today we will continue that discussion as we examine one of the
largest and most critical programs in the nation's network of early
childhood programs, the Child Care and Development Block Grant, or
CCDBG, program.
Authorized in 1996 under the Child Care and Development Block Grant
Act the CCDBG program provides funds to states to help low-income
families access child care. Parents receive funds in the form of
vouchers or certificates to pay for the child care provider of their
choice, be it public or private, secular or religious, or in a home-
based or center setting.
CCDBG is invaluable to parents who are struggling to provide for
their families. As a father of two boys, I know firsthand child care
isn't just finding a place for your kids to go during your work day.
It's a far more difficult decision about choosing a provider where you
can trust trained professionals will care for your child in a safe
environment.
Unfortunately, this is where CCDBG falls short. In the nearly two
decades that have passed since the last reauthorization of the law, it
has become increasingly clear the CCDBG program fails to ensure states
develop or adequately enforce the health and safety, training, and
inspection standards that are the foundation for quality care.
Last year Child Care Aware of America released a report ranking
state child care center regulations and oversight. The report found 10
states failed to conduct monitoring visits or inspections at least once
a year. Even more troubling, five states do not check the child abuse
registry before allowing an individual to work in a center.
With nearly 1.5 million children and their families participating
in the CCDBG program, federal policymakers must take steps to
strengthen the program and ensure enhanced program quality and
accountability.
As many of you know, our colleagues in the Senate recently approved
the Child Care and Development Block Grant Reauthorization Act of 2014.
As Chairman Kline noted in our previous hearing on early care programs,
the Senate legislation presents a solid foundation for reform.
I am pleased the Senate legislation includes language to raise
standards for child care providers, requiring states to implement
minimum training requirements and conduct annual inspections of license
providers. These provisions will help ensure caregivers are equipped to
handle common health conditions and emergency situations, while also
promoting facilities that are cleaner and safer for our children.
The Senate legislation also takes important steps to enhance
transparency and better inform parents of their child care options.
Under the bill, states are required to make public information on a
range of key issues, including availability of child care services, the
quality of providers, data on childhood development research and best
practices.
While many of these provisions will help to improve the quality of
child care, we must also take steps to ensure these new requirements
will help - not hinder - states in meeting the needs of children and
their families. I also hope today we can discuss policy changes that
work to streamline the federal early childhood system and help increase
coordination among existing programs.
If we are truly here to fight for people, and to empower people, so
they can build better lives for themselves and their families, access
to quality child care is something we must address.
The reauthorization of the Child Care and Development Block Grant
Act provides an opportunity to work together to advance bipartisan
legislation that will help our nation's most vulnerable children and
families. I also look forward to examining the strengths and weaknesses
of the CCDBG program, and discussing opportunities for consensus
between House priorities for reauthorization and the Senate-passed
legislation.
______
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank you for convening the panel and our
distinguished witness panel for their participation in today's
hearing.
I look forward to learning about the Child Care and
Development Block Grant or CCDBG. I am going to call it a block
grant, which is the largest federal program providing funding
for child care.
Through reauthorization of the block grant, which hasn't
seen reauthorization since 1996, presents this committee with
the unique opportunity to ensure access to affordable, quality,
child care that will benefit our children and their parents.
Quality child care programs can act as the first part of a
continuum of learning that sets children on the path to
success.
A recent report released by the Center for American
Progress showed that over 85 percent of Americans, including 77
percent of Republicans, support expanding access to child care
programs.
Today, the Child Care and Development Block Grant supports
low-income parents' ability to work or participate in training
or education programs, and thus their self-sufficiency, and
provides young children with early childhood experiences that
can improve their learning readiness.
The goals of the block grant are strongly related to
preschool goals that our recent full committee hearing
examined. Despite the similarities between child care and
preschool services there are some fundamental differences
between the two.
Preschool is mostly aimed at 4-year-olds, whereas the block
grant funds child care for children from birth to age 12. Most
preschool programs require specific teacher credentials, such
as bachelor degrees, and child care tends to lack such provider
requirements. Pre-K programs often have a specific evidence-
based curriculum requirements which are mostly absent from
child care settings.
A number of issues come to mind when we discuss federally-
funded child care programs. In order to make the best of our
investment, these programs must provide access to those who
need the care, it must be affordable for enough families to be
able to use it, and services must be of high quality.
Poor child care access, affordability, and quality means
that the continued congressional support or reauthorization of
the block grant, including a modest funding increase, will be
insufficient to meet the needs of low-income working parents
and their young children.
On the topic of access, we know that despite about 1.4
million children receiving block grant subsidies, only one in
six children eligible for federal child care systems under the
block grant actually receives it.
There are almost 600,000 children eligible for child care
on waiting lists in just 19 states. Some states don't even keep
waiting lists. They just turn eligible families away.
About 40 percent of eligible children have access to Head
Start, barely half of the 3-to 4-year-olds are enrolled in
preschool programs, but just a third of the low-income children
are enrolled in those programs and that is the group that
really can benefit the most.
Early Head Start was established to provide quality child
development services for children birth to age 3; it reaches of
less than 4 percent of eligible infants and toddlers.
Even when low-income families do have access to child care,
it is often unaffordable, forcing them to choose between paying
for food, clothes, heat, or child care.
According to the US Census Bureau, families living in
poverty spend an average of 30 percent of their income on child
care, compared to only 7 percent for those who are well above
the poverty level.
On the access and affordability issues that American
families face, we know that barely a third of 4-year-olds that
are in child care centers receive high-quality care. Because
the block grant prioritizes workforce support for parents over
education for children, the quality of some child care funds is
poor, hindering some children's development and learning.
One report found that 42 percent of children are in state
pre-K programs that meet less than half the recommended quality
standards.
The block grant requires that states spend 4 percent of
their grants on quality service--quality activities for this
floor is clearly insufficient.
Research from the National Center for Children and the
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
confirms that children receive numerous benefits from high-
quality care, such as better cognitive development, fewer
behavioral problems, enhanced cooperation, increased school
readiness, and improved language use and comprehension.
They will also be less likely to be involved in the
criminal justice system, become a teen parent, or drop out of
school.
As with pre-K, the return on public investment and positive
outcomes are generated only when you have quality care. Poor
quality care can in fact be harmful and put children on the
wrong path.
That is why an expanded federal investment in quality child
care is needed, including Head Start, along with support for
preschool programs, given the importance of quality of care and
early education to future outcomes. Congress and this
administration are examining ways to improve the quality of
publicly-funded child care under this block grant.
Bipartisan reauthorization passed by the Senate 2 weeks ago
emphasizes the necessary quality improvements including
increasing the quality set aside for 4 percent to 10 percent in
critical health and safety provisions such as program
inspections, monitoring, provider training, credentials, and
professional development.
I am eager for a bipartisan collaboration as we reauthorize
the block grant, as well as other legislation that addresses
the educational needs of our children, such as HR 3461, the
Strong Start for America's Children Act.
We need bipartisan collaboration to allow all children to
receive the opportunity to fulfill their potential.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
[The statement of Mr. Scott follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert C. "Bobby" Scott, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Virginia
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to thank our distinguished
witness panel for their participation in today's hearing. I look
forward to learning about the Child Care and Development Block Grant,
or CCDBG, which is the largest federal program providing funding for
child care.
