Table of Contents | Previous | Next |
4. Increase Affordable Child Care
Approach for the Strategic Objective: Increase access to affordable, quality child care for low income, working families.
Program Description, Context, Legislative Intent, and Broad Program Goals
The Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) was established under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA)of 1996 to help working low-income families achieve and maintain economic self-sufficiency and to improve the overall quality of child care. PRWORA repealed the three title IV-A child care programs and replaced them with new funding administered under the revised Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) rules and regulations (Section 418 of the Social Security Act).
CCDF is comprised of three funding streams: the mandatory, matching, and discretionary funds. The mandatory and matching funds are appropriated for fiscal years 1997 through 2002 under section 418 of the Social Security Act. A State's share of the mandatory funds is tied to its spending under the now-repealed AFDC-related child care programs. To receive its share of the matching funds, a State must match the matching funds at the current Medicaid rate, demonstrate maintenance of effort (MOE), and obligate its mandatory funds. The discretionary fund, also referred to as the Child Care and Development Block Grant, is appropriated annually by Congress. Discretionary funds are allotted to States based on a formula that takes into account the proportion of children under age five, children who receive free or reduced price school lunches, and per capita income. The FY 2002 request for the Child Care and Development Block Grant includes a request for $200 million increase in CCDBG funds and a new $400 million set aside in the appropriation for use by the States to provide certificates for low-income parents to help defray the costs of after school programs with an education focus. Combined, these funds will provide child care for an estimated 2.6 million low-income children.
States are required to spend at least four percent of their CCDF funds on activities to improve the quality and availability of child care. In addition, Congress has earmarked small amounts of the discretionary fund to be used by States for school-age care and resource and referral services, improved quality, and expanding the availability of quality infant and toddler care. The funds are provided in formula grants to States which have the authority to make many of the decisions about priorities, policies, and expenditures in achieving goals related to improved family access to quality child care within the parameters of the Federal statute and regulations. Since there is now a single Federal child care program operating under one set of rules, States have the flexibility to serve all families through a single, integrated child care system.
Under the statute governing CCDF, eligible children are defined as those whose parents are working or in education or training, or who are in need of protective services. Children must be under age 13 and reside with a family whose income does not exceed 85 percent of the State's median income (SMI) for that size family. States may serve children age 13 and over who are under court supervision or are mentally or physically incapable of self care. States must spend 70 percent of their CCDF monies to provide child care services for families on or transitioning off Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) or at-risk of welfare dependency. States are also required to give priority to children with special needs and to children from very low-income families.
In their biennial plans to ACF, States must provide information concerning policy issues such as family eligibility limits, sliding fee scales, provider reimbursement rates, provider health and safety requirements, and activities to improve the quality and availability of care.
Access to quality, affordable child care is critical to achieving self-sufficiency by welfare clients. Child care subsidies also help the working poor remain self-sufficient. In Child Care: Child Care Subsidies Increase the Likelihood that Low-Income Mothers Will Work, GAO analyzed the trade-offs low-income mothers confront when they want to work but face high child care costs. According to that study, child care subsidies are often a strong factor in a parent’s ability to work, and reducing child care costs increases the likelihood that poor and near-poor mothers will be able to work. The GAO observed that affordable child care is a decisive factor that encourages low-income mothers to seek and maintain employment.
ACF will continue to promote expansion of child care services as a key element in its strategy for helping families achieve economic independence. Doing so will involve working with our partners to increase the supply of child care, to develop measures and supports for child care quality, and to provide information to help parents make sound choices about child care.
In addition, partnerships among child care providers, Head Start, public and private early childhood education, health, nutrition, mental health, and parental employment preparation are essential to meeting the needs of young children and their families. To this end, ACF continues to encourage collaboration at the Federal, State, and individual program levels.
Program Activities, Strategies, and Resources
Child care funding available to States has increased in recent years. In FY 1999, $3.2 billion was available through CCDF. In addition in FY 1999, States transferred a cumulative total of $2.44 billion of Federal funds from the TANF program to the Child Care and Development Fund, more than triple the $802 million transferred in FY 1998. Also in FY 1999, State spending through the TANF program on child care services totaled $1.99 billion, including $1.38 billion maintenance of effort funds and $604 million Federal funds.
