Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that …DOCUMENT RESUME PS 029 987 Sound Investments:...

ED 459 919

TITLE

INSTITUTIONSPONS AGENCYPUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPEEDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

IDENTIFIERS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT RESUME

PS 029 987

Sound Investments: Financial Support for Child Care BuildsWorkforce Capacity and Promotes School Readiness.Southern Inst. on Children and Families, Columbia, SC.David and Lucile Packard Foundation, Los Altos, CA.2000-12-00168p.; For the related action plan, see PS 029 986.Southern Institute on Children and Families, 500 TaylorStreet, Suite 202, Columbia, SC 29201. Tel: 803-779-2607;Fax: 803-254-6301; Web site: http://www.kidsouth.org.Reports Descriptive (141)MF01/PC07 Plus Postage.*Change Strategies; *Day Care; Early Childhood Education;*Financial Support; *Labor Force; *Public Policy; *SchoolReadinessAccess to Services; Availability (Programs and Services);State Policy; *Subsidized Child Care Services; *UnitedStates (South)

In 1999, the Southern Regional Task Force on Child Care,comprised of appointees from 16 southern states including Oklahoma and themayor of the District of Columbia, with additional appointees from the otheragencies, was formed with the charge of developing a plan to improve accessto child care assistance for low-income families in the southern region. Thetask force received testimony from professionals, families, andrepresentatives of the business communities, identified barriers that impedeaccess to child care assistance for low-income families, and developed anaction plan to improve access to financial aid for families needing andseeking assistance. This report presents the plan, along with supportinginformation. Chapter 1 describes the work of the task force. Chapter 2discusses the reasons priority attention must be given to making qualitychild care more accessible and affordable for low-income families, includingthe positive effect child care can have on workforce capacity, the advantagesavailability of such care can bring to the welfare reform effort, and thefinancial support it can provide for early learning opportunities forchildren in low-income families. Chapter 3 presents an action plan settingforth 10 goals and 52 action steps to improve access to child careassistance. This chapter also includes descriptions of initiativesrepresenting progress made by various states in addressing the goals. Chapter4 describes planned activities for 2001 and beyond to promote implementationof the action plan goals and to address additional issues associated withimproving access to quality child care. The report's appendix presentsresults of a survey detailing the state/federal subsidy system policies andprocedures in each of 17 participating states. (Contains 56 endnotes.) (KB)

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

)(This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it.

0 Minor changes have been made toimprove reproduction quality.

DecembeT 2000

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS

BEEN GRANTED BY

Kri5tine_14-arba5,,oi

Points of view or opinions stated in this TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESdocument do not necessarily represent INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)official OERI position or policy. 1

SoLO-ker% Re 5limet1 Tots It Force o% Ckild CaveRepo+ ot%di Acfio% Plot% -Por 44e Sotki-k

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

2

IKISTITUTC

ilcIrev 0,11\8 Fo"ilie,s

Tkis repot+ wots made possible by ot 5romf ;VONATke Dowid otvid LIAcile P OtCalr A FOIAttatOlfi0%.

3

Sound Investments:

Financial Support for Child CareBuilds Workforce Capacity

and Promotes School Readiness

The Southern Regional Task Force on Child CareReport and Action Plan for the South

December 2000

Southern Institute on Children and Families1821 Hampton StreetColumbia, SC 29201

(803) 779-2607http://www.kidsouth.org

4

Southern Regional Task Force on Child CareAlabama

Sophia Bracy HarrisExecutive DirectorFederation of Childcare Centers ofAlabama (FOCAL)

Arkansas

Janie FletcherDirectorDivision of Child Care and EarlyChildhood EducationArkansas Department of HumanServices

Delaware

Lynne HowardSenior Advisor on Family IssuesOffice of the Governor

District of Columbia

Carrie ThomhillVice PresidentYouth Investment & CommunityOutreachDC Agenda

Florida

Pat CrononExecutive DirectorHand 'N Hand Child Care Center

Georgia

Julie ShameGeorgia Child Care Council

Kentucky

Kim Townley, Ph.D.Executive DirectorGovernor's Office of EarlyChildhood Development

Louisiana

Gwendolyn HamiltonExecutive DirectorChildren's CabinetOffice of the Governor

Maryland

Linda HeisnerExecutive DirectorChild Care AdministrationMaryland Department of HumanResources

Mississippi

Carol BurnettDirectorOffice of Children and YouthMississippi Department of HumanServices

Missouri

Gary J. Stang lerProgram DirectorCenter for Family Policy &Research

North Carolina

C. Robin Britt, Sr.Executive DirectorUnited Child DevelopmentServices, Inc.

Oklahoma

Robert HarbisonRetiredChild Advocate

South Carolina

Candy Y. WaitesDirectorDivision of Children's ServicesOffice of the Governor

Tennessee

Natasha K. MetcalfCommissionerTennessee Department of HumanServices

Texas

Diane D. RathChairTexas Workforce Commission

West Virginia

Joan E. OhlSecretaryDepartment of Health and HumanResources

Southern Growth Policies BoardAppointment

Tommy DeweeseDivision Manager - ArkansasSouthwestern Electric PowerCompany

Southern Institute on Childrenand Families Appointments

Rebeca Maria BarreraPresidentNational Latino Children's Institute

Andy DownsExecutive Vice PresidentKentucky Chamber of Commerce

James T. McLawhorn, Jr.President and CEOColumbia (SC) Urban League

Sandra L. MurmanFlorida House of Representatives

Sarah C. Shuptrine, ChairmanPresidentSouthern Institute on Children andFamilies

Staff Work GroupGlenda Parker BeanExecutive DirectorSouthern Early Childhood Association

David DentonDirectorHealth and Human Services ProgramsSouthern Regional Education Board

Barbara GarrisonChildren and Families Program SpecialistChild Care UnitAdministration for Children and Families

Luis HernandezDirectorHead Start Quality Improvement CenterDHHS Region IV

Linda HokeSenior Program ManagerSouthern Growth Policies Board

Barbara Ferguson KamaraExecutive DirectorOffice of Early Childhood DevelopmentDC Department of Human Services

Desiree ReddickRegional TA Specialist

Susan D. RussellExecutive DirectorChild Care Services Association

Nancy von BargenChild Care AdministratorOklahoma Department of Human Services

Consultant

Gina C. AdamsSenior Research AssociatePopulation Study CenterThe Urban Institute

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgments

Executive Summary iii

Chapter

1. Introduction 1

2. Call to Action 4

Why Invest in Child Care? 4Child Care Costs More Than Public College Tuition, So

Where's the Financial Aid? 6Will Welfare Reform Succeed Without More Child CareResources? 8Rethinking Public Support for Child Care 11

How Support for Child Care Serves Local Economies 12The Benefits Few Employers Know About 13Does the Child Care Application Process Deter Families

from Applying? 14Affordable, Quality Child Care is an Investment in

America's Future 16

3. Action Plan 17

4. Southern Regional Initiative on Child CareAgenda for 2001 and Beyond 38

Endnotes 40

Appendix

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Southern Institute on Children and Families would like to express appreciation to TheDavid and Lucile Packard Foundation for providing support for the Southern Regional

Initiative on Child Care. Special appreciation is extended to Marie Young, our ProgramOfficer, for her support and leadership throughout the first year of the initiative.

The Southern Institute also would like to extend special appreciation to the followinggovernors of the 16 southern states and Mayor Anthony Williams of the District of Columbiafor their appointment of dedicated Task Force members: Governor Don Siegelman (AL),Governor Mike Huckabee (AR); Governor Tom Carper (DE); Governor Jeb Bush (FL);Governor Roy Barnes (GA); Governor Paul Patton (KY); Governor Mike Foster (LA);Governor Parris Glendening (MD); Governor Ronnie Musgrove (MS); Governor Jim Hunt(NC); Governor Frank Keating (OK); Governor Jim Hodges (SC); Governor Don Sundquist(TN); Governor George Bush (TX); Governor Cecil Underwood (WV); and the late GovernorMel Carnahan (MO).

The Southern Institute is especially grateful to the members of the Southern RegionalTask Force on Child Care, who have given of their time and expertise to develop a plan ofaction that stands as an example of effective collaboration.

Special appreciation also is extended to the members of the Staff Work Group, whoprovided invaluable guidance and assistance throughout this project. They served as ourbrain trust during the deliberations of the Task Force.

Special appreciation is extended to Joan Lombardi for her guidance and counselduring the initiative and to Gina Adams for her assistance to the Southern Institute and theStaff Work Group throughout this project.

The Southern Institute is also grateful to Louise Stoney and Jane Daugherty of StoneyAssociates for sharing their expertise and invaluable assistance in the design and executionof the Southern Institute survey.

The Southern Institute would like to thank the speakers and panelists who presentedduring the four Southern Regional Task Force meetings. They are: Gina Adams (UrbanInstitute, DC); Linda Hassan Anderson (National Black Child Development Institute, GA);Yeshey Beyene (Neighborhood Centers Inc., TX); Helen Blank (Children's Defense Fund,DC); Dennis Campa (Department of Community Initiatives, TX); Stephanie Fanjul (Division ofChild Development, Department of Human Resources, NC); Janie Fletcher (Division of ChildCare and Early Childhood Education, AR); Colleen Gallagher (Community Coordinated CareFor Children Inc., FL); Doris Hallford (Missouri Department of Social Services, MO); LindaHeisner, (Department of Human Resources, MD); Pennye G. Hicks (Gate City Day NurseryAssociation, GA); Barbara Ferguson Kamara (Office of Early Childhood Development, DC);Joan Lombardi (Child and Family Policy Specialist, VA); the Honorable Sandra Murman(Florida House of Representatives, FL); Doug Oakes (Coordinated Child Care, FL); theHonorable Howard Peak (Mayor of San Antonio, TX); Diane Rath (Texas WorkforceCommission, TX); Ann Rosewater (Regional Director, Region IV, U.S. Department of Healthand Human Services, GA); Susan Russell (Child Care Services Association, NC); DebraRusso (Florida Department of Children and Families, FL); Louise Stoney, (Stoney Associates,NY); Jerry Walker (Kids Advocacy Coalition, GA); Peggy Walker (Senior Vice President andRelationship Manager, Bank of America, and Chairman of San Antonio Smart Start, TX);Jearlyn Ann Weaver (Douglas County Department of Children and Family Services, GA);

Marianne White (Bank of America, FL); Don Winstead (Department of Children and Families,FL); Tracy Wolff (Smart Start Kindergarten Readiness, TX); and the Honorable Leticia Van dePutte (Texas State Senate, TX).

The Southern Institute also would like to thank those individuals who served asmoderators during the Task Force meetings: Andy Downs (Chamber of Commerce, KY) andPat Cronon (Hand 'N Hand Child Care Center, FL).

A special thank you is extended to the parents and members of the businesscommunity who participated in the community meeting in Rocky Mount, North Carolina, andto Bill Potapchek (Community Building Institute, VA) for his facilitation of the communitymeeting.

Special appreciation is extended to Henrietta Zalkind (The Down East Partnership ForChildren, NC) and Alethia Willingham (Very Truly Yours, NC) for their assistance withcoordinating the community meeting in Rocky Mount.

Appreciation also is expressed to representatives Of the Good Samaritan Child CareCenter in San Antonio, TX, for allowing the Task Force and Staff Work Group to tour theirchild care center.

The Southern Institute also would like to thank the child care administrators and childcare representatives of the 16 southern states and the District of Columbia for theircooperation and responses to the Southern Regional Initiative on Child Care Survey and forproviding the Southern Institute with information on child care subsidy program policies andthe application process in their respective states.

In addition, the Southern Institute would like to acknowledge Charlotte Brantley,Commissioner for Child Care, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administrationfor Children, Youth and Families, for her assistance and the assistance of her staff inproviding information needed by the Task Force.

9 ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

N ever before has there been a more compelling need in our country to enact progressivechild care policies. For now, our economy is healthy and employment is up. America's

work ethic is a source of national pride. Americans also place family high on their list ofpriorities and want their children in safe, affordable, quality child care while they work. Withmillions of parents working at the lower end of the wage scale, and with many leaving thewelfare rolls, assistance in paying for child care is perhaps the most critical work-supportmeasure in which the federal government, states and the private sector can invest.

The inability of many families to pay for child care is a public policy issue with far-reaching consequences for southern states. To develop and maintain the Workforce requiredto fuel economic progress throughout the South, greater investments in strategies that makechild care more accessible and affordable are essential. To sustain the ability of families tostay off the welfare rolls, financial assistance in paying for child care is imperative. To assurethat all children have greater opportunities to participate in early childhood developmentprograms that enhance their readiness to learn, helping families afford quality services isbasic. Yet, there is inadequate attention given to the huge gap between the price of child careand the ability of families to pay.

The Southern Regional Task Force on Child Care

I n late 1999, at the invitation of the Southern Institute on Children and Families, governorsfrom 16 southern states and the mayor of the District of Columbia appointed representatives

to the Southern Regional Task Force on Child Care. Additional appointments were made bythe Southern Institute and by the Southern Growth Policies Board. The charge to the TaskForce was to collaborate in the identification of issues and the development of strategies toimprove access to child care assistance for low-income families in the southern region.During its deliberations, the Task Force received testimony from professionals, families andrepresentatives of the business community, identified barriers that impede access to childcare assistance for low-income families and developed an Action Plan to improve access tofinancial aid for families who need and seek assistance. Support for the Southern RegionalInitiative on Child Care is provided by a grant from The David and Lucile Packard Foundation.

The Action Plan goals presented below address the initial charge of the Task Force.The Task Force recognizes that improving access to financial aid for child care is a criticalcomponent in an overall plan to assure that low-income families are able to obtain affordable,quality child care that will improve opportunities for children and their parents. Beginning inJanuary 2001, the Task Force will move to the next phase .of its work and will addressadditional issues that affect access to affordable, quality child care.

Chapter 2 of this report discusses the many reasons priority attention must be given tomaking quality child care more accessible and affordable for low-income families, includingthe positive effect child care can have on workforce capacity, the advantages it can bring tothe welfare reform effort and the much-needed financial support it can provide for earlylearning opportunities for children in low-income families.

A survey of the 17 participating states was conducted for the Task Force to collectdetailed information on the state/federal subsidy system policies and procedures in each

III

10

state. Survey results are presented in the appendix to this report. In-depth discussions,testimony and survey data all contributed to the identification of issues and opportunities. TheTask Force identified the following issues as barriers to child care financial assistance:

A significant underfunding of the public child care subsidy system;A eligibility policies and systems that hinder access to public child care subsidies;A the need to create employer partnerships;A the lack of federal and state tax strategies, e.g., refundable child care anddependent tax credits.

Action Plan

The Action Plan developed by the Southern Regional Task Force on Child Care calls forbold action to make child care financial aid available and accessible for low-income

parents who need and seek it. The Action Plan contains 10 goals that urge public and privatesector leaders to support specific initiatives, including significant increases in child careresources, eligibility simplification, improved customer service, implementation of taxstrategies and creation of employer partnerships. Fifty-two action steps that addressimplementation of the goals are listed in Chapter 3. Participating states have submittedinformation on initiatives that represent progress made toward addressing the goals andaction steps. The brief descriptions include contact information.

GOAL 1

Federal, state, local and private funds should be sufficient to meet 100% of need fordirect child care assistance, based on initial eligibility levels at 85% of the state medianincome. Redetermination levels should allow families to retain child care assistanceuntil they reach 100% of the state median income.

GOAL 2

States and communities should broaden their child care eligibility and subsidy policiesto meet the economic, work and education needs of families.

GOAL 3

Outreach initiatives should be designed and aggressively implemented to assure thatfamilies have accessible and easy-to-understand information on child care assistanceand are provided assistance in applying.

iv

GOAL 4

The child care application and redetermination processes should be uncomplicatedand family friendly.

GOAL 5

Establish a coordinated, seamless eligibility system so that funding sources areinvisible to families and support continuity of child care.

GOAL 6

Establish customer service outcome goals and set standards to ensure that all familiesare treated with dignity and respect and are served in an efficient manner.

GOAL 7

Design the subsidy system so that rate structures assure that families receiving childcare assistance have access to all types of child care and disallow charges aboveestablished co-payments

GOAL 8

Create partnerships with employers to expand child care assistance for workingfamilies.

GOAL 9

Provide child care assistance to working families through federal and state tax laws.

GOAL 10

States should have effective, coordinated systems to guide child care and earlychildhood policy decisions and direct use of resources.

2001 AND BEYOND

The Southern Regional Task Force on Child Care will monitor progress towardaccomplishing the Action Plan goals. As described in Chapter 4, implementation activities

will include state site visits to each of the 16 states and the District of Columbia, a SouthernRegional Forum on Child Care and a report issued in December 2001 on progress made bythe states toward achieving the goals. In addition to implementation activities, the Task Forcewill begin to address additional issues related to accessing quality child care.

12 v

Chapter 1INTRODUCTION

mrhe inability of many families to pay for child care is a public policy issue with far-reachingconsequences for southern states. To develop and maintain the workforce required to fuel

economic progress throughout the South, greater investments in strategies that make childcare more accessible and affordable are essential. To sustain the ability of families to stay offthe welfare rolls, financial assistance in paying for child care is imperative. To assure that allchildren have greater opportunities to participate in early childhood development programsthat enhance their readiness to learn, helping families afford quality services is basic. Yet,there is inadequate attention given to the huge gap between the price of child care and theability of families to pay.

Following a series of site visits in 1997 by the Southern Institute on Children andFamilies to 17 southern states and the District of Columbia, it was apparent that child careagencies and advocates had been unable to garner the commitment of policymakers toaddress the unmet need for child care assistance. Thousands of families needed help withpaying for child care and were not receiving it due to limited public funding of child caresubsidies. They needed child care assistance in order to work. They needed it to attendschool or job training classes. And they needed it to search and interview for jobs.

Discussions duringthe Southern Institute sitevisits in 1997 revealedmajor concern on the partof state agencies andadvocates regardinginsufficient funding forpublic child caresubsidies, especially inlight of the passage ofwelfare reform. In additionto the lack of publicfunding, there were fewexamples of businesses weighing in to help low-wage parents pay for child care.

Subsequent to the site visits, the Southern Institute surveyed the southern states andthe District of Columbia to identify issues related to improving access to child care assistance.The 1997 Southern Institute survey requested information related to policies that govern childcare eligibility, funding and child care application/redetermination process requirements. Areport by the Southern Institute published in February 1998 outlined the findings of the sitevisits and the state survey and led to the establishment of the Southern Regional Initiative onChild Care in January 2000.1

The Southern Regional Initiative on Child Care provides southern states and theDistrict of Columbia with the opportunity to collaborate on strategies to bring about moreinformed leadership, to develop policy recommendations and to achieve results in improvingaccess to child care assistance for families who are unable to pay for child care on their own.

To develop and maintain theworkforce required to fuel economic

progress throughout the South, greaterinvestments in strategies that make child

care more accessible and affordableare essential.

131

Support for the initiative is provided by a grant from The David and Lucile PackardFoundation.

A 22-member Southern Regional Task Force on Child Care guides the initiative. TheTask Force is composed of public and private sector representatives from 16 southern statesand the District of Columbia. Task Force membership includes appointees recommended byeach state's governor and the mayor of the District of Columbia. A Staff Work Groupcomposed of child care experts, as well as policy staff from the Southern Growth PoliciesBoard and the Southern Regional Education Board, supports the Task Force.

Because financial aid issues are central to helping lower-income families accessquality, affordable child care, the initial area of focus for the Southern Regional Initiative onChild Care is improving access to financial aid through strategies such as public subsidiesand corporate partnerships. Beginningin January 2001, continued supportfrom The David and Lucile PackardFoundation will enable the initiative tofacilitate collaboration across thesouthern region to address issuesrelated to accessing quality child care.

In April 2000, the SouthernRegional Initiative on Child Carepublished a report titled Child Care inthe Southern States: ExpandingAccess to Affordable Care for Low-Income Families and FosteringEconomic Development.2 The reportpresented a strong case for thesouthern states to place priorityattention on making child care moreaffordable. Findings from the reportare discussed in Chapter 2.

The Southern RegionalInitiative on Child Care also surveyedthe southern states and the District ofColumbia during the summer of 2000to gather information needed to makeinformed decisions on improvingpolicies that govern access to childcare assistance. The results of thesurvey are discussed in Chapter 2,and survey tables are attached as anappendix to this report.

The Task Force met four timesduring 2000 to receive testimony anddeliberate on issues related toimproving access to child care

Southern Regional Initiativeon Child Care

Participating States

AlabamaArkansasDelaware

District of ColumbiaFlorida

GeorgiaKentucky.LouisianaMaryland

MississippiMissouri

North CarolinaOklahoma

South CarolinaTennessee

TexasWest Virginia

Notes:

For purposes of simplification in this report, the Districtof Columbia will be identified and referenced as a"state."

Virginia was invited to participate in this initiative butdeclined.

14 2

assistance. The meetings held in Georgia, North Carolina, Florida and Texas identifiedissues and led to the development of goals and action steps designed to achieve greateraccess to affordable child care across the southern region.

Chapter 2 describes the many reasons the federal government and public and privategroups throughout the southern states should move aggressively to take actions to assurethat lower-income families have the financial assistance needed to greatly improve theiraccess to quality, affordable child care.

Chapter 3 provides an Action Plan that sets forth 10 goals and 52 action steps toimprove access to child care assistance. Participating states have submitted informationabout initiatives that represent progress made toward addressing the goals and action steps.These brief descriptions include contact information. Chapter 4 describes planned activities in2001 and beyond to promote implementation of the action plan goals across the southernregion and to address additional issues associated with improving access to quality childcare.

A statement in the recently released report of the National Research Council and theInstitute of Medicine puts into perspective the reasons efforts to improve access to child carefor low-income families are of critical importance to our nation :

"The developmental effects of child care depend on its safety, theopportunities it provides for nurturing and stable relationships and its provisionof linguistically and cognitively rich environments. Yet the child care that isavailable in the United States today is highly fragmented and characterized bymarked variations in quality, ranging from rich, growth-promoting experiences tounstimulating, highly unstable and sometimes dangerous settings. The burdenof poor quality and limited choice rests most heavily on low-income, workingfamilies whose financial resources are too high to qualify for subsidies yet toolow to afford quality care."3

15 3

Chapter 2A CALL TO ACTION

Never before has there been a more compelling need in our country to enact progressivechild care policies. For now, our economy is healthy and employment is up. America's

work ethic is a source of national pride. Americans also place family high on their list ofpriorities and want their children in safe, affordable, quality child care while they work. Withmillions of parents working at the lower end of the wage scale, and with many leaving thewelfare rolls, assistance in paying for child care is perhaps the most critical work-supportmeasure in which the federal government, states and the private sector can invest.

As a nation, we are poised at an important crossroads. Will we provide assistance tohard-working families who need child care in order to remain employed but cannot afford topay for it? Will we make prudent investments in our children's earliest care and educationalexperiences, proven bythe latest research toenhance their futurelearning potential andachievement$ Or willwe continue to toleratepatterns of underfundingthat place millions ofchildren and theirparents at risk offailure? The way we choose to respond to this challenge has profound implications, especiallyfor families residing in the South, where the number of employed women with childrenexceeds the national average.

Child care assistance is perhaps the mostcritical work-support measure in which

the federal government, states andthe private sector can invest.

Why Invest in Child Care?

it is essential to invest in child care because times have changed. In what the U.S.!Department of Labor calls "one of the most significant social and economic trends inmodern U.S. history," the percentage of women in the workforce has jumped from 28 percentin 1940 to 40 percent in 1966, and to 60 percent in 1998.5 The number of working womenwith children under the age of six proportionately increased even faster in the workforce. By1998, almost three out of four women with children were in the workforce (see Exhibit 1).

Additionally, the number of single-parent families, most headed by women, has morethan doubled in the past 30 years. In 1970, 11 percent of family households with childrenwere headed by a single parent, and today more than one out of four American families withchildren, 27 percent, are headed by a single parent.6

Ever-increasing numbers of American families with children, especially.low-incomefamilies, now rely on the incomes of both parents working outside the home! In fact, onlyabout 12 percent of American children under the age of six live in families in which the motherdoes not work outside the home and is available to care for preschool children. In the South,

Increase in Working Mothers

','-:,:is.,'

.._.

,..; ,::!sz:`,`,

:::;.,.:4'::::::::

.1947

.."s' ,,,L''...:. ,-..!..;

1999

"i'a

vs.;

z r

4i.dir

'?

1

,`$.. -"'-'1 :-',.. ,..1i...4".i. :80 esI.,

:.:"....2 2.::::., ..T..'z.?

%, C''''''.ee'4,',":'....;:Ye Y'AS

'''.. ' Aq:`'Zij.";1{1::."''' ('1.1.''2:4: s', ,::,,:h ' ::%3;`, .A1...,-.'