Reauthorization of the Child Care and Development Block Grant,
which hasn't seen a reauthorization since 1996, presents this Committee
with a unique opportunity to ensure access to affordable, quality child
care that will benefit our children and their parents. Quality child
care programs can act as the first part of a continuum of learning that
sets children on the path to success. A recent report released by
Center for American Progress showed that over 85% of Americans ?
including 77% of Republicans ? support expanding access to child care
programs.
Today, the Child Care and Development Block Grant supports low-
income parents' ability to work or participate in training or education
programs, and thus their self-sufficiency, and provides young children
with early childhood experiences that can improve their learning
readiness. These goals of CCDBG are strongly related to the preschool
goals that our recent full committee hearing examined.
Despite the similarities between child care and preschool services,
there are some fundamental differences between the two: preschool is
mostly aimed at 4-year olds, whereas CCDBG funds child care for
children from birth to age 12; most preschool programs require specific
teacher credentials, such as bachelor's degrees, and child care tends
to lack such provider requirements; and prekindergarten programs often
have specific evidence-based curricular requirements, which are mostly
absent from child care settings.
A number of issues come to mind when we discuss federally funded
child care programs - in order to make the best of our investment,
these programs must provide access to those who need child care, must
be affordable enough for families to use, and services must be of a
high quality.
Poor child care access, affordability, and quality means that
continued Congressional support or reauthorization of CCDBG, including
a modest funding increase, will be insufficient to meet needs of low-
income working parents and their young children.
On the topic of access, we know that despite about 1.4 million
children receiving CCDBG subsidies, only one in six children eligible
for federal child care assistance under CCDBG actually receives it. An
estimated 590,000 children eligible for child care are on waiting lists
in 19 states and that number doesn't include two states that don't keep
waiting lists and instead simply turn away eligible families. Just 40%
of eligible children have access to Head Start. Barely half of 3 and 4
year olds are enrolled in preschool programs, and just a third of low-
income children are enrolled in such programs. Early Head Start,
established to provide quality child development services to children
birth to age 3, reaches less than 4% of eligible infants and toddlers.
Even when low-income families do have access to child care, it's
often unaffordable, forcing some of them to choose between paying for
food, clothes, heat, or child care. According to the U.S. Census
Bureau, families living in poverty spend an average of 30% of their
income on child care, compared with 18% for families earning between
100% and 150% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL), and 7% for families
earning at or above 200% of the FPL.
On top of access and affordability issues American families face,
we know that barely a third (35%) of 4-year olds in child care centers
receive high-quality care. Because CCDBG prioritizes workforce support
for parents over education for children, the quality of some of the
child care it funds is poor, hindering some children's development and
learning. One report found that 42% of children are in state
prekindergarten programs that meet less than half of the recommended
quality standards. CCDBG requires that states spend at least 4% of
their grants on quality activities, but this floor is clearly
insufficient.
Research from the National Center for Children and the National
Institute of Child Health and Human Development confirms that children
receive numerous benefits from good quality care such as better
cognitive development, fewer behavioral problems, enhanced cooperation,
increased school readiness, and improved language use and
comprehension. They will also be less likely to be involved in the
criminal justice system, become pregnant as a teenager, or drop out of
school. As with prekindergarten, the return on public investment and
positive outcomes are generated only by quality care - poor quality
care can in fact be harmful and put children on the wrong path.
That's why an expanded federal investment in quality child care is
needed, including Head Start, along with state support for preschool
programs. Given the importance of the quality of care and early
education to future outcomes, Congress and the administration are
examining ways to
improve the quality of publicly funded child care under the CCDBG.
The bipartisan CCDBG reauthorization passed by the Senate two weeks ago
emphasizes necessary quality
improvements, including increasing the quality set-aside from 4% to
10%, and critical health and safety provisions, such as more program
inspections and monitoring, and provider training, credentials, and
professional development.
I am eager for bipartisan collaboration to reauthorize the Child
Care and Development Block Grant, as well as other legislation that
addresses the educational needs of our country, such as the H.R. 3461,
the Strong Start for America's Children Act. We need bipartisan
collaboration to allow all children receive the opportunity to fulfill
their potential. Thank you.
______
Chairman Rokita. I thank the gentleman.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 7(c) all subcommittee members
will be permitted to submit written statements to be included
in the permanent hearing record.
Without objection the hearing record will remain open for
14 days to allow statements, questions for the record, and
other extraneous materials referenced during the hearing to be
submitted into the official record.
It is now my pleasure to introduce our distinguished panel
of witnesses. First we have Ms. Paula Koos. She is the
executive director of the Oklahoma Child Care Resource and
Referral Association.
Welcome.
Next we have Mrs. Linda Kostantenaco. She is president of
the national Child Care Association, the owner director of the
Kiddie Koup Children's Enrichment Center in San Antonio, Texas.
I practiced your name much better then when I actually said
it. That is the story of my life. Excuse me. Welcome.
Dr. Olivia Golden is the executive director for the Center
for Law and Social Policy otherwise known as CLASP.
Welcome.
Ms. Gloria Jarmon is Deputy Inspector General for Audit
Services within the Office of the Inspector General at the US
Department of Health and Human Services.
Thank you for your public service, and welcome.
Before I recognize each of you to provide your testimony,
let me briefly explain our lighting system. This is more of a
reminder for us up here probably than it is for you, but just
for the record, you each will be given 5 minutes to give your
testimony.
When there is 1 minute remaining, the green light will turn
to a yellow light, and of course when it turns red, that means
you need to have stopped unless you get gaveled down by me in
an angry manner.
I am sure it won't be the case. It will be interesting
dinner conversation. You can go home and say, ``I was gaveled
down in Washington.'' In fact, I think there are T-shirts in
the gift store. ``I went to Washington and got gaveled down.''
Now I would like to recognize Ms. Koos for 5 minutes.
Thank you.
STATEMENT OF MS. PAULA KOOS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OKLAHOMA CHILD
CARE RESOURCE & REFERRAL ASSOCIATION, INC., OKLAHOMA CITY, OK
Ms. Koos. Good morning. I want to thank the chairman, Mr.
Kline, of the committee, Chairman Rokita of the subcommittee,
and the members of the subcommittee for inviting me to testify
today.
Child care is a way of life for the majority of families.
It is the same in Oklahoma, but child care is hard to find. It
is hard to afford, and too often the quality is questionable.
Parents worry about the cost and they worry about the safety of
their kids when mom and dad are at work.
I am the executive director of the Oklahoma Child Care
Resource and Referral Association. My agency is one of about
600 CCR&Rs across the country. We help parents locate child
care, and we give families consumer education so that they can
make informed choices. Our services to families are free
because of the child care development block grant, CCDBG.
We also work with providers every day to help improve the
quality of child care through training and technical
assistance. Child care is actually a network of small
businesses mostly owned by women. In my state this is an
industry that generates $500 million in revenues and it employs
over 20,000 workers who earn $290 million annually.
My agency offers training related to strengthening the
workforce and also business related training and technical
assistance because we know sound fiscal management is the
foundation of quality programs.
I urge the subcommittee to consider business TA as an
important component within the quality set aside. Oklahoma is
well known for our strong child care system. Child Care Aware
of America consistently ranked Oklahoma among the top five
states in its review of child care licensing policies. We were
also the first in the nation to establish a quality rating and
improvement system for child care.
Our Reaching for the Stars Program gives parents a better
way to understand and choose quality settings. All child care
programs that accept subsidy payments funded by CCDBG
participate in the rating system. This offers parents choices
and ensures that there is accountability in the expenditure of
public funds.
