Child Care: State Efforts to Enforce Safety and Health Requirements
(Letter Report, 01/24/2000, GAO/HEHS-00-28).
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on states'
efforts to ensure the safety and health of children in child care
settings, focusing on: (1) the most critical licensing and enforcement
activities that help states ensure the safety and health of children in
child care; (2) the extent to which states conduct these critical
activities for their regulated providers; and (3) how states ensure that
nonregulated providers receiving block grant funds meet the law's safety
and health requirements.
GAO noted that: (1) experts and the literature cite a number of
licensing and enforcement activities important to helping states ensure
that providers comply with state child care requirements; (2) they
recommend that states conduct these activities for all types of care
provided in a setting other than the child's home, except for care
provided by relatives; (3) key among these are: (a) completing state,
and sometimes federal, criminal background checks as well as child abuse
registry checks on prospective providers to screen them for suitability
for working with children; (b) conducting frequent and unannounced
monitoring visits to providers; and (c) having an array of sanctions
available, so that providers who consistently or flagrantly violate
requirements for protecting the safety and health of children can be
prohibited from providing care to children; (4) to effectively and
consistently carry out these critical activities, experts and the
literature recommend that licensing staff be adequately trained in child
care or related fields and have at least 24 hours per year of ongoing
training; (5) licensing offices should have sufficient numbers of staff
to maintain caseloads at about 75 providers for each licensing staff
person; (6) most states' policies for conducting background checks and
monitoring visits are generally consistent with recommended enforcement
practices; (7) states' reported success in following the recommended
practices for visits appears to be related to increases in
full-time-equivalent staff and budgets for licensing offices; (8) most
states reported having an array of sanctions to use to bring providers
into compliance, and all stated that they had the authority to revoke a
license; (9) approximately half of the states require staff to have
education and experience in child care or a related field as well as
ongoing training; (10) only two states reported regulating all types of
care outside the child's home; (11) the enforcement activities a state
conducts under its normal licensing processes for regulated providers
also satisfy the safety and health requirements of the block grant; (12)
for providers that states have chosen not to regulate, some states
conduct activities usually reserved for regulated providers; (13) many
states provide self-certification packets to nonregulated providers
informing them of requirements they must meet and ask them to certify
they will comply with the requirements; and (14) relying on
self-certification has the potential to reduce costs to parents and
states but does not afford assurance that requirements are being met.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: HEHS-00-28
TITLE: Child Care: State Efforts to Enforce Safety and Health
Requirements
DATE: 01/24/2000
SUBJECT: State-administered programs
Child care programs
Federal/state relations
Safety regulation
Grants to states
Safety standards
Sanctions
Day care centers
Licenses
Law enforcement information systems
IDENTIFIER: HHS Child Care and Development Block Grant
National Health and Safety Performance Standards
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved. Major **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters, **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and **
** single lines. The numbers on the right end of these lines **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the **
** document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the **
** page numbers of the printed product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO **
** Document Distribution Center. For further details, please **
** send an e-mail message to: **
** **
** **
** **
** with the message 'info' in the body. **
******************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Report to Congressional Requesters
January 2000
CHILD CARE - STATE EFFORTS TO
ENFORCE SAFETY AND HEALTH
REQUIREMENTS
GAO/HEHS-00-28
Child Care Enforcement
(116027)
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
ACF - Administration for Children and Families
CCDBG - Child Care and Development Block Grant
FBI - Federal Bureau of Investigation
FTE - full-time-equivalent
HHS - Department of Health and Human Services
NARA - National Association for Regulatory Administration
NHSPS - National Health and Safety Performance Standards
NAEYC - National Association for the Education of Young Children
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-281869
January 24, 2000
The Honorable Pete Stark
The Honorable George Miller
The Honorable Sander M. Levin
House of Representatives
The need for child care has grown dramatically over the last few
decades. In 1975, 39 percent of women with children under the age of
6 were in the labor force; by 1997 that number had grown to 65
percent. The work requirements of the Personal Responsibility and
Work Opportunities Act of 1996 have also increased the demand for
child care by moving many more welfare parents into the workforce
than ever before.
To help protect children in child care, states regulate providers by
setting health and safety requirements that child care providers must
meet and enforcing these requirements through activities conducted by
state child care licensing offices. However, most states do not
regulate all types of providers. Nonregulated providers are not
required to meet state child care requirements and are not subject to
state enforcement activities. Examples of nonregulated providers
include relatives, such as grandparents, aunts, and siblings; in-home
providers like nannies and au pairs; some family child care providers
caring for small numbers of children in the provider's home; and
center programs that operate part-day or part-year.
Though setting and enforcing child care requirements are primarily
the responsibilities of the states and their localities, the federal
government requires that states have basic child care safety and
health requirements in place in order to receive funds from the Child
Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG).\1 The block grant
subsidizes child care costs for low-income families. To obtain these
funds, states must certify to the federal government that they have
in place requirements to protect the health and safety of children in
child care as well as procedures to ensure that both regulated and
nonregulated providers being paid with block grant dollars comply
with these requirements.\2 However, the block grant does not
stipulate the scope or stringency of these requirements or how states
should determine compliance with them.
Because of the significant federal role in paying for child care
services, you have raised concerns about the way in which states
ensure the safety and health of children in child care settings. You
asked us to (1) identify the most critical licensing and enforcement
activities that help states ensure the safety and health of children
in child care, (2) describe the extent to which states conduct these
critical activities for their regulated providers, and (3) explain
how states ensure that nonregulated providers receiving block grant
funds meet the law's safety and health requirements.
To do this work, we conducted a literature search and interviewed
child care licensing experts and state and federal officials. We
also surveyed state licensing directors in 50 states and the District
of Columbia about the extent to which they conduct critical
enforcement activities, and all but one returned a completed
questionnaire. The documents on which we primarily relied to
identify critical enforcement activities were the National Health and
Safety Performance Standards (NHSPS)--developed jointly by the
Maternal and Child Health Bureau of the Public Health Service, the
American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Public Health
Association--and a position paper developed by the National
Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC).\3 In
addition, we compared data we collected for a 1992 report,\4
which was based on a survey of state licensing offices about their
activities, with data collected by our survey for this work to
determine whether significant changes had occurred in state licensing
and enforcement activities. We conducted our work between January
and November 1999 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards.
--------------------
\1 In fiscal year 1999, the total amount of appropriated block grant
money came from two sources. Approximately $1.2 billion came from
the reauthorized CCDBG and was to be used in fiscal year 2000;
approximately $2.2 billion was authorized by section 418(c) of the
Social Security Act and is subject to CCDBG requirements. We refer
to the combined funds, which are also known as the Child Care and
Development Fund, as the block grant.