''' '''' '',:',A:,1 ',';L3 '.,-''-,.,....,,,,...., ......,

%,...,....,,,m,.,. . ,... , r ......

Children less than 6 Children 6 and over

SS

Exhibit 1

where 14 out of 17 southern states exceed the national average of women with childrenworking outside the home, even fewer preschool children have mothers who can stay athome to care for them.8

Clearly, the 1950s image of the two-parent American family, with the mother as full-time homemaker and the father in the workplace, has become the exception rather than thenorm in our society. Child care policy, unfortunately, has not kept up with the rapid increase ofmothers working outside the home.

The importance of child care in building workforce capacity was stressed in an April2000 report prepared for the Southern Institute:

"In many ways, the economic expansion that is currently occurring in theUnited States has been possible because of dual-income families. And it ischild care that has made it possible for families to work. Subsidized child careis an especially important support for the service industry. Comprised largely ofsmall businesses with jobs at hourly wages, the service industry is the fastestgrowing employment sector in the country. By making subsidized child careavailable to the parents who assume low-wage, entry-level jobs, government issupporting the service industry itself (which could not grow without a stronginflux of new workers) as well as the parent (who could not afford to take a low-wage, entry-level job without help in paying for child care)."9

In addition to building workforce capacity, assistance in paying for child care canprovide otherwise unattainable opportunities for children in low-income families. Such

51_7

assistance supports the efforts of states across the South to improve the readiness of youngchildren to succeed in school. The links between early education and child care are profound.Children don't wait until they officially enter school to begin learning; children learn from thetime they are born, during every moment of the day. New brain research has underscored thislink and demonstrated that the first three years of life are critical in children's intellectualdevelopment."0 And longitudinal studies have shown that investments in pre-kindergartennot only can boost IQ but also have a lasting and sizable effect on school achievement, graderetention, high school graduation, special education and socialization.11 But because so fewfamilies receive help paying for care, and financial support is rarely made available to childcare programs, most low-income families have few choices about the child care they use.

Child Care Costs More Than Public College Tuition,So Where's the Financial Aid?

Acritical issue for working families is the undisputed fact that child care is expensive. Childcare, on average, is the third largest expense for all families with preschool-age Children,

after housing and food expenditures.12 In 1993, the most recent year for which U.S..Censusdata are available, the average child care expenditure for families with a preschool-age child

$6,000

$5,000

$4,000

$3,000

$2,000

$1,000

$0

Child Care Costs More Than Public College Tuition

Annual Cost of Child CafeClAnnual Cost of Tuition

111111111s ,,e ee die de0C de so.

coo AXer2

Source: Louise Stoney, Child Care in the Southern States (Columbia, SC: Southern Institute on Children and Families, April 2000).

Exhibit 2

was $4,108 per year. In each of the 17 southern states, the annual cost of enrolling afour-year-old in a full-time child care center is more than annual state university tuition (seeExhibit 2).13

Obviously, the expense of child care disproportionately impacts low-income families,who pay a much higher percentage of their income for child care than middle or upperincome families. Forexample, anunsubsidized family withtwo parents workingminimum wage jobs inFlorida, Georgia, NorthCarolina or Virginia couldspend as much as 40percent of their incometo purchase center-based child care for an infant and a four-year-old. In Texas, such a familywould have to spend one-third of their income for child care, in Delaware, 47 percent of theirincome and in Maryland 60 percent of their income, based on the average price of child carein those states.14 In fact, for a two-parent family with an infant and a four-year-old in whichboth parents work full-time in minimum wage jobs and earn a combined income of $21,400before taxes, the cost of child care is a serious barrier to work.15

For single parents, the cost of the child care that allows them to work can be evenmore staggering. Single parents typically use more hours of child care per week to work full-time because they do not have another adult in the home to help them transport children orcare for them in the event of illness or other emergencies." In Florida, Georgia or NorthCarolina, a single parent earning a good salary in a service-industry job one and a halftimes the minimum wage ($16,068 annual/full time) could spend as much as 53 percent oftheir income to purchase center-based care for an infant and a four-year-old. Similar care inVirginia could consume 53 percent of a working single parent's income and in Missouri 63percent.17

A common misconception is that many parents can use free child care provided byrelatives or friends, who are often referred to as "kith and kin." But most families do not havekith and kin available to care for their children, and many of those who do must pay thesefriends and relatives to care for their children. U.S. Census data indicate that, on average,only about a quarter of American families use informal child care provided by relatives (otherthan a parent).18 Among those who do have access to kith and kin care, one-third reportpaying family and friends for that help.19

What can be done to help low-income families with the child care affordabilitydilemmas they face? Public and private child care subsidies can help families pay for childcare. The Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) is the primary source of federal fundingfor child care subsidies for low-income families.20 Each state qualifies for an annual amountof federal funding appropriated based on federal guidelines. To receive additional federalmoney, states are required to put up matching funds. States have discretion in establishingincome eligibility levels for their child care subsidy programs.

A 17-state survey conducted for the Southern Institute this year collected data on statepublic subsidy system policies and eligibility issues. The results of the survey are presented

Child care, on average, is the third largestexpense for all families with

preschool-age children, after housingand food expenditures.

719

in an appendix to this report. Survey findings show that state eligibility levels vary significantlyacross the southern region, from 42 percent to 85 percent of the state median income.21Survey results also show that states across the South overwhelmingly cited lack of fundingfor child care assistance as a major barrier to serving all eligible families.22 And a recentfederal report stated: "In 1998, states obligated all the available federal mandatory child carefunding, including federal matching funds."3

The CCDF was designed to help states provide child care assistance to families at orbelow 85 percent of the state median income, but insufficient federal and state funds havebeen appropriated to help all families that fall within that target group.24 The result is that,nationwide, only 10 percent of income-eligible families receive child care assistance. In fact, a

recent federal study showedthat not a single state couldserve even a fourth of itseligible families.25

As shown in Table 1 onthe following page, theunderfunding of child caresubsidies is even more-

dramatic in the South. Eight states Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Maryland, Mississippi,South Carolina, Texas and Virginia provide subsidies for fewer than 10 percent of thefamilies who are eligible under the 85 percent of state median income guideline.

An additional public policy issue is that even when low-income families obtain accessto public subsidies, the co-payment amount hinders access to subsidies. States determinethe amount of co-payment families'pay. In the 17 states surveyed by the Southern Institute,the maximum co-payment families make ranges from 4 percent to 30 percent of their income.In 11 out of 17 states, the maximum co-payment is greater than 10 percent of income(Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri,Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas).26 Arkansas is the only state that does not have a co-payment for families with income at or below the federal poverty level. The other 16 stateshave co-payments ranging from .07 percent to 16 percent of income for families at or belowthe poverty level.27 To put these numbers in perspective, consider the U.S. Department ofEducation (DOE) criteria for determining eligibility for federal financial aid. The DOEguidelines would require a median-income family to pay only 5 percent of its income forcollege costs and this is after the family has had many years to save for this costlyendeavor.25

Nationwide, only 10 percentof income-eligible families receive

child care assistance.

Will Welfare Reform Succeed Without MoreChild Care Resources?

The passage of welfare reform in 1996 ended the old welfare system with a major push forall able-bodied adults to work outside the home, including single parents. Subsidized child

care is a major part of that effort.Under federal law, states have the option to increase funding for child care by

reallocating up to 30 percent of their welfare, or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

n.0 8

Table 1Estimates of Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF)

Eligibility and ReceiptChildren (AN erage Monthly Estimates)

(2) Eligible(1) Parents for CCDF (if (3) Eligible (4) Receiving (5) Served as

Working or in state limits for CCDF CCDF % ofEducation & raised to (under state Subsidies PotentialTraining (no Federal rules in effect (April-Sept. Eligibles

State income limit) maximum) OcL 1997) 1998) (Col. 4/Col. 2)

Alabama 49437.00 2:33 300 1033500 _2.20 5.3p _ix,Arka n <n<i 348,100 180,600 100,200 9,240 5%

Delaware 89,300 50,700 22,100 6,140 12%

District ofColumbia 51,100 31,500 31,500 3,850 12%

Florida 1,434,200 705,300 421,900 46,640 7%

Georgia 913,200 485,200 331,200 47,210 10%

Kentucky 427,100 170,200 90,800 25,010 15%

Louisiana 450,800 219,700 219,700 35,180 16%

Maryland 610.000 259 900 91,300 21 380 8%

Mississippi 364,600 185,500 160,000 7,870 4%

Missouri 654,000 305,600 129,400 42,600 14%

North Carolina 819,600 411,400 343,100 74,250 18%

Oklahoma 374,500 191,100 178,800 39,930 21%

South Carolina 466,400 231,000 115,200 21,730 9%

Tennessee 671,000 346,000 183,600 54,820 16%

Texas 2,309,600 1,161,700 1,013,400 78,960 7%

Virginia 685,200 348,100 216,300 23,880 7%

West Virginia 117,400 52,700 28,200 12,900 24%

United States 30,393,900 14,749,500 9,851,000 1,530,500 10%

Notes: First four columns of estimates were generated from the Urban Institute's TRIM3 mode).(1) Children <13 Or disabled and below state age limit for disabled) with both parents waiting or in .

education/trnining programs. No income limit.(2) Children from (1), if family income below 85 percent of State Median Income, the maximum limit

allowed ondar Federal law.(3) Children from (1), if family income below eligibility limits set by each state (based on limits in effect as

of October 1997).(4) Rctimated children receiving CCDF child care subsidies, April-Sept. 1998. State administrative data

reported to Child Care Bureau and adjusted to reflect CCDF subsidies only. Estimates are preliminaryand subject to revision.

Source: Excerpt from Table 1, Access to Child Care for Low-Income Working Families, US Department ofHealth and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. October 19, 1999.

(TANF), block grant to the CCDF. Between 1998 and 1999, states more than doubled theirtransfers from TANF to CCDF. According to transfer data reported during FY 1999, statestransferred $2.43 billion from TANF to CCDF, which represents 15 percent of the TANF blockgrant.29

The National Governors' Association (NGA) in 1998 commissioned a special study ofstate child care policies as a means of implementing welfare reform. While acknowledgingthat additional efforts were urgently needed, the NGA found from the responses of 32 statesthat, "States are improving services for children by maximizing the flexibility of funding

0 96.

streams and encouraging the coordination of services at the local level. The flexibilityprovided by TANF and CCDF significantly enhances state capacity to promote collaborationand create more coordinated systems."3u The NGA cited a number of effective public-privatepartnerships that contribute to the success of child care, calling the partnerships essentialcomponents of welfare-to work-policies. The NGA's citations included, as examples, programsin Florida and North Carolina.31

Research has shown that child care subsidies increase employment rates andearnings for low and moderate income parents. A study in Miami-Dade County, Florida, foundthat increasing childcare funding raises theprobability that currentand former welfarerecipients will find paidjobs. An increase of$145 dollars in subsidyspending per childincreased the likelihoodof employment from 59percent to 71 percent forcurrent and formerwelfare recipients.32

During the earlystage of welfare reformimplementation, the Southern Institute worked in cooperation with state officials to conductsite visits to 17 southern states and the District of Columbia. Site visit meetings wereattended by health and human services officials and community groups. Discussions centeredon the identification of actions needed to improve access to benefits needed by low-incomefamilies. The 1997 site visit discussions indicated that insufficient funding for child care was amajor issue for states. Participants suggested that the combination of insufficiently fundedchild care programs and the inability of many low-income working parents to pay the full costof child care could undermine state welfare reform efforts. Representatives from all statesvisited expressed concern about the future, even those from states that were able to provideassistance to all families who were filing applications.33

Findings from the Southern Institute's 2000 survey of southern states confirm thatsubsidized child care is an integral part of welfare reform efforts. Almost all of the states inthe survey took steps to ensure that families who are participating in welfare-to-work activitiesreceive assistance paying for child care.34 And most reported that they were able tocontinue to provide this assistance for at least one year and often several years afterthe family left welfare and became fully employed.35

However, as families leave welfare and join the workforce, over time they risk losingtheir eligibility for subsidized child care before they can afford to pay the full cost on their own.And families with no previous connection to the welfare system many who struggle tomake ends meet, often working several low-wage jobs may never receive help paying forchild care because they fall behind welfare-related families in the priority system that hasbeen created to ration scarce resources. None of the southern states surveyed by the

A study in Miami-Dade County, Florida,found that increasing child care funding

raises the probability that current andformer welfare recipients will find paid jobs.

An increase of $145 dollars in subsidyspending per child increased the

likelihood of employment from 59 percentto 71 percent for current and former

welfare recipients.

2210

Southern Institute was able to guarantee child care subsidies to low-income families that hadnever sought welfare assistance. Every state reported that these hard-working familiesreceive help paying for child care only when and if funds are available.36

If working families who are clearly eligible for child care assistance have difficultygetting help paying for child care, families who are not fully employed face even greaterobstacles. In order to stretch limited funds, some states do not make child care assistanceavailable to low-income parents who are looking for work, between jobs or attending collegeto enable them to get better jobs.37

The message to families is that being on welfare appears to be the surest route toobtaining public child care subsidies. The public policy question is whether we want to

encourage families to goon welfare in the hopesof obtaining assistancein paying for child care.

Funding for childcare can make thedifference betweensuccess and failure in

the workplace, and it can make the difference between success and failure in welfare reform.Looking to the future, directing money toward child care is a sound. investment. Providingmore resources today for child care will help keep families in the workforce and help themavoid welfare.

The message to families is that being onwelfare appears to be the surest route to

obtaining public child care subsidies.

Rethinking Public Support for Child Care

I n other areas of national and state policy, notably public transportation and housing, publicI support is viewed as an investment in economic development, not charity.38 Yet too often,child care assistance is characterized as welfare. Even parents, consumers of child care, buyinto the notion that only very low-income families can ask for help paying for child care.39Most families believe that they must struggle with their child care choices alone, even whenthe costs are staggering.

Unlike the costs for public transportation, public housing, public schools or tuition atstate universities and colleges, consumers of child care services working parents paythe lion's share of child care charges. U.S. families currently contribute approximately 60 per-cent of the revenue for child care, government contributes about 39 percent, and private-sec-tor contributions comprise less than 1 percent.4° That is in marked contrast to financing forother types of public services.

For public transportation, including buses, subways and roads, user fees generally payfor only a small fraction of the cost.41 In public housing, rents and loans are highlysubsidized. Public schools are tuition-free to students. Tuition at state universities andcolleges represents only a portion of the cost per student and scholarships and loans alsoare available to further defray student costs. Transportation systems allow people to get towork economically. Public housing provides people with homes, stability and an investment in

their communities. Public schools provide basic education for the next generation. Statecolleges and universities offer advanced education and professional training.

All of these areas are publicly supported based on the assumption that the servicescontribute to the public good. They are regarded as legitimate, prudent investments for thegood of a productive society. The public policy question is whether we as a society areprepared now to place a far greater value on child care and elevate it accordingly on the pub-lic agenda.

How Support for Child Care Serves Local Economies

I nvesting in child care generates jobs and pumps money into local economies.42 Child careI is not another form of welfare. It is a vital support for working families with children.Research in numerous states and communities shows that the public support of child carecreates direet and indirect economic benefits. The direct benefits include increased earningsand employment among parents receiving those subsidies. Communities also benefitindirectly from the earnings and jobs generated by the increased demand for child careservices. Families receiving child-care subsidies that enable them to work also need fewergovernment-supported services than they did when they were unemployed orunderemployed.43

An economic analysis of public spending for child care subsidies in San Antonio,Texas, showed that assistance to families in obtaining child care services ". . . is not onlyjustified on humanitarian grounds but actually more than pays its own way through localeconomic stimulus and the resulting increased tax revenues to the City of San Antonio. . . .

The City of San Antonio can expect to earn a simple annual return of about 46 percent onpublic investment in child care. In other words, not only will the program cover its ownincremental costs, but the community will realize 46 cents in additional tax revenue for eachdollar directly expendedon providing child care tothose (who) cannotpresently afford it."44

In North Carolina,an examination of thebenefits of child caresubsidies showed thatthe subsidies paid forthemselves almostimmediately in realdollars returned togovernment throughtaxes on family earnings and employment and taxation in the child care industry. That returnon investment translated to a net of $3,924 annually for a child care subsidy of $2,544 ayearfor a family with an annual income of $20,000 or a 54 percent return on investment:4°

Yet among child care administrators from the southern states who were surveyed thisyear by the Southern Institute, nine out of 17 cited "lack of adequate funding" as the single

2412

In North Carolina, an examination of thebenefits of child care subsidies showed that

the subsidies paid for themselves almostimmediately in real dollars returned togovernment through taxes on family

earnings and employment and taxationin the child care industry.

biggest barrier today to families seeking child care subsidies in their states.46 Nationwide,14.8 million parents qualify for CCDF subsides, yet only 1.5 million parents receive themone out of 10 who are eligible.47

The Benefits Few Employers Know About

nvesting in quality, affordable child care not only is good for the nation's economy, it is goodI for employers and the families who work for them, now and in the future. Employers whooffer some form of child care benefit report higher worker morale, reduced absenteeism,increased productivity and lower turnover" (see Exhibit 3). A new Treasury Departmentsurvey of more than 1,100 companies found that more than two-thirds of the employers theysurveyed reported that the benefits of child care programs are greater than the costs, or thatthe programs are cost-neutral.49 The U.S. Department of Labor reports, "Stress and thetension between work and family are increasing. Major changes in American families andthe lack of corresponding changes in many workplace policies and practices are thecauses." 50

A few employers are offering substantial child care benefits. Con Agra RefrigeratedFoods a company that processes poultry products with plants in several southern stateshas established a child care initiative tailored to meet the needs of workers who earn between$6 and $7 per hour. Since most Con Agra employees work in shifts and live in rural areas,this employer has established partnerships with Head Start/child care agencies in severalcommunities. Con Agra makes a contribution to help cover the cost of expanding the center'scapacity and/or hours of service. The company also pays a portion of the weekly cost of carefor each of its employees.51

Bank of America has developed a unique employee benefit called Child Care Plus.Employees who work at least 20 hours a week, need child care to work and have an annual

Reported Company Benefits for Offering Child Care

A 62% reported higher morale

A 54% reported reduced absenteeism

A 52% reported increased productivity

A 37% reported lower turnover

Source: Survey by The Conference Board, New York, 1995.

Exhibit 3

9 r%.)

13

base salary under $30,000 (and an annual family income under $60,000) are eligible toparticipate. Based on their child care expenses, these employees may receive up to $152 permonth per child in addition to their regular pay. Bank of America also offers benefits foremployees with higher wages (as a Dependent Care Assistance Plan), as well as onsiteand/or back-up child care in some locations. Turnover among employees who participate inChild Care Plus is halfthat of comparable Bankof America employeeswho do not use theprogram.52

Not all employersare able to make childcare investmentscomparable to thosemade by Con Agra andBank of America. On thewhole, private sector investment in child care is very small. In 1995, less than one percent(1%) of revenues for child care and early education came from the private sector.56 Butemployers are learning that one of the most effective ways to support the child care needs oftheir employees is in partnership with government. And their government partners are startingto develop some new and exciting initiatives. The Florida Child Care Partnership, outlined inChapter 3 of this report, is one example. Initiatives in San Antonio, Texas and statewide inNorth Carolina also have been effective and are briefly described in Chapter 3.

On the whole, private sector investmentin child care is very small.

In 1995, less than 1% of revenuesfor child care and early education

came from the private sector.

Does The Child Care Application ProcessDeter Families From Applying?

The need to rethink support for child care must include consideration of how families gainaccess to child care subsidies. Simplification of the application and redetermination

processes is essential to assure that eligibility services are efficient and that families aretreated with dignity.

The state site visits conducted by the Southern Institute in 1997 identified applicationand redetermination procedures that presented barriers to eligibility. The findings are outlinedin the February 1998 report by the Southern Institute, titled Southern Regional Initiative toImprove Access to Benefits for Low Income Families With Children.54 Since that time,several southern states have made strides in simplifying the eligibility process. Yet workremains to be done to make the child care application and redetermination processes morefamily friendly.

Public support for services such as transportation, housing and public education isprovided without the same stigma associated with applying for other forms of public aid.Applications for college aid are available on the internet, and a single, standardizedapplication is accepted at most colleges and universities. Yet states typically require familieswho are applying for child care assistance to make an appointment with the Department of

OL 14U

Social Services, complete detailed application forms and submit numerous documents toprove that they need help. If the family is applying for more than one program in addition tochild care subsidy, they usually are required to submit additional forms and go through yetanother separate application process.

The Southern Institute's 2000 survey revealed many eligibility process barriers in the17 southern states. Seven states (Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia,Georgia, Tennessee and West Virginia) require families to undergo a face-to-face interview inorder to apply for child care assistance. In eight states (Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware,District of Columbia, Florida, Louisiana, Texas and West Virginia) income-eligible families maybe required to reapply for assistance every six months. Multiple forms of documentation arerequired in most states. Even families who are receiving child care assistance are required toreapply when they move from welfare to work in seven of the states surveyed (Alabama,Florida, Louisiana, Maryland, Oklahoma, Tennessee and West Virginia).55

Many of these application and redetermination policies and procedures weredeveloped to ensure that families receiving subsidies are eligible under program criteria. But

each of these stepsincreases the likelihoodthat eligible families willnot even apply forassistance. The sameholds true for familiesfacing redetermination.

There are severalstrategies to simplify theprocess for families andimprove access to thesystem. Some includeallowing families to applyby mail or telephonewithout requiring a face-to-face interview. Others

involve minimizing requests for documentation and, wherever possible, attempting to utilizepublic records or documents already on file before making any such requests of the family.Verification requirements for child care assistance applications also can present eligibilitybarriers for families. Identifying areas where verification can be reduced will result inimproving access to child care assistance.

Our nation has made progress in streamlining the application and redeterminationprocesses for benefit programs such as Medicaid and the State Child Health InsuranceProgram (SCHIP) without jeopardizing the integrity of the eligibility determination process.The findings of the Southern Institute's 2000 survey indicate that there are a number ofpolicies that present barriers to applying for and retaining child care assistance. Simplificationor removal of these barriers does not require federal approval.

There are several strategies to simplify theprocess for families. . . . Some includeallowing families to apply by mail or

telephone without requiring a face-to-faceinterview. Others involve minimizing

requests for documentation and,wherever possible, attempting to utilize

public records or documentsalready on file.

W115

Affordable, Quality Child Care is an Investmentin America's Future

C hild care is a crucial support for low-income working families, employers andcommunities. Support can, and should, be part of new economic development strategies

for states. Study after study has shown that quality early care and education in the preschoolyears can greatly enhance a child's lifetime potential. But all too often children from low-income families are denied this essential "brain food," denied the opportunity to learn andgrow at a time in their lives when careful attention from adults matters the most.

Each of the 17 southern states has made substantial financial investments in theirelementary, secondary and higher education systems. In 1994, when these investments werecompared to child care, the results were startling. Florida, which has made significantinvestments in its children in recent years, in 1994 spent 23 times more on higher educationthan on child care and early learning. Texas spent 43 times more on higher education.Virginia spent 121 timesmore. And highereducation spending inMississippi was 636times what the statespent on child care.56

Children whoseparents cannot affordchild care often are leftwithout the supervisionthey need at a crucialtime in their lives.Friends, relatives orolder siblings may bewilling and able to helpout on occasion, but these arrangements often fall apart or vary from day to day. All childrenneed to have the opportunities provided by consistent, stable child care arrangements. Formany children from low-income families, child care subsidies make these opportunitiespossible.

We can wait no longer to make the kind of sound investments needed to assure thatchild care financial aid is available and accessible to families who need and seek assistance.The actions necessary to achieve results are set forth in the Action Plan presented in Chapter3. The Action Plan calls on federal, state, local and private leaders to commit to theachievement of specific goals and action steps. Making financial assistance for child care apriority will produce dividends now and in the future. Inaction will perpetuate missedopportunities that will be costly in terms of building workforce capacity, helping families avoidwelfare and providing greater support for early learning that can boost school readinessacross the South.

Making financial assistance for child care apriority will produce dividends now and inthe future. Inaction will perpetuate missedopportunities that will be costly in terms of

building workforce capacity, helpingfamilies avoid welfare and providing greater

support for early learning that can boostschool readiness across the South.

28 16

Chapter 3

ACTION PLANI n late 1999, at the invitation of the Southern Institute on Children and Families, governorsI from 16 southern states and the mayor of the District of Columbia appointed representativesto the Southern Regional Task Force on Child Care. Additional appointments were made bythe Southern Institute and by the Southern Growth Policies Board. During ongoingdiscussions convened throughout 2000, the Task Force developed an Action Plan, which isset forth below.