Despite increased funding, existing resources are inadequate to meet the growing need for child care assistance. On October 19, 1999, DHHS released a report stating that nationally, in an average month in 1998, only 1.5 million of the 9.9 million low and moderate-income children eligible for CCDF assistance actually received help through the program--just 15 percent of children eligible under State criteria. The gap between eligibility and receipt of services would have been even greater if States had chosen to define the eligible population to include all of the low and moderate-income working families potentially eligible under Federal law. If States had set their eligibility at 85 percent of the SMI, the maximum allowed under Federal law, an estimated 14.7 million children would have been eligible for subsidies in 1999. Of that number, only 1.76 million children (12 percent) eligible under Federal law in FY 1999 were served. A continuing challenge is to reach the remaining 13 million children (88%) who are eligible for child care subsidies under Federal rules.
The recent National Study of Child Care for Low-Income Families, State and Community Substudy, confirmed that even when additional State funds are included, many children still go unserved. The study also reported that, with the strong economy and more parents working, States were spending significantly more on child care, with a median increase of 78 percent from 1997 to 1999 in the States studied. Yet, a survey of 17 States showed that those States were only able to serve 15 to 20 percent of federally eligible children in 1999. The study, prepared by Abt Associates, Inc. for DHHS, also reported waiting lists in 12 of the 17 States.
Confronted with great unmet need and finite resources, many States are forced to make policy choices that focus assistance on certain families while excluding other parents who may be struggling to hold onto a modest job without turning to welfare for help. Many States report that due to limited subsidy resources, thousands of low-income working families are on waiting lists for child care subsidies. Only nine States and Territories set their eligibility limits at the maximum allowed under Federal law, while another nine set maximum eligibility below 50 percent of the SMI. As a result, a family of three earning as little as $17,332 a year, may have too much income to be eligible for child care assistance. States also stretch dollars by establishing low payment rates to providers, which can limit families’ ability to access quality care, or by setting high family co-payment rates that may be difficult for families to afford. Almost half of the States allow providers to charge additional out-of-pocket costs to parents to make up for low reimbursement rates.
Since the passage of PRWORA, ACF has spent over $7 million per year in technical assistance to improve grantees' ability to increase the accessibility, affordability, and quality of child care. This includes targeted technical assistance and support to States in systems development, with particular emphasis on helping States meet requirements for Federal reporting and consumer education.
Methods of technical assistance related to systems development include software utilities for data providers, computer-based training, and site visits to "trouble-shoot" systems problems. Other methods include a web site and a toll free hotline, training workshops at regional meetings, and national child care data quality meetings. The Bureau's goal is to support States’ efforts to collect, report, and manage child care data to improve its quality. Despite these intensive technical assistance efforts, States and Territories continue to experience CCDF data reporting problems.
Other technical assistance includes assisting States to develop inclusion initiatives for children with disabilities, building partnerships with the private sector, and establishing successful linkages between child care programs and programs such as health services, early childhood education, and Head Start.
ACF’s Child Care Bureau (CCB) employs a variety of methods and processes to support State efforts including: consultation, peer consultation, training opportunities, development of written materials, State child care administrator meetings and leadership forums, conference calls, on-site technical assistance, and distributing information memoranda. In FY 2000, separate leadership forums have focused on child care issues faced by rural communities and Hispanic families. Memoranda have provided information to States on models for child care, Head Start, pre-kindergarten partnerships, eligibility periods for child care subsidies, and options for expenditure of quality and earmarked funds.
Through a listserv established by the CCB, State child care administrators communicate with each other, providing peer consultation on emerging child care policy issues. There are presently 162 members on the listserv including child care administrators and Federal staff. From April 3 -- February 6, 2001, they exchanged 365 messages. Among topics discussed were: eligibility rates, use of social security numbers, immigrants, special needs children, licensing, interactive websites for subsidy applications, employer contributions and child care subsidies, advance payments to child care providers, slot-based contracts, payment policies related to child absences, State administrative structures, mobile training for providers, and the use of TANF monies for child care.
ACF's Regional Offices support State efforts in developing their child care programs. In connection with its regional child care administrator's meeting, Region III developed a "Back-to-Basics" notebook. The notebook included regional State profiles, CCB information, CCDF Program Instructions and Information Memoranda, policy interpretations, data tables and charts from State annual reports, and a matrix that summarized State policies and practices. Region VIII recently developed a research notebook and distributed it to its six State child care administrators. The notebook includes copies of recent journal and professional articles. Region VIII established a Regional Early Childhood Council (RECC) consisting of approximately 40 child care, Head Start, and other early childhood representatives from the six States. The Council meets quarterly to develop and implement strategies to address issues relevant to Region VIII States. The RECC used ACF's performance outcome measures and the CCB's Results Map (an internal management tool used to guide work and direct resources) to plan its recent regional conference. The Results Map served as a framework to articulate the Bureau's mission-critical objectives and to focus work to achieve outcomes. Included in the Results Map were future-oriented, outcome-driven statements that challenged the Bureau toward innovation and collaboration across organizational boundaries.