But Oklahoma does not have a perfect system. We continue to
work toward safety, accountability, and quality.
Two child tragedies in Oklahoma led to the strengthening of
our child care system. In May 2007, 2-year-old Joshua Minton
died in a family child care home in Tulsa. The child care owner
admitted to using masking tape to tape his hands and mouth
because he was whining just prior to naptime. She is serving a
life sentence today for first-degree murder.
Despite a history of licensing violations the state did not
act to close the program. Since Joshua's death the state has
revised its program closure policies and tightened state
background check requirements and inspection enforcement
activities.
The second boy whose story I would like to share with the
committee did not die. Demarion Pittman, a 3-year-old boy
suffered heatstroke and extensive brain damage after being left
in a stifling hot van operated by an uninsured child care
program in August of 2007. His family has already faced
millions of dollars in medical costs.
In 2008 state legislation was enacted to require all
licensed child care programs to carry liability insurance. The
measure also requires agencies that aren't able to obtain
insurance to inform parents that they have no liability
coverage.
Most states do not require child care programs to purchase
liability insurance. And of the states that do, many are in
response to tragedies.
In conclusion, it has been 17 years since the child care
and development block grant was last reauthorized. We now have
the benefit of researched data that demonstrates clearly the
disparity among state policies. It is time to provide some
minimum protection for all our children to ensure the public
dollars are spent in an accountable way.
I urge the subcommittee to give every consideration
possible to requiring comprehensive background checks for child
care providers and volunteers who care for unrelated children;
set minimum health and safety requirements for all children in
child care; require those who work in child care to have at
least 30 hours of pre-service training and 24 hours of annual
training; ensure that all child care programs are subject to
inspection prior to licensure and at least once annually,
especially when CCDGB dollars are used to pay for care;
increase the quality set aside for activities related to
improving the quality of care; and consider a study by the
National Academy of Sciences to review the cost of child care
and recommend ways to design a better system.
Thank you. I have several documents I would like to submit
for the record.
[The statement of Ms. Koos follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Rokita. And without objection, we will put those
in. Thank you for your testimony.
Ms. Kostantenaco?
STATEMENT OF MRS. LINDA KOSTANTENACO, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL CHILD
CARE ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mrs. Kostantenaco. Good morning, Chairman Rokita, Ranking
Member Scott, and ranking members of the subcommittee.
My name is Linda Kostantenaco, and I am the president of
the National Child Care Association. NCCA represents over
12,000 private child care centers throughout the United States.
Our membership is comprised of independently owned and
operated family run businesses, employing over a quarter of a
million Americans; most of whom are women.
Our child care centers provide two vital components;
education, along with a nurturing, healthy and safe
environment. The balance of education and care is a crucial
factor of education and care for parents finding the best child
care center for their children.
Further, our centers provide the peace of mind that enables
parents to do productive during their working hours; working
men and women are able to be contribute to society while their
children learn and grow in child care centers across the
country.
But not every center satisfies every need. It should be
noted that the importance of parental choice be maintained.
Such flexibility ensures parents the opportunity to provide an
appropriate child care center which satisfies their needs and
the unique needs of their children. It is in this array of
choice that facilitates the best partnership between a family
and their child care center.
When examining the need for parental choice, and the
benefits private child care centers provide, it should also be
noted that the significance of parental education and
understanding of the available choices in their community.
For example, it is important that we educate parents
regarding the vital choice of identifying a licensed child care
center that is regulated, inspected, and monitored by
regulatory agencies to insure that the rules and regulations
are kept at their highest standards.
Our membership strives to offer the best child care
available, and in these centers that ensure that high quality
is met and maintained. Setting these standards ensures that
such centers that receive private pay or subsidy funds for
their children are performing at their best, and we should
never compromise their values.
Regarding my own center, I am located in San Antonio,
Texas, and I receive funding for approximately 10 percent of my
children in our care. In other communities through the United
States the percentage of children receiving these funds can be
as high as 95 percent.
Such funding not only assists low-income families but also
includes care for children in protective services and foster
parents. This enforces the need to place children in an
environment that is conducive to their needs and providing them
with a healthy and safe environment.
My center employs 22 hard-working women, and I would not be
here sitting in front of you today without their unwavering
commitment to quality care. My staff not only is hard-working,
but dedicated, and as a private child care operator I
understand the vital role continuing education which plays as
part of maintaining a well-rounded, dedicated staff. Providing
them with training opportunities that will help them in the
classroom is essential in their workplace environment.
Unfortunately, we cannot afford to pay our employees what
they so deserve, as the profit margins within the child care
industry is not significant, and a weakened economy only
compounds this reality.
Aside from salaries and maintaining an engaging center with
toys and educational resources, I must also consider food,
milk, utilities, gas prices for transportation, building and
playground maintenance, and many other costs that create
significant challenges in operating a private child care
center.
Due to all of these economic forces, we are not always in
the position to pass these higher costs on to our parents,
leaving me to absorb them as best I can. You can imagine the
difficult situation I find myself in each year in awarding my
staff with the pay they so deeply deserve. Their genuine
dedication truly becomes a blessing when we move forward each
day.
That said, we offer a service to our working parents that
is essential to affordable care for their children while they
try to improve their family's lives.
These parents are working long hours, multiple jobs, or
going to school to improve their own skills and education, and
the funding from the Child Care Development Block Grant
Program, CCDGB, goes a long way to help the families succeed.
CCDBG assists low-income families in obtaining a safe,
reliable and affordable place for their children while they
continue to work for a better life. This program greatly
supports the child care industry and it is comforting to know
that the Congress is invested in child care as I am.
I thank you all for your dedication and attention regarding
the child care industry and the unique needs of our centers and
staff. Funding and supporting our industry allows parents the
opportunity to keep succeeding in this country and gives their
children the opportunity to receive the nurture and education
vital to their future success.
I thank you, Chairman Rokita, for having me here today, and
I look forward to the subcommittee's questions regarding the
private child care provider.
[The statement of Mrs. Kostantenaco follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Rokita. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Dr. Golden?
STATEMENT OF DR. OLIVIA GOLDEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR
LAW AND SOCIAL POLICY (CLASP), WASHINGTON, D.C.
Ms. Golden. Good morning, Chairman Rokita, Ranking Member
Scott, members of the subcommittee, I am delighted to be here
today to discuss the Child Care and Development Block Grant
Act. As we heard, it is abbreviated CCDBG. I am Olivia Golden,
executive director of the Center for Law and Social Policy.
I will very briefly touch on four topics; why CCDBG matters
so much for parents and children, the federal-state partnership
that is at its core, the program's successes and remaining
gaps, and next steps.
Why it matters: The Child Care and Development Block Grant
is an essential work support for low-income parents, as you
heard from Mrs. Kostantenaco.
Every day it provides access to child care for 1.4 million
children. For those children's parents, working long hours for
little pay, help with child care is necessary if they are going
to work and cover other basic expenses.
The average annual cost of center-based care for a 4-year-
old ranges from more than $4,500 in Tennessee to more than
$12,000 in New York State. When poor families get help with
this cost, studies show that they can stretch their paychecks
to buy needed food and clothing.
But more than that, child care systems also helps parents
get and keep a job and strengthen families' economic security.
Compared to families without subsidies, the research shows
fewer job disruptions due to child care problems, better job
retention, and higher earnings when families get help.
