Search Type Title Author/Investigator Search Advanced Search

Table of Contents | Previous | Next

Part II: Program Description and Performance Analysis

STRATEGIC GOAL I (con't)

4.     INCREASE AFFORDABLE CHILD CARE

Approach for the Strategic Objective: Increase access to affordable, quality child care for low-income, working families.

4.1     CHILD CARE: AFFORDABILITY

Total Program Resources:

Request, Full Costs, & Annual Measures ($ in millions)	FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005
Budget Request (Program Level)	$4,837.1	$4,837.9	$4,816.7
Estimated Full Cost	$4,847.9	$4,849.2	$4,828.8
Program Goal: Improve Child Care Access and Quality Access - Incorporates measure: FY 2003-2005: 4.1a (90% of full costs) Quality – Incorporates measures: FY 2003-2005: 5.1a, e, f (10% of full costs)	$4,363.2 $484.8	$4,364.3 $484.9	$4,345.9 $482.9

* The distribution of full costs to performance measures may not equal the full cost of the performance program area.

ALLOCATION METHODOLOGY EXPLANATION: Performance measures represent 100% of full cost of program.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND CONTEXT

The purpose of the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) is to help low-income working families achieve and maintain economic self-sufficiency, and to improve the overall quality of child care. The CCDF was established under PRWORA, which repealed the title IV-A child care programs and replaced them with new funding administered under the revised Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) rules and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.

The Child Care and Development Fund was subject to reauthorization in FY 2002. During FY 2004, it is operating under a temporary extension and appropriations law while work continues on reauthorization. In FY 2002, states spent nearly $6.4 billion in Federal funds for child care (including significant amounts of funds transferred from TANF to CCDF) and approximately $1.6 billion of their TANF block grant funds directly for child care services. In addition, almost $2.2 billion in state funds (i.e., Matching and MOE) were spent under CCDF in FY 2002. These expenditures reflect historically high levels of Federal and state funding for child care. With these funds, many states exercised the flexibility provided under CCDF and TANF to expand their capacity to serve more children and provide services for low-income working families without regard to their connection to TANF and without waiting lists.

CCDF consists of three funding streams: Mandatory, Matching, and Discretionary Funds. The Mandatory and Matching Funds were 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. The Matching Funds are funds remaining after the Mandatory Funds are allocated according to the statutory formula. To receive its share of the Matching Funds, a state must provide a match at the current Medicaid rate, expend its Maintenance of Effort Funds, and obligate its Mandatory Funds. PRWORA provides that states may transfer up to 30 percent of their funds under the TANF program to CCDF. Transferred funds are subject to the regulations governing the Discretionary Fund. States may also spend TANF dollars directly on child care services. In FY 2002, the total child care expenditures from CCDF and TANF-related funds equaled more than $11 billion.

Under the statute governing CCDF, eligible children are defined as those children whose parents are working, or in education or training, or who are in need of protective services. Children must be under the age of 13 years. States may serve children 13 to 19 years of age 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, TANF, or at risk of welfare dependency. States are also required to give priority to children with special needs and children from very low income families. Within the parameters of Federal statute and regulations, States have broad discretion in establishing policies and priorities that respond to state and local needs. 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.

Directly and through ACF regional offices, ACF’s Child Care Bureau (CCB) offers technical assistance and support to states, Territories, and Tribes in their implementation of CCDF. This includes direct oversight to ensure that the program is being implemented according to the law and regulations. It also involves funding and disseminating policy-relevant research and technical assistance through a variety of methods including video conferencing and contracted technical assistance specialists.

Program Partnerships

ACF collaborates at the Federal level with other agencies to facilitate community-level coordination. This includes coordination within ACF among the Child Care Bureau, the Office of Family Assistance (which administers TANF), the Head Start Bureau, the Office of Child Support Enforcement, the Office of Refugee Resettlement, and the Administration on Developmental Disabilities. For example, the Child Care and Head Start Bureaus jointly sponsor the Center on the Social and Emotional Foundations for Early Learning, a national center helping identify best practices for promoting children’s social and emotional competence.