All of the ACF Regional Offices sponsor multiple child care meetings throughout each fiscal year. Planning for these meetings involves State child care administrators and CCB regional liaisons and technical assistance specialists. To respond to the emerging needs of States, the focus of regional conferences varies. The Region VI Mid-Winter Leadership Conference included a full day devoted exclusively to State child care administrators who identified and discussed ways to enhance child care quality and quantity. The two primary issues that were discussed were public-private partnerships and providing child care in rural areas.
With the FY 2000 CCDF set-aside of $10 million for child care research, the CCB awarded a 30-month contract to develop the National Child Care Research Collaboration and Archive in September 2000. The archive will help improve the quality of child care research, make data more accessible to researchers for analysis, and assist key constituencies to make better use of research findings. The Bureau is also participating in an interagency collaboration with the National Institutes of Child Health and Human Development and other Federal partners. This collaboration, referred to as the Science and Ecology of Early Development, brings together interdisciplinary approaches and multiple partners to better understand the earliest years of life.
Through its Child Care Policy Research Consortium, the CCB provides support to research partnerships composed of State administrators, researchers, and practitioners. The Consortium conducts child care research relating to the many policy decisions States must consider on a daily basis. In FY 2000, the CCB added four new research partnerships to the Consortium, increasing the membership from 13 to 22 States. Studies in progress are examining the duration of subsidies and child care arrangements across eight States, the comparison between child outcomes and parent and expert assessments of quality child care, and the effects of welfare reform on child care supply, parental choices, and economic self-sufficiency of low-income families.
The Bureau also awarded twelve grants to conduct field initiated child care research. This research will provide the CCB with critically needed information on child care and its effects on child development and family well-being, and will help to develop innovative strategies to meet the needs of low-income families struggling to afford quality child care for their children. The broad topics of this research include: quality issues, child outcomes, parental choice, cost, welfare and work issues, subsidy use, child care workforce factors, cultural issues, special populations such as infants and toddlers and children with special needs, kith and kin care, family child care, and administrative issues. In addition, the CCB awarded five grants to individual doctoral students to complete their dissertation research in child care and funded one research fellowship through the Society for Research in Child Development.
Congress included a $10 million earmark for child care research in its FY 2001 appropriations. The CCB plans to continue projects initiated in FY 2000 and is exploring the possibility of launching several new projects. These include a national study of child care demand and supply, child care policy demonstrations to examine how State policies are evolving to meet the changing needs of families under welfare reform.
Program Coordination, Partnerships, and Crosscutting Issues
Quality early childhood programs provide a crucial linkage for comprehensive, healthy child development to prepare children to be successful in school and later in life. Quality programs also provide needed supports to parents who are moving toward self-sufficiency through training and work. Recognizing the importance of comprehensive services, ACF encourages its State partners to create linkages between child care and health, family support, early childhood education, and other services at the State and community levels.
ACF continues to collaborate at the Federal level to facilitate community-level coordination. This includes coordination within ACF among the CCB, TANF, Head Start, Office of Child Support Enforcement, Office of Refugee Resettlement, and the Administration on Developmental Disabilities. For example, the Child Care and Head Start Bureaus jointly sponsor the QUILT (Quality in Linking Together) project that provides assistance to Head Start and child care grantees on successful ways to form program partnerships. In addition, the Child Care and Head Start Bureaus worked with the Department of Education to sponsor the first-ever national leadership forum on child care, Head Start, and pre-kindergarten. The forum, designed to promote State and local collaboration among early childhood programs toward full-day, full-year services for children and families, involved teams from 21 States and the District of Columbia.