The charge to the Task Force was to collaborate in the development of a plan of actionto improve access to child care assistance for low-income families in the southern region.During its deliberations, the Task Force received testimony from professionals, families andrepresentatives of the business community, identified barriers that impede access to childcare assistance for low-income families and developed an Action Plan to improve access tofinancial aid for families who need and seek assistance.

The Action Plan presented below addresses the initial charge of the Task Force. TheTask Force recognizes that improving access to financial aid for child care is a criticalcomponent in an overall plan to assure that low-income families are able to obtain affordable,quality child care that will improve opportunities for children and their parents. Beginning inJanuary 2001, the Task Force will move to the next phase of its work and will addressadditional issues that affect access to affordable, quality child care.

Chapter 2 of this report discussed the many reasons why priority attention must begiven to making quality child care more accessible and affordable for low-income families,including the positive effect child care can have on workforce capacity, the advantages it canbring to the welfare reform effort and the much needed financial support it can provide forearly learning opportunities for children in low-income families. Issues identified by the TaskForce as barriers to child care financial assistance include the significant underfunding of thepublic child care subsidy system, eligibility policies and systems that hinder access to publicchild care subsidies, the need to create employer partnerships, and the lack of refundablechild care and dependent tax credits.

The following Action Plan expresses the position of the Southern Regional Task Forceon Child Care that bold action is needed to make child care financial aid available andaccessible for low-income parents who need and seek it. The 10 goals and 52 action stepscall on public and private sector leaders to support specific initiatives, including significantincreases in child care resources, eligibility simplification, improved customer services,implementation of tax strategies and creation of employer partnerships. Participating stateshave submitted information on initiatives that represent progress made toward addressing thegoals and action steps. These brief descriptions include contact information.

The Southern Regional Task Force on Child Care will monitor progress towardaccomplishing the Action Plan goals. As outlined in Chapter 4, implementation activities willinclude state site visits to each of the 16 states and the District of Columbia, a SouthernRegional Forum on Child Care and a report issued in December 2001 outlining the results ofstate efforts to achieve the goals.

170

GOAL 1

Federal, state, local and private funds should be sufficient to meet 100% of need fordirect child care assistance, based on initial eligibility levels at 85% of the state medianincome. Redetermination levels should allow families to retain child care assistanceuntil they reach 100% of the state median income.

Action Steps

1.1. Educate federal and state policymakers on the need for action.1.2. Educate the business community on the need for leadership in achieving state,federal and community resources to meet 100% of need.1.3. Increase federal funding for the Child Care Development Fund to fulfill currentpolicy allowing federal matching funds for child care assistance up to 85% of the statemedian income.1.4. Increase state funding to provide child care subsidies to all eligible families whoseek child care assistance.1.5. Mobilize federal, state and community resources in support of families who needchild care assistance.

West Virginia

In October 2000, West Virginia's child care eligibility was increased from 150% to 200% of theFederal Poverty Level (57% to 77% of State Median Income, respectively). The maximum monthlygross income for a family of four increased from $2,087 to $2,842. West Virginia's child care policyallows subsidies to cover sleep time for parents who must work night shift and study time for parentsattending educational or training programs. The state also pays for two providers when necessary tomeet a family's needs. Eligibility guidelines also were revised to benefit foster and adoptive families.Foster family income is not used in determining eligibility for foster children, and adoption subsidiesare disregarded as income.

Contact: Kay Tilton, Director, Child Day Care ServicesDepartment of Health and Human Resources(304) [email protected]

183 0

GOAL 2

States and communities should broaden their child care eligibility and subsidy policiesto meet the economic, work and education needs of families.

Action Steps

2.1. Establish co-payments not to exceed 10% of gross family income.2.2. Provide child care assistance to students who qualify under the income guidelines.2.3. Explore broad use of income exemptions to address affordability of child care.2.4. Eliniinate asset testing (e.g. automobile or savings account) from criteria for childcare assistance.2.5. Index income eligibility levels for inflation.

Kentucky

Kentucky now serves families at 165% of the Federal Poverty Level. Co-payments of families do notexceed 10% of the family's gross income. Kentucky provides child care assistance to students basedon their income and serves all teen parents working on their GED, regardless of income. InKentucky, income eligibility is indexed for inflation based on updated federal poverty guidelines. Noasset tests are required.

Contact: Dana Jackson, DirectorDivision of Child Care(502) [email protected]

Mississippi

Mississippi's co-payment fees do not exceed 8% of family income. In addition, Mississippi recentlyamended its state CCDF plan to allow full-time students to be eligible for child care assistancewithout also having to meet a work requirement, to only use employment income when determiningeligibility and to update State Median Income levels every two years for purposes of setting the 85%SMI eligibility ceiling. No asset tests are required.

Contact: Carol Burnett, DirectorOffice of Children and Youth(601) [email protected]

31 19

North Carolina

North Carolina's subsidized child care policies support the education and employment of the state'slow-income families. Child care is available to support post-secondary education for up to two years.Families are eligible for services whether employed full-time or part-time, when seeking employmentor while in-between jobs. In 1996, a new fee structure was implemented that based co-payments on7% to 9% of the family's gross monthly income, depending on family size. TANF cash assistancepayments and assets are not considered as countable income when determining eligibility or theamount of the co-payment. In 1996, North Carolina also increased its income-eligibility limits to 75%of State Median Income (up to 214% of the federal poverty level for a family of four). This allowedmore low-income families to receive services through expanded eligibility.

Contact: Nancy Guy, Program Operations Section ChiefNC Division of Child Development(919) 662-4561

Oklahoma

In Oklahoma, families earning up to 77% of the State Median Income, or $2,420 per month, areeligible to participate in the child care assistance program. There is a family co-payment rather thana per-child co-payment. Parents earning less than $855 per month have no co-payment, whileparents with a maximum co-payment would pay 9% of income after earned income deductions areapplied. Income-eligible students can receive assistance while attending high school, technicaltraining or college to receive a bachelor's degree. Oklahoma's child care policy allows subsidies tocover sleep time for parents who work a night shift. Consistent with food stamp policy, parentsreceive a work expense disregard of 20% of earned income. There are approximately 18 othersources of income that are disregarded when determining a parent's eligibility for child careassistance. No asset tests are required.

Contact: Susan Hall, Family Support ServicesOklahoma Department of Human Services(405) [email protected]

20

GOAL 3

Outreach initiatives should be designed and aggressively implemented to assure thatfamilies have accessible and easy-to-understand information on child care assistanceand are provided assistance in applying.

Action Steps

3.1. Provide information on child care subsidies through multiple sources, venues andthe media.3.2. Ensure that information is accurate, family friendly, employer friendly, culturallysensitive and provided in multiple languages, as appropriate.3.3. Present information in a manner that would remove the stigma associated withreceiving subsidies.3.4. Provide literature and assistance to help parents make informed provider choices.3.5. Coordinate ongoing and strategic outreach activities among commonorganizations and providers.3.6. Offer cross-training and information to providers, community organizations-, faithorganizations and state agencies to inform them about child care assistance programsand how to assist families in filing applications.


In 1999 the Office of Early Childhood Development (OECD) prepared a plan titled "Outreach toIncrease Access to Child Care Financial Aid" and launched a multi-faceted outreach campaign thatincluded: broad-based community outreach (radio and television spots, posters); multi-agency cross-training (orientation and information packets for all government human resource managers);development of a list of liaisons that refer children to the child care subsidy program; appeals toexisting providers (regarding referrals to OECD, distribution of information, allow OECD to use up to95% of their current licensed capacity); targeted recruitment initiatives; community-based intakeactivities; initiatives in two wards with the highest level of poverty, largest number of children andhighest percentage of TANF; and monitoring and evaluation activities.

Contact: Barbara Ferguson Kamara, Executive DirectorOffice of Early Childhood Development(202)[email protected]

33 21

West Virginia

West Virginia is providing grants to each Child Care Resource and Referral agency to implement aTraveling Resource and Information Library System (TRAILS). Mobile library vans will be used toprovide resources to current providers, to furnish information to potential providers and to performcommunity outreach informing parents about the availability of child care assistance and to educateparents in the selection of quality child care providers. These vans are designed to be highly visiblefor use in community events. Multi-media material will be utilized.


GOAL 4

The child care application and redetermination processes should be uncomplicatedand family friendly.

Action Steps

4.1. Simplify applications for child care assistance.4.2. Allow filing by mail, phone, fax or internet.4.3. Minimize requests for documentation at initial application and utilize documentsalready on file.4.4. Provide applications at multiple sites.4.5. Offer non-conventional hours of operation for eligibility offices and provide toll-freephone lines to include evening and weekend hours.4.6. Explore presumptive eligibility or otherwise provide immediate eligibility contingentupon final approval.4.7. Eliminate requirements for a face-to-face interview both for initial application andfor redetermination.4.8. Provide consultation on making appropriate choices when excessive requests forprovider changes are filed.4.9. Establish a 12-month redetermination period where there are no changes inincome or job status.4.10. Continue eligibility for full subsidy for 12 weeks if family loses employment butcan document that a job search is underway.

22

Maryland

Maryland created a simple accessible child care application and redetermination process by unitingprograms that benefit low-income families under the Department of Human Resources (DHR) for"one-stop" seamless services. Local departments of social services are the single point of contact forfamilies needing many types of assistance, including child care, TANF, Food Stamps, Medicaid, childwelfare and child support. Access to child care licensing and resource and referral services isprovided. Service is simplified in the following ways: by providing applications for TANF and childcare in work opportunity offices and community district offices; by using a one-page, mail-inapplication; by allowing up to 12 months before redetermination is required; and by employing anautomated system that determines eligibility, issues vouchers online and accesses neededdocumentation from other programs electronically. .

Contact: Linda Heisner, Executive DirectorChild Care Administration(410) [email protected]

Mississippi

Mississippi recently amended its Child Care and Development Fund state plan to simplify theapplication process and reduce barriers faced by parents seeking child care assistance. Specifically,Mississippi reduced the number of documents parents must obtain and attach to their applicationsfrom six to one. In addition, Mississippi went from six-month to 12-month eligibility determination,thus improving children's child care experiences by reducing interruptions in service.


Oklahoma

Oklahoma's expedited eligibility process requires the social services specialist to process an applica-tion immediately when the applicant does not have the money to pay toward the cost of child careand the applicant is in danger of losing a job or cannot start a new job. The social services specialistattempts to verify need and income through collateral contacts and documents the attempt. If thesocial services specialist is unsuccessful in verifying these or any other factors of eligibility, theclient's statement is used to certify the application for a maximum of 30 calendar days. The socialservices specialist gives the client a form requesting any outstanding verification needed to establish

eligibility within the 30 days time frame before further child care is authorized.

Contact: Susan Hall, Family Support ServicesOklahoma Department of Human Services(405) [email protected]

35 23

South Carolina

South Carolina's ABC Child Care Program application can be completed by parents in the privacy oftheir home. Toll-free phone lines with extended hours are available. No face-to-face interview isrequired, and parents can return applications by mail. Parents are asked to verify or document theirwork, school or training activities; however all other information provided on the child care applicationis self-declared and accepted. Redetermination for non-welfare, low-income families is requiredevery 12 months and is fully automated. Sixty days before the end of the 12-month eligibility period,the clients are sent a completed application based on their last eligibility determination. The form isaccompanied by a request that parents update the application based on changes that have occurredand return the application by mail. The ABC Child Care program allows for seamless eligibility forfamilies moving from Family Independence (the state's TANF program) to their first year ofTransitional Child Care. Parents are not required to complete and sign a new child care application.Clients may continue to receive services for 30 calendar days if the family loses employment.

Contact: Kitty Casoli, Department HeadSC Department of Health and Human Services(803) [email protected]

GOAL 5

Establish a coordinated, seamless eligibility system so that funding sources areinvisible to families and support continuity of child care.

Action Steps

5.1. Eliminate the need for families to reapply when eligibility categories change byautomatically searching to exhaust all eligibility categories before closing cases.5.2. Explore the potential for policy and procedural changes to achieve linkages with orcombined applications for child care assistance, Head Start , Pre-K and Title I.5.3. Continue eligibility in programs with multiple funding sources to assure continuityof care in the event that eligibility has expired or terminated in one program.5.4. Work collaboratively with all public and private programs and funding sources toassure that children receive stable and consistent early child care services.

24

Florida

Effective July 1, 2001, Florida will establish a web-based Simplified Point of Entry System and aUnified Waiting List that allows parental choice. Families will fill out one application for all wait-listedprograms. The system will begin with access to Subsidized Child Care, Pre-Kindergarten, and HeadStart. Because the system is web-based, it can be easily expanded and adapted to include otherfamily support programs. If there are no vacancies in one program, the child will automatically bereferred to other programs for which the child is eligible. Families will only have to place themselveson one list. The family can use a public library computer or home computer to self-enter theirapplication, or a professional caseworker or family support screener can assist parents in completingthe application.

Contact: Susan Muenchow, Executive DirectorThe Florida Partnership for School Readiness(850) [email protected]

North Carolina

Before 1996, North Carolina's child care funds were administered by two agencies, depending onwhether child care was AFDC-related. Although the portal of entry was the same (local departmentsof social services), the application processes, eligibility requirements, parent fees and paymentsystems were separate and different. Some families lost child care assistance when they moved.from one system to the other. After welfare reform, North Carolina consolidated all funds under oneagency, including CCDF, Head Start Wrap-Around, TANF transfer, state Smart Start subsidy andstate CCDF matching funds. Uniform eligibility, fee and payment requirements were established.The funding stream that pays for child care is determined at the state level and changed as needed.More families are served, and MOE funding requirements are tracked more efficiently.

Contact: Nancy Guy, Program Operations Section ChiefNC Division of Child Development(919) 662-4561

Missouri

In Missouri, eligibility is streamlined, and has been since inception, into one subsidy program basedon two factors: income and need for child care. Depending upon availability of funding, priorities areestablished for who will receive services. Everyone applies and has eligibility determined under thesame guidelines.

Contact: Doris Ha Ilford, Assistant Deputy DirectorMissouri Division of Family Services(573) [email protected]

37 25

GOAL 6

Establish customer service outcome goals and set standards to ensure that all familiesare treated with dignity and respect and are served in an efficient manner.

Action Steps

6.1. Provide professional and well-trained eligibility staff who are culturally andlinguistically sensitive.6.2. Facilitate quick eligibility determination through reasonable caseloads and/oradministrative structure.6.3. Conduct periodic, independent and thorough consumer satisfaction assessments,assuring the confidentiality of information collected.6.4. Provide adequate support for child care resource and referral services.


In 1999, the District of Columbia government conducted its first independent customer satisfactionsurvey and developed the system to be used for ongoing independent and thorough customersatisfaction assessments. The 1999 survey focused on customer need for and satisfaction with childcare during non-traditional hours for child care intake. The non-traditional child care services surveywas a postcard, mailed directly to parents with information about non-traditional services, that couldbe mailed directly back to the unit conducting the survey. There was a 14% return rate, and as aresult of this survey a community outreach initiative and provider recruitment plan were initiated.Determination of customer satisfaction with evening hours was implemented through a surveyinstrument and customer interviews. A written report with recommendations.was developed andused to increase customer use of evening services.

Contact: Barbara Ferguson Kamara, Executive DirectorOffice of Early Childhood Development(202) [email protected]

26

Georgia

Georgia has increased investments in the Child Care Resource and Referral (CCR&R) network usingCCDF set-aside funds. The state now contracts with 10 community-based non-profits and fourinstitutions of higher learning to provide CCR&R services in all of Georgia's 159 counties. During thenext 12 months, each CCR&R will be adding an inclusion specialist to its staff to help parents ofchildren with disabilities find care and to help child care providers better serve children withdisabilities in their communities. This initiative was developed by a statewide Task Force on ChildCare for Children with Disabilities that was co-sponsored by the Georgia Child Care Council, theGovernor's Office on Developmental Disabilities, and the state's 0-3 early intervention programcalled "Babies Can't Wait."

Contact: Susan Maxwell, Executive DirectorGeorgia Child Care [email protected]

Kentucky

Kentucky conducts an annual check of customer satisfaction through the audit process. Parents andproviders are surveyed regarding the service they have received. Kentucky's culture is diversifiedand is becoming more so with many ethnic groups establishing homes in the state. Most of theeligibility staff members live in the communities in which they work. This aids awareness of thecultural needs of families within the communities. In addition, several of the Child Care Resourceand Referral agencies are the service agents for the subsidy program. The CCR&R agencies'understanding of and bond with the community helps in this process.

Contact: Dana Jackson, DirectorDivision of Child Care(502) [email protected]

3927

North Carolina

Child Care Services Association (CCSA) in North Carolina, a not-for-profit agency, providesscholarships to help pay the costs of child care for families living and working in Orange County.Scholarship funds come from Smart Start, United Way, UNC-Chapel Hill, municipal and countygovernments and private contributions. Applications for child care subsidy are available in all childcare programs in the county, county human services agencies, employment centers, shelters and allCCSA offices. Bilingual family support counselors are available for Spanish-speaking families, and allinformation and applications are available in Spanish. Both initial and annual renewal applicationsmay be mailed or faxed, with appropriate documentation. Annual customer service evaluations ofthe scholarships and services received from CCSA are performed. In addition, one-third of the CCSAboard includes recipients of the agency's services, including families receiving the child care subsidy.The agency offers extended hours, including some evenings and Saturdays.

Contact: Susan Russell, Executive DirectorChild Care Services Association(919) [email protected]

GOAL 7

Design the subsidy system so that rate structures assure that families receiving childcare assistance have access to all types of child care and disallow charges aboveestablished co-payments.

Action Steps

7.1. States should cap reimbursement rates at no less than the 75th percentile basedon a market rate survey conducted every two years that accurately reflects the price ofall types of care in communities across the state.7.2. Establish and evaluate reimbursement policies that encourage providerparticipation and are responsive to family needs.7.3. Prohibit providers from charging above the established co-payments.

4028

Florida

The Gold Seal program was established to promote national accreditation of early care andeducation programs. Several accrediting associations are involved in the Gold Seal Quality CareProgram. Under Gold Seal legislation, facilities that receive a Gold Seal are eligible for higherpayment rates for Subsidized Child Care, sales tax exemptions on educational equipment and advalorum (property tax) exemptions. These incentives not only encourage improved quality but alsoencourage private child care center participation in the subsidized child care program. Thisparticipation allows full mainstreaming of children who qualify for subsidized assistance and providesparental choice of location and setting. Nearly 1,000 child care centers and family child care homesnow have received the Gold Seal.


Missouri

Missouri has instituted a tiered reimbursement incentive system. Providers are eligible to receive thefollowing percentage increases on their base subsidy rate:

* 30% increase for providers serving a disproportionate share of state subsidized children.* 20% increase for providers who are accredited by a recognized accrediting organization

approved by the state.* 15% increase for evening and weekend care.* 25% increase for special needs children.

Missouri also allows providers of special needs children to be paid at the rate associated with their"functional" age.

Contact: Doris Hallford, Assistant Deputy DirectorMissouri Division of Family Services(573) [email protected]

Tennessee

To be responsive to family needs for assistance with child care fees above the parent co-payment,the Tennessee Department of Human Services (DHS) will pay providers a one-time application fee ofup to $50 per child at the time of enrollment and an annual registration fee of up to $50 per child forchildren in the Families First and Transitional Families First programs. In addition, DHS establishedtransportation fees to pay a licensed provider for transporting a child in the Families First program tothe chili 2T program. DHS will pay providers $10 per week per child for this service.

Contact: Louis Rudolph, Director of Certificate ProgramTennessee Department of Human Services(615) 313-4870

4129

West Virginia

In West Virginia, base reimbursement rates were increased in October 2000 to 85th percentile of the1999 market rate. In addition to increases in base rates, incentive rates of $4 extra per day areadded if a provider is accredited or offers care during non-traditional work hours. The enhanced ratefor infant and toddlers also is used for children with special needs and children receiving care forchild protective services reasons. Two other incentive rates are planned for early 2001. One willprovide additional rates of $2 daily to providers who complete a 40-hour infant and toddler trainingprogram. The second will provide an additional $2 daily to providers who meet additionalrequirements but are not yet accredited. This will result in a three-tiered payment system. WestVirginia also makes subsidized payments to unlicensed school-age child care programs that registerwith the state and meet health and safety guidelines. .


GOAL 8

Create partnerships with employers to expand child care assistance for workingfamilies.

Action Steps

8.1. Educate employers about the bottom line benefits associated with public andprivate child care assistance.8.2. Enlist business leaders to champion the involvement of southern businesses andto serve as mentors to other businesses.8.3. Provide information to employers on all available tax benefits related to child careassistance, including deductions for donations to tax-exempt child care organizations,capital costs for constructing a child care center and establishing a pre-tax dependentcare assistance plan.8.4. Facilitate collaborative initiatives that enable employers to share ideas as well aspool their resources to address child care needs.8.5. Provide matching funds or other tax or financial incentives for employers to investin child care.8.6. Establish incentives for employers to create child care benefit programs for theiremployees or to contribute to child care purchasing pools in their state or community.8.7. Reduce the administrative burden on employers participating in any jointpublic/private child care assistance program.

4 0 30

Arkansas

As a result of the work of the Governor commissioned Arkansas Corporate Champions for ChildrenInitiative, The Early Care and Education Trust Fund will be established during the next legislativesession, beginning January 2001. Funds will be available to match contributions from privatebusinesses and individuals. The trust fund will create a new source of funding to address lengthywaiting lists in Arkansas. The Governor's Work-Life Initiative Award will be established and presentedin April of each year to recognize and honor employers who support families. This initiative hasgenerated several very important data reports: Children and Child-Care Issues in Arkansas (graphicpresentation of 50 child care indicators by county and state summary); the Survey of EmployerOnsite Child Care (Eleven sites across the state were surveyed. They tied the success of theirprojects to recruitment, employee satisfaction and retention.); and the Survey of Family FriendlyPolicies for Employees in Arkansas. (This survey gives a percentage listing by importance of thepolicies in place now as well as a percentage of the employers desiring assistance in developingother family friendly options.)

Contact: Janie Fletcher, DirectorDivision of Child Care and Early ChildhoodEducation(501) [email protected]


The District of Columbia has developed public-private partnerships to increase access to child careservices for District residents since 1987. Partnerships have been established with Early ChildhoodCollaborative of DC, Inc., Katharine Graham of The Washington Post and Terrence Golden of theHost Marriott, Donna Klein of Marriot International, Carrie Thornhill of DC Agenda, DC ChildcareCorporation, the DC Chamber of Commerce, employers, housing developers, The Banker'sAssociation, community development corporations, the faith-based community and the philanthropiccommunity. These partnerships have resulted in: new licensed capacity in child development cen-ters and homes; increased capacity for infants and school-age children; increased capacity onevenings, overnight, weekends and holidays; increased worksite facilities; increased child caresubsidy rates; seminars; expanded roles for child care resource and referral services; and increasedtraining for early care and education providers. Since 1995, the Mayor's Wish List Award has beenpresented to business partners in recognition of their contributions.

Contact: Barbara Ferguson Kamara, Executive DirectorOffice of Early Childhood Development(202) [email protected]

31 4 3

Florida

The Florida Partnership for School Readiness, based in the Executive Office of the Governor, is theprincipal organization responsible for the enhancement of school readiness. Programs are expectedto make services available on a full-day, full-year basis to assist working parents. Fifty-seven schoolreadiness coalitions have formed in the last year representing all of Florida's counties. Local countycoalitions are comprised of community leaders, school board members, private and faith-based childcare providers, Head Start, and child care resource and referral agencies. One-third of the membersmust not make their living in early education and child care. During this transition year, the coalitionsare in the process of assuming the management of the child care funding streams and pre-kindergarten funds with the intent to maximize use of services. Sliding-fee scales apply to all state-funded, out-of-home early education and child care services. Local coalitions have the authority tofund specific school readiness programs, allowing them to tailor funding to the community theyserve. Parents have a choice of settings and locations. Performance standards have beenestablished to guide the programs and a uniform screeningwill be conducted for all children enteringkindergarten.

The Florida Child Care Executive Partnership Program is a public-private partnership formedbetween businesses and the state of Florida to increase the availability of child care for low-incotheworking parents. Under the Child Care Partnership Act, the State of Florida will match dollar-for-dollar child care contributions by employers and local communities for families earning up to 200percent of the federal poverty level. Participating businesses receive a tax deduction, and parentsreceive care for about one-third the full cost. Since the program's establishment, more than $32million in business and local matching funds have been raised, enabling an additional 17,000children to receive child care tuition assistance. The current state appropriation is $10 million.


Georgia

In 1999, Georgia's Governor Roy Barnes sponsored a new corporate tax credit to encourageemployers to become partners in meeting the child care needs of their employees. Companies nowmay recoup 75% of their investment in subsidizing child care for their employees and 100% of theirinvestment, over 10 years, in building onsite child care centers. To assist employers in understandingthe tax credit and the impact of child care on the work force, the Georgia Child Care Councildeveloped and distributed a handbook titled Quality Child Care The Business Connection.Support the Workforce of 2000; Prepare the Workforce of 2020. A Powerpoint presentation specificto Georgia also is available for use with business audiences.