In FY 2003, the Child Care Bureau placed particular emphasis on partnering with the Head Start Bureau and the Department of Education on the implementation of the President’s initiative, Good Start Grow Smart (GSGS). As indicated in the President’s April 2002 announcement, Good Start Grow Smart is envisioned as a Federal-state partnership that creates linkages between CCDF and state public and private efforts to promote early learning. In their biennial CCDF plans that were due July 1, 2003, states were asked to describe their progress toward establishing voluntary guidelines on early learning for children ages 3 to 5 that align with state K-12 standards. They must also describe their plans for the professional development and training of people working in child care and plans for coordination across early childhood programs and funding streams. The Child Care Bureau worked with states through the biennial CCDF planning process to encourage guidelines that are research-based, relevant across care settings, and appropriate as the foundation for professional development.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS

Program Performance Table

Performance Measures	Targets	Actual Performance	Reference (Relevant strategic goal in the HHS Strategic Plan)
PROGRAM GOAL – ACCESS: 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 access to affordable child care for low-income working families.
4.1a. Maintain the number of children from the 2003 baseline receiving child care services through CCDF, TANF- direct, and SSBG funds (target number expressed in millions). [O][E-Dev.] % of Full Costs FY 2003: 90% of CCDF funds FY 2004: 90% of CCDF funds FY 2005: 90% of CCDF funds *OTHER: 10% supports measures 5.1a, e, f)	FY 05: 2.5 FY 04: 2.5	FY 05: FY 04: FY 03: 2.45 FY 02: 2.54 FY 01: 2.51 FY 00: 2.45 FY 99: 2.15	HHS 6.1 & 7.1 EFFICIENCY MEASURE
Former Measure: Increase the number of children served by CCDF subsidies from the 1998 baseline average (target number expressed in millions).	FY 03: Dropped FY 02: 2.2 FY 01: 2.1 FY 00: 1.92 FY 99: NA	FY 02: 1.81 FY 01: 1.81 FY 00: 1.75 FY 99: 1.65 FY 98: 1.51
Former Measure: Increase the percentage of potentially eligible children who receive CCDF subsidies from the FY 1998 baseline.	FY 03: Dropped FY 02: 14% FY 01: 12.5% [13%] FY 00: NA FY 99: NA	FY 02: 11% FY 01: 11% FY 00: 11% FY 99: 10% FY 98: 10% 1
Former Measure: 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 03: Dropped FY 02: 1.2 FY 01: 1.1 FY 00: NA	FY 02: 1.07 FY 01: .957 FY 00: 1.04 FY 99: .975 FY 98: .802
4.1b. 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 03: Dropped FY 02: 5.8% FY 01: 5.8% FY 00: 5.8% FY 99: NA	FY 02: 5.8% FY 01: 5.96% FY 00: 6.1% FY 99: 6.2% FY 98: 5.8%
PROGRAM GOAL - AVAILABILITY: Improve the availability of child care services for low-income working families.
Objective: Increase the supply of child care available to low-income working families
4.1c. Increase the number of slots in State-regulated child care settings from the FY 2000 baseline.	FY 03: Dropped FY 02: Developmental
4.1d. Increase the proportion of centers and homes that serve families and children receiving child care subsidies.	FY 04: Dropped FY 03: NA Developmental
PROGRAM GOAL - ABILITY TO WORK: Improve parental ability to work or attend training/education leading to greater economic self-sufficiency.
Objective: Increase access to affordable child care for low-income families.
4.1e. Increase the number of states that serve all low-income working families who apply without regard to their connection with TANF and without waiting lists.	FY 04: Dropped FY 03: NA Developmental
Total Funding for Child Care Programs (dollars in millions)	FY 05: $4816.7 FY 04: $4837.8 FY 03: $4837.0 FY 02: $4841.9 FY 01: $4588.6 FY 00: $3550.6 FY 99: $3185.8
1 The data for this measure has been revised based on the receipt of more accurate information from the States. (back)