Within DHHS, CCB participates with the Maternal and Child Health Bureau to sponsor the Healthy Child Care America Campaign, aimed at improving health and safety in child care by creating strong linkages between the child care and health communities. Externally, ACF continues to partner with the Department of Labor’s Welfare-to-Work grants program, States (both individually and through national associations such as the American Public Human ServicesAssociation and the National Governors’ Association), various national child care associations, and with the research community (e.g., the Child Care Research Consortium, funded by DHHS). Special efforts are underway to foster partnerships between the private and the public sector. The CCB-sponsored Partnerships Project has provided technical assistance to States and local communities in building coalitions and designing funding strategies involving both public and private entities.
Program-wide Performance
The number of children served through the Child Care and Development Fund will have grown from 1.51 million in FY 1998 to a projected target of 1.92 million in FY 2000 (measure 4.1a). In FY 1999, one-half of the 1.76 million children served were preschoolers between two and six years, 15 percent were infants and toddlers, and 35 percent were school age. Seventy-three percent of the children served were in care regulated under State or local law and 27 percent were in care operating legally without regulation. Relatives cared for 63% of the children in non-regulated care. CCDF regulations require all providers, except certain relatives, to meet basic health and safety standards.
CCDF grantees were to submit final program data reports for FY 1999 by December 31, 1999. While the CCB expected that performance data for FY 1999 would be available by April 30, 2000, two States and three Territories have not yet submitted complete FY 1999 data as of February 2001. California, which receives 11 percent of the CCDF monies and serves an estimated 13 percent of the children served through CCDF, has submitted only three months of FY 1999 data. For purposes of this report, FY 1999 child and family counts for that State have been extrapolated from financial data provided on the ACF-696 reporting form.
The final FY 2000 program data reports were due from the CCDF grantees on December 31, 2000. April 30, 2001 is the Bureau's forecasted date for the availability of the FY 2000 performance data. However, as of February 5, 2001, the CCB has not received final data reports from nine States and five Territories. One of these States, cited above, has not submitted any FY 2000 data. In addition, work is underway to verify the accuracy of the performance data from several other States. For the reasons listed, aggregate FY 2000 data from the CCDF grantees would be unreliable and incomplete.
CCDF grantees have many efforts underway to improve access to child care for low-income families. As work continues in partnership with States to improve data collection, a number of indicators, including informal feedback from grantees, indicate that access to child care for low-income children served by CCDF is increasing. For example, because some States have reduced the level of parent co-payments or have set lower co-payment amounts for the very lowest income families, more families can afford to participate in the program (measure 4.1c). In their FY 2000-2001 State Plans, 43 States and Territories (86 percent) reported waiving co-pays for some or all families at or below the poverty level. Twelve States said that all families with income at or below the poverty level are exempt from co-pays. An additional 31 States indicated that only some families at or below the poverty level must pay a fee.
In developing early childhood programs, States and communities together craft resources from a variety of sources, including the Child Care and Development Fund, TANF, Head Start, Early Head Start, Social Services Block Grant, Title I, Even Start, the USDA Child and Adult Care Food Program, State funded pre-kindergarten programs, other State and local funding sources, foundations, charities, and businesses. Collaboration builds on the strengths of each program and blends them together in a coordinated fashion to benefit both children and their families. Collaboration benefits children by promoting continuity in services from infancy through school-age and benefits the parents by ensuring that early childhood programs support work.
In the FY 2000 -- 2001 State Plans, 28 States and territories reported that their Lead Agency works in partnership with the entity responsible for administering State TANF funds. Eleven States indicated that they have developed a single, "seamless" system for administering child care subsidies to all families without regard to their eligibility category. Seventeen States said they have developed initiatives to promote "one-stop shopping" in which TANF recipients can receive child care and other benefits at a single location or to ensure effective referrals or linkages among the agencies that administer child care and TANF cash benefits.
Twenty-five States report collaborating with the State Education Department or another public or private entity to expand services for school-age children. Thirty-seven States work collaboratively with their State Health Department. In an increasing number of States, collaboration involves outreach on health and safety issues to child care providers and efforts to inform low-income families about the availability of subsidized health care. In their plans, 46 States described collaborative efforts with Head Start and 25 reported joint efforts to promote early intervention for children with developmental disabilities. Twenty-six State Lead Agencies reported active collaborations with tribal communities to improve service delivery to dually eligible children.
As demonstrated in the discussion of child care quality under Strategic Goal 2, Objective 5, States have an exciting array of initiatives in progress to improve the quality of child care. States report a range of activities including comprehensive consumer education for parents, grants and loans to expand the supply and quality of child care, efforts to support the professional development and compensation of child care workers, and partnerships with business, health, and education to enhance the availability of quality child care.