Contact: Susan Maxwell, Executive DirectorGeorgia Child Care [email protected]

32 4

Tennessee

Tennessee's Corporate/Community Partnership Grant is available to local governments, schooldistricts in partnership with industries, and businesses and/or public or private non-profit agenciesthat submit a proposal addressing specific, documented child care needs in a community. The grantmust be matched one-to-one by the applicant's partner. The Corporate/Community Partnership grantpool totals $200,000. To date, 14 grants totaling $287,444 have been disbursed. In addition, the101st Tennessee General Assembly authorized the Department of Human Services to exploreobtaining federal and state funding to provide an incentive to develop local match funds from localgovernment, employers, charitable institutions and others to create partnerships with employers. TheTennessee Community and Corporate Child Care Partnership Program is designed to enhance childcare in local communities. The program will be administered through the Tennessee Child CareFacilitiei Corporation.

Contact: John Gamett, Executive DirectorTennessee Child Care Facilities Corporation615-313-4700

Texas

The San Antonio Smart Start Program began as the Corporate Child Care Collaborative in 1994 as apublic/private care trust fund to enhance the quality and increase the quantity of area child careservices for employees of local businesses and for the community as a whole. In early 1997, thecollaborative launched a $50,000 marketing plan to raise awareness and to recruit new corporatemembers for its activities. The marketing plan features a media campaign with paid TV andmagazine advertising, public service announcements, billboards and brochures. All Smart Startprojects are conducted in collaboration with other community organizations. Among its mostsuccessful initial projects is a program to conduct training and provide support for community childcare centers and home-based centers. As a result of the program, 10 centers and 17 family childcare programs have received national accreditation. Since its inception, the collaboration has helped70 child care programs used by employees, benefiting 2,500 child care providers and 4,500 children.

The Texas Work and Family Clearinghouse is committed to helping Texas employers attract andretain a diverse workforce through the promotion and support of dependent care policies andprograms in the workplace. The Clearinghouse was mandated by the Texas Legislature to provideinformation concerning technical assistance, dependent care and other employment-related familyissues to public and private employers, state agencies, policymakers and individuals. TheClearinghouse has funded 15 local business collaboratives and one statewide child care resourceand referral project in FY2000.

Contact: Nancy Hard, DirectorChild Care Services(512) 463-6473

33

GOAL 9

Provide child care assistance to working families through federal and state tax laws.

Action Steps

9.1. Make the federal child and dependent care tax credit refundable.9.2. Establish refundable child and dependent care tax credits in states with incometaxes.9.3. Raise federal and state child care tax credit expense limits to accurately reflect theprice of quality care.9.4. Index for inflation the state and federal child and dependent care tax credit incomeeligibility and expense limits.9.5. Ensure that child and dependent care tax credits are clearly identified and easy toclaim by filers using either the short or long form.9.6. Encourage the use of effective state tax strategies to provide financial support forchild care.

Arkansas

In Arkansas, Act 1286 of 1993 provided an enhanced income tax credit in the amount of 20% of thefederal credit (under IRS code) for qualified taxpayers who incurred child care expenditures atapproved child care facilities. The 20%,tax credit is refundable. Legislation in 1997 provided the20% credit for all taxpayers using child care and eliminated the enhanced credit for use of anapproved/accredited program. The use of approved/accredited facilities does continue allowance forthe 20% to be refundable. Act 820 of 1993 designated and exempted from state tax thosecorporations that build and equip approved child care centers. Construction materials and furnishingspurchased for use in the initial construction and equipping of a child care center for the exclusivepurpose of providing child care to employees will be subject to the exemption. A business thatqualifies for the exemption from the Gross Receipts Tax shall be allowed an income tax credit of3.9% of the annual salary of workers emplbyed exclusively in providing child care services. Act 850of 1995 allowed companies to operate or contract the operation and further allowed two or morecompanies to participate in a single child care program.


34 46

GOAL 10

States should have effective, coordinated systems to guide child care and earlychildhood policy decisions and direct use of resources.

Action Steps

10.1. Facilitate greater coordination in eligibility policies across child care and earlychildhood education programs at state and local levels.10.2. All southern states and the District of Columbia should participate in acollaborative effort to develop and collect common data elements across states.

Arkansas

In the state of Arkansas, collaboration with state-level partners has been the key to progress.Leaders in this collaboration include the Division of Child Care, the Head Start Collaboration Office,the Department of Education, Higher Education, Department of Health, Special Education and theProfessional Development workgroups. Arkansas's goal is to establish a coordinated system forearly care and education across the state. Clear goals have been set, and the state is currentlyworking on the following projects: The Arkansas Early Childhood Professional Development System;the Early Learning Literacy in Arkansas Training Program for Pre-School Teachers; and a data baseof all funding available to communities from the Division of Child Care, Department of Education andHead Start. Governor Mike Huckabee has stated, "We must enlist parents, businesses, publicservants and faith-based community members in our efforts to sustain quality early care andeducation programs for the children of Arkansas."


35 4 7

Georgia

The Georgia Legislature established The Georgia Child Care Council in 1991 to act as a planningand coordinating body for early childhood and school-age care programs. The Council administersand distributes the quality set-aside of the CCDE Volunteer Council members are appointed by theGovernor and by law must represent specific segments of the child care community, including: non-profit, for-profit and faith-based child care providers; family child care providers; chambers of com-merce; child care resource and referral agencies; early childhood academic experts; Head Start; andparents, including those who have a child with a disability. The Lieutenant Governor and theSpeaker of the House also appoint members to represent the general public. Ex officio membersrepresent state agencies with responsibilities for or an interest in child care availability and quality.The Council's mission is to influence public policy, elevate public awareness and encourage partner-ships in order to make quality child care available and affordable for all Georgians.

Contact: Susan Maxwell, Executive DirectorGeorgia Child Care Council404-679- [email protected]

Mississippi

The 2000 Mississippi State Legislature established the Early Childhood Services InteragencyCoordinating Council made up of leaders of state agencies that provide services to preschoolchildren. This Council and its Advisory Committee are charged with gathering data on earlychildhood services for the purposes of better coordination of services, identifying gaps in service andmeasuring progress toward filling those gaps. This Council will issue annual reports, the first of whichwill be issued to the 2001 State Legislature.


Missouri

Incentive funding from the Kauffman Foundation in Kansas City and the Danforth Foundation of St.Louis helped to establish an Early Childhood Interagency Team in Missouri consisting ofrepresentatives from the Departments of Social Services, Health, Mental Health, Elementary andSecondary Education, Head Start Collaboration, and the Children's Trust Fund. For the past threeyears, this team has met on a monthly basis and has been instrumental in reducing duplication ofservices, building critical interagency relationships and maximizing and coordinating resources withinthe state.

Contact: Doris Ha Ilford, Assistant Deputy DirectorMissouri Division of Family Services(573) [email protected]

364 8

Tennessee

The Tennessee Children's Interagency Policy Committee was initiated by the governor's office in1999 to function as an umbrella group to facilitate action and coordination among the various stateagencies that serve children. The Committee's major function is to prevent duplication andconflicting agreements and to foster improved coordination among departments for better provisionof services. Representatives from the departments of Human Services, Children's Services, MentalHealth/Mental Retardation, Health, Education and the Bureau of Tenn Care comprise the committee.

Contact: Holly ClarkAssistant to the Governor for Policy(615) 532-4648

The Tennessee Child Care Management System is a centralized automated child care data baseand payment system that includes features that assist child care certificate program staff inmaintaining and updating data on providers, parents and children.

Contact: Louis RudolphDirector of Certificate Program(615) 313-4870

37 4 9

Chapter 4

SOUTHERN REGIONAL INITIATIVEON CHILD CARE

AGENDA FOR 2001 AND BEYOND

The Southern Regional Task Force on Child Care worked diligently during 2000 to developprogressive child care assistance policy goals that help families pay for child care. This

collaboration has placed the southern states in the position to move forward aggressively.Beginning in January 2001, the Task Force will set its sights on implementation of the

Action Plan set forth in Chapter 3, and it will initiate its work to address additional issuesassociated with improving access to quality child care. The continuation of the initiative issupported by an additional two-year grant from The David and Lucile Packard Foundation.

One of the cornerstones of the implementation plan is site visits to the states, wherebriefing sessions will promote awareness and action. During 2001, the Southern Institute onChildren and Families will coordinate with members of the Southern Regional Task Force onChild Care and the Staff Work Group members to schedule a site visit to each of the 16participating southern states and the District of Columbia. Because the scope of child careassistance policycrosses agency andpublic/private sectorlines, representativesinvited to participate inthe state events will beleaders from public andprivate entities who arethe decision-makers.After presentation of theAction Plan, site visitparticipants will engagein a discussion to identify opportunities and barriers to achieving the goals and action steps.

Throughout 2001, the Southern Institute will enlist regional and national expertise toconduct research and provide technical assistance to help states address the Action Plangoals. Educational materials will be developed to assist public and private organizations asthey work to achieve action on the goals and action steps.

In June 2001, the Southern Institute will survey the 16 southern states and the Districtof Columbia to determine the status of efforts to implement the Action Plan. Findings of theSouthern Institute survey will be compiled into a report, and the results will be utilized indeveloping an agenda for the Southern Regional Forum on Child Care to be held in October2001. Invited participants will include members of the Southern Regional Task Force on ChildCare, the Staff Work Group, representatives of public and private organizations in the 16participating states and the District of Columbia, and representatives of the federal

Beginning in January 2001, the Task Forcewill set its sights on implementation of theAction Plan set forth in Chapter 3, and it

will initiate its work to addressadditional issues associated with

improving access to quality child care.

3850

government. The Forum agenda will spotlight success stories that have replication potentialand also will stimulate dialogue on issues that have impeded implementation of the ActionPlan goals and action steps.

The Southern Regional Task Force on Child Care will meet twice during 2001 tomonitor progress toward Action Plan implementation and to begin examining issues related toimproving access to quality child care. The Staff Work Group will examine the issues relatedto quality and will guide the development of new strategies for the Task Force consideration.

A report will be prepared in December 2001 outlining the results of the second year ofthe Southern Regional Initiative on Child Care. The report will specify actions that remain tobe taken and provide information on lessons learned.

The third year of the Southern Regional Initiative on Child Care will include acontinuation of efforts to implement the Action Plan developed in the first year. During 2002,

site visits will beconducted in foursouthern states, wherechild care issues will bethe focus of a discussionsession with keypolicymakers,administrators,advocates and businessrepresentatives.Technical assistance will

continue to be provided on request, and training materials will be updated. State-to-state sitevisits also will be conducted to allow states that have made significant progress towardimplementation of the Action Plan to send a team to visit states that are having difficultyimplementing the goals and action steps.

As occurred in year two, the Southern Institute will conduct a survey of the 16 southernstates and the District of Columbia during the summer months to determine the status ofimplementation of the Action Plan. A report will outline the findings.

Special events will be held in 2002 to promote dialogue and action around the issuesand opportunities identified during the work of the Southern Regional Task Force on ChildCare. Preliminary plans envision the convening of the second Southern Regional Forum onChild Care and a meeting of business organizations to raise awareness of the need foremployers to be involved with public and private sector programs that help low to moderateincome families pay for child care. Additionally, national organizations will be engaged indialogue regarding lessons learned and approaches to addressing unresolved issues.

Working together though the Southern Regional Initiative on Child Care, southernstates will maintain a strong commitment to seek greater investments in helping low-incomefamilies obtain access to affordable, quality child care. Through sustained attention, thispublic-private collaboration will facilitate sound decision-making, and the results will contributeto a more stable and productive workforce, reduced welfare dependency and improvedschool performance.

Working together though the SouthernRegional Initiative on Child Care, southern

states will maintain a strong commitment toseek greater investments in helpinglow-income families obtain accessto affordable, quality child care.

39 51

ENDNOTES1. Sarah C. Shuptrine, Vicki C. Grant, MSW, PhD, and Genny G. McKenzie, MBA Southern Regional Initiative to ImoroveAccess to Benefits for Low Income Families With Children (Columbia, SC: Southern Institute on Children and Families,February 1998), Chp. 4, pp. 53-71.

2. Louise Stoney, Child Care in the Southern States: Expanding Access to Affordable Care for Low-Income Families andFostering Economic Development (Columbia, SC: Southern Institute on Children and Families, April 2000).

3. Jack P. Shonkoff and Deborah A. Phillips, Editors, Committee On Integrating the Science of Early ChildhoodDevelopment, Board on Children, Youth and Families, National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, From Neurons toNeighborhoods: The Science of Early Childhood Development - Executive Summary (Washington, DC: National AcademyPress, 2000)

4. Rima Shore, Rethinking the Brain: New Insights Into Early Development (New York, NY: Families and Work Institute,1997).

5. U.S. Department of Labor, futurework: Trends and Challenges for Work in the 21st Century (Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Labor, September 1999).

6. U.S. Census Bureau Report, Growth in Single Fathers Outpaces Growth in Single Mothers (Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Commerce, December 1998).

7. Louise Stoney, Child Care in the Southern States: Expanding Access to Affordable Care for Low-Income Families andFostering Economic Development (Columbia, SC: The Southern Institute on Children and Families, April 2000).

8. National Council of Jewish Women, OPening a New Window on Child Care: A Report on the Status of Child Care in theNation Today (New York, NY: NCJW, 1999).

9. Louise Stoney, Child Care in the Southern States: Expanding Access to Affordable Care for Low-Income Families andFostering Economic Development (Columbia, SC: The Southern Institute on Children and Families, April 2000).

10. Carnegie Corporation of New York Starting Points: Meeting the Needs of Our Youngest Children (New York, NY:Carnegie Corporation of New York, August 1994).

11. W.S. Bamett, "Long-Term Effects of Early Childhood Programs on Cognitive and School Outcomes" The Future ofChildren 5, 3 (1995): 25-50.

12. National Council of Jewish Women, Opening a New Window on Child Care: A Report on the Status of Child Care in theNation Today (New York, NY: NCJW, 1999).

13. G. Adams and K. Schulman, The South: Child Care Challenges (Washington, DC: Children's Defense Fund, May 1998).

14. Ibid.

15. Louise Stoney, Child Care in the Southern States: Expanding Access to Affordable Care for Low-Income Families anctFostering Economic Development (Columbia, SC: Southern Institute on Children and Families, April 2000).

16. Ibid.

17. G. Adams and K. Schulman The South: Child Care Challenges (Washington, DC: Children's Defense Fund, May 1998).

18. Lynne M. Caspar Who's Minding Our Preschoolers? Fall 1994 Update (Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofCommerce, Current Population Reports, Bureau of the Census, November 1997).

19. Hofferth, et al, National Child Care Survey (Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 1990).

20. Mark Greenberg, Joan Lombardi and Rachel Schumacher, The Child Care and Development Fund: An Overview(Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy, April 2000).

21. See Appendix A, Table 16.

540 2

22. See Appendix A, Tables 20 and 29.

23. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families, Access to Child Care for Low-Income Working Families (Vienna, VA: The National Child Care Information Center, October 1999), 5.

24. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families, Access to Child Care for Low-Income Working Families (Vienna, VA: The National Child Care Information Center, October 1999), 4.

25. Ibid.



28. A. Mitchell, L. Stoney and H. Dichter, Financing Child Care in the United States. An Illustrative Catalog of CurrentStrategies (Philadelphia, PA: The Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation and the Pew Charitable Trusts, 1997).

29. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families, Temporary Assistance forNeedy Families (TANF) Program Federal Funds for FYs 97-99 Transferred in FY 1999 - Through the 4th Quarter. Table D -Percentages of Transfer Amounts to CCDF and SSBG, online at http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/ofs/data/g499/table-d.htm.

30. National Governors' Association Center for Best Practices, Trends in Improving Services to Children (Washington, DC:NGA, 1998).

31. Op cit.

32. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families, Access to Child Care for Low-Income Working Families (Vienna, VA: The National Child Care Information Center, October 1999).

33. Sarah C. Shuptrine, Vicki C. Grant, MSW, PhD, and Genny G. McKenzie, MBA, Southern Regional Initiative to ImoroveAccess to Benefits for Low Income Families With Children (Columbia, SC: Southern Institute on Children and Families,February 1998), Chp. 4, pp. 53-71.




37. See Appendix A, Tables 9, 10 and 11.

38. Louise Stoney, Looking Into New Mirrors: Lessons for Early Childhood Finance and System-Building (Dorchester, MA:Horizons Initiative, October 1998).

39. Public Agenda, 2000, Necessary Comoromises: How Parents. Employers. and Children's Advocates View Child CareToday (Washington DC: Public Agenda, 2000, 2000).

40. Anne Mitchell, L. Stoney, and H. Dichter, Financing Child Care in the United States: An Illustrative Catalog of CurrentStrategies (Philadelphia, PA: The Pew Charitable Trusts and the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, 1997).

41. Louise Stoney, Looking Into New Mirrors: Lessons for Early Childhood Finance and System-Building (Dorchester, MA:Horizons Initiative, October 1998).

42. Ibid.

43. Texas Perspectives, Inc., Public Funding of Childcare Services (San Antonio, TX: Texas Perspectives, Inc., 2000).

44. Ibid.

45. M. Rohacek and S. Russell:Child Care $ubsidy: An Investment Strateay for North Carolina (Chapel Hill, NC: Day CareServices Association, December 1996).

41

46. Louise Stoney and J. Daugherty, Access to Child Care Assistance: A Survey of Sixteen Southern States and the Districtof Columbia (Columbia, SC: Southern Institute on Children and Families, 2000).

47. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families Access to Child Care for Low-Income Working Families (Vienna, VA The National Child Care Information Center, October 1999).

48. Deborah Parkinson, Work Family Roundtable: Child Care Services (New York City: The Conference Board, Winter1995).

49. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Investing in Child Care: Challenges Facing Working Parents and the Private SectorResoonse (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Treasury, 1998).

50. U.S. Department of Labor, Futurework: Trends and Challenges for Work in the 21st Century (Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Labor, September 1999).

51. A. Mitchell, L. Stoney and H. Dichter, Financing Child Care in the United States. An Illustrative Catalog of CurrentStrategies (Philadelphia, PA: The Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation and the Pew Charitable Trusts, 1997).

52. Louise Stoney, Child Care in the Southern States: Expanding Access to Affordable Care for Low-Income Families andFostering Economic Development (Columbia, SC: The Southern Institute on Children and Families, April 2000), 12.

53. Louise Stoney and M. Greenberg, "The Financing of Child Care: Current and Emerging Trends," The Future of ChildrenVol . 6, No. 2 (Los Altos, CA: The David and Lucile Packard Foundation, 1996).

54. Sarah C. Shuptrine, Vicki C. Grant, MSW, PhD, and Genny G. McKenzie, MBA, Southern Regional Initiative to ImproveAccess to Benefits for Low Income Families With Children (Columbia, SC: Southern Institute on Children and Families,February 1998), Chp. 4, pp. 53-71.

55. See Appendix, Table 25.

56. G. Adams and K. Schulman, The South: Child Care C.hallenges (Washington, DC: Children's Defense Fund, May 1998).

425 3

App

endi

x

AC

CE

SS T

O C

HIL

D C

AR

E A

SSIS

TA

NC

EA

SU

RV

EY

OF

SIX

TE

EN

SO

UT

HE

RN

ST

AT

ES

AN

D T

HE

DIS

TR

ICT

OF

CO

LU

MB

IA

Prep

ared

for

The

Sou

ther

n In

stitu

te o

n C

hild

ren

and

Fam

ilies

By

Lou

ise

Ston

eyJa

ne D

augh

erty

Ston

ey A

ssoc

iate

s30

8 T

hais

Roa

dA

beri

ll Pa

rk, N

Y 1

2018

Nov

embe

r 20

00

Lis

t of

Tab

les

Tab

le 1

Chi

ld C

are

Ass

ista

nce

for

Em

ploy

ed T

AN

F R

ecip

ient

sT

able

2 C

hild

Car

e A

ssis

tanc

e fo

r T

AN

F R

ecip

ient

s W

ho a

re L

ooki

ng f

or W

ork

Tab

le 3

Chi

ld C

are

Ass

ista

nce

for

TA

NF

Rec

ipie

nts

in a

n A

ppro

ved

Tra

inin

g Pr

ogra

mT

able

4 C

hild

Car

e A

ssis

tanc

e fo

r T

AN

F A

pplic

ants

Div

erte

d fr

om C

ash

Ass

ista

nce

by J

ob S

earc

h an

d/or

Im

med

iate

Em

ploy

men

tT

able

5 C

hild

Car

e A

ssis

tanc

e fo

r T

AN

F R

ecip

ient

s in

Hig

her

Edu

catio

nT

able

6 C

hild

Car

e A

ssis

tanc

e fo

r Fo

rmer

TA

NF

Rec

ipie

nts

Who

Hav

e L

eft T

AN

F D

ue to

Ear

ning

sT

able

7 C

hild

Car

e A

ssis

tanc

e fo

r Fo

rmer

TA

NF

Rec

ipie

nts

Who

are

Cur

rent

ly E

mpl

oyed

and

Hav

e L

eft T

AN

F D

ueto

Tim

e L

imits

Tab

le 8

Chi

ld C

are

Ass

ista

nce

for

Inco

me-

Elig

ible

, Em

ploy

ed F

amili

esT

able

9 C

hild

Car

e A

ssis

tanc

e fo

r In

com

e-E

ligib

le F

amili

es L

ooki

ng f

or W

ork

at I

nitia

l App

licat

ion

Tab

le 1

0 C

hild

Car

e A

ssis

tanc

e fo

r In

com

e-E

ligib

le F

amili

es B

etw

een

Jobs

(i.e

. gap

in e

mpl

oym

ent w

hile

rec

eivi

ngch

ild c

are

subs

idie

s)T

able

11

Chi

ld C

are

Ass

ista

nce

for

Inco

me-

Elig

ible

Fam

ilies

Atte

ndin

g E

duca

tion

or T

rain

ing

Prog

ram

Tab

le 1

2 C

hild

Car

e A

ssis

tanc

e fo

r C

hild

ren

with

Spe

cial

Nee

dsT

able

13

Chi

ld C

are

Ass

ista

nce

for

Chi

ldre

n in

Fos

ter

Car

eT

able

14

Chi

ld C

are

Ass

ista

nce

for

Chi

ldre

n R

ecei

ving

Pro

tect

ive/

Prev

entiv

e C

are

Tab

le 1

5 D

o yo

u co

nsid

er th

e im

mig

ratio

n st

atus

of

the

child

's p

aren

t or

guar

dian

whe

n de

term

inin

g el

igib

ility

for

child

-car

e su

bsid

ies?