\2 States have the option to exempt from health and safety
requirements grandparents, great-grandparents, siblings (if they live
in a separate residence), and aunts and uncles.
\3 Both documents, developed by expert panels knowledgeable about
child care licensing issues, contain specific recommended practices
for licensing offices regarding enforcing child care standards. The
NHSPS also contains recommended safety and health requirements for
use by child care programs and states to structure and deliver
high-quality child care services. Neither the NHSPS nor NAEYC
standards constitute federal requirements.
\4 Child Care: States Face Difficulties Enforcing Standards and
Promoting Quality (GAO/HRD-93-13, Nov. 20, 1992).
RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
Experts and the literature cite a number of licensing and enforcement
activities important to helping states ensure that providers comply
with state child care requirements. Additionally, they recommend
that states conduct these activities for all types of care provided
in a setting other than the child's home, except for care provided by
relatives. Key among these activities are
-- completing state, and sometimes federal, criminal background
checks as well as child abuse registry checks on prospective
providers in order to screen them for suitability for working
with children;
-- conducting frequent and unannounced monitoring visits to
providers--at least once a year for centers and once every 5
years for homes--to get firsthand knowledge regarding a
provider's compliance with requirements as well as to help the
provider achieve compliance; and
-- having an array of sanctions available, including the authority
to revoke a license, so that providers who consistently or
flagrantly violate requirements for protecting the safety and
health of children can be prohibited from providing care to
children.
To effectively and consistently carry out these critical activities,
experts and the literature recommend that licensing staff be
adequately trained in child care or related fields and have at least
24 hours per year of ongoing training. Furthermore, licensing
offices should have sufficient numbers of staff to maintain caseloads
at about 75 providers for each licensing staff person so that staff
have time to adequately conduct all their activities.
Most states' policies for conducting background checks and monitoring
visits are generally consistent with recommended enforcement
practices. For example, 46 states said that they visit child care
centers one or more times a year, and 36 states reported visiting
family child care homes at least once every 5 years. Both practices
meet or exceed the recommended practices. States' reported success
in following the recommended practices for visits appears to be
related to increases in full-time-equivalent (FTE) staff and budgets
for licensing offices, which increased on average by 53 percent and
44 percent, respectively, between 1996 and 1999. In addition, most
states reported having an array of sanctions to use, such as imposing
fines, to bring providers into compliance, and all stated that they
had the authority to revoke a license. Approximately half of the
states reported that they require staff to have education and
experience in child care or a related field as well as ongoing
training, though only four states required 24 hours or more of
training per year, as recommended. Only 11 states reported caseloads
at or below the recommended 75 facilities per staff person, with
about a third of the states at 150 or more facilities per staff
person. And while states conduct many of the critical licensing and
enforcement activities for their regulated providers, only two states
reported regulating all types of care outside the child's home,
except for relative care, as recommended.
The enforcement activities that a state conducts under its normal
licensing processes for regulated providers also satisfy the safety
and health requirements of the block grant. For providers that
states have chosen not to regulate, some states conduct activities
usually reserved for regulated providers. For example, 20 states
reported conducting background checks on nonregulated providers,
while about 6 states reported making monitoring visits to them.
However, many states typically provide packages of materials
informing nonregulated providers of the safety and health
requirements they must meet and ask them to certify that they will
comply with the requirements. The trade-off states face is that, on
the one hand, relying on a self-certification process has the
potential to reduce the costs to parents and states that are
associated with greater oversight. On the other hand,
self-certification does not afford as much assurance that the
requirements--which the block grant says states must have--are being
met by nonregulated providers as does the level of oversight for
regulated providers.
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2
States are responsible for protecting the safety and health of
children in child care settings, which they pursue by developing
requirements that care providers must meet and conducting activities
to ensure they do so. While the federal government's role is limited
in this area, the block grant does require states to certify that
safety and health requirements, as well as procedures to ensure
compliance by providers, are in effect in order for states to receive
block grant funds.
STATE RESPONSIBILITIES FOR
SAFETY AND HEALTH IN CHILD
CARE
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :2.1
Parents who need child care services select from different types of
child care providers: in-home care, in which a child is cared for by
a provider such as an au pair or nanny in the child's home; family
child care or group home care, in which the child is cared for in the
provider's home;\5 and center care, in which a child is cared for by
providers in a nonresidential setting, such as in a church, school,
or business. Additionally, care can be provided by someone related
to the child other than the parents, such as grandparents, aunts,
uncles, or siblings, which is referred to as relative care.
States and localities are responsible for regulating child care
providers so that the safety and health of children are protected in
child care settings. States carry out this responsibility by (1)
establishing specific requirements that regulated child care
providers must comply with in order to legally operate and (2)
enforcing these requirements through activities conducted by state
licensing offices. While states' child care requirements also cover
supervision and curriculum, they focus mostly on basic safety and
health requirements, such as keeping smoke detectors in working
order, locking cabinets that contain dangerous materials, and
ensuring that children in care have up-to-date immunizations. The
licensing and enforcement activities, which are prescribed in state
laws and regulations, include screening potential providers for
suitability by checking medical and criminal background histories,
making visits to providers to observe firsthand if requirements are
being followed, and imposing sanctions on providers found to be out
of compliance with the requirements. The stringency of the
requirements with which providers must comply and the scope and
intensity of state enforcement activities differ among the provider
types within states as well as among states overall.
To decide on a level of enforcement activities, states consider a
number of factors, key among which typically are a state's budget and
staffing resources to carry out the tasks necessary for enforcing a
state's regulatory policies. We reported in 1992, for example, that
in the early 1990s many states limited the number of monitoring
visits that their licensing offices routinely conducted because of
budget cutbacks and the constrained fiscal climate.\6 While the
current fiscal condition of most states is healthy, funds are not
unlimited. Hence, given the competing priorities for limited funds,
states must make choices about the extent to which they can conduct
enforcement activities and the types of providers to which these
activities will apply.
State policies regarding child care regulation are also influenced by
the supply of child care and its cost to parents. Recent research
has shown that some types of child care regulation, such as requiring
liability insurance, may increase the cost of doing business for
providers, particularly for small providers like family and group
homes. Providers may choose to leave the market because they do not
wish to spend the time or incur the expense necessary to comply with
a particular regulation; alternatively, providers may raise their
rates to recoup the cost of complying, thus raising the cost of care
to parents.
--------------------
\5 Typically, family child care consists of one provider caring for
six or fewer children. Group home care usually involves two
providers caring for 7 to 12 children.
\6 GAO/HRD-93-13, Nov. 20, 1992.