Data Issues
The Federal Child Care Information System (FCCIS) collects all aggregate and case-level data from the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Territories of American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and the Virgin Islands as required in the statute for the Child Care and Development Fund program. States are responsible for compiling aggregate data at the State level and transmitting it electronically via the Internet to the FCCIS. (For the majority of States this is done through an automated child care information system).
All data received by the FCCIS are stored in a national data set. Data standards have been set and training and technical assistance has been provided to all States and Territories on reporting requirements and submission procedures. Upon receiving child care data, the FCCIS notifies States that their transmission was successful. It also performs a series of checks to determine whether the data meet data quality standards. A data quality assessment is provided to give feedback on missing, out-of-range, and internally inconsistent data. Data failing to meet quality standards are marked as either suspect or unacceptable and listed in detailed data quality reports sent to States and personnel within ACF. Data marked as unacceptable are cleaned or eliminated from analysis.
Throughout FY 2001, the CCB will continue to expand technical assistance designed to improve data submission and data quality. These activities include: on-site technical assistance visits; distribution of technical assistance documents; enhancements to the TA Tracker software; training workshops; and software to assist Tribes with data collection and administering their subsidy programs.
The Child Care Automation Resource Center (CCARC) is the "user interface" for the Bureau’s CCIS Technical Assistance Project (CCISTAP). States may access the CCARC through a hotline or its website, to obtain assistance such as fixing reporting problems, and locating documents, software, or other materials produced by the Center. All requests for technical assistance are logged and tracked until issues are resolved.
States continuing to experience difficulties collecting and transmitting required data will receive additional on-site technical assistance. State reporting performance will be monitored with the use of historical information. Factors to be examined include: electronic transmission anomalies; timeliness of submissions; data quality reports; adequacy of sample size and sample bias; correspondence between the values reported in the monthly ACF-801 and annual ACF-800 reports, spurious values (e.g., all records report a single value for a given data element); and month-to-month trend data to identify any sudden or significant changes in data characteristics. Candidates for site visits will be selected from States based on need. ACF Regional Offices will actively participate throughout the process. Available financial resources will support on-site technical assistance visits to 10 States.
In FY 2001, enhancements to the existing TA Tracker Software support the transmission of data files. The planned improvements will automate the existing process with results being posted to the CCARC website. States are able to review the results of their data submission at the website to determine whether any transmission difficulties occurred. The TA Tracker automatically generates a message to the CCARC when problems occur with a data file. Technical assistance specialists then investigate the problem and work with the States to solve the transmission problem.
CCB will also sponsor approximately 20 workshops and training sessions for States throughout FY 2001. Presentations will focus on major reporting issues and system problems. In addition, a maximum of five technical papers on data quality, sampling procedures, performance measures, optional data elements, and reporting issues will be written in FY 2001. Five technical briefs will also be written to assist States with automation issues.
While CCB uses data from sources other than its grantees, the majority of the data it collects are from States. CCB faces various data challenges, both internal and external, that include, but are not limited to: late submission of data; incomplete data submissions; systems problems; quality controls; and technological delays. In addition, statutory authority limits the type of data the Bureau is able to collect from States. State flexibility under the statute has led to great variation in State regulations, policies, and standards resulting in challenges for the CCB to produce complete, accurate, and consistent aggregate data. These challenges affect not only the comprehensiveness of the data available for reporting but also the reliability and validity of the data.
Demands for child care subsidies have limited the ability of States to commit funds for systems development. Twenty States have not used any CCDF monies for information systems development. Several States have experienced systems problems that have affected their data submission. Some of these States have experienced total system "crashes" while others are converting to new systems. Other States lack a single integrated system, and, therefore, must collect and aggregate data from several information systems. Some States have no State system and rely solely on local data systems. States with systems problems such as these are often unable to monitor or correct data errors. In addition, due to Y2K priorities, a few States were unable to modify their systems to collect the required CCDF data elements. As stated earlier, CCB continues actively to facilitate States’ compliance with CCDF reporting requirements.