Tab

le 1

6 In

com

e E

ligib

ility

Cei

ling

as a

Per

cent

age

of S

tate

wid

e M

edia

n In

com

e (S

MI)

(Si

ngle

Par

ent w

ith T

wo

Chi

ldre

n)T

able

16-

A I

ncom

e E

ligib

ility

Cei

ling

as a

Per

cent

age

of F

eder

al P

over

ty L

evel

(FP

L)

(Sin

gle

Pare

nt w

ith T

wo

Chi

ldre

n)T

able

17

Elig

ibili

ty C

eilin

gs a

nd M

axim

um C

o-Pa

ymen

t for

Fam

ily o

f T

hree

(as

sum

es f

amily

of

3 w

ith o

ne in

fant

and

one

4-ye

ar-o

ld in

ful

l-tim

e, c

ente

r-ba

sed

care

)T

able

18

Co-

Paym

ent f

or F

amily

of

Thr

ee a

t Pov

erty

Lev

el (

assu

mes

fam

ily o

f 3

with

one

infa

nt a

nd o

ne 4

-yea

r-ol

din

ful

l-tim

e, c

ente

r-ba

sed

care

)T

able

19

Inco

me

Dis

rega

rded

Whe

n D

eter

min

ing

Elig

ibili

ty f

or C

hild

Car

e A

ssis

tanc

e

5657

Tab

le 2

0 Fu

nds

Ava

ilabl

e to

Mee

t the

Dem

and

for

Chi

ld C

are

Ass

ista

nce

Tab

le 2

1 St

ate

Req

uire

men

ts f

or F

ace-

to-F

ace

Inte

rvie

w W

hen

App

lyin

g fo

r C

hild

Car

e A

ssis

tanc

eT

able

22

Stat

e R

equi

rem

ents

for

Fac

e-to

-Fac

e In

terv

iew

Whe

n R

edet

erm

inin

g E

ligib

ility

for

Chi

ld C

are

Ass

ista

nce

Tab

le 2

3 St

ate

Polic

ies

Reg

ardi

ng C

oope

ratio

n w

ith C

hild

Sup

port

Enf

orce

men

tT

able

24

Max

imum

Fre

quen

cy o

f C

hild

Car

e E

ligib

ility

Red

eter

min

atio

n (a

ssum

es n

o ch

ange

s in

inco

me

orem

ploy

men

t dur

ing

elig

ibili

ty p

erio

d)T

able

25

Elig

ibili

ty D

eter

min

atio

n fo

r T

rans

ition

al C

hild

Car

eT

able

26

Ver

ific

atio

n D

ocum

ents

Acc

epta

ble

in D

eter

min

ing

and

Red

eter

min

ing

Elig

ibili

ty: I

tem

s to

Ver

ify

Inco

me

Tab

le 2

7 V

erif

icat

ion

Doc

umen

ts A

ccep

tabl

e in

Det

erm

inin

g an

d R

edet

erm

inin

g E

ligib

ility

: Ite

ms

to V

erif

y A

ge o

fC

hild

(ren

)T

able

28

Ver

ific

atio

n D

ocum

ents

Acc

epta

ble

in D

eter

min

ing

and

Red

eter

min

ing

Elig

ibili

ty: O

ther

Doc

umen

tsT

able

29

Bar

rier

s to

Acc

essi

ng C

hild

Car

e A

ssis

tanc

eT

able

30

Out

reac

h A

ctiv

ities

Tab

le 3

1 St

ate

Inco

me

Tax

Pro

visi

ons

for

Chi

ld C

are

5859

Tab

le 1

Chi

ld C

are

Ass

ista

nce

for

Em

ploy

ed T

AN

F R

ecip

ient

s

Stat

e

Chi

ld C

are

isgu

aran

teed

by la

w o

rre

gula

tion

If li

mite

d,nu

mbe

r of

mon

ths

child

care

assi

stan

ce is

avai

labl

e

Chi

ldC

are

prov

ided

only

iffu

nds

avai

labl

e

Chi

ld C

are

prov

ided

onl

y if

fund

s av

aila

ble,

BU

T g

roup

isgi

ven

top

prio

rity

If f

unds

not

avai

labl

e, M

UST

be p

ut o

n w

aitin

glis

t

Var

ies

acro

sslo

calit

ies

Fam

ilyno

tel

igib

leSp

ecia

l pol

icie

s or

rest

rict

ions

Ala

bam

ano

yes

yes

no, b

ut a

llcu

rren

tly s

erve

dno

Ark

ansa

sye

sno

Del

awar

eye

sno

mus

t mee

t inc

ome

guid

elin

es

Dis

tric

t of

Col

umbi

ano

yes

yes

noal

l elig

ible

are

ser

ved

Flor

ida

noye

sno

, pri

ority

2ye

sno

Geo

rgia

nol

yes

yes

no

Ken

tuck

yye

sno

Lou

isia

naye

sno

no

Mar

ylan

dno

yes

yes

yes

no

Mis

siss

ippi

yes

5 ye

ars

no

Mis

sour

ino

yes

yes

yes,

all

serv

edno

Nor

th C

arol

ina

noye

slo

cally

est

ablis

hed

prio

ritie

sye

sye

s

Okl

ahom

ano

'ye

sye

sno

, but

all

serv

edno

Sout

h C

arol

ina

yes

24 m

onth

sno

GA

and

OK

do

not h

ave

a la

w o

r re

gula

tion

that

spe

cifi

es th

at c

hild

car

e is

gua

rant

eed;

but

as

a m

atte

r of

sta

te p

olic

y ch

ildca

re is

"gua

rant

eed"

in th

ese

stat

es f

or c

hild

ren

who

se p

aren

ts a

re a

pplic

ants

or

reci

pien

ts o

f T

AN

F an

d w

ho n

eed

child

car

e to

par

ticip

ate

inst

ate-

appr

oved

act

iviti

es.

6061

Tab

le 1

Chi

ld C

are

Ass

ista

nce

for

Em

ploy

ed T

AN

F R

ecip

ient

s

Stat

e

Chi

ld C

are

isgu

aran

teed

by la

w o

rre

gula

tion

If li

mite

d,nu

mbe

r of

mon

ths

child

care

assi

stan

ce is

avai

labl

e

Chi

ldC

are

prov

ided

only

iffu

nds

avai

labl

e

Chi

ld C

are

prov

ided

onl

y if

fund

s av

aila

ble,

BU

T g

roup

isgi

ven

top

prio

rity

If f

unds

not

avai

labl

e, M

UST

be p

ut o

n w

aitin

glis

t

. Var

ies

acro

sslo

calit

ies

Fam

ilyno

tel

igib

leSp

ecia

l pol

icie

s or

rest

rict

ions

Ten

ness

eeye

sno

Tex

asye

s.

no

guar

ante

ed o

nly

ifpa

rent

(s)

enro

lled

inC

HO

ICE

S (T

AN

Fem

ploy

men

t pro

gram

)

Wes

t Vir

gini

ano

yes

yes

nono

63

Tab

le 2

Chi

ld C

are

Ass

ista

nce

for

TA

NF

Rec

ipie

nts

Who

are

Loo

king

Var

ies

acro

sslo

calit

ies

Fam

ilyno

tel

igib

le

for

Wor

k

Spec

ial p

olic

ies

or r

estr

ictio

nsSt

ate

Chi

ld C

are

isgu

aran

teed

by la

w o

rre

gula

tion

If li

mite

d,nu

mbe

r of

mon

ths

child

care

ass

ista

nce

isav

aila

ble

Chi

ld c

are

prov

ided

only

iffu

nds

avai

labl

e

Chi

ld C

are

prov

ided

onl

y if

fund

s av

aila

ble,

BU

T g

roup

isgi

ven

top

prio

rity

If f

unds

not

avai

labl

e,M

UST

be

put o

nw

aitin

g lis

t_

Ala

bam

ano

yes

yes

no, b

ut a

llse

rved

no

Ark

ansa

sye

sno

Del

awar

eye

sno

Dis

tric

t of

Col

umbi

ano

limite

d to

3m

onth

s_y

esye

sno

no

Flor

ida

noye

sno

, pri

ority

2ye

sno

Geo

rgia

no2

up to

8 w

eeks

per

year

, 1st

inst

ance

no m

ore

than

6w

eeks

yes

yes

no

time

limits

for

job

sear

ch a

reT

AN

F ru

les,

not

chi

ld c

are

rule

s

Ken

tuck

yye

sno

no li

mit

if w

ork

sear

ch is

par

tof

app

rove

d T

AN

F ac

tivity

Lou

isia

nano

noye

s

Mar

ylan

dno

yes

yes

yes

nono

lega

l gua

rant

ees,

but

all

elig

ible

are

ser

ved

Mis

siss

ippi

yes

5 ye

ars

no

Mis

sour

ino

yes

nono

nosy

stem

not

TA

NF-

base

d

2 G

A a

nd O

K d

o no

t hav

e a

law

or

regu

latio

n th

at s

peci

fies

that

chi

ld c

are

is g

uara

ntee

d, b

ut a

s a

mat

ter

of s

tate

pol

icy

child

car

e is

"gua

rant

eed"

for

chi

ldre

n w

hose

par

ents

are

app

lican

ts o

r re

cipi

ents

of

TA

NF

who

nee

d ch

ild c

are

to p

artic

ipat

e in

sta

te-a

ppro

ved

activ

ities

.

t 465

Tab

le 2

Chi

ld C

are

Ass

ista

nce

for

TA

NF

Rec

ipie

nts

Who

are

Loo

king

Var

ies

acro

sslo

calit

ies

Fam

ilyno

tel

igib

le

for

Wor

k

Spec

ial p

olic

ies

or r

estr

ictio

nsSt

ate

Chi

ld C

are

isgu

aran

teed

by la

w o

rre

gula

tion

If li

mite

d,nu

mbe

r of

mon

ths

child

care

ass

ista

nce

isav

aila

ble

Chi

ld c

are

prov

ided

only

iffu

nds

avai

labl

e

Chi

ld C

are

prov

ided

onl

y if

fund

s av

aila

ble,

BU

T g

roup

isgi

ven

top

prio

rity

If f

unds

not

avai

labl

e,M

UST

be

put o

nw

aitin

g lis

t

Nor

thC

arol

ina

no

initi

ally

, up

to 3

0da

ys; m

ay e

xten

dto

60

days

with

case

wor

ker

appr

oval

yes

loca

lly s

etpr

iori

ties

yes

yes

Okl

ahom

ano

2ye

sye

s

no, b

ut a

llcu

rren

tlyse

rved

no

Sout

h C

arol

ina

yes

noif

atte

mpt

ing

to s

tart

a T

AN

Fco

mpo

nent

with

in 2

wee

ks

Ten

ness

eeye

sno

Tex

asye

sno

guar

ante

ed o

nly

if p

aren

t(s)

enro

lled

in C

HO

ICE

S

Wes

t Vir

gini

ano

yes

yes

no

6 7

Tab

le 3

Chi

ld C

are

Ass

ista

nce

for

TA

NF

Rec

ipie

nts

in a

n A

ppro

ved

Tra

inin

g Pr

ogra

m

Stat

e

Chi

ld C

are

isgu

aran

teed

by la

w o

rre

gula

tion

If li

mite

d,nu

mbe

r of

mon

ths

child

care

ass

ista

nce

is a

vaila

ble

Chi

ldC

are

prov

ided

only

iffu

nds

avai

labl

e

Chi

ld C

are

prov

ided

onl

y if

fund

s av

aila

ble,

BU

T g

roup

isgi

ven

top

prio

rity

If f

unds

not

avai

labl

e,M

UST

be

put o

nw

aitin

g lis

t

Var

ies

acro

sslo

calit

ies

.

Fam

ilyno

tel

igib

leSp

ecia

l pol

icie

s or

res

tric

tions

Ala

bam

ano

2 ye

ars

yes

yes

no, b

ut a

llcu

rren

tlyse

rved

nono

tim

e lim

it so

long

as

grad

esar

e sa

tisfa

ctor

y

Ark

ansa

sye

sno

Del

awar

eye

sno

Dis

tric

t of

Col

umbi

ano

vari

es b

ypr

ogra

mye

sye

sno

no

Flor

ida

noye

sno

, pri

ority

2ye

sno

Geo

rgia

no3

yes1

yes1

no

Ken

tuck

yye

sno

Lou

isia

naye

s

.

no

mus

t atte

nd jo

b tr

aini

ngpr

ogra

mor

a c

ombi

natio

n of

job

trai

ning

and

em

ploy

men

tfo

r an

ave

rage

of

20 h

ours

aw

eek

Mar

ylan

dno

yes

yes

yes

nono

lega

l gua

rant

ee, b

ut a

llel

igib

le a

re s

erve

d

Mis

siss

ippi

yes

5 ye

ars

no

Mis

sour

ino

yes

nono

nosy

stem

not

TA

NF-

base

d

3 G

A a

nd O

K d

o no

t hav

e a

law

or

regu

latio

n th

at s

peci

fies

that

chi

ld c

are

is g

uara

ntee

d, b

ut a

s a

mat

ter

of s

tate

pol

icy

child

cas

e is

"gua

rant

eed"

for

chi

ldre

n w

hose

par

ents

are

app

lican

ts o

r re

cipi

ents

of

TA

NF

who

nee

d ch

ild c

are

to p

artic

ipat

e in

sta

te-a

ppro

ved

activ

ities

.

419

'1/4

1.i

69

Tab

le 3

Chi

ld C

are

Ass

ista

nce

for

TA

NF

Rec

ipie

nts

in a

n A

ppro

ved

Tra

inin

gPr

ogra

m

Spec

ial p

olic

ies

or r

estr

ictio

nsSt

ate

Chi

ld C

are

isgu

aran

teed

by la

w o

rre

gula

tion

If li

mite

d,nu

mbe

r of

mon

ths

child

care

ass

ista

nce

is a

vaila

ble

Chi

ldC

are

prov

ided

only

iffu

nds

avai

labl

e

Chi

ld C

are

prov

ided

onl

y if

fund

s av

aila

ble,

BU

T g

roup

isgi

ven

top

prio

rity

If f

unds

not

avai

labl

e,M

UST

be

put o

nw

aitin

g lis

t

Var

ies

acro

sslo

calit

ies

Fam

ilyno

tel

igib

leN

orth

Car

olin

ano

yes

loca

lly s

etyr

iori

ties

yes

yes

Okl

ahom

ano

'ye

sye

s

no, b

ut a

llcu

rren

tlyse

rved

no

Sout

hC

arol

ina

yes

24 m

onth

sno

Ten

ness

eeye

sno

Tex

asye

s

up to

18

mon

ths

in C

HO

ICE

Spr

ogra

mno

guar

ante

ed o

nly

if p

aren

t(s)

enro

lled

in C

HO

ICE

S

Wes

t Vir

gini

ano

yes

yes

no

71

Tab

le 4

Chi

ld C

are

Ass

ista

nce

for

TA

NF

App

lican

ts D

iver

ted

from

Cas

h A

ssis

tanc

eby

Job

Sea

rch

and/

or I

mm

edia

te E

mpl

oym

ent

Stat

e

Chi

ld C

are

isgu

aran

tee

d by

law

orre

gula

tion

If li

mite

d, n

umbe

rof

mon

ths

child

car

eas

sist

ance

isav

aila

ble

Chi

ld C

are

prov

ided

only

iffu

nds

avai

labl

e

Chi

ld C

are

prov

ided

onl

y if

fund

s av

aila

ble,

BU

T g

roup

is g

iven

top

prio

rity

If f

unds

are

not

avai

labl

eM

UST

be

put o

nw

aitin

g lis

t

Polic

yva

ries

acro

sslo

calit

ies

Fam

ilyno

tel

igib

leSp

ecia

l pol

icie

s or

rest

rict

ions

Ala

bam

ano

yes

yes

no

Ark

ansa

sye

sno

mus

t be

empl

oyed

at

leas

t 30

hour

s pe

r w

eek

Del

awar

eye

sno

Dis

tric

t of

Col

umbi

aye

s

up to

3 m

onth

s fo

rjo

b se

arch

; as

long

as e

ligib

le if

imm

edia

tely

empl

oyed

yes

yes

noal

l im

med

iate

lyem

ploy

ed a

re s

erve

d

Flor

ida

noye

sno

, pri

ority

2ye

sno

Geo

rgia

no4

1 ye

arye

s'ye

s'no

Ken

tuck

yye

sno

Lou

isia

naL

ouis

iana

doe

s no

t hav

ea

dive

rsio

n po

licy

Mar

ylan

dno

yes

yes

yes

no

Mis

siss

ippi

yes

5 ye

ars

no

Mis

sour

ino

yes

nono

nosy

stem

not

TA

NF-

base

d

Nor

th C

arol

ina

noye

slo

cally

set

pri

oriti

esye

sye

s

Okl

ahom

ano

4ye

sye

sno

, but

all

no

4 G

A a

nd O

K d

o no

t hav

e a

law

or

regu

latio

n th

at s

peci

fies

that

chi

ld c

are

is g

uara

ntee

d, b

ut a

s a

mat

ter

of s

tate

pol

icy

child

car

e is

"gua

rant

eed"

for

chi

ldre

n w

hose

par

ents

are

app

lican

ts o

r re

cipi

ents

of

TA

NF

who

nee

d ch

ild c

are

to p

artic

ipat

e in

sta

te-a

ppro

ved

activ

ities

. 7.1

73

Tab

le 4

Chi

ld C

are

Ass

ista

nce

for

TA

NF

App

lican

ts D

iver

ted

from

Cas

h A

ssis

tanc

eby

Job

Sea

rch

and/

or I

mm

edia

te E

mpl

oym

ent

Stat

e

Chi

ld C

are

isgu

aran

tee

d by

law

orre

gula

tion

If li

mite

d, n

umbe

rof

mon

ths

child

car

eas

sist

ance

isav

aila

ble

Chi

ld C

are

prov

ided

only

iffu

nds

avai

labl

e

Chi

ld C

are

prov

ided

onl

y if

fund

s av

aila

ble,

BU

T g

roup

is g

iven

top

prio

rity

If f

unds

are

not

avai

labl

eM

UST

be

put o

nw

aitin

g lis

t

Polic

yva

ries

acro

sslo

calit

ies

Fam

ilyno

tel

igib

leSp

ecia

l pol

icie

s or

rest

rict

ions

serv

ed

Sout

h C

arol

ina

yes

curr

ently

2 w

eeks

*ye

sye

sno

no

*pla

n to

beg

in f

undi

ngel

igib

le f

amili

es f

or 5

2w

eeks

Ten

ness

eeN

/AT

enne

ssee

doe

s no

t hav

ea

dive

rsio

n po

licy

Tex

asye

s12

mon

ths

no

mus

t hav

e re

ceiv

ed a

refe

rral

to a

ttend

aw

orkf

orce

ori

enta

tion

and

mus

t hav

e lo

cate

dem

ploy

men

t

Wes

t Vir

gini

ano

yes

nono

, but

all

serv

ed

Is

Tab

le 5

Chi

ld C

are

Ass

ista

nce

for

TA

NF

Rec

ipie

nts

in H

ighe

r E

duca

tion

Stat

e

Chi

ld C

are

isgu

aran

teed

by la

w o

rre

gula

tion

If li

mite

d,le

ngth

of

time

child

car

eas

sist

ance

isav

aila

ble

Chi

ld C

are

prov

ided

only

iffu

nds

avai

labl

e

Chi

ld C

are

prov

ided

onl

y if

fund

s av

aila

ble,

BU

T g

roup

is g

iven

top

prio

rity

If f

unds

not

avai

labl

e,M

UST

be

put o

nw

aitin

g lis

t

Var

ies

acro

sslo

calit

ies

._

Fam

ilyno

tel

igib

leSp

ecia

l pol

icie

s or

rest

rict

ions

Ala

bam

ano

yes

yes

no, b

ut a

llcu

rren

tlyse

rved

no

mus

t be

in a

2-y

ear

prog

ram

or

the

last

2 y

ears

of a

4-y

ear

degr

ee

Ark

ansa

sye

sno

if 2

- or

4-y

ear

high

ered

ucat

ion

is a

ppro

ved,

TA

NF

wor

k ac

tivity

and

fam

ily is

rec

eivi

ng c

ash

assi

stan

ce

Del

awar

eye

sno

polic

y sa

me

for

appr

oved

2-

and

4-ye

ar c

olle

ge

Dis

tric

t of

Col

umbi

aye

sye

sye

sno

polic

y sa

me

for

appr

oved

2-

and

4-ye

ar c

olle

ge

Flor

ida

noye

sno

, pri

ority

2ye

sno

polic

y sa

me

for

appr

oved

2-

and

4-ye

ar c

olle

ge

Geo

rgia

nono

yes

high

er e

d. is

not

allo

wed

as

an e

xclu

sive

act

ivity

Ken

tuck

yye

sno

educ

atio

n m

ust b

e an

appr

oved

TA

NF

activ

ity;

may

be

2- o

r 4-

year

col

lege

Lou

isia

naye

s

1

no.

no

reci

pien

t mus

t hav

e hi

gher

ed. (

2- o

r 4-

year

) ap

prov

edby

TA

NF

and

mus

t atte

ndco

llege

or a

com

bina

tion

of e

duca

tion

and

empl

oym

ent

for

anav

erag

e of

20

hour

s a

wee

k

7 1 4

Tab

le 5

Chi

ld C

are

Ass

ista

nce

for

TA

NF

Rec

ipie

nts

in H

ighe

r E

duca

tion

Stat

e

Chi

ld C

are

isgu

aran

teed

by la

w o

rre

gula

tion

If li

mite

d,le

ngth

of

time

child

car

eas

sist

ance

isav

aila

ble

Chi

ld C

are

prov

ided

only

iffu

nds

avai

labl

e

Chi

ld C

are

prov

ided

onl

y if

fund

s av

aila

ble,

BU

T g

roup

is g

iven

top

prio

rity

If f

unds

not

avai

labl

e,M

UST

be

put o

nw

aitin

g lis

t

Var

ies

acro

sslo

calit

ies

Fam

ilyno

tel

igib

leSp

ecia

l pol

icie

s or

rest

rict

ions

Mar

ylan

dno

yes

nono

yes

mos

t loc

aliti

es a

llow

onl

y2-

year

hig

her

educ

atio

n

Mis

siss

ippi

nono

yes

stat

e pl

an d

oes

prov

ide

child

car

e fo

r hi

gher

educ

atio

n un

less

fam

ily is

also

mee

ting

wor

kre

quir

emen

t

Mis

sour

ino

yes

nono

nopo

licy

sam

e fo

r ap

prov

ed 2

-an

d 4-

year

col

lege

Nor

th C

arol

ina

no24

mon

ths

yes

loca

lly e

stab

lishe

dpr

iori

ties

yes

yes

Okl

ahom

ano

5ye

sye

s

no, b

ut a

llcu

rren

tlyse

rved

no

Sout

h C

arol

ina

yes

no

Ten

ness

eeye

sno

mus

t be

enro

lled

as a

ful

l-tim

e hi

gher

edu

catio

nst

uden

t

Tex

asye

stim

e lim

itsva

ry b

y lo

calit

y

only

tim

elim

itsva

ry

guar

ante

ed o

nly

ifpa

rent

(s)

enro

lled

inC

HO

ICE

S

Wes

t Vir

gini

ano

yes

no

no, b

ut a

llcu

rren

tlyse

rved

no

OK

doe

s no

t hav

e a

law

or

regu

latio

n th

at s

peci

fies

that

chi

ld c

are

is g

uara

ntee

d, b

ut a

s a

mat

ter

of s

tate

pol

icy

child

car

e is

"gua

rant

eed"

for

child

ren

who

se p

aren

ts a

re a

pplic

ants

or

reci

pien

ts o

f T

AN

F w

ho n

eed

child

car

e to

par

ticip

ate

in s

tate

-app

rove

d ac

tiviti

es.

7879

Tab

le 6

Chi

ld C

are

Ass

ista

nce

for

Form

er T

AN

F R

ecip

ient

sW

ho H

ave

Lef

t TA

NF

Due

to E

arni

ngs

Stat

e

Chi

ld C

are

isgu

aran

teed

by la

w o

rre

gula

tion

If li

mite

d, le

ngth

of

time

child

car

eas

sist

ance

isav

aila

ble

Chi

ldC

are

prov

ided

only

iffu

nds

avai

labl

e

Chi

ld C

are

prov

ided

only

iffu

nds

avai

labl

e,B

UT

gro

upis

giv

en to

ppr

iori

ty

If f

unds

not

avai

labl

e,M

UST

be

put

on w

aitin

glis

t

Var

ies

acro

sslo

calit

ies

Fam

ilyno

tel

igib

leSp

ecia

l pol

icie

s or

rest

rict

ions

Ala

bam

ano

yes

noye

sno

mus

t app

ly w

ithin

6 m

onth

saf

ter

leav

ing

TA

NF

in o

rder

to a

void

wai

ting

list

Ark

ansa

sye

sup

to 3

6 m

onth

sno

Del

awar

eye

sas

long

as

mee

tin

com

e gu

idel

ines

no

Dis

tric

t of

Col

umbi

ano

as lo

ng a

s el

igib

leye

sno

noal

l elig

ible

who

app

ly a

recu

rren

tly s

erve

d

Flor

ida

no24

mon

ths

yes

no, p

rior

ity3

yes

no

Geo

rgia

no6

12 m

onth

s T

CC

plus

con

tinue

dse

rvic

esye

sye

sno

"sea

mle

ss"

serv

ices

if f

amily

rem

ains

inco

me-

elig

ible

Ken

tuck

yye

s12

mon

ths

no

fam

ily m

ust r

emai

nem

ploy

ed w

ith in

com

e at

or

belo

w 8

5% o

f SM

I

Lou

isia

naye

sup

to 3

mon

ths

no

Mar

ylan

dno

yes

yes

yes

no

Mis

siss

ippi

yes

12 m

onth

sno

6 G

A d

oes

not h

ave

a la

w o

r re

gula

tion

that

spe

cifi

es th

at c

hild

car

e is

gua

rant

eed,

but

as

a m

atte

r of

sta

te p

olic

y ch

ild c

are

is "

guar

ante

ed"

for

child

ren

who

se p

aren

ts a

re a

pplic

ants

or

reci

pien

ts o

f T

AN

F w

ho n

eed

child

car

e to

par

ticip

ate

in s

tate

-app

rove

d ac

tiviti

es.