ROLES OF THE BLOCK GRANT AND
THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :2.2
The fiscal year 1999 block grant appropriation provided approximately
$3.4 billion to states to help low-income parents pay for child
care.\7 The law requires that states certify to the federal
government that they have requirements in effect to protect the
health and safety of children in child care. While the block grant
does not require states to develop new requirements if existing ones
comply with the statute, it does stipulate that these requirements
cover the following areas: prevention and control of infectious
diseases, building and physical premise safety, and minimum health
and safety training appropriate to the provider setting.\8 States
must also certify that they have procedures in place to ensure that
providers receiving payments from the block grant comply with these
requirements. However, the block grant does not dictate to states
the specificity, stringency, or number of safety and health
requirements they must have or the manner in which they should
enforce them.
The enactment of the welfare reform law of 1996, under which the
CCDBG was reauthorized, narrowed the authority of the Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS) to regulate the states. HHS' role
regarding the enforcement of child care safety and health
requirements in particular is limited to checking that states
applying for block grant funds have certified and described the
requirements and procedures for enforcement that they have in effect.
Specifically, HHS reviews state plans, which must be submitted to HHS
every 2 years, to determine state eligibility for block grant funds.
These plans describe, among other things, states' safety and health
requirements and their procedures for ensuring provider compliance
with them. In addition, HHS provides technical assistance and
information to states through policy guidance, newsletters,
conferences, and on-site visits and consultations.
Another requirement of the block grant is that states submit data to
HHS about the families they are serving with these funds and the type
of care the children are using. Data reported by states to HHS for
fiscal year 1998, the most recent year for which data are available,
show that approximately 28 percent of block-grant-subsidized children
nationwide were using nonregulated providers. This figure differs,
however, depending on the type of child care setting used. For
example, only 2 percent of block-grant-subsidized children using
centers and 1 percent using group homes were with nonregulated
providers, while approximately 54 percent of block-grant-subsidized
children using family child care were being cared for by nonregulated
providers. Very young children, typically from birth through age 2,
are more likely to be cared for in family child care than older
children are.
--------------------
\7 Typically, states pay for child care with block grant funds by
providing eligible parents with a voucher that they take to the child
care provider of their choice. The voucher certifies that payment up
to an amount allowed by the state will be made directly to the
provider by the state for child care services rendered. Some child
care providers also receive block grant funds through contracts with
or grants directly from the state for child care services provided to
eligible children.
\8 While states must have requirements in these areas to obtain block
grant funds, no national mandatory health and safety requirements for
child care exist.
SEVERAL LICENSING AND
ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES ARE
CITED AS CRITICAL
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3
Both experts and the literature recommend that a range of licensing
and enforcement activities be conducted to ensure that providers
comply with a state's child care requirements. Further, they
recommend that states conduct these activities for all providers who
care for children outside of the child's home, except for
relatives.\9 The licensing and enforcement activities most commonly
considered to be critical are listed in table 1.
Table 1
NAEYC-and NHSPS-Recommended Practices
for Licensing and Enforcement
Critical
activity Description
---------------- ----------------------------------------------------
Background Before granting a license, state criminal record
checks files and child abuse registries should be checked
for all adults permitted to be alone with children
in a facility. People with less than 5 years of
state residency should receive an out-of-state or
federal check.
Monitoring Centers and group homes should receive at least one
visits unannounced inspection per year. Small family child
care homes should receive at least one unannounced
visit every 5 years.
Sanctions Sanctions should be a part of the regulatory system
and include an array of enforcement options, such as
fines and revocation of licenses.
Training for Staff should have appropriate education and
licensing staff experience for the form of child care they are
assigned to inspect. They should receive at least 24
hours of continuing education each year.
Caseload size Each staff person's caseload should consist of no
more than 75 provider facilities.\a
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: For each activity, we used either the NAEYC or NHSPS
recommendation, but not both, because in some cases one of the
documents did not cover a particular enforcement activity, or in
other instances, the recommended practice was not specific enough.
\a NAEYC's standard allows states that do not inspect family child
care homes to assume larger caseloads, but it does not specify how
much larger the caseload should be.
--------------------
\9 The policies of NAEYC and the NHSPS are slightly different, in
that NAEYC proposes regulating providers who care for two or more
unrelated children, while NHSPS recommends regulating all providers
who care for children outside the home.
BACKGROUND CHECKS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1
Background checks involve gathering information from state and
federal databases to determine if providers have a history of child
abuse or other criminal convictions--in particular, committing
violent acts against other people or sexual molestation of
children--that would make them unacceptable for working with
children. Experts and the literature identified background checks as
critical to identifying such individuals before they are allowed to
work with children and as a deterrent to unacceptable individuals who
may consider applying for child care work.
MONITORING VISITS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2
Through on-site monitoring visits, licensing officials periodically
observe daily operations and determine providers' compliance with
state requirements. Visits also provide an opportunity for licensing
staff to educate or consult with providers to help them identify
reasonable ways to comply with child care requirements. Furthermore,
experts recommend making some unannounced visits so that licensing
staff are given an opportunity to see a provider's operations without
the benefit of best face preparations.
SANCTIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.3
Sanctions are penalties a state licensing unit may impose when a
provider is out of compliance with state requirements. These
sanctions can include, for example, imposing fines, suspending a
license immediately, refusing to renew a license, and revoking an
existing license. Experts believe that the authority to impose
sanctions, and in particular to revoke a license, makes providers
take seriously the state's child care requirements and its efforts to
enforce them.
TRAINING FOR LICENSING STAFF
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.4
Adequately trained licensing staff are also critical to the effective
enforcement of a state's child care requirements. Such training,
which should include both prior education and work experience in
child care or a related field, helps ensure that licensing staff
understand the requirements so they can effectively inform providers
how to comply with the requirements. Ongoing training for licensing
staff in such areas as the application of licensing rules and
regulations is also considered important. Through training,
licensing staff also learn to apply the state's child care
requirements in a consistent and objective manner so that children
are equally protected and providers are treated fairly.
CASELOAD SIZE
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.5
Another critical element of effective licensing and enforcement is
having sufficient staff to carry out licensing and enforcement
activities in a competent and timely manner; one indicator of
sufficient staff is caseloads that are not too large. A caseload is
typically defined as the number of providers for which one full-time
staff person is responsible. The responsibilities of licensing staff
include conducting routine monitoring visits, giving technical
assistance to providers to help them achieve and remain in
compliance, carrying out follow-up visits to determine if previously
cited noncompliance has been corrected, and making visits to
investigate complaints. In addition, staff perform in-office duties,
such as checking documentation to determine a provider's criminal
history, preparing licensing reports, and preparing for and
testifying at administrative hearings. Adequate staffing allows for
the timely handling of all of these duties.