Summary Table
In the performance plan submitted in previous years, ACF identified proxy performance measures addressing the three goals of the CCDF--affordability, availability, and quality of child care. The process of developing actual measures was completed in September 1999 and the current measures listed below replace the proxy measures used as placeholders in earlier reports. Working in partnership with the States, the CCB provided FY 1999 baseline data for these performance measures in December 2000.
| Performance Measures | Targets | Actual Performance |
Reference (page # in printed document) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PROGRAM GOAL: Increase the number of children of low income working families and families in training and education who have access to affordable child care. | ||||
| Objective:Increase the use of subsidies for child care services for low-income working families | ||||
| 4.1a. Increase the number of children served by CCDF subsidies from the 1998 baseline average. (Revised: formerly "receiving subsidized child care") (target number expressed in millions) | FY
02: 2.6 FY 01: 2.1* FY 00: 1.92 FY 99: NA |
FY
02: FY 01: FY 00: 4/01 FY 99: 1.76** FY 98: 1.51*** |
Px M-78 | |
| 4.1b. Increase the percentage of potentially eligible children who receive CCDF subsidies from the FY 1998 baseline. | FY
02: 13% FY 01: 12.5% FY 00: New in 2001 FY 99: NA |
FY
02: FY 01: FY 00: 4/01 FY 99: 12%** FY 98: 10% |
Px M-78 | |
| PROGRAM GOAL: Improve access to affordable quality child care | ||||
| Objective:Improve the affordability of quality child care for families through family co-pays that are reasonable. | ||||
| 4.1c. Reduce the average percentage of family income spent in assessed child care co-payments among families receiving CCDF subsidies to the FY 1998 level and maintain at that level. | FY
02: 5.8% FY 01: 5.8% FY 00: 5.8% FY 99: NA |
FY
02: FY 01: FY 00: 4/01 FY 99: 6.2%** FY 98: 5.8%**** |
Px M-78 | |
| PROGRAM GOAL: Improve the availability of child care facilities. | ||||
| Objective:Increase the availability of regulated child care. | ||||
| 4.1d. Increase the number of slots in State regulated child care settings from the FY 2000 baseline. (Developmental--NOTE: This measure is not limited to subsidized child care slots.) | FY 02: FY 01: FY 00: New in 2001 FY 99: NA |
FY 02: FY 01: FY 00: 4/01 Baseline |
Px M-79 | |
| PROGRAM GOAL: Improve parental ability to work or attend training/education leading to greater economic productivity. | ||||
| Objective:Increase the use of child care subsidies to assist working families. | ||||
| 4.1e. Increase the number of families working and/or pursuing training/education with support of CCDF subsidies from the FY 1998 baseline. (target number expressed in millions) | FY 02: 1.2 FY 01: 1.1 FY 00: New in 2001 FY 99: NA |
FY
02: FY 01: FY 00: 4/01 FY 99: 975,000** FY 98: 802,000 |
Px M-79 | |
| Availability of Data for FY 2000 Performance
Report: FY 2000 Data is due
from States December 31, 2000. FY 2000 Actual Performance
should be available April 30, 2001. *FY 2001 target for 4.1a revised from 2.22 to 2.1. **As of February 2001, 2 States and 3 Territories have not reported complete FY 1999 data. *** Preliminary data for 4.1a for FY 1998 was 1.53 million. **** Preliminary data for 4.1c for FY 1998 was 6.2 %. |
||||
| Total Funding for Child Care Programs (dollars in millions)See detailed Budget Linkage Table in Appendix 6 for line items included in funding totals. | FY
02: $4916.9 FY 01: $4588.9 FY 00: $3550.6 FY 99: $3185.8 |
Bx: budget just. sections G & KPx: page # performance plan | ||
Performance Measures for FY 2002 and Final Measures for FY 2001
Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) final regulations were released in July of 1998. ACF began developing child care performance goals and performance outcome, output, and process measures shortly after the final regulations were released and continued to refine the measures in FY 1999. The Child Care Bureau discussed the goals and measures at two national conferences, via 10 telephone conferences, written communications, and in other meetings with its partners in the States, Territories, and Tribes over the past year. The current set of appropriate, achievable program goals and measures was developed through this consensus-building process that incorporated significant opportunities for input from stakeholders. Data for many measures are available through existing reports that State grantees are required to submit on an on-going basis.
With regard to specific performance measures, while the number and percentage of potentially eligible children receiving subsidized child care (measure 4.1a) are outputs of the number of budget dollars invested (inputs), these quantities are results-oriented because the availability of child care subsidies directly supports self-sufficiency programs. An adequate supply of child care is an important intermediate stage to improving family economic independence and a continuing necessity for sustaining such independence. ACF has also worked to develop outcome measures for both the affordability and the supply of care. One is the co-payment measure (measure 4.1c) reflecting State efforts to support families gradually becoming more self-reliant by assuring that child care costs do not consume an excessive share of family income. Measure 4.1d is an indicator of the general supply of regulated child care available in the market.