Let me put a face to these findings. In July 2012, Rita, a
low-income working mother in Maryland, talked about the
importance of child care assistance.
``These federal investments were a lifeline for me. I know
where I came from and I do not want to go back.'' CCDBG helped
Rita afford child care, attend classes to develop work skills,
and secure and keep a job.
CCDBG doesn't just help parents, it helps children. It
provides an early learning experience for approximately 1
million children under age 6 each month and helps about 400,000
school-aged children access safe afterschool programs.
When CCDBG is strong, when it is working well, it also
promotes quality by helping low-income parents afford high-
quality programs, which would be impossible or at least very
difficult without assistance.
A recent study confirmed that parents receiving child care
assistance access better quality than parents who can't get
help. Studies of families on waiting lists for child care
assistance confirm that families without help are often left
with low-quality or unsafe options.
Finally, CCDBG helps parents who work nonstandard hours on
the weekends or evenings, which many low-wage workers do, by
allowing them to use more informal care settings that meet
their needs.
Since its inception, CCDBG has been a state-federal
partnership. The federal government sets the broad parameters,
including income eligibility limits and a floor for basic
health and safety. The states make policy decisions within
those parameters; who to serve and what specific health and
safety standards to set above the minimum floor.
In addition to providing direct help to families, CCDBG
also funds something else important. It provides the bulk of
the funding that supports child care and early childhood
quality improvement in the states. That includes money to pay
for inspections and monitoring of child care programs as well
as training, professional development, and scholarships for
early childhood educators, and many other things.
Despite the importance of these accomplishments,
significant gaps remain. Since 2006, more than 260,000 children
have lost CCDBG-funded child care assistance. The number of
children is now at a 14-year low. Rates paid to providers are
extremely low, getting in the way of quality improvements. Many
states fall short of ensuring the most basic health and safety
protections for children.
The Senate reauthorization for CCDBG is an important next
step in the direction of fixing these challenges; improving
continuity for children and parents, ensuring children's health
and safety, strengthening the quality of care and skills of
child care teachers, and promoting program integrity.
In addition though, to move towards these goals, given the
low payment rates and the decline in children served,
increasing resources for child care must also be a top
priority.
In conclusion, it has been nearly 20 years since the CCDBG
has been reauthorized. We know a lot more now about the
importance of the early childhood years, the quality of care,
and the role of family income in children's development than we
did then. For all these reasons, I urge the committee to
seriously consider these improvements to CCDBG.
Thank you.
[The statement of Dr. Golden follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Rokita. Thank you, doctor.
Ms. Jarmon?
STATEMENT OF MS. GLORIA JARMON, DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR
AUDIT SERVICES, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Ms. Jarmon. Good morning Chairman Rokita, Ranking Member
Scott, and other distinguished members of the subcommittee.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today to discuss the
Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector
General's recent reviews of the Child Care Development Fund
Program or CCDF.
My testimony will summarize our office's findings and
recent reports and has three key takeaways.
First, vulnerabilities exist in state standards and
monitoring of child care providers that put the health and
safety of some children at risk. Federal requirements mandating
that states strengthen minimum health and safety requirements
including background checks and strengthen monitoring including
unannounced site visits would reduce those risks.
Two, weaknesses in certain states' fiscal controls over
obligation and liquidation activities put CCDF funds at risk of
being misspent.
And three, HHS has identified the CCDF program as being
susceptible to significant improper payments. HHS reported
substantial progress in reducing the improper payment rate for
the CCDF program from 9.4 percent in fiscal year 2012 to 5.9
percent in fiscal year 2013. However sustained attention will
be needed to further reduce improper payments in this program.
In fiscal year 2013, Congress appropriated $5.1 billion to
CCDF which provides financial assistance for child care for
approximately 1.6 million children each month.
CCDF subsidizes child care for low income children under
age 13 whose parents work or attend educational or job training
programs. States are required to have health and safety
standards in place for all child care providers including those
providers receiving CCDF funds.
These standards must cover three areas: prevention and
control of infectious disease, building and ground safety, and
health and safety training.
Our work has demonstrated that guidance from the
Administration for Children and Families or ACF recommendations
may not be strong enough to ensure that the necessary
background screenings of providers and unannounced inspections
occur.
We are performing health and safety reviews at a number of
states. Our recent completed review of Connecticut showed that
all 20 of the providers reviewed did not comply with one or
more state licensing requirements to ensure the health and
safety of children.
An example of noncompliance included flammable items such
as lighter fluid and gasoline found either in unlocked cabinets
or in the outdoor play area all accessible to children.
We also review at each state the monitoring of licensed
child care providers and report that all states comply with the
federal requirements to have health and safety requirements in
place for licensed child care providers.
However, states monitoring requirements for license
providers did not always meet ACF's recommendations for
background screenings or the recommended standards for
unannounced inspections.
Additionally, we reviewed each states health and safety
requirements and monitoring requirements for license-exempt
child care providers.
We found that a number of states did not report having any
requirements for certain licenses and providers, and some
reported that they did not have requirements in place to
monitor licenses and providers.
Other states reported limited monitoring and limited use of
background checks.
Our work also includes reviews of states' use of funds for
targeted purposes that are 100 percent federally funded.
Weaknesses in certain states fiscal controls over obligating
and liquidating these funds put CCDF money at risk of being
misspent.
To date our audits in four of seven states reviewed have
identified a total of $5.8 million in targeted fund
expenditures that did not comply with federal requirements over
a 6-year period.
Lastly, as part of our oversight activities we are required
to review HHS' annual improper payment information related to
CCDF and other risk susceptible programs to determine and
report compliance with the Improper Payments Information Act as
amended.
In fiscal year 2013 reporting, HHS estimated that improper
payments for CCDF program totaled about $306 million or a 5.9
percent error rate. This is a significant reduction from the
prior year estimated improper payment error rate of 9.4 percent
and represents much progress.
Looking ahead, sustained attention by HHS will be needed to
continue achieving reductions of improper payments in the CCDF
program.
In closing, I thank the subcommittee for its interest in
our work and commitment to our shared goals: ensuring that
federal CCDF dollars are used for their intended purposes of
providing affordable child care to low income families that
does not sacrifice quality or safety.
I will be pleased to answer your questions.
[The statement of Ms. Jarmon follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Rokita. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Again I thank all the witnesses.
Now I would like to recognize the chairman of the full
committee, Chairman Kline.
Recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Kline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank you for holding the hearing. I want to
thank the witnesses for making the trip here. Delightful
weather outside. Thank you for your testimony and for your work
in this important area.
As the House starts its process, this committee and the
House starts its process of looking at reauthorizing this
important legislation, we are very pleased that you were able
to come here today and help us take a look at this.
Mrs. Konstantenaco--I practiced as well--why do you think
it is important for a state child care system to offer a mixed
delivery model? And then can you tell us how private providers
contribute to that mixed delivery model?
Mrs. Kostantenaco. Well, it gives the parents a choice.
Again we need to make them aware of the regulations that we
follow, that they need to go to licensed child care in that
vicinity. We want to make sure that there is a continuity of
care.
Again, we are there to nurture those children and take care
of them on their daily needs through educating them as well.
But again, for most of them the health and safety are a vital
concern.
Again, it is parents' choice. They know what is best for
their children, but again, sometimes they need that educational
background to know that they need to go to a licensed child
care and have that option to be able to choose where they need
to go.