Experts note, however, that there is only limited agreement on using
the caseload standard of 75 facilities per licensing staff person
because a single standard may not fully account for all the variables
that need consideration when determining an appropriate caseload
level. Such variables include the number of children cared for by
individual providers and programs, state policies for the number of
monitoring visits to be conducted each year, travel time to and from
providers, and the complexity and scope of the requirements to be
enforced, to name a few.\10 These variables differ among state
licensing offices, further complicating the use of a caseload
standard.
--------------------
\10 Technical Assistance Bulletin No. 99-01: Licensing Workload
Assessment, National Association for Regulatory Administration, Apr.
1999, p. 3.
STATES FOLLOW MOST RECOMMENDED
LICENSING AND ENFORCEMENT
PRACTICES FOR REGULATED
PROVIDERS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4
In comparing data reported by states about their licensing and
enforcement activities with the recommended practices identified by
experts and the literature, we found that states generally follow the
recommended practices for their regulated providers regarding
background checks, frequency of monitoring visits, use of unannounced
visits, sanctions, and training of their licensing staff. However,
most states do not have caseloads at the recommended level or
regulate all out-of-home providers, as recommended by the experts.
MOST STATES CONDUCT STATE
CRIMINAL HISTORY AND CHILD
ABUSE CHECKS; FEWER CONDUCT
FBI CHECKS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1
Background checks on providers include state criminal history checks,
state child abuse registry checks, and Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) checks. All but four states reported conducting
at least one type of background check on child care providers, and
many states reported conducting more than one type of check.
According to our survey, checks for state criminal and child abuse
histories typically take a month or less. Of those states conducting
FBI checks, about half reported that the checks took between 1 and 3
months, and half reported that these checks took more than 3 months.
As table 2 shows, a total of 40 states reported requiring state
criminal background checks for family child care providers, 32 for
group home providers, 40 for center directors, and 39 for center
teaching staff. Regarding state child abuse registry checks, 35
states reported requiring such checks for family child care
providers, 30 for group home providers, 32 for center directors, and
29 for center teaching staff. Finally, more states conduct state
criminal and child abuse checks than FBI checks across provider
types.
In addition, many states reported conducting checks on individuals
other than those working directly with children who could have
contact with the children in care. For example, 38 states reported
conducting state criminal checks on a family child care provider's
spouse, while 28 states reported conducting this check for the spouse
of a group home provider. (See table 2.)
Table 2
Number of States That Reported
Conducting Background Checks on
Regulated Providers, by Type of Check
and Provider, 1999
State State child
Types of criminal abuse
background background registry
checks checks checks FBI checks
---------------- ------------ ------------ ------------
Family child care
----------------------------------------------------------
Provider 40 35 16
Provider's 37 32 13
assistant
Provider's 38 32 12
spouse
Provider's minor 14 18 1
children
Other adults 37 30 11
living in the
provider's home
Group homes
----------------------------------------------------------
Provider 32 30 14
Provider's 32 28 12
assistant
Provider's 28 25 9
spouse
Provider's minor 9 14 0
children
Other adults 27 24 9
living in the
provider's home
Centers
----------------------------------------------------------
Center director 40 32 16
Teaching staff 39 29 15
Other 36 25 12
nonteaching
staff
----------------------------------------------------------
Note: Forty-three states reported data for group homes in 1999,
although three of these states refer to group homes as small child
care centers.
To determine if the number of states that reported conducting
background checks has changed over the years, we compared these
results with the data we collected in 1992. We found that the number
of states that reported conducting state criminal background checks,
FBI checks, or both increased, on average, by about 27 percent across
provider types between 1992 and 1999. During this same period, the
number of states that reported conducting child abuse registry checks
increased 6 percent for family child care providers and 11 percent
for group homes but remained constant for child care centers. (See
fig. 1.)
Figure 1: Number of States
That Reported Conducting
Background Checks on Regulated
Providers, 1992 and 1999
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: Forty-three states reported data for group homes in 1999,
although 3 of these states refer to group homes as small child care
centers; for 1992, 38 states reported data for group homes.
\a For the 1999 data collected on criminal background checks, we
combined state responses to separate questions regarding state
criminal checks and FBI checks in order to compare them to data
collected in 1992, when FBI and state criminal checks were not broken
out separately.
\b The 1992 survey did not capture separate data on whether states
conducted checks on different individuals working with a provider,
such as a center director or provider's assistant, while the 1999
survey did. Therefore, in analyzing the 1999 survey responses, we
counted a state as conducting a check if it did so for a provider,
teacher assistant, or center director. Hence, in some cases, the
totals in table 2 may not match the totals for 1999 in this figure.
MOST STATES CONDUCT
MONITORING VISITS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH RECOMMENDED
PRACTICES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2
According to data reported to us through our survey, in 1999 46
states met or exceeded the recommended number of monitoring visits
for centers, and 35 states did so for group homes.\11 Similarly,
monitoring activities for family child care homes in 36 states also
reflected the recommended practice of visiting at least once every 5
years.\12 Twenty-eight states met or exceeded the recommended
practice for family child care homes by visiting them at least once a
year. (See table 3; app. I presents the frequency of monitoring
visits by state.)
Table 3
Frequency of States' Monitoring Visits
to Providers, 1999
Number
of
Number of monitoring visits per year\a states
------------------------------------------------ --------
Family child care\b
----------------------------------------------------------
Less than once a year 8
At least once a year 12
At least twice a year 16
Group homes\c
----------------------------------------------------------
Less than once a year 6
At least once a year 14
At least twice a year 21
Centers
----------------------------------------------------------
Less than once a year 4
At least once a year 17
At least twice a year 29
----------------------------------------------------------
Note: Forty-three states reported data for group homes in 1999,
although three of these states refer to group homes as small child
care centers.
\a These calculations are based on visits to providers conducted by
states for both license renewal and routine compliance.
\b Data for 14 states are not included in this table for the
following reasons: 6 states reported that they do not inspect family
child care providers, and 8 states reported conducting visits on the
basis of a random sample of family child care providers.
\c Forty-three states reported data for group homes. Data for two of
these states are not included in this table because these states
conduct visits on the basis of a random sample of group home
providers.
In addition to visiting providers as often as recommended, most
states reported that monitoring visits were unannounced, as
recommended, meaning either that no advance warning was given to the
provider that licensing staff would be visiting or that less than a
day's notice was given. Specifically, 39 states reported making
unannounced visit to centers, and 33 said they did so for group homes
and family child care homes.\13
Comparing how frequently states reported visiting providers in 1999
with data reported to us in 1992, we found that the number of visits
per year generally increased for all provider types during these 7
years. For example, the number of states reporting that they
conducted visits two or more times a year approximately doubled for
all provider types between 1992 and 1999, as shown in figure 2.