PROGRAM GOAL: Increase the number of low income working families and families in training and education who have access to affordable child care.
Objective:Increase the use of subsidies for child care services for low-income working families
4.1a. FY 2001: Increase the number of children to 2.1 million served by CCDF subsidies from the FY 1998 baseline of average 1.51 million children served per month.
FY 2002: Increase the number of children to 2.6 million served by CCDF subsidies from the FY 1998 baseline of average 1.51 million children served per month.
4.1b. FY 2001: Increase the percentage of potentially eligible children who receive CCDF subsidies to 12.5 percent from the 1998 baseline of 10%.
FY 2002: Increase the percentage of potentially eligible children who receive CCDF subsidies to 13 percent from the 1998 baseline of 10%
Data sources: Annual Aggregate Report, ACF-800, Child Care Quarterly Case-Level Report, ACF-801.
The performance measure 4.1a is the average number of children receiving services each month. The number of children served is directly related to the funding provided to the State grantees. The FY 2001 target reflects the increased discretionary funding ($817 million) provided by Congress for FY 2001; the projected increase in the FY 2002 target reflects requested increases in matching, mandatory and discretionary funding. Measure 4.1b indicates the number of children served through CCDF as a percentage of those potentially eligible for services based on family income, child’s age, and parent employment status.
Measure 4.1b is inter-related with measures 4.1c-e that track the amount of co-pay charged to parents and other State-determined policies such as eligibility criteria and provider payments. It is also related to quality measures 5.1a-c under Strategic Objective 5 since costs associated with increased quality have the potential to reduce the number of children receiving services.
PROGRAM GOAL: Improve access to affordable quality child care
Objective:Improve the affordability of quality child care for families through family co-pays that are reasonable.
4.1c. FY 2001: Reduce the average percentage of family income spent in assessed child care co-payments among families receiving CCDF subsidies to the FY 1998 level of 5.8 percent and maintain that level.
FY 2002: Maintain at 5.8 percent the average percentage of family income spent in assessed child care co-payments among families receiving CCDF subsidies.
Data sources: Child Care Quarterly Case-Level Report, ACF-801
The above performance measure calculates the affordability of child care for families served by expressing the out-of-pocket cost as a percentage of family income. While the goal is not the total elimination of family co-payments for child care services for families receiving CCDF subsidies, it is to ensure that co-payments are affordable for families. The desired outcome is to reduce the average child care co-payment to the FY 1998 level and then to maintain it at that level. Maintaining the amount of family income spent in child care co-payments at 5.8 percent in an environment of increasing child-care costs is an ambitious target.
PROGRAM GOAL: Improve the availability of child care facilities.
Objective:Increase the availability of regulated child care.
4.1d. FY 2001: Increase the number of slots in state regulated child care setting. (Developmental--Note: This measure is not limited to subsidized child care slots.)
FY 2002: Increase the number of slots in state regulated child care setting. (Developmental--Note: This measure is not limited to subsidized child care slots.)
Data source: Under development. The number of regulated child care slots is included as an optional data element for the annual aggregate ACF-800 data collection. States were asked to provide this information on a voluntary basis in the aggregate reports that were due December 31, 2000. Data should be available April 2001 for this measure.
In addition to the issues of whether low-income families can afford child care services, the presence of child care services in the open market is a basic but important indicator of accessibility of services. Performance measure 4.1d addresses the availability of regulated child care slots in the market.
PROGRAM GOAL: Improve parental ability to work or attend training/education leading to greater economic productivity.
Objective:Increase the use of child care subsidies to assist working families.
4.1e. FY 2001: Increase the number of families working and/or pursuing training/education with support of CCDF subsidies to 1.1 million from the FY 1998 baseline of 802,000.
FY 2002: Increase the number of families working and/or pursuing training/education with support of CCDF subsidies to 1.2 million from the FY 1998 baseline of 802,000.
Data source: Child Care Quarterly Case Level Report, ACF 801, Item #6, Response 1, 2, or 3.
A primary goal of CCDF is to assist low-income families in accessing child care to enable parents to work or attend training/education enabling them to become independent from public assistance. This performance measure is targeted toward increasing the numbers of families served.
| Table of Contents | Previous | Next |