Summary of Program Performance

The Child Care Bureau took many steps to increase economic independence and productivity for families in 2003. For example, the Bureau:

• Awarded CCDF grants to states, Territories, and Tribes.
• Provided technical assistance to states in weighing their policy options regarding their FY 2004-2005 State Plans and the flexibility contained in the program.
• Completed the CCDF Report to Congress and submitted in January 2003. This document summarizes information about the families and children served through CCDF; state policies, practices, and spending; and the Child Care Bureau’s research and technical assistance efforts.
• Published program announcements for the Early Learning Opportunity Act and child care research grants, and awarded new discretionary grants.

(For an overview of the Bureau’s efforts related to improving the healthy development, safety, and well-being of children and youth, see information under Strategic Goal 2, 5.1 Child Care: Quality.)

CCDF grantees have many efforts underway to improve access to child care for low-income families. In the FY 2002-2003 State Plans, 44 states and Territories reported that their Lead Agency partners with the entity responsible for administering state TANF funds. At least seven states indicated that they have developed a single, "seamless" system for administering child care subsidies to all families without regard to eligibility category. Fourteen states said they have established procedures that allow families to apply for child care assistance via mail, phone, or fax, and nearly one-half of the states use the Internet to perform application functions.

Data Quality and Availability: The Federal Child Care Information System (FCCIS) was redesigned during FY 2003 and the new Child Care Bureau Information System (CCBIS) was deployed in September of 2003. Following a period of parallel processing to test and validate the CCBIS, the FCCIS was phased out in January 2004. The CCBIS is a web-enabled system that allows federal staff to access CCB information/statistics, e.g., data obtained from the ACF-700 Report, ACF-800 Report, and the ACF-801 Report.

The CCBIS receives aggregate and case level data from the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Territories. States are responsible for compiling data at the state level and transmitting it electronically. All data received by the CCBIS are stored in a national data set. Data standards have been set and training and technical assistance provided to all states and Territories on reporting requirements and submission procedures.

The Bureau continues to provide technical assistance (TA) designed to improve state and Tribal data submission and data quality. These TA activities include on-site visits; distribution of related documents; enhancements to the TA Tracker software; training workshops; presentations at regional and national meetings; and software to help Tribes collect data and administer their subsidy programs.

One major TA resource, the Child Care Automation Resource Center (CCARC) is used by the states, Territories, and Tribes for interactive and immediate TA to resolve data collection problems. A unique feature of CCARC is the development of two software utilities (Child Care Data Viewer and Tribal Child Care Data Tracker), which enable states, Territories, and Tribes to use the data submitted to the Bureau for their own (local) purposes. In addition, the Bureau’s state Data and Research Capacity Grants support states in developing their capacity to report accurate data. While the Bureau has noted a steady improvement in data quality from the states over the last few years, it is committed to continuing its active role to facilitate states' compliance with CCDF reporting requirements.

Measure by Measure Presentation of Performance

PROGRAM GOAL – ACCESS: Maintain the number of children of low-income working families and families in training and education who have access to affordable child care.

Objective: Maintain access to affordable child care for low-income working families.

FY 2004-2005 Plan

4.1a.

Maintain the number of children from the FY 2003 baseline receiving child care services through CCDF, TANF-direct, and SSBG funds (New). Data Source: Child counts for CCDF are obtained from state aggregate and case-level reports. In the absence of comparable TANF and SSBG child counts, the Child Care Bureau models children served through these programs. This involves dividing TANF-direct and SSBG expenditures by the CCDF average cost per child to arrive at monthly child estimates for TANF-direct and SSBG.