Figure 2: Frequency of
Monitoring Visits Reported by
States, 1992 and 1999
(See figure in printed
edition.)
--------------------
\11 Our survey asked questions about states' policies for the
frequency of monitoring visits as well as about the actual practices.
In almost all cases, states' responses to both the policy and
practice questions were the same.
\12 The recommended practice also stipulates that all homes be
regulated except homes in which care is provided by relatives. Most
states do not regulate their family child care homes to the extent
outlined in the recommended practice. See the discussion of
exemptions later in this report.
\13 As with the frequency of monitoring visits, our calculations are
based on data for both license renewal and compliance visits.
INCREASED RESOURCES AND
SMALLER CASELOADS APPEAR
TO ACCOUNT FOR MORE
FREQUENT VISITS
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2.1
While states reported increases in the number of visits to all
provider types between 1992 and 1999, more states reported visiting
centers more often than any other provider type. As figure 2 shows,
29 states reported visiting centers two or more times a year in 1999.
States that reported visiting centers this often tended to have
smaller caseloads--smaller numbers of provider facilities per FTE
licensing staff person--than those states visiting less often; these
states also had larger average increases in FTE staff and in their
budgets (see app. II for state budget and FTE data). For example,
the average caseload for states that reported conducting visits to
centers two or more times a year was 125 providers for each licensing
staff person; for states visiting centers less often, the average
caseload was 159. Similarly, state licensing offices conducting
visits twice or more a year had increased their FTEs and budgets, on
average, by 57 percent and 68 percent, respectively, between 1996 and
1999. For those states visiting less often, FTEs increased an
average of 28 percent, while budgets increased an average of 37
percent. Overall, state licensing budgets and FTEs increased, on
average, by 53 percent and 44 percent, respectively, between 1996 and
1999.
STATES HAVE A VARIETY OF
SANCTIONS AVAILABLE,
INCLUDING LICENSE REVOCATION
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.3
States reported having a range of sanctions to use to help bring
providers into compliance and keep them in compliance with child care
requirements. Furthermore, all states reported having the authority
to revoke or suspend a provider's license for repeated noncompliance
or an egregious violation of state child care requirements, such as
neglecting or abusing a child (see fig. 3). Sanctions states can
use vary, but more serious sanctions include changing a provider's
license to a time-limited provisional license, refusing to renew a
license, and suspending or revoking a license.
Figure 3: Number of States
Reporting Various Sanctions
Available for Use
(See figure in printed
edition.)
ABOUT HALF THE STATES FOLLOW
RECOMMENDED PRACTICE FOR
STAFF PRESERVICE TRAINING
REQUIREMENTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.4
Almost half the states reported having preservice training
requirements\14 for licensing staff that mirror the recommended
training standard; that is, applicants for licensing inspector
positions should have appropriate education and experience in the
child care field before assuming a licensing position. Although 26
states require ongoing training, only 4 specifically follow the
recommended practice by requiring at least 24 hours of training; most
do not require a specific amount (see fig. 4).
Figure 4: Number of States
Reporting Various Training
Requirements for Licensing
Staff
(See figure in printed
edition.)
--------------------
\14 Preservice requirements are the qualifications needed by a
prospective employee to be hired for a specific position.
CASELOADS IN MOST STATES ARE
LARGER THAN RECOMMENDED
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.5
Our analysis of the data states reported in our survey indicates that
11 states have caseloads at or below the recommended level of 75
facilities per inspector (see app. III for more complete caseload
data). The remaining states were above this level, with about
one-third having caseloads more than twice the recommended level.
(See fig. 5.)
Figure 5: Caseload Ranges for
State Licensing Staff
(See figure in printed
edition.)
\a The District of Columbia falls in the 76-100 caseload range.
At the same time that state data show few states maintaining
caseloads at recommended levels, states reported that they were
visiting providers as often as recommended, and in several cases,
more often. Such inconsistencies in data could be due, in part, to
(1) the caseload standard itself, which experts note does not fully
account for individual state variables or time-saving measures that
might allow states to operate effectively with larger caseloads than
are recommended; (2) the trade-offs that licensing staff make, which
were not captured in our survey, such as maintaining their schedule
for monitoring visits at the expense of performing other duties,
including processing applications, providing consultation, or
documenting monitoring visits in a timely manner; or (3) inaccuracies
in some of the reported data used to calculate caseload size and
frequency of monitoring visits.
ALMOST ALL STATES REPORT
EXEMPTING SOME PROVIDERS
FROM REGULATION
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.6
While recommended practice is that all providers, except relatives,
who care for children outside of the child's home be regulated,
almost all states exempt some types of out-of-home providers other
than relatives from regulation. States vary, however, in their
choice of providers to exempt, as table 4 shows.
Table 4
Types of Providers States Reported They
Regulated and Exempted From Regulation,
1999
Number of states
----------------------------------------
Registered
or
Type of provider Licensed\a certified\a Exempted
---------------- ------------ ------------ ------------
Nonrelative 30 18 39
family child
care
Group homes 35 6 2
Centers
----------------------------------------------------------
Commercial 47 2 0
Religious 43 7 3
School-based 27 5 11
preschool
School-based 33 4 13
after-school
Recreation 18 1 20
Work site 46 3 1
Federal\b 20 2 21
State/local\b 38 5 6
----------------------------------------------------------
\a Licensing is generally a stricter form of regulation than
registration or certification. States require licensed providers to
comply with requirements that are more numerous and stringent; states
also conduct monitoring visits more frequently for licensed
providers.
\b These categories include child care facilities operated by or on
the property of federal, state, or local governments.
Only 2 states--Kansas and Connecticut--reported regulating all of the
10 provider types listed in table 4, although 26 states reported
exempting only 1 or 2 of the provider types.
As shown in table 4, many states regulate certain providers within a
category while exempting other providers in the same category. For
example, a full-day preschool program might be regulated by a state
while a part-day preschool program might be exempted. This is
especially true for family child care, for which the number of
children a provider cares for determines whether or not the provider
will be regulated by the state. As figure 6 illustrates, these
numbers have been changing: more states allowed family child care
providers to care for more children without being regulated in 1999
than in 1992.
Figure 6: Regulation
Thresholds as Represented by
Number of Children Cared for in
Family Child Care, 1992 and
1999
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: Data from the annual licensing survey of the Children's
Foundation, a nonprofit national education organization, were used
for 1992 and, in a few cases, for those states that provided
incomplete data in 1999.