81

Tab

le 6

Chi

ld C

are

Ass

ista

nce

for

Form

er T

AN

F R

ecip

ient

sW

ho H

ave

Lef

t TA

NF

Due

to E

arni

ngs

Stat

e

Chi

ld C

are

isgu

aran

teed

by la

w o

rre

gula

tion

If li

mite

d, le

ngth

of

time

child

car

eas

sist

ance

isav

aila

ble

Chi

ldC

are

prov

ided

only

iffu

nds

avai

labl

e

Chi

ld C

are

prov

ided

only

iffu

nds

avai

labl

e,B

UT

gro

upis

giv

en to

ppr

iori

ty

If f

unds

not

avai

labl

e,M

UST

be

put

on w

aitin

glis

t

Var

ies

acro

sslo

calit

ies

.

Fam

ilyno

tel

igib

leSp

ecia

l pol

icie

s or

rest

rict

ions

Mis

sour

ino

yes

nono

nosy

stem

not

TA

NF-

base

d

Nor

th C

arol

ina

noye

slo

cally

set

prio

ritie

sye

sye

s

mus

t mee

t elig

ibili

tycr

iteri

a of

em

ploy

men

t,ed

ucat

ion,

CW

S, C

PS o

rde

velo

pmen

tal n

eeds

Okl

ahom

ano

6ye

sye

s

no, b

ut a

llcu

rren

tlyse

rved

no

Sout

h C

arol

ina

yes

24 m

onth

sno

Ten

ness

eeye

s18

mon

ths

no

mus

t hav

e so

me

paid

empl

oym

ent a

nd to

tal h

ours

of a

ctiv

ity m

ust b

e 20

hou

rsor

gre

ater

Tex

asye

s12

mon

ths

tran

sitio

nal

no

entit

led

to 1

8 m

onth

str

ansi

tiona

l if

exem

pt f

rom

CH

OIC

ES

and

volu

ntar

ilypa

rtic

ipat

ed

Wes

t Vir

gini

ano

yes

yes

no, b

ut a

ll ar

ese

rved

no

8 3

Tab

le 7

Chi

ld C

are

Ass

ista

nce

for

Form

er T

AN

F R

ecip

ient

s W

ho a

reC

urre

ntly

Em

ploy

ed a

nd H

ave

Lef

t TA

NF

Due

to T

ime

Lim

its

Stat

e

Chi

ld C

are

isgu

aran

teed

by

law

or

regu

latio

n

If li

mite

d,le

ngth

of

time

child

care

assi

stan

ce is

avai

labl

e

Chi

ldC

are

prov

ided

only

iffu

nds

avai

labl

e

Chi

ld C

are

prov

ided

only

if f

unds

avai

labl

e, B

UT

gro

upis

giv

en to

p pr

iori

ty

If f

unds

not

avai

labl

e,M

UST

be

put

on w

aitin

glis

t

Var

ies

acro

sslo

calit

ies

Fam

ilyno

tel

igib

leSp

ecia

l pol

icie

s or

rest

rict

ions

Ala

bam

ano

yes

yes

no

mus

t app

ly w

ithin

6m

onth

s of

leav

ing

TA

NF

to a

void

wai

ting

list

Ark

ansa

sno

yes

noye

sno

Del

awar

eye

sno

Dis

tric

t of

Col

umbi

ano

not l

imite

dye

sno

no

Flor

ida

noye

sno

,pri

ority

3ye

sno

Geo

rgia

noye

sno

fam

ily m

ay r

ecei

ve c

hild

care

ass

ista

nce

if th

eym

eet i

ncom

e an

dem

ploy

men

t/ tr

aini

ngel

igib

ility

cri

teri

a

Ken

tuck

yye

s12

mon

ths

no

child

car

e is

ass

ured

iffa

mily

is e

mpl

oyed

,ea

rnin

g le

ss th

an 8

5% o

fth

e SM

I, a

nd le

aves

TA

NF

for

any

reas

on

Lou

isia

nano

yes

no

Mar

ylan

dno

yes

noye

sno

Mis

siss

ippi

yes

12 m

onth

sno

Mis

sour

ino

yes

nono

no

Nor

thC

arol

ina

noye

slo

cally

set

pri

oriti

esye

sye

s

3435

Tab

le 7

Chi

ld C

are

Ass

ista

nce

for

Form

er T

AN

F R

ecip

ient

s W

ho a

reC

urre

ntly

Em

ploy

ed a

nd H

ave

Lef

t TA

NF

Due

to T

ime

Lim

its

Stat

e

Chi

ld C

are

isgu

aran

teed

by

law

or

regu

latio

n

If li

mite

d,le

ngth

of

time

child

care

assi

stan

ce is

avai

labl

e

Chi

ldC

are

prov

ided

only

iffu

nds

avai

labl

e

Chi

ld C

are

prov

ided

only

if f

unds

avai

labl

e, B

UT

gro

upis

giv

en to

p pr

iori

ty

If f

unds

not

avai

labl

e,M

UST

be

put

on w

aitin

glis

t

. Var

ies

acro

sslo

calit

ies

.

Fam

ilyno

tel

igib

leSp

ecia

l pol

icie

s or

rest

rict

ions

Okl

ahom

ano

yes

no, p

rior

ity 2

no, b

ut a

llse

rved

no

Sout

h C

arol

ina

yes

up to

24

mon

ths

no

indi

vidu

als

who

bec

ome

empl

oyed

with

in tw

o ye

ars

of lo

sing

TA

NF

assi

stan

cedu

e to

tim

e lim

its m

ayap

ply

for

tran

sitio

nal c

hild

care

onc

e th

ey b

ecom

eem

ploy

ed; i

f th

ey r

emai

nel

igib

le, m

ay r

ecei

ve c

hild

care

for

2 y

ears

Ten

ness

eeye

s18

mon

ths

no

wor

k, e

duca

tion

and

trai

ning

may

be

com

bine

dto

equ

al f

ull-

time

empl

oym

ent

Tex

asno

yes

noye

sno

Wes

t Vir

gini

ano

yes

nono

no

syst

em b

ased

on

inco

me

elig

ibili

ty, r

egar

dles

s of

TA

NF

stat

us

87

Tab

le 8

Chi

ld C

are

Ass

ista

nce

for

Inco

me-

Elig

ible

, Em

ploy

ed F

amili

es

Stat

e

Chi

ld C

are

isgu

aran

teed

by la

w o

rre

gula

tion

If li

mite

d,le

ngth

of

time

child

car

eas

sist

ance

isav

aila

ble

Chi

ld C

are

prov

ided

only

if f

unds

avai

labl

e

Chi

ld C

are

prov

ided

onl

y if

fund

s av

aila

ble,

BU

T g

roup

is g

iven

top

prio

rity

If f

unds

not

avai

labl

e,M

UST

be

put

on w

aitin

glis

t

Var

ies

acro

sslo

calit

ies

Fam

ilyno

tel

igib

leSp

ecia

l pol

icie

s or

rest

rict

ions

Ala

bam

ano

yes

noye

sno

Ark

ansa

sno

yes

nono

no

Del

awar

eno

yes

noye

sno

Dis

tric

t of

Col

umbi

ano

yes

nono

no

Flor

ida

noye

sno

, pri

ority

3ye

sno

Geo

rgia

noye

sno

nono

Ken

tuck

yno

yes

nono

no

Lou

isia

nano

yes

nono

no-

Mar

ylan

dno

yes

noye

sno

Mis

siss

ippi

noye

sno

yes

no

Mis

sour

ino

yes

nono

no

Nor

th C

arol

ina

noye

slo

cally

set

pri

oriti

esye

sye

s

Okl

ahom

ano

yes

no, p

rior

ity 2

no, b

ut a

llcu

rren

tlyse

rved

no

Sout

h C

arol

ina

noye

sno

nono

Ten

ness

eeno

yes

noye

sno

89

Tab

le 8

Chi

ld C

are

Ass

ista

nce

for

Inco

me-

Elig

ible

, Em

ploy

ed F

amili

es

Stat

e

Chi

ld C

are

isgu

aran

teed

by la

w o

rre

gula

tion

If li

mite

d,le

ngth

of

time

child

car

eas

sist

ance

isav

aila

ble

Chi

ld C

are

prov

ided

only

if f

unds

avai

labl

e

Chi

ld C

are

prov

ided

onl

y if

fund

s av

aila

ble,

BU

T g

roup

is g

iven

top

prio

rity

If f

unds

not

avai

labl

e,M

UST

be

put

on w

aitin

glis

t

Var

ies

acro

sslo

calit

ies

Fam

ilyno

tel

igib

leSp

ecia

l pol

icie

s or

rest

rict

ions

Tex

asno

yes

noye

sno

polic

y re

gard

ing

prio

rity

for

ser

vice

sdo

es n

ot v

ary,

but

inco

me

limits

for

elig

ibili

ty d

o va

ry b

ylo

calit

y

Wes

t Vir

gini

ano

yes

no

no, b

ut a

llel

igib

les

serv

edno

syst

em b

ased

on

inco

me

elig

ibili

ty,

rega

rdle

ss o

f T

AN

Fst

atus

9091

Tab

le 9

Chi

ld C

are

Ass

ista

nce

for

Inco

me-

Elig

ible

Fam

ilies

Loo

king

for

Wor

kat

Ini

tial A

pplic

atio

n

..

Stat

e

Chi

ld C

are

isgu

aran

teed

by la

w o

rre

gula

tion

For

how

long

if f

amily

mee

ts in

com

eel

igib

ility

crite

ria

Chi

ldC

are

prov

ided

only

iffu

nds

avai

labl

e

Chi

ld C

are

prov

ided

onl

y if

fund

s av

aila

ble,

BU

T g

roup

isgi

ven

top

prio

rity

If f

unds

not

avai

labl

e,M

UST

be

put o

nw

aitin

glis

t

Var

ies

acro

sslo

calit

ies

Fam

ilyno

tel

igib

leSp

ecia

l pol

icie

s or

rest

rict

ions

Ala

bam

ano

noye

s

Ark

ansa

sno

10 d

ays

yes

noye

sno

Del

awar

eno

noye

s

Dis

tric

t of

Col

umbi

ano

12 w

eeks

yes

nono

no

Flor

ida

nono

t lim

ited

byst

ate

yes

no, p

rior

ity 3

yes

no

Geo

rgia

nono

yes

Ken

tuck

yno

noye

s

reci

pien

ts w

ho h

ave

alre

ady

secu

red

but n

ot b

egun

empl

oym

ent w

hen

they

app

lym

ay r

ecei

ve c

hild

car

esu

bsid

ies

for

up to

2 w

eeks

prio

r to

sta

rtin

g th

e jo

b if

the

care

oth

erw

ise

wou

ld b

e lo

st

Lou

isia

nano

noye

s

Mar

ylan

dno

1 m

onth

yes

nono

no

Mis

siss

ippi

nono

t lim

ited

byst

ate

yes

noye

sno

Mis

sour

ino

not l

imite

d by

stat

eye

sno

nono

Nor

th C

arol

ina

nono

t lim

ited

byst

ate

yes

loca

lly s

etpr

iori

ties

yes

yes

9293

Tab

le 9

Chi

ld C

are

Ass

ista

nce

for

Inco

me-

Elig

ible

Fam

ilies

Loo

king

for

Wor

kat

Ini

tial A

pplic

atio

n

Stat

e

Chi

ld C

are

isgu

aran

teed

by la

w o

rre

gula

tion

For

how

long

if f

amily

mee

ts in

com

eel

igib

ility

crite

ria

Chi

ldC

are

prov

ided

only

iffu

nds

avai

labl

e

Clii

ld C

are

prov

ided

onl

y if

fund

s av

aila

ble,

BU

T g

roup

isgi

ven

top

prio

rity

If f

unds

not

avai

labl

e,M

UST

be

put o

nw

aitin

glis

t

Var

ies

acro

sslo

calit

ies

Fam

ilyno

tel

igib

leSp

ecia

l pol

icie

s or

rest

rict

ions

Okl

ahom

ano

yes

.

Sout

h C

arol

ina

noye

s

reci

pien

ts w

ho h

ave

alre

ady

secu

red

but n

ot b

egun

empl

oym

ent w

hen

they

app

lym

ay r

ecei

ve c

hild

car

esu

bsid

ies

for

up to

2 w

eeks

prio

r to

sta

rtin

g th

e jo

b if

the

care

oth

erw

ise

wou

ld b

e lo

st

Ten

ness

eeno

yes

Tex

asno

yes

Wes

t Vir

gini

ano

noye

s

9495

Tab

le 1

0C

hild

Car

e A

ssis

tanc

e fo

r In

com

e-E

ligib

le F

amili

es B

etw

een

Jobs

(i.e

. gap

in e

mpl

oym

ent w

hile

rec

eivi

ng c

hild

car

e su

bsid

ies)

Stat

e

Chi

ld C

are

isgu

aran

teed

by

law

or

regu

latio

n

If li

mite

d,le

ngth

of

time

child

car

eas

sist

ance

isav

aila

ble

Chi

ld C

are

prov

ided

only

iffu

nds

avai

labl

e

Chi

ld C

are

prov

ided

onl

y if

fund

s av

aila

ble,

BU

T g

roup

isgi

ven

top

prio

rity

If f

unds

not

avai

labl

e,M

UST

be

put o

nw

aitin

g lis

t

Var

ies

acro

sslo

calit

ies

Fam

ily n

otel

igib

leSp

ecia

l pol

icie

sor

res

tric

tions

Ala

bam

ano

noye

s

Ark

ansa

sno

10 d

ays

yes

yes

nono

Del

awar

eno

1 m

onth

yes

noye

sno

Dis

tric

t of

Col

umbi

ano

12 w

eeks

yes

nono

no

Flor

ida

no1

mon

thye

sno

, pri

ority

3no

no

Geo

rgia

no2

wee

ksye

sye

s.

nono

Ken

tuck

yno

1 m

onth

yes

nono

no

Lou

isia

nano

nono

yes

Mar

ylan

dno

1 m

onth

yes

noye

sno

Mis

siss

ippi

no2

mon

ths

yes

yes

nono

Mis

sour

ino

30 d

ays

yes

nono

no

Nor

th C

arol

ina

no

initi

ally

, up

to30

day

s; m

ayex

tend

to 6

0da

ys w

ithca

sew

orke

rap

prov

alye

slo

cally

set

prio

ritie

sye

sye

s

Okl

ahom

ano

no

no, b

ut a

llcu

rren

tlyse

rved

noye

s

Sout

h C

arol

ina

no1

mon

thye

sye

sno

no

97

Tab

le 1

0C

hild

Car

e A

ssis

tanc

e fo

r In

com

e-E

ligib

le F

amili

es B

etw

een

Jobs

(i.e

. gap

in e

mpl

oym

ent w

hile

child

car

e su

bsid

ies)

Stat

e

Chi

ld C

are

isgu

aran

teed

by

law

or

regu

latio

n

If li

mite

d,le

ngth

of

time

child

car

eas

sist

ance

isav

aila

ble

Chi

ld C

are

prov

ided

only

iffu

nds

avai

labl

e

Chi

ld C

are

prov

ided

onl

y if

fund

s av

aila

ble,

BU

T g

roup

isgi

ven

top

prio

rity

If f

unds

not

avai

labl

e,M

UST

be

put o

nw

aitin

g lis

t

Var

ies

acro

sslo

calit

ies

Fam

ily n

otel

igib

leSp

ecia

l pol

icie

sor

res

tric

tions

Ten

ness

eeno

1 m

onth

yes

noye

sno

Tex

asno

nono

yes

Wes

t Vir

gini

ano

1 m

onth

yes

yes

nono

Tab

le 1

1C

hild

Car

e A

ssis

tanc

e fo

r In

com

e-E

ligib

le F

amili

es A

ttend

ing

Edu

catio

nor

Tra

inin

g Pr

ogra

m

Stat

e

Chi

ld C

are

isgu

aran

teed

by la

w o

rre

gula

tion

If li

mite

d,le

ngth

of

time

child

care

assi

stan

ceis

ava

ilabl

e

Chi

ldC

are

prov

ided

only

iffu

nds

avai

labl

e

Chi

ld C

are

prov

ided

onl

y if

fund

s av

aila

ble,

BU

T g

roup

isgi

ven

top

prio

rity

If f

unds

not

avai

labl

e,M

UST

be

put o

nw

aitin

glis

t

Var

ies

acro

sslo

calit

ies

.

Fam

ilyno

tel

igib

leSp

ecia

l pol

icie

s or

res

tric

tions

Ala

bam

ano

yes

noye

s

high

er e

duca

tion

only

elig

ible

if it

is 2

-ye

ar p

rogr

am o

r th

e la

st 2

yea

rs o

f a

4-ye

ar d

egre

e

Ark

ansa

sno

yes

nono

no

Del

awar

eno

yes

noye

sno

Dis

tric

t of

Col

umbi

ano

yes

nono

no

Flor

ida

nono

noye

s

Geo

rgia

noye

sno

yes

note

en p

aren

ts a

ttend

ing

high

sch

ool/G

ED

prog

ram

are

giv

en p

rior

ity

Ken

tuck

yno

yes

nono

no

Lou

isia

nano

yes

nono

no

mus

t atte

nd jo

b tr

aini

ng p

rogr

amor

aco

mbi

natio

n of

job

trai

ning

and

empl

oym

ent

for

an a

vera

ge o

f 20

hour

s a

wee

k

Mar

ylan

dno

yes

noye

sye

sso

me

area

s do

not

allo

w 4

-yea

r co

llege

Mis

siss

ippi

noye

sno

yes

no

full-

time

stud

ents

are

not

req

uire

d to

mee

t a w

ork

requ

irem

ent,

but p

art-

time

stud

ents

mus

t wor

k at

leas

t 10

hour

s a

wee

k

Mis

sour

ino

yes

nono

no

Nor

thC

arol

ina

noye

slo

cally

set

prio

ritie

sye

sye

slim

ited

to a

tota

l of

2 ye

ars

if e

nrol

led

inpo

st-s

econ

dary

edu

catio

n

10)

101

Tab

le I

IC

hild

Car

e A

ssis

tanc

e fo

r In

com

e-E

ligib

le F

amili

es A

ttend

ing

Edu

catio

nor

Tra

inin

g Pr

ogra

m

Stat

e

Chi

ld C

are

isgu

aran

teed

by la

w o

rre

gula

tion

If li

mite

d,le

ngth

of

time

child

care

assi

stan

ceis

ava

ilabl

e

Chi

ldC

are

prov

ided

only

iffu

nds

avai

labl

e

Chi

ld C

are

prov

ided

onl

y if

fund

s av

aila

ble,

BU

T g

roup

isgi

ven

top

prio

rity

If f

unds

not

avai

labl

e,M

UST

be

put o

nw

aitin

glis

t

Var

ies

acro

sslo

calit

ies

Fam

ilyno

tel

igib

leSp

ecia

l pol

icie

s or

res

tric

tions

Okl

ahom

ano

yes

no, p

rior

ity 3

.

no

no, b

utal

lcu

rren

tlyse

rved

up to

4 y

ears

of

colle

ge

Sout

hC

arol

ina

noye

sye

sno

no

Ten

ness

eeno

yes

noye

sno

educ

atio

n or

trai

ning

mus

t be

full-

time

Tex

asno

vari

es b

ylo

calit

yye

sno

yes

nopr

iori

ty f

or, s

ervi

ces

does

not

var

y, b

uttim

e lim

its f

or e

ligib

ility

var

y by

loca

lity

Wes

tV

irgi

nia

noye

sno

nono

job

trai

ning

/edu

catio

n de

fine

d as

on-

the-

job

trai

ning

, CW

EP,

voc

atio

nal t

rain

ing,

seco

ndar

y sc

hool

pro

gram

s, p

ost-

seco

ndar

y sc

hool

pro

gram

s, c

olle

ges

and

uniV

ersi

ties;

als

o co

unt 1

to 3

hou

rs o

fst

udy

time

per

hour

of

clas

sroo

mac

tivity

103

Tab

le 1

2C

hild

Car

e A

ssis

tanc

e fo

r C

hild

ren

with

Spe

cial

Nee

ds

Stat

e

Chi

ld C

are

isgu

aran

teed

by

law

or

regu

latio

n

If li

mite

d,le

ngth

of

time

child

car

eas

sist

ance

isav

aila

ble

Chi

ld C

are

prov

ided

only

if f

unds

avai

labl

e

Chi

ld C

are

prov

ided

onl

y if

fund

s av

aila

ble,

BU

T g

roup

isgi

ven

top

prio

rity

If f

unds

not

avai

labl

e,M

UST

be

put

on w

aitin

g lis

t

. Var

ies

acro

sslo

calit

ies

Fam

ilyno

tel

igib

leSp

ecia

l pol

icie

s or

rest

rict

ions

Ala

bam

ano

yes

noye

s

Ark

ansa

sno

yes

nono

nono

rat

e di

ffer

entia

l

Del

awar

eno

yes

yes

yes

no

Dis

tric

t of

Col

umbi

ano

yes

yes

nono

no in

com

e lim

it

Flor

ida

noye

sno

nono

not t

reat

ed a

s sp

ecia

lne

eds

for

cert

ific

atio

n,bu

t dif

fere

ntia

l pay

men

tra

teG

eorg

iano

yes

yes

nono

Ken

tuck

yno

yes

nono

nofa

mily

mus

t be

inco

me-

elig

ible

Lou

isia

nano

.ye

sno

nono

Mar

ylan

dno

yes

yes,

with

in e

ach

prio

rity

cat

egor

yye

sno

fam

ily m

ust b

e in

com

e-el

igib

le

Mis

siss

ippi

noye

sno

, pri

ority

2ye

sno

high

er r

eim

burs

emen

tra

tes

Mis

sour

ino

yes

yes

yes

no

no s

lidin

g fe

e; r

ates

bas

edon

dev

elop

men

tal a

ge o

fch

ild

Nor

thC

arol

ina

noye

slo

cally

set

prio

ritie

sye

sye

s

1 0

41

0 5

_

Tab

le 1

2C

hild

Car

e A

ssis

tanc

e fo

r C

hild

ren

with

Spe

cial

Nee

ds

Stat

e

Chi

ld C

are

isgu

aran

teed

by

law

or

regu

latio

n

If li

mite

d,le

ngth

of

time

child

car

eas

sist

ance

isav

aila

ble

Chi

ld C

are

prov

ided

only

if f

unds

avai

labl

e

Chi

ld C

are

prov

ided

onl

y if

fund

s av

aila

ble,

BU

T g

roup

isgi

ven

top

prio

rity

If f

unds

not

avai

labl

e,M

UST

be

put

on w

aitin

g lis

t

Var

ies

acro

sslo

calit

ies

Fam

ilyno

tel

igib

leSp

ecia

l pol

icie

s or

rest

rict

ions

Okl

ithom

ano

yes

yes

no, b

ut a

llse

rved

no

high

er r

eim

burs

emen

tra

te; p

aren

t of

child

on

SSI

has

no c

o-pa

y

Sout

hC

arol

ina

noye

sye

sno

no

diff

eren

t elig

ibili

tycr

iteri

a (m

edic

alex

pens

es d

educ

ted

from

inco

me)

; sta

te h

as s

peci

alne

eds

"set

-asi

de"

Ten

ness

eeye

s18

mon

ths

'no

no p

aren

tal e

mpl

oym

ent

requ

ired

; hig

her

inco

me

limit

(75%

of

the

SMI)

Tex

asno

yes

noye

sno

Wes

tV

irgi

nia

noye

sye

sno

nom

ust b

e in

com

e-el

igib

le;

high

er p

aym

ent r

ate

106

107

Tab

le 1

3C

hild

Car

e A

ssis

tanc

e fo

r C

hild

ren

in F

oste

r C

are

Stat

e

Chi

ld C

are

isgu

aran

teed

by

law

or

regu

latio

n

If li

mite

d,le

ngth

of

time

child

car

eas

sist

ance

isav

aila

ble

Chi

ld C

are

prov

ided

only

iffu

nds

avai

labl

e

Chi

ld C

are

prov

idei

l onl

y if

fund

s av

aila

ble,

BU

T g

roup

isgi

ven

top

prio

rity

If f

unds

not

avai

labl

e,M

UST

be

put

on w

aitin

glis

t

Var

ies

acro

sslo

calit

ies

Fam

ilyno

tel

igib

leSp

ecia

l pol

icie

s or

res

tric

tions

Ala

bam

ano

yes

yes

no

Aik

ansa

sye

sno

child

car

e is

gua

rant

eed

only

ifch

ild c

are

is r

efle

cted

in th

eca

se m

anag

emen

t pla

n; f

amily

does

not

hav

e to

be

inco

me-

elig

ible

; fun

ds f

rom

SSB

G o

rIV

-B

Del

awar

eno

yes

noye

sno

Dis

tric

t of

Col

umbi

ano

yes

yes

nono

no in

com

e lim

it

Flor

ida

noye

sye

s

all c

hild

ren

serv

ed; t

oppr

iori

tyno

yes,

fos

ter

pare

nt m

ust b

eem

ploy

ed u

nles

s ot

herw

ise

spec

ifie

d in

ther

apeu

tic p

lan

Geo

rgia

no7

yes'

yes'

yes

nofo

ster

par

ents

mus

t be

wor

king

or in

edu

catio

n/tr

aini

ng

Ken

tuck

yno

nono

N/A

no

paid

fro

m d

iffe

rent

fun

ding

sour

ce a

nd a

dmin

iste

red

sepa

rate

ly

Lou

isia

nano

yes

nono

no

Mar

ylan

dN

/Ach

ild c

are

for

this

gro

uppr

ovid

ed b

y an

othe

r sy

stem

Geo

rgia

doe

s no

t hav

e a

law

or

regu

latio

n th

at g

uara

ntee

s ch

ild c

are.