Mr. Kline. And the private providers offer those different
approaches?
Mrs. Kostantenaco. Yes. Some doing different hours of care,
et cetera.
Mr. Kline. Okay, thank you.
Ms. Koos--I didn't practice that quite as much and probably
should have--what steps do you think Congress should take to
strengthen coordination among the early childhood education and
early childhood care programs?
Ms. Koos. Well, I think the Headstart preschool partnership
is probably a good start--that we are going to be working early
Headstart and child care are going to be working together.
I think one of the things that we need to be sure happens
is that everybody is working under some of the same standards,
that they are all looking at the health and safety of children.
Not every program has the same standards.
In Oklahoma we are attempting right now to come up with a
system that incorporates pre-K, Headstart, and child care so
that if you meet certain standards in Headstart you are also
meeting the same standards in the QRS program for child care
and you are meeting the same standards that the education
department has established for pre-K.
That is not necessarily true and so it makes it difficult
to know when you are going program to program to program are
they equal, are they comparable, do they have the same quality
standards in place.
Ms. Golden. If I may add a comment about the national
experience, I do think that there is a lot of really good work
going on, as you describe, in states that are doing
coordination.
So for example, when I worked in New York State,
partnerships between pre-K, Head Start, and child care, the
potential for a child--because the Child Care and Development
Block Grant is unique in its ability to support the children of
working families full day and full year, so you might be able
to have the core preschool program delivered for several hours
in a setting and then support with child care dollars the full
day.
So I do think that collaboration is very important. All the
systems need resources to make it work and the Senate
reauthorization encourages even more of that, but I do think
that is an important area where the child care block grant
program is contributing to good partnerships going on around
the country.
Mr. Kline. Okay. Thank you very much. I see my light has
turned yellow and in probably a futile effort to set the
example for the rest of my colleagues, I will yield back.
Chairman Rokita. I thank the chairman.
Mr. Scott is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Golden, we just heard the question about interaction
between pre-K and Head Start. If we want quality education, why
don't we just put all of the money in pre-K and Head Start? Why
do you have to have the child care in addition to that?
Ms. Golden. Well, the reason we need all those programs to
be strong--I think there are two big reasons--one of them which
I just mentioned is that the Child Care and Development Block
Grant has as its mission supporting care for working parents
and so it has the capacity to provide full-day and full-year
care.
So there are, for example, partnerships like the one I
mentioned where a child might be in prekindergarten or in a
Head Start program but need care for the whole day--a mother
who is working can't take a child to a 4-hour program and pick
them up again.
I think a second really important reason is that the Child
Care and Development Block Grant addresses children of all
ages, and for infants and toddlers - I think it may have been
in your opening statement - highlighting only about four
percent reach through Early Head Start.
We need far more resources in Early Head Start, but we also
need the capacity through the block grant to reach those
children and to reach school-age children.
I guess the last thing I would highlight is that when
researchers look at all those programs and look at the universe
of needs, the families who are working and struggling to find
care, what they find is a lot of unmet need in all of them. So
we need to strengthen each of the pieces and make them fit
together well.
Mr. Scott. I think, Ms. Jarmon, you might be able to answer
this.
Everybody is talking about quality in general. What kind of
initiatives are funded with the quality set-asides? Is that
something that you looked at?
Ms. Jarmon. We haven't looked at the initiatives related to
the quality of set-asides. We are doing some health and safety
reviews at several states.
Mr. Scott. Okay, let me get back to Ms. Golden.
Ms. Golden. Sure. I can give some examples and then you may
have examples in other states. The quality resources from the
child care block grant are really important for a whole range
of things.
They pay for training, professional development, a program
that is sometimes called the TEACH program, where somebody in a
child care program can get some further training and then come
back and get a boost in their salary to reflect that
credential.
The quality rating system that I think Ms. Koos described
in most states, setting that kind of system up where you would
be able to give it from one star to four or five stars
depending on the quality, and then you would be able to provide
a program say that was a three star and wanted to get better,
you could give them some resources to do that.
That is another example. Sometimes things just as basic as
the kind of equipment or materials that a home family child
care provider needs to be able to provide an educational
experience. Those are all examples.
Ms. Jarmon. Can I add a little bit more because I was
thinking about the quality setting--we do work on targeted
funds and some of those are for quality issues.
Our work on the targeted funds is also in several states
and we are actually looking at how the funds are accounted for
and that is where we have found some issues where in some cases
funds were obligated beyond the obligation period and had been
in some cases liquidated beyond the liquidation period, but
there we were focusing more on the accounting related to what
we call targeted funds and I believe the quality is one of the
three areas of the targeted funds, so I wanted to correct that.
Ms. Koos. What we know about quality is that the education
of the child care provider makes a huge difference in the
experience that a child is going to have in child care.
One of the things that states can use their CCDBG dollars
to do is to help pay for educational opportunities for child
care providers.
In Oklahoma we assist child care providers with college
tuition. It also helps pay for training in general. Most of the
CCR&R budgets come from the CCDBG dollars and most of the
CCR&Rs provide training in Oklahoma. We provide about 50
percent of the training that child care providers receive in a
year.
Mr. Scott. I don't want to cut you off--
Ms. Koos. It is also used to just improve training
practices, so if you--
Mr. Scott. I don't mean to cut you off, but I am trying to
get in another question before the red light comes on.
Ms. Koos. Okay.
Mr. Scott. Ms. Golden, quality costs more than lack of
quality. What are some of the costs if we don't make these
investments?
Ms. Golden. I think the costs if we don't make quality
investments are a lot better known now than they were 20 years
ago. That providing quality care for children for young
children pays off in terms of their later ability to succeed in
life, so their ability to succeed in school, to make good
choices as adolescents, to succeed as adults and the costs of
not doing that are that children potentially to not finish high
school or become parents too early.
I also think that when it comes to the--
Mr. Scott. Do these have an effect on the teen pregnancy
rate, criminal justice system, drug abuse, dropping out?
Ms. Golden. I think it is fair to say that quality in early
childhood has an effect on all of those things, yes. I also
just want to say that in this program quality and continuity
also have an effect on the parents' work because if the
problems cause the setting--cause it to be disruptive than the
parent isn't going to be able to work steadily either.
Chairman Rokita. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman's
time has expired.
Ms. Fudge is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Fudge. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I thank you all for being here today. Thank you for your
testimony.
I would like to begin with Ms. Kostantenaco. A question--
you mentioned the fact that most child care workers are women--
Mrs. Kostantenaco. Yes.
Ms. Fudge.--who are paid low wages.
Mrs. Kostantenaco. Yes.
Ms. Fudge. Can you give me some idea of what you think the
effect of the low wages have on the child care programs
themselves as well as the families of the people who work in
this industry?
Mrs. Kostantenaco. Okay. Well, if you don't--if you are not
able to pay your staff they go someplace else. In my history I
have been very lucky to have a supportive staff that some of
them have raised their children in my center when they started
working for me.
Again, it is hard to retain staff in some areas. I have
been very lucky, but other people there is always an in--
Ms. Fudge. You have a great deal of turnover--it is a
possibility for a great deal of turnover?
Mrs. Kostantenaco. It can be, yes, it can be.
Ms. Fudge. And often a lot of these people too use safety
net programs from the government to make ends meet, sometimes,
right?
Mrs. Kostantenaco. Yes.