\a States in this category would exceed NAEYC's recommended practice
of regulating providers who care for two or more unrelated children.
\b Forty-four states (including the district of Columbia) responded
to this question. Data from seven states are not included in our
analysis because family child care providers in these states were not
required to be regulated in 1992.
\c 1999 data for five states are not included because these states
regulate family child care homes on the basis of the number of
children from the same family rather than simply the number of
children cared for.
MANY STATES RELY ON
SELF-CERTIFICATION FOR
NONREGULATED PROVIDERS TO
ENFORCE BLOCK GRANT SAFETY AND
HEALTH REQUIREMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5
For regulated providers, meeting the block grant safety and health
requirements is accomplished through adhering to states' normal
licensing and enforcement requirements. Nonregulated providers who
provide care that is subsidized by the block grant must also meet
applicable state and local safety and health requirements. However,
the block grant gives states wide discretion in determining the scope
and stringency of the requirements for nonregulated providers as well
as the approach states take to enforce these requirements. HHS
reviews and approves a state's approach before the plan can take
effect.\15
We found that many states provide packages of materials to
nonregulated providers to inform them of the state requirements; some
others are also applying two critical enforcement activities:
background checks and visits.
--------------------
\15 Plans may include a description of how states will ensure that
nonregulated providers meet the block grant's safety and health
requirements.
MANY STATES PROVIDE
INFORMATION PACKAGES AND USE
SELF-CERTIFICATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1
A common approach used by states to inform nonregulated providers
about applicable requirements is to give providers packages of
materials that explain what the requirements are. In total, 28
states told us that they use this approach. Similarly, to help
ensure compliance with the requirements, many states rely on a
self-policing approach, requiring either the provider or parent to
sign a form certifying that the provider will meet the requirements.
In their block grant plans for 1997-99, 21 states reported using this
approach to ensure compliance with the standard for nonregulated
family child care homes, 4 used it for group homes, and 8 used it for
centers.
BACKGROUND CHECKS AND
MONITORING VISITS ARE ALSO
USED
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.2
According to our survey, some states reported that they are employing
enforcement activities for unregulated providers that have
traditionally been reserved for regulated providers--background
checks and monitoring visits--although more report conducting checks
than visits. Specifically, 20 states reported conducting background
checks on nonregulated providers receiving block grant funds; 6
states reported conducting visits; and 4 states reported doing both.
In a few states, the state agency responsible for administering the
block grant funds requires that visits or checks be done. In one
state, for example, the state block grant agency makes background
checks and monitoring visits by the state child care licensing office
a condition of the funding agreement between a provider and the block
grant agency. Similarly, seven states reported that they require
nonregulated providers to become regulated as a condition for
receiving block grant funds.
State licensing officials told us that, in some instances, they lack
the statutory authority to conduct background checks on, and
monitoring visits to, nonregulated providers who receive block grant
funds. Block grant officials in six states said that, because
nonregulated providers are specifically exempted from child care
regulation by state law, the states lacked the authority to conduct
such regulatory activities. We were also told that in such cases
state law would need to be changed in order to conduct these types of
activities.
CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6
The mission of state child care licensing offices is to help protect
the safety and health of children in settings outside of their home.
And, although challenged by growing child care demand, licensing
offices reported carrying out many key licensing and enforcement
activities for their regulated providers at levels recommended by
experts and the literature.
However, to ensure that nonregulated providers receiving block grant
funds are meeting block grant safety and health requirements, many
states rely solely on a certification process in which providers
attest to the state, usually by signing a form, that they will meet
the requirements. It is not surprising that states use less
resource-intensive methods to enforce block grant requirements for
these providers, because they ordinarily fall outside the states'
normal licensing process and because there are concerns about the
effects of regulation on the supply and cost of care. There is a
trade-off, however. Self-certification affords less assurance that
safety and health requirements--which the block grant says the states
must have--are being met by nonregulated providers than does the
level of oversight for regulated providers.
AGENCY AND OTHER COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7
We provided officials of the Administration for Children and Families
(ACF), HHS; the National Association for Regulatory Administration
(NARA); and NAEYC an opportunity to comment on a draft of this
report. ACF, NARA, and NAEYC provided technical comments, which we
incorporated as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.1
We are sending copies of this report to the Honorable Olivia Golden,
Assistant Secretary for Children and Families, HHS; appropriate
congressional committees; and other interested parties. We will also
make copies available to others on request.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me or Karen Whiten on (202) 512-7215. Janet L. Mascia and
Katrina Ryan made key contributions to this report.
Cynthia M. Fagnoni
Director, Education, Workforce,
and Income Security Issues
FREQUENCY OF LICENSURE AND
MONITORING VISITS IN THE STATES
=========================================================== Appendix I
Frequency of
visits per year
Number of Does the state Frequency of (includes both
years for conduct routine renewal and
which license renewal compliance routine compliance
State is issued visits? visits visits)
------------------- -------------- -------------- ---------------- ------------------
Alabama
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family day care 2 Yes Once every 2 1.0
years
Group homes 2 Yes Once every 2 1.0
years
Centers 2 Yes Once every 2 1.0
years
Alaska\a
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family day care 3 Yes Twice a year 2.3
Group homes 3 Yes Twice a year 2.3
Centers 3 Yes Once a year 1.3
Arkansas
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family day care 1 No Three times a 3.0
year
Group homes 1 No Three times a 3.0
year
Centers 1 No Three times a 3.0
year
California
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family day care License is \b Less than once 0.4
nonexpiring every 2 years
Group homes License is \b Less than once 0.4
nonexpiring every 2 years
Centers License is \b Once a year 1.0
nonexpiring
Colorado
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family day care License is Yes Once every 2 0.5
nonexpiring years
Group homes License is Yes Once every 2 0.5
nonexpiring years
Centers License is Yes Once every 2 0.5
nonexpiring years
Connecticut
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family day care 2 No Less than once 0.4
every 2 years
Group homes 2 No Once every 2 0.5
years
Centers 2 No Once every 2 0.5
years
Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family day care 1 No Once a year 1.0