How

ever

, as

a m

atte

r of

sta

te p

olic

y ch

ild c

are

is "

guar

ante

ed"

for

child

ren

who

are

in th

e cu

stod

y of

the

Dep

artm

ent o

f Fa

mily

and

Chi

ldre

n Se

rvic

es; c

hild

ren

who

are

in c

ourt

-ord

ered

sup

ervi

sion

whe

rech

ild c

are

is p

art o

f th

e co

urt o

rder

/cas

e pl

an; a

nd c

hild

ren

in f

amili

es w

ith o

pen

Chi

ld P

rote

ctiv

e Se

rvic

es c

ases

whe

re c

hild

car

e is

par

t of

the

case

pla

n.

9

Tab

le 1

3C

hild

Car

e A

ssis

tanc

e fo

r C

hild

ren

in F

oste

r C

are

Stat

e

Chi

ld C

are

isgu

aran

teed

by

law

or

regu

latio

n

If li

mite

d,le

ngth

of

time

child

car

eas

sist

ance

isav

aila

ble

Chi

ld C

are

prov

ided

only

iffu

nds

avai

labl

e

Chi

ld C

are

prov

ided

onl

y if

fund

s av

aila

ble,

BU

T g

roup

isgi

ven

top

prio

rity

If f

unds

not

avai

labl

e,M

UST

be

put

on w

aitin

glis

t

Var

ies

acro

sslo

calit

ies

Fam

ilyno

tel

igib

leSp

ecia

l pol

icie

s or

res

tric

tions

Mis

siss

ippi

noye

sno

yes

no

Mis

sour

ino

yes

nono

none

ed f

or c

hild

car

e m

ust b

esp

ecif

ied

as p

art o

f ca

se p

lan

Nor

thC

arol

ina

noye

slo

cally

set

prio

ritie

sye

sye

s

Okl

ahom

aye

sye

sye

sno

, but

all

serv

edno

avai

labl

e fo

r w

orki

ng f

oste

rpa

rent

s bu

t not

thos

e in

sch

ool

Sout

hC

arol

ina

noye

sye

sno

nofo

ster

par

ents

mus

t be

wor

king

or in

sch

ool;

no f

ee c

harg

ed

Ten

ness

eeno

yes

yes

yes

nono

inco

me

test

or

pare

ntal

empl

oym

ent r

equi

red

Tex

asye

sno

.

child

ren

up to

age

19

elig

ible

;gu

aran

teed

onl

y if

ref

erre

d by

prot

ectiv

e se

rvic

e w

orke

r;fu

ndin

g fo

r ch

ildre

n in

prot

ectiv

e se

rvic

es is

pro

vide

dby

CPS

age

ncy

Wes

tV

irgi

nia

no__

yes

nono

no

fost

er p

aren

ts m

ust b

e w

orki

ngor

in s

choo

l; pa

rent

s' in

com

e is

disr

egar

ded

1 I

Tab

le 1

4C

hild

Car

e A

ssis

tanc

e fo

r C

hild

ren

Rec

eivi

ng P

rote

ctiv

e/Pr

even

tive

Car

e

Stat

e

Chi

ld C

are

isgu

aran

teed

by

law

or

regu

latio

n

If li

mite

d,le

ngth

of

time

child

car

eas

sist

ance

isav

aila

ble

Chi

ld C

are

prov

ided

only

if f

unds

avai

labl

e

Chi

ld C

are

prov

ided

onl

y if

fund

s av

aila

ble,

BU

T g

roup

isgi

ven

top

prio

rity

If f

unds

not

avai

labl

e,M

UST

be

put

on w

aitin

g lis

t

Var

ies

acro

sslo

calit

ies

Fam

ilyno

tel

igib

leSp

ecia

l pol

icie

s or

rest

rict

ions

Ala

bam

ano

yes

yes

no

Ark

ansa

sye

sno

child

car

e is

gua

rant

eed

only

if c

hild

car

e is

requ

ired

by

the

case

man

agem

ent p

lan

Del

awar

eno

yes

yes

yes

no

Dis

tric

t of

Col

umbi

aye

sye

sye

sno

no

Flor

ida

noye

sye

sye

sno

top

prio

rity

by

stat

ute

Geo

rgia

no8

yes'

yes'

no

Ken

tuck

yye

sno

prot

ectiv

e ca

re is

guar

ante

ed, r

egar

dles

s of

inco

me;

pre

vent

ive

care

mus

t mee

t inc

ome

elig

ibili

ty g

uide

lines

Lou

isia

nano

yes

nono

no

Mar

ylan

dno

yes

no.

yes

no

fund

ing

for

thes

e ch

ildre

nis

ava

ilabl

e th

roug

hso

cial

ser

vice

s

Mis

siss

ippi

noye

sno

yes

no

Mis

sour

ino

yes

.no

nono

Geo

rgia

doe

s no

t hav

e a

law

or

regu

latio

n th

at g

uara

ntee

s ch

ild c

are.

How

ever

, as

a m

atte

r of

sta

te p

olic

y ch

ild c

are

is "

guar

ante

ed"

for

child

ren

who

are

in th

e cu

stod

y of

the

Dep

artm

ent o

f Fa

mily

and

Chi

ldre

n Se

rvic

es; c

hild

ren

who

are

in c

ourt

-ord

ered

sup

ervi

sion

whe

rech

ild c

are

is p

art o

f th

e co

urt o

rder

/cas

e pl

an; a

nd c

hild

ren

in f

amili

es w

ith o

pen

Chi

ld P

rote

ctiv

e Se

rvic

es c

ases

whe

re c

hild

car

e is

par

t of

the

case

pla

n.2.

2

113

Tab

le 1

4C

hild

Car

e A

ssis

tanc

e fo

r C

hild

ren

Rec

eivi

ng P

rote

ctiv

e/Pr

even

tive

Car

e

Stat

e

Chi

ld C

are

isgu

aran

teed

by

law

or

regu

latio

n

If li

mite

d,le

ngth

of

time

child

car

eas

sist

ance

isav

aila

ble

Chi

ld C

are

prov

ided

only

if f

unds

avai

labl

e

Chi

ld C

are

prov

ided

onl

y if

fund

s av

aila

ble,

BU

T g

roup

isgi

ven

top

prio

rity

If f

unds

not

avai

labl

e,M

UST

be

put

on w

aitin

g lis

t

Var

ies

acro

sslo

calit

ies

Fam

ilyno

tel

igib

leSp

ecia

l pol

icie

s or

rest

rict

ions

Nor

thC

arol

ina

noye

s

mos

t loc

aliti

esm

ake

CPS

apr

iori

tyye

sye

s

Okl

ahom

ano

yes

yes

no, b

ut a

llse

rved

no

Sout

hC

arol

ina

noye

sye

sno

no

child

car

e as

sist

ance

prov

ided

reg

ardl

ess

ofin

com

e

Ten

ness

eeno

yes

yes

yes

no

Tex

asye

sno

Wes

tV

irgi

nia

yes

nono

guar

ante

ed o

nly

ifre

ferr

ed b

y pr

otec

tive

serv

ice

wor

ker;

fun

ding

for

child

ren

in p

rote

ctiv

ese

rvic

es p

rovi

ded

by C

PSag

ency

115

Tab

le 1

5D

o yo

u co

nsid

er th

e im

mig

ratio

n st

atus

of

the

child

's p

aren

t or

guar

dian

whe

n de

term

inin

gel

igib

ility

for

chi

ld-c

are

subs

idie

s?A

laba

ma

no

Ark

ansa

sye

s, p

aren

t mus

t be

a ci

tizen

or

in th

e co

untr

y le

gally

Del

awar

eno

, if

child

is U

.S. c

itize

n

Dis

tric

t of

Col

umbi

ano

Flor

ida

yes

Geo

rgia

no

Ken

tuck

yno

Lou

isia

naye

s

Mar

ylan

dno

Mis

siss

ippi

no

Mis

sour

ino

Nor

th C

arol

ina

no, n

ot if

chi

ld is

U.S

. citi

zen

Okl

ahom

ano

Sout

h C

arol

ina

yes

Ten

ness

eeye

s, p

aren

t mus

t be

citiz

en o

r le

gal a

lien

Tex

asno

Wes

t Vir

gini

ano

Tab

le 1

6In

com

e E

ligib

ility

Cei

ling

as a

Per

cent

age

ofSt

atew

ide

Med

ian

Inco

me

(SM

I).

(Sin

gle

Pare

nt w

ith T

wo

Chi

ldre

n),

Stat

eSt

atew

ide

Med

ian

Inco

me

(fam

ily o

f 3)

Inco

me

Elig

ibili

ty C

eilin

g A

t Ini

tial

App

licat

ion

(Ent

ry)

Inco

me

Elig

ibili

ty C

eilin

g A

tR

edet

erm

inat

ion

(Exi

t) I

fD

iffe

rent

Ann

ually

Mon

thly

Ann

ually

Mon

thly

As

% o

fSM

IA

nnua

llyM

onth

lyA

s %

of

SMI

Ala

bam

a$4

0,52

2$3

,377

$18,

048

$150

445

%$2

7,75

6$2

,313

68%

Ark

ansa

s$3

2,46

3$2

,705

$22,

404

$1,8

6769

%

Del

awar

e$5

3,06

4$4

,422

$27,

768

$2,3

1452

%

Dis

tric

t of

Col

umbi

a$4

7,14

5$3

,929

$27,

924

$2,3

2759

%

Flor

ida

$41,

927

$3,4

94$2

1,22

8$1

,769

51%

$28,

296

$2,3

5867

%

Geo

rgia

$43,

385

$3,6

15$2

4,27

6$2

,023

956

%

Ken

tuck

y$3

8,66

8$3

,222

$22,

200

$1,8

50m

57%

Lou

isia

na$3

8,71

3$3

,226

$29,

040

$2,4

2075

%

Mar

ylan

d$5

5,86

7$4

,656

$25,

140

$2,0

9545

%

Mis

siss

ippi

$35,

480

$2,9

57$3

0,15

6$2

,513

85%

Mis

sour

i$4

3,83

0$3

,653

$17,

784

$1,4

8241

%

Nor

th C

arol

ina

$43,

504

$3,6

25$3

2,62

8$2

,719

75%

Okl

ahom

a$3

7,19

8$3

,100

$23,

232

$1,9

36n

62%

Sout

h C

arol

ina

$41,

714

$3,4

76$2

0,82

0$1

,735

50%

$24,

288

$2,0

2458

%

Ten

ness

ee$4

0,52

5$3

,377

$24,

324

$2,0

2760

%

9 If

this

fam

ily h

ad a

chi

ld w

ith s

peci

al n

eeds

, the

inco

me

ceili

ng w

ould

be

$2,3

34 p

er m

onth

.m

If

this

fam

ily w

ere

leav

ing

TA

NF

to e

nter

the

wor

kfor

ce (

i.e. i

n T

rans

ition

al C

hild

Car

e) th

e in

com

e ce

iling

wou

ld b

e $2

,739

per

mon

th.

" T

his

is n

et in

com

e. T

hegr

oss

inco

me

ceili

ng w

ould

be

$2,4

20 (

or 7

7% o

f th

e SM

I) a

fter

the

20%

ear

ned

inco

me

dedu

ctio

n is

app

lied

and

coul

d be

eve

n hi

gher

if o

ther

inco

me

dedu

ctio

ns a

pplie

d.

11 7

ns

Tab

le 1

6In

com

e E

ligib

ility

Cei

ling

as a

Per

cent

age

ofSt

atew

ide

Med

ian

Inco

me

(SM

I)(S

ingl

e Pa

rent

with

Tw

o C

hild

ren)

Stat

eSt

atew

ide

Med

ian

Inco

me

(fam

ily o

f 3)

Inco

me

Elig

ibili

ty C

eilin

g A

t Ini

tial

App

licat

ion

(Ent

ry)

Inco

me

Elig

ibili

ty C

eilin

g A

tR

edet

erm

inat

ion

(Exi

t) I

fD

iffe

rent

Ann

ually

Mon

thly

Ann

ually

Mon

thly

As

% o

fSM

IA

nnua

llyM

onth

lyA

s %

of

SMI

Tex

as$4

0,32

6$3

,360

$34,

272

$2,8

56"

85%

loca

lop

tion'

loca

lop

tion

Wes

t Vir

gini

a$3

6,68

1$3

,057

$28,

296

$2,3

5877

%

The

sta

tew

ide

ceili

ng is

85%

of

the

SMI,

but

som

e lo

calit

ies

have

a lo

wer

inco

me

limit

for

initi

al e

ligib

ility

. Inc

ome

figu

res

are

for

SFY

2000

and

will

incr

ease

bas

ed o

n A

CF

Issu

ance

: LIH

EA

P-IM

-200

0-11

."

Som

e lo

calit

ies

have

est

ablis

hed

a hi

gher

inco

me

elig

ibili

ty c

eilin

g at

red

eter

min

atio

n.

112

0

Tab

le I

6-A

Inco

me

Elig

ibili

ty C

eilin

g as

a P

erce

ntag

e of

Fede

ral P

over

ty L

evel

(FP

L)1

4(S

ingl

e Pa

rent

with

Tw

o C

hild

ren)

Stat

eIn

com

e E

ligib

ility

Cei

ling

At I

nitia

lA

pplic

atio

n (E

ntry

)In

com

e E

ligib

ility

Cei

ling

At

Red

eter

min

atio

n (E

xit)

If

Dif

fere

nt

Ann

ually

Mon

thly

As

% o

fFP

LA

nnua

llyM

onth

lyA

s %

of

FPL

Ala

bam

a$1

8,04

8$1

504

128%

$27,

756

$2,3

13.1

96%

Ark

ansa

s$2

2,40

4$1

,867

158%

Del

awar

e$2

7,76

8$2

,314

196%

Dis

tric

t of

Col

umbi

a$2

7,92

4$2

,327

197%

Flor

ida

$21,

228

$1,7

6915

0%$2

8,29

6$2

,358

200%

Geo

rgia

$24,

276

$2,0

23'5

172%

Ken

tuck

y$2

2,20

0$1

,850

1615

7%

Lou

isia

na$2

9,04

0$2

,420

205%

Mar

ylan

d$2

5,14

0$2

,095

178%

Mis

siss

ippi

$30,

156

$2,5

1321

3%

Mis

sour

i$1

7,78

4$1

,482

126%

Nor

th C

arol

ina

$32,

628

$2,7

1923

1%

Okl

ahom

a$2

3,23

2$1

,936

'716

4%

Sout

h C

arol

ina

$20,

820

$1,7

3514

7%$2

4,28

8$2

,024

172%

Ten

ness

ee$2

4,32

4$2

,027

172%

" B

ased

on

2000

Fed

eral

Pov

erty

Lev

el o

f $1

4,15

0 pe

r ye

ar f

or a

fam

ily o

f th

ree.

'5 I

f th

is f

amily

had

a c

hild

with

spe

cial

nee

ds, t

he in

com

e ce

iling

wou

ld b

e $2

,334

per

mon

th.

15 I

f th

is f

amily

wer

e le

avin

g T

AN

F to

ent

er th

e w

orkf

orce

(i.e

. in

Tra

nsiti

onal

Chi

ld C

are)

the

inco

me

ceili

ng w

ould

be

$2,7

39 p

er m

onth

.17

Thi

s is

net

inco

me.

The

gro

ss in

com

e ce

iling

wou

ld b

e $2

,420

(or

77%

of

the

SMI)

aft

er th

e 20

% e

arne

d in

com

e de

duct

ion

is a

pplie

dan

dco

uld

be e

ven

high

er if

oth

er in

com

e de

duct

ions

app

lied.

191

122

Tab

le 1

6-A

Inco

me

Elig

ibili

ty C

eilin

g as

a P

erce

ntag

e of

Fede

ral P

over

ty L

evel

(FP

L)1

4(S

ingl

e Pa

rent

with

Tw

o C

hild

ren)

Stat

eIn

com

e E

ligib

ility

Cei

ling

At I

nitia

lA

pplic

atio

n (E

ntry

)In

com

e E

ligib

ility

Cei

ling

At

Red

eter

min

atio

n (E

xit)

If

Dif

fere

nt

Ann

ually

Mon

thly

As

% o

fFP

LA

nnua

llyM

onth

lyA

s %

of

FPL

Tex

as$3

4,27

2$2

,856

"24

2%"

loca

lop

tion'

loca

l opt

ion

Wes

t Vir

gini

a$2

8,29

6$2

,358

200%

The

sta

tew

ide

ceili

ng is

85%

of

the

SMI,

but

som

e lo

calit

ies

have

a lo

wer

inco

me

limit

for

initi

al e

ligib

ility

."

Som

e lo

calit

ies

have

est

ablis

hed

a hi

gher

inco

me

elig

ibili

ty c

eilin

g at

red

eter

min

atio

n.

Tab

le 1

7E

ligib

ility

Cei

lings

and

Max

imum

Co-

Paym

ent f

or F

amily

of

Thr

ee(a

ssum

es f

amily

of

3 w

ith o

ne in

fant

and

one

4-y

ear-

old

in f

ull-

time,

cen

ter-

base

d ca

re)

Stat

e

Inco

me

Elig

ibili

ty C

eilin

gM

axim

um C

o-Pa

ymen

tPr

ovid

er c

an c

harg

era

te s

uppl

emen

tA

nnua

llyM

onth

lyA

s %

of

SMI

Ann

ually

Mon

thly

, for

both

chi

ldre

nA

s %

of

Inco

me

Ala

bam

a$1

8,04

8$1

,504

2545

%$2

,076

$173

12%

yes

Ark

ansa

s$2

2,40

4$1

,867

69%

$5,9

76$4

9821

27%

no

Del

awar

e$2

7,76

8$2

,314

52%

$8,3

88$6

9930

%ye

s, if

no

stat

e co

ntra

ct

Dis

tric

t of

Col

umbi

a$2

7,92

4$2

,327

59%

$5,6

88$4

7420

%no

Flor

ida

$21,

228

$1,7

69 2

251

%$1

,872

$156

9%ye

s

Geo

rgia

$24,

276

$2,0

2323

56%

$3,1

20$2

6013

%ye

s

Ken

tuck

y$2

2,20

0$1

,850

57%

$2,2

08$1

8410

%ye

s

Lou

isia

na$2

9,04

0$2

,420

75%

$5,9

40$4

9520

%ye

s

Mar

ylan

d$2

5,14

0$2

,095

45%

$5,6

88$4

7424

23%

yes

Mis

siss

ippi

$30,

156

$2,5

1385

%$2

,280

$190

8%ye

s

Mis

sour

i$1

7,78

4$1

,482

41%

$2,0

76$1

7312

%ye

s, e

xcep

t CPS

Nor

th C

arol

ina

$32,

628

$2,7

1975

%$2

,940

$245

9%ye

s

Okl

ahom

a$2

3,23

2$1

,936

2562

%$2

,628

$219

11%

26no

20 T

his

fam

ily w

ould

rem

ain

elig

ible

for

chi

ld c

are

assi

stan

ce u

ntil

its in

com

e ex

ceed

ed $

2,31

3 a

mon

th, o

r 68

% o

f th

e SM

I.21

Co-

paym

ents

var

y by

rat

e ar

ea; a

mou

nt in

clud

ed in

tabl

e is

an

estim

ate

base

d on

the

aver

age

pric

e of

chi

ld c

are

for

the

hypo

thet

ical

fam

ily.

22 T

his

fam

ily w

ould

rem

ain

elig

ible

for

chi

ld c

are

assi

stan

ce u

ntil

its in

com

e ex

ceed

ed $

2,35

8 a

mon

th, o

r 67

% o

f th

e SM

I.23

Hig

her

elig

ibili

ty f

or c

hild

ren

with

spe

cial

nee

ds..

24 C

o-pa

ymen

ts a

re b

ased

on

the

cost

of

care

in a

loca

l mar

ket.

$474

wou

ld b

e th

e hi

ghes

t co-

paym

ent i

n th

e m

ost e

xpen

sive

of

the

stat

e's

seve

n re

gion

s. T

he s

tate

ave

rage

co-

paym

ent f

or a

fam

ily o

f th

ree

with

two

child

ren

in f

ull-

time,

cen

ter-

base

d ca

re is

$33

4 a

mon

th, o

r 16

%of

inco

me.

25 T

his

is n

et in

com

e. T

he g

ross

inco

me

ceili

ng w

ould

be

$2,4

20 (

or 7

7% o

f th

e SM

I) a

fter

the

20%

ear

ned

inco

me

dedu

ctio

n is

app

lied

and

coul

d be

eve

n hi

gher

if o

ther

inco

me

dedu

ctio

ns a

pplie

d.25

The

par

ent f

ee w

ould

be

only

9%

of

inco

me

if b

ased

on

gros

s in

com

e af

ter

the

earn

ed in

com

e de

duct

ion

is a

pplie

d.

4i 2

512

6

Tab

le 1

7E

ligib

ility

Cei

lings

and

Max

imum

Co-

Paym

ent f

or F

amily

of

Thr

ee(a

ssum

es f

amily

of

3 w

ith o

ne in

fant

and

one

4-y

ear-

old

in f

ull-

time,

cen

ter-

base

d ca

re)

Stat

e

Inco

me

Elig

ibili

ty C

eilin

gM

axim

um C

o-Pa

ymen

tPr

ovid

er c

an c

harg

era

te s

uppl

emen

tA

nnua

llyM

onth

lyA

s %

of

SMI

Ann

ually

Mon

thly

, for

both

chi

ldre

nA

s %

of

Inco

me

Sout

h C

arol

ina

$20,

820

$1,7

3527

50%

$936

$78

4%ye

s

Ten

ness

ee$2

4,32

4$2

,027

60%

$2,9

04$2

4212

%ye

s

Tex

as$3

4,27

2$2

,856

85%

$3,7

68$3

1428

11%

no

Wes

t Vir

gini

a$2

8,29

6$2

,358

77%

$1,2

96$1

607%

no

27 T

his

fam

ily w

ould

rem

ain

elig

ible

for

chi

ld c

are

assi

stan

ce u

ntil

its in

com

e ex

ceed

ed $

2,02

4 a

mon

th o

r 58

% o

f th

e SM

I.28

Co-

paym

ents

var

y ac

ross

loca

litie

s; th

is is

an

estim

ate.

Tab

le 1

8C

o-Pa

ymen

t for

Fam

ily o

f T

hree

at P

over

ty L

evel

(ass

umes

fam

ily o

f 3

with

one

infa

nt a

nd o

ne 4

-yea

r-ol

d in

full-

time,

cen

ter-

base

d ca

re)

Stat

eC

o-pa

ymen

t, fo

r bo

th c

hild

ren

Prov

ider

can

cha

rge

rate

supp

lem

ent

Ann

ually

Mon

thly

As

% o

f In

com

e

Ala

bam

a$1

,560

$130

11%

yes

Ark

ansa

sno

neno

ne0%

no

Del

awar

e$2

,196

$183

16%

yes,

if c

ente

r no

t und

er s

tate

con

trac

t

Dis

tric

t of

Col

umbi

a$8

88$7

46%

no

Flor

ida

$1,2

48$1

049%

yes

Geo

rgia

$420

$35

3%ye

s

Ken

tuck

y$1

,164

$97

8%ye

s

Lou

isia

na$2

,292

$191

16%

yes

.

Mar

ylan

d$1

08$9

.07%

yes

Mis

siss

ippi

$684

$57

5%ye

s

Mis

sour

i$1

,044

$87

7%ye

s, e

xcep

t for

CPS

Nor

th C

arol

ina

$1,2

72$1

069%

yes

Okl

ahom

a$8

88$7

46%

no

Sout

h C

arol

ina

$732

$61

5%ye

s

Ten

ness

ee$8

28$6

96%

yes

Tex

as$1

,560

$130

2911

%no

Wes

t Vir

gini

a$5

16$4

34%

no

Ass

umpt

ions

: Pov

erty

leve

l inc

ome

for

fam

ily o

f th

ree

is $

14,1

50 p

er y

ear,

or

$1,1

79.1

7 pe

r m

onth

.D

aily

rat

es c

onve

rted

to m

onth

ly r

ates

by

mul

tiply

ing

by 5

day

s .a

wee

k an

d 4.