Ms. Fudge. Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Koos, let me just ask this question. You have been
talking about raising the standard minimum requirements, which
I agree with. But you know a lot of people in the House of
Representatives don't believe in regulation.
Please express to me again why you think it is so important
that there be some basic minimum standard to protect our
children.
Ms. Koos. Well I think it is very important because we are
talking about the safety of our children. In some states where
there is no inspection prior to licensure and there is no
inspection on a regular basis, a child can go into child care
and wind up in kindergarten and the facility that they have
been in has never been inspected.
If people don't know what they don't know they can't
improve their practices and without some standards, some basic
standards that say every program needs to meet this standard
you can't leave it to chance.
Parents assume when you tell them that a program is
licensed that they have met a certain limited number of
regulations and that somebody has checked on it. That is not
true in every state.
We are very fortunate in the State of Oklahoma that if you
get a license in Oklahoma you are inspected three times a year.
That is very unusual because it is significantly less than that
in many states.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you. I am assuming no one disagrees with
the fact that there needs to be some basic--thank you very
much.
Ms. Jarmon, what are your thoughts on the Senate-passed
bill as it relates to strengthening training for providers--you
talked about in your testimony--strengthening training for
providers and intake workers, plus monitoring, plus talking
about background checks? You talked about all of that. Tell me
again why you believe that would reduce the amount of fraud or
abuse in this program.
Ms. Jarmon. Our reports have recommended some minimum level
of standards also for heath and safety requirements including
comprehensive background checks and strengthening the
monitoring including unannounced visits, so our work has
supported the need for that also.
Ms. Fudge. I just want to--and I am going to yield back--
but I want to thank you all for coming. I know how important it
is.
Child care is a very important issue in this country for
working people, in particular especially for poor working
parents, for those who are just trying to get by, and I know
the cost of it has continually gone up and our salaries haven't
gone up and people are having a very difficult time in this
nation.
So I thank you all for your care and concern whether you
agree or disagree, I know that you all care about America's
children, and I thank you for that.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Rokita. I thank the gentlelady.
Mr. Pocan is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Pocan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to the witnesses today. I come from a state where
we have a Quality Star Program as well. In fact, we created it
when I was in the legislature and now we are trying to see the
impact and implementation of how that is coming together.
First of all, let me start with Dr. Golden specifically to
what the Senate passed.
One, I am just wondering--you briefly touched some of the
improvements that you perhaps suggest to that bill. Can you
just expand on that a little bit?
Ms. Golden. In terms of the provisions of the Senate bill
that are improvements to the program.
Mr. Pocan. Yes.
Ms. Golden. I would highlight several categories. We have
talked particularly about the improvements to the basic health
and safety standards and the states monitoring, and we think
that is about raising the floor from the federal point of view.
That is important.
There are also improvements that focus on quality, on
directing more state resources toward programs like what you
heard about in terms of education and training.
And then there are provisions that focus on continuity, on
helping a parent and a child stay in that program for not--
right now many parents get in and then in 3 months something
bureaucratic has happened that isn't their fault and they are
moved out, and that is not good for children or for parents.
So I think there are some very important provisions on all
of those areas. At the same time I think we also think that
resources are going to be an important part of making those
provisions effective as another step for moving forward.
Mr. Pocan. And that is what I meant--your suggestions for
improvements to the Senate bill--I am sorry.
Ms. Golden. I am sorry. I think that the headline from our
perspective would be that in addition to those improvements--to
what the Senate bill does.
The other big problems right now are problems about access;
the number of children in the child care and development block
grant program is going down because of resource constraints
that affect the states--the federal dollars going down and
affecting the states.
A second problem is rates. You heard from Mrs. Kostantenaco
about the salaries she pays her employees and that of course is
directly affected by the rate that is possible that is paid to
her.
The Senate bill again includes improvements in terms of
what states should take into account in setting rates. It tells
them to take into account the cost of high quality care, but
without resources to back that up and make it possible to do
that, it is an important step. It is a key step along the way.
It doesn't get you all the way there.
Mr. Pocan. Sure.
I guess the same question that Ms. Koos. Since you have a
system that is somewhat similar it sounds like to Wisconsin and
that you have got a Quality Star system. What other
improvements would you recommend perhaps to the Senate-passed
bill?
Ms. Koos. We really believe that background checks would be
very important to the safety of children. When state auditors
looked across state lines, they found that Illinois had 90
matches for people who had sex offender status. Kentucky had
30, Massachusetts had 119, and Washington had 28.
These were all people working in child care and they were
working in child care because there was no background check,
and no one knew that they were a sex offender, so background
checks are really important.
We are also concerned about safety issues and the training
that happens for child care providers.
Mr. Pocan. If I can get one more question in I think I can.
Dr. Golden, the question would be when you look at some of
these innovative child care assistance programs, things like
the Quality Star et cetera, what are some of the other programs
out there that are really worth taking a look at?
Ms. Golden. Besides the rating systems which we have talked
about and the programs that provide help for college or for
other experiences, I would highlight some innovations that help
families get child care and keep it better.
The provision in the Senate bill that suggests for example
that when you re-determine eligibility, when you look again at
a family you don't have rules that make it impossible for a
working parent to do it, like requiring them to stand in line
all day.
There are states that are experimenting with how to make
the rules and the bureaucracy much, much simpler so that you
don't contradict the purpose of that underlies all this.
The 12-month eligibility provision in the Senate bill grows
out of innovations in some states now where they are trying
again to make sure that you are meeting the original goal of
the program which is not to put blocks in the way of people's
work but to make it easy, so I think there are innovations on
that side as well as on the quality and the improvement of
care.
Mr. Pocan. Great. Thank you.
I yield back.
Chairman Rokita. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Polis is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Polis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
organizing this important hearing today.
More than a decade ago in Colorado, I co-chaired a task
force on high school reform. We had a bipartisan task force, a
great group, and we parted out our final report by saying the
best way to reform high schools is to ensure that we have
universal access to high-quality, early childhood education and
then sit back and wait 14 years and the high schools will look
a lot better.
Now that should not detract from the importance of
improving our high schools today, but certainly all the major
studies show that one of the most important investments we can
make in closing the achievement gap and increasing graduation
rates is at those early education levels; preschool,
kindergarten, and even before.
If we are serious about closing the achievement gap, we
need to begin by ensuring that the achievement gap doesn't
arise in the first place and that children have access to high-
quality child care and early learning opportunities.
There have been a number of great studies that have been
done, longitudinal studies over decades, 30 years that show
that early childhood education is a good investment for our
economy in terms of saving resources later on, in terms of
reduced adjudication and incarceration rates, increased
graduation rates and employment, and of course transformation
in all of the lives of the people who receive those of
services.
Unfortunately, there is not enough high-quality early
learning opportunities for families who stand to benefit from
them and of course society stands to benefit from them. In my
own city in Colorado, the Colorado Preschool Program only
enrolls 29 percent of the state's 4-year-olds.
We do not have universal full-day kindergarten in my state
of Colorado either. We estimate in Colorado that more than
16,500 at-risk 4-year-olds do not have preschool available to
them through either Colorado Preschool Program or Head Start.
It is not just a point of frustration that preschool is not
available. It is an issue of equity and achievement and of
course long-term costs not only to the families affected but to
society as a whole.
I was certainly glad to see the Senate bipartisan
reauthorization that would improve the quality of care that
children receive. Of course we need a lot more than just that
reauthorization, but I think there is certainly some language
we can agree on.