The Administration modified 4.1a because the former measures that related to children and families served through CCDF were judged inadequate. States rely on a combination of CCDF, TANF and SSBG funds to support their child care caseloads. The new performance measure reflects children receiving child care services from all funding. As TANF assistance caseloads have dropped, states have invested a significant amount of their TANF dollars in child care services to support the economic self-sufficiency of low-income working families. This measure will track efficiency in the use of CCDF and TANF-related funds for child care services that support working families. We are exploring approaches to creating a denominator for this measure.

Data Issues: This measure provides the average number of children served per month. This figure is an estimate rather than an actual count since the TANF-direct and SSBG numbers are derived using CCDF data.

Increase the number of children served by CCDF subsidies from the 1998 baseline.

The above measure was dropped in FY 2003 because it excluded children served through non-CCDF Federal funding streams including SSBG and TANF-direct. The number of children served through the Child Care and Development Fund remained stable at 1.81 million in both FY 2001 and FY 2002. When combined with the figures from SSBG and TANF Direct, i.e., reflecting the new measure 4.1a, the number of children served increased slightly from 2.51 million in FY 2001 to 2.54 million in FY 2002.

Increase the percentage of potentially eligible children who receive CCDF subsidies from the FY 1998 baseline.

The above measure was dropped in FY 2003 as it did not take into account children being served with TANF-direct, SSBG, Head Start, and state pre-kindergarten funds. It underestimated the proportion of children receiving child care services with Federal and related state child care funds. It also did not take into account the variations that occurred when states set eligibility limits or that many states prioritize the lowest income families.

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).

The above measure was dropped in FY 2003. Data on the number of families working and/or pursuing training/education with support of CCDF subsidies remains available through the Child Care Bureau.

FY 2004-2005 Plan
4.1b.	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. Data Source: Child Care Quarterly Case-Level Report, ACF-801

The above measure was dropped in FY 2003 because it appeared to encourage states to establish very low co-pays rather than encouraging states to implement affordable co-payment schedules that would increase gradually with incomes, avoid eligibility cliffs, require families to take increasing responsibility for the cost of care, and maximize the number of families that could be served.

PROGRAM GOAL – AVAILABILITY: Improve the availability of child care services for low-income working families.

Objective: Increase the supply of child care available to low-income working families.

4.1c.

Increase the number of slots in state-regulated child care settings from the FY 2000 baseline. Data Source: State Annual Aggregate Report 800

The above measure was dropped in FY 2003 because of data problems. Whereas the Bureau included a question related to this measure in the State Annual Aggregate Report, it was approved as an optional item, and only a few states responded with data. The Bureau has not identified another reliable source of national data for child care slots.

FY 2003 Plan
4.1d.	Increase the proportion of centers and homes that serve families and children receiving child care subsidies from the FY 2003 baseline. Data Source: ACF Forms 800 and 801 Aggregate Reports

The above measure was dropped in FY 2004. By calculating the proportion of regulated homes and centers that serve families and children receiving subsidies under CCDF, this measure was intended to provide an indication for how well a state’s program was being administered and, ultimately, parental access to a range of choices. In our consultation with states, they expressed concerns that this measure inadvertently signals a Federal preference for these types of care as compared to care provided by families, friends, and neighbors. Because we lack reliable data about unregulated types of care, we are not able to expand the measure to include these categories.

FY 2003 Plan
4.1e.	Increase the number of states that serve all low-income working families without regard to their connection with TANF and without waiting lists from the FY 2003 baseline (Developmental). Data Source :Addendum to ACF 800 Annual Aggregate Report

The above measure was dropped in FY 2004. The baseline will not be reported for FY 2003. It was intended to encourage states to establish policies and funding levels that would allow them to serve all low-income working families and avoid perverse incentives for non-TANF families. It has been dropped in recognition of fiscal constraints states may face and the importance of supporting state efforts to move TANF families from welfare to work.

 

 

Table of Contents | Previous | Next