Group homes 1 Yes Once a year 2.0
Centers 1 Yes Once a year 2.0
District of Columbia
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family day care 1 Yes Once a year 2.0
Group homes \b \b \b \b
Centers 1 Yes Once a year 2.0
Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family day care 1 Yes Twice a year 3.0
Group homes \b \b \b \b
Centers 1 Yes Three times a 4.0
year
Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family day care 1 No Random sample of Random sample
10% of
registered
providers
Group homes 1 Yes Once a year 2.0
Centers 1 Yes Once a year 2.0
Hawaii
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family day care 1\ Yes Once a year 2.0
Group homes 1\ Yes Once a year 2.0
Centers 1\ Yes Once a year 2.0
Idaho
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family day care 2 \b Not inspected Not inspected
Group homes 2 Yes \b 0.5
Centers 2 Yes \b 0.5
Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family day care 3 Yes Once a year 1.3
Group homes 3 Yes Once a year 1.3
Centers 3 Yes Once a year 1.3
Indiana
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family day care 2 Yes Once a year 1.5
Group homes 2 Yes Once a year 1.5
Centers 2 Yes Once a year 1.5
Iowa
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family day care 1 No Random sample of Random sample
20% of
registered
providers
Group homes 1 No Random sample of Random sample
20% of
registered
providers
Centers 1 Yes Twice a year 3.0
Kansas
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family day care 1 No Not inspected\ Not inspected
Group homes License is Yes Once a year 1.0
nonexpiring
Centers License is Yes Once a year 1.0
nonexpiring
Kentucky
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family day care \b \b Not inspected\c Not inspected\c
Group homes 1 Yes Once a year 2.0
Centers 1 Yes Once a year 2.0
Louisiana
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family day care \b \b Not inspected\c Not inspected\c
Group homes\d 1 Yes Once a year 2.0
Centers 1 Yes Once a year 2.0
Maine
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family day care 1 Yes \b 1.0
Group homes\d 1 Yes \b 1.0
Centers 1 Yes \b 1.0
Maryland
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family day care 2 Yes Once every 2 1.0
years
Group homes \b \b \b \b
Centers 1 Yes \b 1.0
Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family day care 3 Yes Less than once 0.7
every 2 years
Group homes 3 Yes Once a year 1.3
Centers 2 Yes Once a year 1.5
Michigan
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family day care 3 No Random sample of Random sample
10% of
registered
providers
Group homes 2 Yes Once a year 1.5
Centers 2 Yes Once a year 1.5
Minnesota
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family day care 2 Yes Once every 2 1.0
years
Group homes 2 Yes Once every 2 1.0
years
Centers 2 Yes Once every 2 1.0
years
Mississippi
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family day care 1 Yes Twice a year 3.0
Group homes 1 Yes Twice a year 3.0
Centers 1 Yes Twice a year 3.0
Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family day care 2 Yes Twice a year 2.5
Group homes 2 Yes Twice a year 2.5
Centers 2 Yes Twice a year 2.5
Montana
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family day care 3\e Yes Random sample of Random sample plus
20% of 0.3 for renewal
registered
providers
Group homes 3\e Yes Random sample of Random sample plus
20% of 0.3 for renewal
registered
providers
Centers 3\e Yes Twice a year 2.3
Nebraska
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family day care License is Yes\f Once a year 1.0
nonexpiring
Group homes License is Yes\f Once a year 1.0
nonexpiring
Centers License is Yes\f Twice a year 2.0
nonexpiring
Nevada
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family day care 1 Yes Twice a year 3.0
Group homes 1 Yes Twice a year 3.0
Centers 1 Yes Twice a year 3.0
New Hampshire
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family day care 3 Yes Once a year 1.3
Group homes 3 Yes Once a year 1.3
Centers 3 Yes Once a year 1.3
New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family day care 3 Yes Random sample of Random sample plus
20% of 0.3 for renewal
registered
providers
Group homes\d 3 Yes Once a year 1.3
Centers 3 Yes Once a year 1.3
New Mexico
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family day care 1 Yes Twice a year 3.0
Group homes 1 Yes Twice a year 3.0
Centers 1 Yes Twice a year 3.0
New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family day care 1 No Random sample of Random sample
21% of
registered
providers
Group homes 2 Yes Once a year 1.5
Centers 2 Yes Once a year 1.5
North Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family day care License is \b Random sample of Random sample
nonexpiring 5% of registered
providers
Group homes \b \b \b \b
Centers License is \b Once a year 1.0
nonexpiring
North Dakota
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family day care 1 Yes Twice a year 3.0
Group homes 1 Yes Twice a year 3.0
Centers 1 Yes Twice a year 3.0
Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family day care 2 Yes Twice a year 2.5
Group homes 2 Yes Twice a year 2.5
Centers 2 Yes Twice a year 2.5
Oklahoma
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family day care 2 Yes Three times a 3.5
year
Group homes \b \b \b \b
Centers 2 Yes Three times a 3.5
year
Oregon
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family day care 2 No Not inspected\c Not inspected\c
Group homes 1 Yes Once a year 2.0
Centers 1 Yes Once a year 2.0
Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family day care 2 No Random sample of Random sample
10% of
registered
providers
Group homes 1 Yes Once a year 2.0
Centers 1 Yes Once a year 2.0
Rhode Island
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family day care 2 Yes \b 0.5
Group homes 1 Yes \b 1.0
Centers 1 No Twice a year 2.0
South Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family day care 1 No Not inspected Not inspected
Group homes 2 Yes Twice a year 2.5
Centers 2 Yes Twice a year 2.5
South Dakota
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family day care 2 Yes Once every 2 1.0
years
Group homes 1 Yes Once a year 2.0
Centers 1 Yes Once a year 2.0
Tennessee
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family day care 1 Yes Three times a 4.0
year
Group homes 1 Yes Three times a 4.0
year
Centers 1 Yes Three times a 4.0
year
Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family day care License is \b At least once 0.4
nonexpiring every 3 years
Group homes License is \b Once a year 1.0
nonexpiring
Centers License is \b Once a year 1.0
nonexpiring
Utah
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family day care 1 Yes Twice a year 3.0
Group homes 1 Yes Twice a year 3.0
Centers 1 Yes Twice a year 3.0
Vermont
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family day care 1 No Once every 2 0.5
years
Group homes 1 Yes Once a year 2.0
Centers 1 Yes Once a year 2.0
Virginia
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family day care Varies Yes Twice a year 2.0
according to
past
performance
Group homes \b \b \b \b
Centers Varies Yes Twice a year 2.0
according to
past
performance
Washington
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family day care 3 Yes Once every 2 0.8
years
Group homes 3 Yes Once every 2 0.8
years
Centers 3 Yes Once a year 1.3
West Virginia
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family day care 1 Yes \b 1.0
Group homes 2 Yes \b 0.5
Centers 2 Yes \b 0.5
Wisconsin
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family day care 2 Yes Once a year 1.5
Group homes \b \b \b \b
Centers 2 Yes Twice a year 2.5
Wyoming
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family day care 1 Yes Once a year 2.0
Group homes 1 Yes Once a year 2.0
Centers 1 Yes Once a year 2.0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: "Less than once every 2 years and at least once every 3
years" are denoted as ".4" years.