My first question is for Dr. Golden.
Recently I introduced the Bipartisan Continuum of Learning
Act, which would improve the quality of early childhood
education without new federal spending by improving early
learning standards or early childhood certification training
and coordinating early learning programs with school districts.
My question is around that latter point. I will open it up
to the rest of the panel.
How does child care fit into the continuum of early
childhood in the K-12 system and why is it important to have
child care coordinate its efforts in terms of deliverables on
curriculum with the school districts in the K-12 system, and
what can we do better on that front?
Dr. Golden?
Ms. Golden. I would say that there is coordination of
several kinds and it is uneven across states. I have seen it
close up in a couple of states and in others a little less
close-up.
I think one kind of coordination we have talked about is
around pre-K. In many states child care providers that meet a
sufficient standard offered pre-K themselves.
I remember when I was in New York State we were looking for
child care and Head Start providers because they had the
experience with young children and could work with the school
district in a close way.
There is also coordination often as I think you heard from
Ms. Koos around trying to get your standards consistent and
trying to have a shared training framework.
Then there are kids in school and after school care, and so
I think the goal there may not be you don't necessarily need to
have the same content in the after-school part of the day but
you want to make sure that it works for children and for
parents.
I do want to highlight that almost a third of the children
served by CCDBG are infants and toddlers, and so for them early
childhood settings, like child care programs and family care
homes that you can help to do a really good job, will have far
more experience with infants and toddlers. The school system
may not have as much helpful experience there.
But I do think that the other key feature of the child care
programs and of the early childhood system that I think is
helpful to the school system and can improve quality in schools
is that the early childhood and child care world has a
tradition of being two generational, of caring about parents
and about kids, and that is something that I have often seen is
wisdom and experience and knowledge from the early childhood
world that can come back and improve school programs.
Mr. Polis. Great.
Does anyone else want to briefly address this issue of
coordination?
Ms. Koos. I think it is very important because if you look
at child care, the average child spends 36 hours a week in
child care. If you don't acknowledge that child care exists and
that is an important function of the family life right now you
have missed a large portion of the population and a large
portion of their day.
You have to acknowledge that they are in child care. That
is where they are. That is where we need to address policies
and procedures for them.
Mr. Polis. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Rokita. I thank the gentleman.
I recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Again, I thank the witnesses. It has been instructive. Like
many things around here we seem to have two common themes as I
see them. One revolving around the standards and the other
revolving around money.
With regard to the money first, I am a budget committee
member as well so I have to apologize, I guess, but that is of
concern because if you all haven't heard, we are broke, Dr.
Golden.
It is not just the $17 trillion that we owe--kids that
don't yet exist pay for. I can make a pretty strong argument if
I wanted to suck up my 5 minutes about why that is so immoral.
Notwithstanding everything each of you said. But it is the
$200 trillion that is on the way over the next 75 years that we
are not going to survive.
What I appreciate is when witnesses come with not only the
problem but with the solution; not just we need more, we need
more, we need more, but if that is the priority as each of you
said led by Dr. Golden I would say in terms of testimony, okay,
who am I to judge? But if that is the priority, what is not so
much the priority anymore? That is the kind of leadership we
need.
So with that, I am going to ask Ms. Jarmon--talk to me
about improper payments. Give me some specific examples of what
you are seeing, what we can do to stop the waste and abuse if
not outright fraud and direct existing dollars to the valid
needs that have been discussed by the other witnesses here.
Ms. Jarmon. Yes, Chairman Rokita, as I mentioned, the
improper payment rates for this program actually went down but
is it still a large number. It still $306 million that was
reported for--
Chairman Rokita. Yes, 5.9 percent. What does that mean?
Ms. Jarmon. That number--51 percent of--HHS reported that
51 percent of that relates to administration and documentation
errors like missing information in case records.
Chairman Rokita. So does that mean there are not many
savings there to be had or there is? We can save money there or
not?
Ms. Jarmon. What they can do is try to find ways to better
train to make sure that these things are corrected so that the
money is going to the providers who should be in the program
and to the children who are eligible because the other 49
percent of the errors related to lack of verification.
In some cases not properly verifying that these children
who are in the program were eligible to be in the program and
HHS has been working with the states to try to address this
issue. They have incorporated--they are facilitating more peer-
to-peer reviews between states because there are some states
that have much higher error rates than other states so the
states who have lower their rates maybe they can learn from
each other so they are trying to--if more of those things can
happen that should help to further reduce the improper--
Chairman Rokita. Have you found any fraud?
Ms. Jarmon. We haven't in our work on improper payments.
Chairman Rokita. Have you looked for it?
Ms. Jarmon. Our work is focused on reporting improper
payments. We have a fraud hotline where some fraud is reported
to us, but I am not aware of it related to this program. I
could get back to you on that.
Chairman Rokita. So nothing that you know that is retail or
wholesale in that regard?
Ms. Jarmon. Right.
Chairman Rokita. Okay, thank you.
Dr. Golden, really briefly; solutions. If this is the
priority and I will note that since the last reauthorization we
have more than doubled our spending in this area, so I am sure
your testimony if it was back in 1996 would have been we are
not spending enough and now we are still not spending enough.
I don't know the numbers on how many more kids that we are
helping but I imagine that has gone up too. So the point I am
trying to make, Doctor, is that this can't be an open ended
thing. There have got to be limits and priorities put on this.
Talk to me in a positive manner about what we can do to
better direct money to children so that they and their parents
can lead better lives for themselves because that is what we
want. We don't want dependency on government right?
Ms. Golden. What I find particularly heartening about this
hearing is the commitment that you and that everyone have
expressed to child care as a central issue.
I guess I do want to note one thing before going to the
solutions which is that your thought about the trend that
actually I think many people believe we have been going up but
in fact, we have just fallen to a 10-year low.
Both total spending at a 10-year low and average of
children served at a low since 1998, so more than 10 years.
That is a challenge in terms of--
Chairman Rokita. I am not sure--I just disagree with you. I
would like you to submit that for the record because the
figures I am looking at go from nearly 2 billion in 1997 to 5
billion now. I am running out of time. You have 5 seconds for a
solution.
Ms. Golden. Sure. I think the solution we would be glad to
work with you about the focusing on this priority and where
else we believe there are resources--
Chairman Rokita. So not much of a solution at least right
here.
Thank you.
I yield to Mrs. Davis for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you to all of you.
I am sorry I am doing double duty here, so I wasn't able to
hear all of your discussion but I wanted to just go back to a
few issues that I know you have covered today but if you could
respond to those.
Part of it is the options that parents have and again this
is part of the solutions; access to affordable quality and I
say child care and pre-K and we know that there are
differences.
Dr. Golden, do parents have enough options? We talk about
block granting and the opportunities that states have used for
that, but truly, what are the different options that parents
have and if you as well could note those differences.
I think you have talked about that a little bit but in
terms of credentialing, in terms of there are so many issues
involved if we try to separate out child care and true quality
pre-K.
Ms. Golden. Well I guess first of all on the question of
parents' options I think--and I guess that this has come
through in all of our testimony that the child care, the CCDBG
program helps parents have more options than they would have
otherwise.
It helps them gain access to higher quality care than they
would otherwise, and to safer care, and it enables them to gain
access to options that could be in a family setting, in a
center, that could accommodate low-wage work, late night,
weekends, so that is an important strength.