\a Alaska did not respond to the survey.
\b For varying reasons, data were unavailable.
\c These providers may be inspected by another state agency.
\d While these states provided group home category data, they refer
to group homes as small child care centers.
\e License is issued for up to 3 years.
\f Renewal consists of only a one-time visit.
STATE CHILD CARE LICENSING BUDGET
AND FULL-TIME-EQUIVALENT (FTE)
STAFFING LEVELS, 1996 AND 1999
========================================================== Appendix II
Percentage Percentage
1996 child 1999 child change in 1996 FTEs 1999 FTEs change in
care care budget for child for child FTEs from
licensing licensing from 1996 care care 1996 to
State budget budget to 1999 licensing licensing 1999
----------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Alabama \a \a \a 14 16 +14
Alaska \b \b \b \b \b \b
Arizona \a \a \a 23 25 +9
Arkansas \a $2,170,972 \a 35 35 0
California $58,166,09 77,405,725 +33 197 197 0
5
Colorado 2,600,000 2,900,000 +12 \a 25 \a
Connecticut 1,633,900 1,750,000 +7 34 36 +6
Delaware \a 1,689,841 \a 12 14 +17
District of 868,000 1,186,000 +37 6 7 +17
Columbia
Florida 4,607,021 5,719,145 +24 88 75 -15
Georgia \a 4,017,676 \a \a 49 \a
Hawaii 3,881,080 9,556,728 \+146 \a 0 \a
Idaho \a \a \a \a \a \a
Illinois \a \a \a \a 171 \a
Indiana 800,000\c 2,152,464 +169 24 34 +42
Iowa \a \a \a 18 \a \a
Kansas 1,253,588 2,596,754 +107 48 55 +15
Kentucky 7,989,300\ 8,888,500\ +11 9 21 +57
d d
Louisiana 1,600,000 1,800,000 +13 0 0 \a
Maine 350,000 600,000 +71 9 11 +22
Maryland 7,585,171 8,438,215 +11 132 126 -5
Massachusetts 6,000,000 7,000,000 +17 \a 69 \a
Michigan 7,500,000 8,000,000 +7 83 93 +12
Minnesota 3,237,653\ 3,320,013\ +3 114 114 0
e e
Mississippi 350,000 750,000 +114 5 15 +200
Missouri 3,800,000 5,000,000 +32 69 86 +25
Montana \a \a \a 10 12 +20
Nebraska \a \a \a 28 28 0
Nevada \a \a \a 3 17 +467
New Hampshire 638,565 692,576 +8 16 16 0
New Jersey 2,252,600 3,452,400 +53 20\f 28\f +40
New Mexico \a 674,200 \a \a 15 \a
New York 9,868,671 13,498,700 +37 181 234 +29
North Carolina 4,010,000 5,670,000 +41 50 67 +34
North Dakota 81,740 453,400 +455 \a 18 \a
Ohio 3,495,237 3,999,575 +14 38 66 +74
Oklahoma 3,357,643 5,680,905 +69 89 111 +25
Oregon 1,527,650 2,732,259 +79 17 34 +100
Pennsylvania \a 4,500,000 \a 67 55 -18
Rhode Island \a \a \a 4 7 +75
South Carolina 1,297,772 1,612,433 +24 15 15 0
South Dakota 329,562 608,110 +85 5 10 +100
Tennessee 1,855,919 1,922,700 +4 62 81 +31
Texas 13,500,000 14,100,000 +4 307 329 +7
Utah \a 2,576,798 \a \a 31 \a
Vermont 427,000 629,972 +48 7 7 0
Virginia 5,917,065 6,919,074 +17 50 57 +14
Washington 5,008,000 5,411,000 +8 76 79 +4
West Virginia \a \a \a 2 7 +250
Wisconsin 2,600,000 3,480,800 +34 \a 60 \a
Wyoming 379,095 444,279 +17 6 6 0
=========================================================================================
Average +53 +44
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Some states could not provide us with FTE or budget information
for particular years.
\b Alaska did not respond to the survey.
\c This is an estimate of Indiana's 1996 state budget for staff only.
\d Includes budget data for all human services licensing.
\e Budget data are for state office only.
\f FTE data do not include private agency staff who, under contract
with the state, monitor family child care homes.
STATE CASELOADS, FISCAL YEAR 1999
========================================================= Appendix III
Caseload
(based on
Number of FTEs reported
Number of for child care number of
child care licensing and facilities
State facilities enforcement and FTEs)
------------ -------------- -------------- ------------
Alabama 4,416 16 276
Alaska\a
Arizona 2,258 25 90
Arkansas 3,188 35 91
California 48,983 197 249
Colorado 8,319 25 333
Connecticut 6,142 36 171
Delaware 2,245 14 160
District of 597 7 85
Columbia
Florida 8,881 75 118
Georgia 11,207 49 229
Hawaii 1,050 0 \b
Idaho 1,425 \b \b
Illinois 12,794 171 75
Indiana 3,945 34 116
Iowa 6,128 \b 60\c
Kansas 9,154 55 166
Kentucky 2,037 21\d 97
Louisiana 1,850 \b \b
Maine 3,600 11 327
Maryland 14,193 126 113
Massachusett 14,110 69 204
s
Michigan 21,230 93 228
Minnesota 16,205 114 142
Mississippi 1,629 15 109
Missouri 4,513 86 52
Montana 1,818 12 152
Nebraska 4,280 28 153
Nevada 1,066 17 63
New 1,191 16 74
Hampshire
New Jersey 3,615 28 129
New Mexico \b 15 \b
New York 24,390 234 104
North 9,053 67 135
Carolina
North Dakota 1,872 18 104
Ohio 9,809 66 149
Oklahoma 6,171 111 56
Oregon 11,712 34 75\e
Pennsylvania 8,634 55 157
Rhode Island 1,176 7 168
South 3,749 15 250
Carolina
South Dakota 1,749 10 175
Tennessee 5,734 81 71
Texas 21,664 329 66
Utah 2,157 31 70
Vermont 1,897 7 271
Virginia 5,923 57 104
Washington 9,350 79 118
West 400\f 7 57
Virginia
Wisconsin 4,947 60 82
Wyoming 893 6 149
----------------------------------------------------------
\a Alaska did not respond to the survey.
\b Data were not available.
\c Iowa could not provide data on FTEs. Instead it provided an
estimate of its caseload for child care centers.
\d Kentucky's FTE estimate includes state licensing staff who
regulate other human services as well as child care facilities.
\e Oregon provided an estimate of its caseload for group homes and
centers only.
\f West Virginia could provide data only on the number of its child
care centers.
*** End of document. ***