I think the other side of that which you have also heard in
our testimony and which I am wrestling with as we talk about
resources, is that many parents don't have access to any of
those things. The Child Care and Development Block Grant
reaches around one in six of the eligible parents.
Many states have waiting lists. Parents who don't have help
paying for care find themselves making choices that every day
when they get to work your heart is in your throat because you
are not sure it is a good choice or you lose your job. That I
think would be number one headline.
I think the second would be that making sure that parents
who get help from the child care program are getting a high-
quality setting for their young child. I think is what we have
all been talking about. That involves both improvements within
the program and coordinating well with other programs like
Heart Start, Early Head Start, and prekindergarten.
The Child Care and Development Block Grant often provides
some of the glue to do that. For example, the rating system
that lets you put the pieces together. Does that cover what you
are thinking about?
Mrs. Davis. Yes. I think part of it is where there are
communities where this is not necessarily the case with the
coordination isn't as strong--
Ms. Golden. Absolutely.
Mrs. Davis.--How do we provide those kinds of best
practices or what is it that they need to be able to move
forward?
Ms. Golden. Well, I think some of what they need is in the
Senate reauthorization proposal, which talks about a variety of
coordination requirements around a training framework that
supports young children's development and really highlights
coordination not only with Early Head Start, Head Start, pre-K,
but for example, programs with children with disabilities.
The Senate reauthorization puts in place a lot of the key
pieces. I do think that beyond that federal framework there is
a lot of technical assistance and then there are again the
resources that it will take to do it, but I do think that the
reauthorization includes some of the crucial pieces that put
the building blocks in place so you can go ahead and make it
happen.
Mrs. Davis. Does anybody want to respond to what is missing
in that?
Ms. Koos. It is possible to do.
In Oklahoma, the subsidy system is tied to the Stars rating
system and so 96 percent of the children who receive subsidy
for child care are in 2-or 3-Star facilities, so they are in
quality settings even though they get--they are in a subsidy
situation.
That is not true in every state. In some states the subsidy
level is the same regardless of the quality of the program and
so parents have to make choices that aren't necessarily tied to
quality but they are more tied to what they can afford from
their pocketbook because a higher quality program costs more so
they have a larger share to pick up if they go to a quality
program, so that is an issue.
We also have 76 percent of the children in the state of
Oklahoma in our pre-K program, so we have to get them ready for
that pre-K program, and then once they are in that pre-K
program we have a larger percentage of the children in a pre-K
program getting them ready for kindergarten.
Ms. Golden. One other thing that brings to mind that is
helpful in the Senate bill and that could spread it further is
that one of the obstacles to coordinating is sometimes if a
state's child care subsidy policies aren't very strong.
So for example, if a state doesn't let children stay in the
program for the full year but has policies that lead to lots of
churning and turnover, that is going to make it really hard to
coordinate with your child care programs, to coordinate with
quality because the quality provider isn't going to want to
have to deal with that constant churning. So if the state--
Chairman Rokita. The gentlelady's time has expired. I
appreciate it.
The gentlelady yields back.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Rokita. The ranking member is recognized to close.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank our witnesses. This has been an excellent hearing.
We have heard that it's quite necessary to fund the block grant
as well as keep pre-K and Head Start and coordinate them
together particularly in light of the fact that many pre-K and
Head Start programs are only half-day, that is not enough for a
full-time working person.
We have also heard the cost of not making these
investments. When you talk about the long-term budget situation
when you have an initiative that can reduce teen pregnancy,
dropouts, criminal justice involvement, drug abuse, suicide,
and everything else many of which have extraordinary long-term
cost implications, if you can make those investments upfront,
you can do a lot to reduce the long-term budget implications.
So I think there is a consensus that we need to do
something to improve the quality of the programs, and I look
forward to working with you as we do that.
I yield back.
Chairman Rokita. I thank the gentleman.
I don't have much in terms of a closing that hasn't already
been discussed except to say a few things.
The first being thank you. I appreciate each of the
witnesses leadership in their particular subareas of what I
think is a very important obviously subject matter but also an
important profession, one that it would seem to me is executed
more out of love than for any kind of monetary gain.
If I had more time, Mrs. Kostantenaco, in my questioning I
would have asked you about if you found an employee shortage
really or not or if regardless of the pay amount that you were
or any of you were paying your employees whether that is really
why they came to work or not.
I would have also asked how many are you losing not just to
other companies in the industry or other industries but if you
are losing any to staying at home and collecting unemployment
checks instead. That goes on for 2 years now in this country.
Yes, and for the record, I am seeing some nods. Seeing some
nods.
There is some interesting comments that have been made here
today about how people are struggling over 6 years now and
there are other ways rather than more government dependence to
get this economy going again.
I think as Americans we ought to go back and explore some
of those. That is a different hearing perhaps, but you all
touched on it in a way.
For the record, I want to make sure that I understood Ms.
Jarmon's testimony correctly.
You haven't necessarily found fraud in these programs, but
you haven't been looking for it either. You do a documentary
review if I understand it correctly to look for based on paper
reviews whether or not an improper payment has been made. That
is a different kind of audit, correct?
Ms. Jarmon. Right.
Chairman Rokita. I see the witness nodding her head yes, so
I want to make sure that is clear.
I also appreciate what help will be Dr. Golden and for the
other witnesses and others that are watching this hearing now
about what the solutions can be that don't necessarily involve
throwing new money at a problem but what we can do to make sure
the money that we have allocated gets to the people that really
need it again so they don't have to be dependent on this kind
of program or any other one really.
That should be our goal, so that people can be creating an
environment where people can build the best lives for
themselves and their families. It that should be it quite
simply, and as I look at the witnesses here today I see that in
your eyes and in the words you uttered that is the goal as well
and that is very much appreciated.
With regard to the solutions and since this has been done
to me in the past as I chaired this subcommittee by other
ranking members not necessarily this one but I have sat in that
they have asked questions as part of their closing.
Very briefly I want to say out of fairness is there
anything that you two, Ms. Koos, Mrs. Kostantenaco, want to add
in terms of the solutions discussions that we started and what
we can do to make these--aside from what has been said without
throwing more money at the problem necessarily what we can do
to make sure the money gets to where it is needed mostly?
Mrs. Kostantenaco. Well, that we all work together and that
the rules do not supersede state regulations and that we are
all working together under the same thing to have it all work
to the best of our abilities.
Chairman Rokita. Not supersede state regulation.
Mrs. Kostantenaco. Right.
Chairman Rokita. So there is a recognition there that some
states actually do it right. There is also a recognition of
what you said I would think that a bureaucrat in Health and
Human Services that is hundreds maybe thousands of miles away
doesn't necessarily care more for our kids than those adults
that are closest to our kids--
Mrs. Kostantenaco. That is correct.
Chairman Rokita.--including your employees. Thank you.
Ms. Koos, anything else?
Ms. Koos. I would just say that we would like to see CCDBG
focus on safety accountability for children. We want
protections put in place for children so that all children when
they go to child care are safe.
Chairman Rokita. Seeing no more business before the
committee, we remain adjourned. Thanks.
[Additional Submissions by Mr. Kline follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Additional Submissions by Mr. Miller follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Questions submitted for the record and their responses
follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Ms. Jarmon response to questions submitted follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Ms. Koos response to questions submitted follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Mrs. Kostantenaco response to questions submitted
follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Whereupon, at 11:20 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]