3 w

eeks

a m

onth

.

29 F

ees

vary

acr

oss

loca

litie

s; th

is is

an

estim

ate.

130

Tab

le 1

9In

com

e D

isre

gard

ed W

hen

Det

erm

inin

g E

ligib

ility

for

Chi

ld C

are

Ass

ista

nce

Ala

bam

afo

od S

tam

ps, f

oste

r ca

re s

ubsi

dies

, ene

rgy

assi

stan

ce c

heck

s, in

-kin

d in

com

e

Ark

ansa

s$1

00 p

er w

orki

ng a

dult

.

Del

awar

eno

ne

Dis

tric

t of

Col

umbi

aT

AN

F pa

ymen

ts, S

SI

Flor

ida

child

sup

port

if c

ourt

-ord

ered

Geo

rgia

SSI,

tax

refu

nds,

gif

ts, v

alue

of

food

sta

mps

, inc

ome

of c

hild

ren,

ene

rgy

assi

stan

ce p

aym

ents

, wor

k ex

pens

es,

adop

tion

supp

lem

ent,

TA

NF,

hou

sing

sub

sidi

es

Ken

tuck

ySS

I, a

ny in

com

e so

lely

to c

hild

, any

one

-tim

e pa

ymen

t

Lou

isia

naea

rned

inco

me

tax

cred

it, in

-kin

d in

com

e an

d fu

ll am

ount

of

fost

er c

are

paym

ents

, $2,

200

per

child

disr

egar

ded

for

min

or p

aren

t's f

amily

or

for

rela

tive

care

take

rs

Mar

ylan

dT

AN

F pa

ymen

ts, S

SI, t

ax r

efun

ds, f

ood

stam

ps, c

hild

sup

port

fro

m n

on-c

usto

dial

par

ent u

p to

$2,

200

per

child

Mis

siss

ippi

only

inco

me

from

em

ploy

men

t is

cons

ider

ed w

hen

dete

rmin

ing

elig

ibili

ty f

or c

hild

car

e as

sist

ance

; all

othe

rin

com

e is

dis

rega

rded

Mis

sour

ihe

alth

insu

ranc

e pr

emiu

ms

Nor

th C

arol

ina

28 in

com

e di

sreg

ards

, inc

ludi

ng: W

ork

Firs

t Fam

ily A

ssis

tanc

e, S

SI, l

ump

sum

pay

men

ts, f

ood

subs

idie

s,fo

ster

car

e as

sist

ance

pay

men

ts, a

dopt

ion

assi

stan

ce p

aym

ents

, loa

ns, g

rant

s, s

chol

arsh

ips,

Sec

tion

VII

Iho

usin

g su

bsid

ies,

in-k

ind

cont

ribu

tions

, em

ploy

ee b

enef

its f

or c

hild

car

e, e

tc.

Okl

ahom

a

20%

ear

ned

inco

me

dedu

ctio

n, le

gally

bin

ding

chi

ld s

uppo

rt p

aid

outs

ide

the

hom

e, g

over

nmen

t ren

t or

hous

ing

subs

idie

s, ir

regu

lar

inco

me

of le

ss th

an $

30 p

er c

alen

dar

quar

ter,

som

e lu

mp

sum

pay

men

ts, i

n-ki

ndin

com

e, m

oney

fro

m s

ale

of p

rope

rty,

ban

k or

trus

t acc

ount

with

draw

als,

cap

ital g

ains

, ear

ning

s of

chi

ldre

n,re

imbu

rsem

ents

, tax

ref

unds

, mon

ey f

rom

thir

d pa

rtie

s, lo

ans,

gra

nts

that

pre

clud

e th

eir

use

for

livin

gex

pens

es, e

duca

tiona

l ass

ista

nce,

IV

-E a

dopt

ion

subs

idie

s, S

CO

RE

and

AC

E in

com

e, in

com

e ex

clud

ed b

yfe

dera

l law

Sout

h C

arol

ina

SSI,

wor

k ex

pens

es, f

oste

r ca

re p

aym

ents

, inc

ome

from

pro

pert

y so

ld, l

oans

and

gra

nts,

tax

refu

nds,

gif

ts,

insu

ranc

e pa

ymen

ts, f

ood

stam

ps, w

ork/

stud

y in

com

e

Ten

ness

eeye

s, c

hild

sup

port

pai

d by

cus

todi

al p

aren

t and

foo

d st

amps

Tex

asfo

od s

tam

ps

Wes

t Vir

gini

alo

ans,

gif

ts, l

ump

sum

inco

me,

gra

nts

& s

chol

arsh

ips

131

Tab

le 2

0Fu

nds

Ava

ilabl

e to

Mee

t the

Dem

and

for

Chi

ld C

are

Ass

ista

nce

Stat

e

Wou

ld y

our

stat

e ha

ve th

e fu

ndin

g to

mee

t the

dem

and

if a

ll el

igib

lefa

mili

es a

pplie

d fo

r ch

ild c

are

assi

stan

ce in

you

r st

ate?

Ala

bam

ano

Ark

ansa

sno

Del

awar

eno

Dis

tric

t of

Col

umbi

ano

Flor

ida

no

Geo

rgia

no-

Ken

tuck

yno

Lou

isia

nano

Mar

ylan

dno

Mis

siss

ippi

no

Mis

sour

ino

Nor

th C

arol

ina

no

Okl

ahom

ano

Sout

h C

arol

ina

no

Ten

ness

eeno

Tex

asno

Wes

t Vir

gini

ano

t with

out T

AN

F tr

ansi

tion

fund

s

Tab

le 2

1St

ate

Req

uire

men

ts f

or F

ace-

to-F

ace

Inte

rvie

w W

hen

App

lyin

gfo

r C

hild

Car

e A

ssis

tanc

e

Stat

e

Is a

fac

e-to

-fac

e in

terv

iew

req

uire

din

ord

er f

or a

fam

ily to

initi

ally

rece

ive

child

car

e su

bsid

ies?

(yes

, no,

var

ies

by lo

calit

y)If

no,

can

elig

ibili

ty b

e de

term

ined

via

phon

e, f

ax, U

S m

ail o

r em

ail?

Ala

bam

aye

s

Ark

ansa

sye

s

Del

awar

eye

s, b

ut c

an b

e w

aive

d fo

r 30

day

s in

case

of

tran

spor

tatio

n ha

rdsh

ip

Dis

tric

t of

Col

umbi

aye

s

Flor

ida

no, b

ut h

ighl

y re

com

men

ded

for

addi

tiona

l R&

R s

ervi

ces

all

Geo

rgia

yes

Ken

tuck

yno

all

Lou

isia

nano

US

mai

l

Mar

ylan

dno

sta

te p

olic

y; v

arie

s by

loca

lity

US

mai

l

Mis

siss

ippi

noU

S m

ail,

fax

Mis

sour

ino

US

mai

l, fa

x, p

hone

Nor

th C

arol

ina

not r

equi

red

by s

tate

, but

mos

t cou

ntie

sre

quir

e th

emU

S m

ail (

for

sign

atur

e), p

hone

(fo

rin

terv

iew

)

Okl

ahom

ano

US

mai

l, ph

one

(man

dato

ry in

terv

iew

)

Sout

h C

arol

ina

noU

S m

ail,

fax,

pho

ne

Ten

ness

eeye

s

Tex

asno

US

mai

l and

fax

(fo

r do

cum

ents

), p

hone

Wes

t Vir

gini

aye

s

134

Tab

le 2

2St

ate

Req

uire

men

ts f

or F

ace-

to-F

ace

Inte

rvie

w W

hen

Red

eter

min

ing

Elig

ibili

ty f

or C

hild

Car

e A

ssis

tanc

e

Stat

e

For

rede

term

inat

ion

of e

ligib

ility

for

child

car

e su

bsid

y, is

a f

ace-

to-

face

inte

rvie

w r

equi

red?

If n

o, c

an r

edet

erm

inat

ion

be d

one

via

phon

e, f

ax, U

S m

ail o

r em

ail?

Ala

bam

aye

s

Ark

ansa

sno

US

mai

l, ph

one

or f

ax

Del

awar

eno

all

Dis

tric

t of

Col

umbi

aye

s

Flor

ida

no, b

ut r

ecom

men

ded

all

Geo

rgia

yes

Ken

tuck

yno

all

Lou

isia

nano

US

mai

l

Mar

ylan

dno

sta

te p

olic

y; v

arie

s by

loca

lity

US

mai

l

Mis

siss

ippi

noU

S m

ail,

fax

Mis

sour

ino

US

mai

l, fa

x, p

hone

Nor

th C

arol

ina

not r

equi

red

by s

tate

, but

mos

t cou

ntie

sre

quir

e th

emU

S m

ail (

for

sign

atur

e), p

hone

(fo

rin

terv

iew

)

Okl

ahom

ano

US

mai

l, ph

one

(man

dato

ry in

terv

iew

)

Sout

h C

arol

ina

noU

S m

ail,

fax,

pho

ne

Ten

ness

eeye

s

Tex

asno

US

mai

l and

fax

(fo

r do

cum

ents

), p

hone

Wes

t Vir

gini

ano

US

mai

l, fa

x

A

Tab

le 2

3St

ate

Polic

ies

Reg

ardi

ng C

oope

ratio

n w

ithC

hild

Sup

port

Enf

orce

men

t

Stat

e

Doe

s yo

ur s

tate

req

uire

that

app

lican

tsfo

r ch

ild c

are

assi

stan

ce c

oope

rate

with

child

sup

port

enf

orce

men

t?

Ala

bam

ano

Ark

ansa

sye

s

Del

awar

eno

Dis

tric

t of

Col

umbi

aye

s

Flor

ida

yes

Geo

rgia

no

Ken

tuck

yno

Lou

isia

nano

Mar

ylan

dye

s

Mis

siss

ippi

no

Mis

sour

ino

Nor

th C

arol

ina

no

Okl

ahom

aye

s

Sout

h C

arol

ina

no

Ten

ness

eeno

Tex

asye

s

Wes

t Vir

gini

ano

-

136

Tab

le 2

4.

Max

imum

Fre

quen

cy o

f C

hild

Car

e E

ligib

ility

Red

eter

min

atio

n(a

ssum

es n

o ch

ange

s in

inco

me

or e

mpl

oym

ent d

urin

g el

igib

ility

per

iod)

Stat

eT

AN

F R

ecip

ient

sIn

com

e-E

ligib

le F

amili

esA

laba

ma

6 m

onth

s6

mon

ths

Ark

ansa

s6

mon

ths

6 m

onth

s

Del

awar

e12

mon

ths

if p

artic

ipat

ing

inem

ploy

men

t act

iviti

es6

mon

ths

Dis

tric

t of

Col

umbi

ano

lim

it if

elig

ible

for

TA

NF

6 m

onth

s

Flor

ida

6 m

onth

s6

mon

ths

Geo

rgia

12 m

onth

s12

mon

ths

Ken

tuck

y12

mon

ths

12 m

onth

s

Lou

isia

na6

mon

ths

6 m

onth

s

Mar

ylan

d12

mon

ths

12 m

onth

s

Mis

siss

ippi

12 m

onth

s12

mon

ths

Mis

sour

i12

mon

ths

12 m

onth

s

Nor

th C

arol

ina

12 m

onth

s12

mon

ths

Okl

ahom

a12

mon

ths

12 m

onth

s

Sout

h C

arol

ina

12 m

onth

s12

mon

ths

Ten

ness

ee6

mon

ths

6 m

onth

s

Tex

asva

ries

306-

12 m

onth

s'

Wes

t Vir

gini

a6

mon

ths

6 m

onth

s

30T

AN

F re

cipi

ents

enr

olle

d in

CH

OIC

ES

rem

ain

elig

ible

unt

il th

eir

CH

OIC

ES

case

is c

lose

d by

the

CH

OIC

ES

case

man

ager

.Fr

eque

ncy

of r

edet

erm

inat

ion

vari

es b

y re

gion

al b

oard

s; m

ost l

ocal

ities

det

erm

ine

elig

ibili

ty e

very

6 o

r 12

mon

ths.

41.4

,113

8

Tab

le 2

5E

ligib

ility

Det

erm

inat

ion

for

Tra

nsiti

onal

Chi

ld C

are

Stat

eR

ecer

tific

atio

n no

t req

uire

dR

ecer

tific

atio

n re

quir

edC

an r

ecer

tific

atio

n be

don

e by

phon

e, f

ax, m

ail o

r em

ail?

Ala

bam

are

cert

ific

atio

n re

quir

ed

Ark

ansa

s

Del

awar

etr

ansf

er is

aut

omat

ical

l

Dis

tric

t of

Col

umbi

atr

ansf

er is

aut

omat

ic

Flor

ida

rece

rtif

icat

ion

requ

ired

all

Geo

rgia

tran

sfer

is a

utom

atic

; TA

NF

wor

ker

veri

fies

inco

me

and

tran

sfer

s ca

se (

no p

aren

tin

terv

iew

req

uire

d)

Ken

tuck

yre

cert

ific

atio

n re

quir

edco

nduc

ted

byT

AN

F ca

sew

orke

ral

l

Lou

isia

nare

cert

ific

atio

n re

quir

edU

S m

ail

Mar

ylan

dre

cert

ific

atio

n re

quir

ed b

ased

on

inco

me

US

mai

l

Mis

siss

ippi

tran

sfer

is a

utom

atic

TA

NF

case

wor

ker

send

s "c

hang

e in

TA

NF

stat

us"

form

to th

ede

sign

ated

age

nt.

Mis

sour

i

N/A

; TA

NF

and

inco

me-

elig

ible

chi

ld c

are

mer

ged;

no

sepa

rate

tran

sitio

nal c

hild

car

epr

ogra

mU

S m

ail,

fax,

pho

ne

Nor

th C

arol

ina

N/A

; TA

NF

and

inco

me-

elig

ible

chi

ld c

are

mer

ged;

no

sepa

rate

tran

sitio

nal c

hild

car

epr

ogra

mU

S m

ail (

for

sign

atur

e), p

hone

(fo

rin

terv

iew

)

Okl

ahom

are

cert

ific

atio

n re

quir

edU

S m

ail,

phon

e (m

anda

tory

inte

rvie

w)

Sout

h C

arol

ina

tran

sfer

is a

utom

atic

US

mai

l, fa

x, p

hone

140

Tab

le 2

5E

ligib

ility

Det

erm

inat

ion

for

Tra

nsiti

onal

Chi

ld C

are

Stat

eR

ecer

tific

atio

n no

t req

uire

dR

ecer

tific

atio

n re

quir

edC

an r

ecer

tific

atio

n be

don

e by

phon

e, f

ax, m

ail o

r em

ail?

Ten

ness

eere

cert

ific

atio

n re

quir

ed w

ithin

6 m

onth

s.-

Tex

as

tran

sfer

is a

utom

atic

; loc

albo

ards

det

erm

ine

tran

sitio

nal

elig

ibili

ty b

ased

on

docu

men

tspr

ovid

ed b

y T

AN

F ca

sew

orke

rU

S m

ail,

fax

(for

doc

umen

ts),

pho

ne

Wes

t Vir

gini

are

cert

ific

atio

n re

quir

ed if

ther

e is

a jo

bch

ange

US

mai

l, fa

x

1 4

1I

4 2

Tab

le 2

6V

erif

icat

ion

Doc

umen

ts A

ccep

tabl

e in

Det

erm

inin

g an

d R

edet

erm

inin

g E

ligib

ility

:It

ems

to V

erif

y In

com

e

Stat

e

Inco

me

can

bede

clar

ed; n

o pr

oof

requ

ired

Payc

heck

stu

bE

mpl

oyer

stat

emen

t of

pay

Tax

ret

urn,

if s

elf-

empl

oyed

Oth

er in

com

eve

rifi

catio

n

Ala

bam

a1

11

'chi

ld s

uppo

rt, S

ocia

lSe

curi

ty, S

SI, T

AN

F

Ark

ansa

s1

(4)

1I

/chi

ld s

uppo

rt

Del

awar

e1

11

Dis

tric

t of

Col

umbi

a1

11

'chi

ld s

uppo

rt, S

SI

Flor

ida

/1

I1

SSI,

TA

NF,

chi

ldsu

ppor

t

Geo

rgia

11

1K

entu

cky

I1

1L

ouis

iana

11

11

all u

near

ned

inco

me

Mar

ylan

d1(

3)1

1

Mis

siss

ippi

1/(

initi

al a

pplic

atio

non

ly)

1(in

itial

app

licat

ion

only

)

Mis

sour

i1

I1

Nor

th C

arol

ina

11

113

2

Okl

ahom

a1

for

30 d

ays

only

inin

itial

app

licat

ion

1(2

mon

ths)

i1

Sout

h C

arol

ina

I fo

ster

par

ents

onl

y1

11

Var

ious

pro

ofs

for

self

-em

ploy

ed (

e.g.

cas

hre

gist

er r

ecei

pts

from

hair

sty

lists

)

Ten

ness

ee1

11

32 S

elf-

empl

oyed

app

lican

ts m

ay b

e re

quir

ed to

sup

ply

busi

ness

rec

ords

or

acco

unt r

ecor

ds.

1. 4 3

1 4

4

Tab

le 2

6V

erif

icat

ion

Doc

umen

ts A

ccep

tabl

e in

Det

erm

inin

g an

d R

edet

erm

inin

g E

ligib

ility

:It

ems

to V

erif

y In

com

e

Stat

e

Inco

me

can

bede

clar

ed; n

o pr

oof

requ

ired

.

Payc

heck

stu

bE

mpl

oyer

stat

emen

t of

pay

Tax

ret

urn,

if s

elf-

empl

oyed

Oth

er in

com

eve

rifi

catio

nT

exas

11

1

Wes

t Vir

gini

a1

11

Soci

al S

ecur

ity I

ncom

e,co

pies

of

cour

t ord

ers

1 It

em is

AC

CE

PTE

D f

or v

erif

icat

ion.

+ I

tem

is R

EQ

UIR

ED

for

ver

ific

atio

n.It

ems

are

requ

ired

for

bot

h in

itial

app

licat

ion

and

rece

rtif

icat

ion

unle

ss o

ther

wis

e no

ted.

Tab

le 2

7V

erif

icat

ion

Doc

umen

ts A

ccep

tabl

e in

Det

erm

inin

g an

d R

edet

erm

inin

g E

ligib

ility

:It

ems

to V

erif

y A

ge o

f C

hild

(ren

)

Stat

eA

ges

can

be d

ecla

red;

no p

roof

req

uire

dB

irth

Cer

tific

ate

Scho

ol R

ecor

dO

ther

age

ver

ific

atio

n

Ala

bam

aI

Ifa

mily

Bib

le

Ark

ansa

s1

Del

awar

eI

Dis

tric

t of

Col

umbi

aI

if b

irth

cer

tific

ate

is n

ot a

vaila

ble,

pass

port

is a

ccep

tabl

e as

pro

of o

f bi

rth

Flor

ida

1G

eorg

ia1

Ken

tuck

yI

Idr

iver

's li

cens

e, I

D c

ard,

med

ical

reco

rds

for

child

ren

and

adul

ts

Lou

isia

na4.

Mar

ylan

dI

Mis

siss

ippi

1M

isso

uri

II

pass

port

, fam

ily B

ible

, or

3rd

part

y

Nor

th C

arol

ina

IO

klah

oma

1So

uth

Car

olin

aI

Ten

ness

eeI

Ifa

mily

Bib

le o

r im

mig

ratio

n fo

rms

Tex

as1

Wes

t Vir

gini

a1

I It

em is

AC

CE

PTE

D f

or v

erif

icat

ion.

+ I

tem

is R

EQ

UIR

ED

for

ver

ific

atio

n.It

ems

are

requ

ired

for

bot

h in

itial

app

licat

ion

and

rece

rtif

icat

ion

unle

ss o

ther

wis

e no

ted.

'

147

148

Tab

le 2

8V

erif

icat

ion

Doc

umen

ts A

ccep

tabl

e in

Det

erm

inin

g an

d R

edet

erm

inin

g E

ligib

ility

:O

ther

Doc

umen

ts

Stat

e

Ver

ify

fam

ilyun

it/ch

ild's

rela

tions

hip

toap

plic

ant

Chi

ld s

uppo

rten

forc

emen

tor

der

Soci

al S

ecur

itynu

mbe

rs f

or a

llfa

mily

mem

bers

Scho

ol o

rtr

aini

ngsc

hedu

le (

ifst

uden

t)

Ver

ify

resi

denc

e in

stat

e or

coun

ty

Proo

f of

imm

uniz

atio

nfo

r ch

ild(r

en)

in c

are

Oth

er p

roof

s or

veri

fica

tions

Ala

bam

a1

IIs

tate

Ark

ansa

s1

1I

1

Del

awar

e1

1

1(if

on

bord

erof

two-

stat

eto

wn)

1D

istr

ict o

fC

olum

bia

I1

1+

1

Flor

ida

I1

11

+ph

one/

utili

tybi

ll

Geo

rgia

1

Ken

tuck

y1(

initi

alap

plic

atio

n on

ly)

IJ(

initi

alap

plic

atio

non

ly)

1L

ouis

iana

I1

1Ic

itize

nshi

p/al

ien

stat

us

Mar

ylan

d'n

otar

ized

decl

arat

ion

II

/util

ity b

ill,

etc.

1

Mis

siss

ippi

Icou

ld b

e re

port

card

or

enro

llmen

tdo

cum

enta

tion

Mis

sour

i1

"(in

itial

appl

icat

ion

only

)1

I/li

cens

e,ut

ility

bill

, 3'

part

y

Nor

th C

arol

ina

11

"citi

zens

hip/

gree

n ca

rd

Okl

ahom

a1

1I

only

if"i

f ch

ild is

not

a c

itize

n,

14 9

150

Tab

le 2

8V

erif

icat

ion

Doc

umen

ts A

ccep

tabl

e in

Det

erm

inin

g an

d R

edet

erm

inin

g E

ligib

ility

:O

ther

Doc

umen

ts

Stat

e

Ver

ify

fam

ilyun

it/ch

ild's

rela

tions

hip

toap

plic

ant

Chi

ld s

uppo

rten

forc

emen

tor

der

Soci

al S

ecur

itynu

mbe

rs f

or a

llfa

mily

mem

bers

Scho

ol o

rtr

aini

ngsc

hedu

le (

ifst

uden

t)

Ver

ify

resi

denc

e in

stat

e or

coun

ty

Proo

f of

imm

uniz

atio

nfo

r ch

ild(r

en)

in c

are

Oth

er p

roof

s or

veri

fica

tions

ques

tiona

ble

need

pro

of o

f ch

ild's

stat

usSo

uth

Car

olin

a1

Ten

ness

ee1

/for

TA

NF

(ini

tial

appl

icat

ion

only

)l(

initi

alap

plic

atio

n on

ly)

I1(

initi

alap

plic

atio

non

ly)

Tex

as1

1W

est V

irgi

nia

11

1 It

em is

AC

CE

PTE

D f

or v

erif

icat

ion.

+ I

tem

is R

EQ

UIR

ED

for

ver

ific

atio

n.It

ems

are

requ

ired

for

bot

h in

itial

app

licat

ion

and

rece

rtif

icat

ion

unle

ss o

ther

wis

e no

ted.

151

Tab

le 2

9B

arri

ers

to A

cces

sing

Chi

ld C

are

Ass

ista

nce

Stat

eIn

you

r op

inio

n, w

hat i

s th

e si

ngle

mos

t dif

ficu

lt pa

rt o

f th

epr

oces

s fo

r fa

mili

es s

eeki

ng c

hild

car

e su

bsid

ies?

Ala

bam

ano

t eno

ugh

mon

ey; v

erif

icat

ion

docu

men

t

Ark

ansa

sno

t eno

ugh

mon

ey to

ser

ve a

ll fa

mili

es

Del

awar

ein

itial

app

licat

ion

proc

ess

burd

enso

me;

pro

ofs

and

com

ing

to o

ffic

e

Dis

tric

t of

Col

umbi

ahe

alth

for

m a

nd f

indi

ng p

lace

men

ts f

or in

fant

s

Flor

ida

limite

d fu

nds;

req

uire

men

t to

mee

t all

fede

ral m

anda

tes

for

fund

ing;

prov

ider

s fr

ustr

ated

with

the

bure

aucr

acy

invo

lved

in s

ervi

ng s

ubsi

dize

dch

ildre

n

Geo

rgia

limite

d do

llars

and

lack

of

tran

spor

tatio

n in

rur

al a

reas

Ken

tuck

yno

t eno

ugh

mon

ey to

bri

ng in

com

e el

igib

ility

up

to 2

00%

of

FPL

;di

ffic

ulty

in v

erif

ying

elig

ibili

ty d

eter

min

atio

n in

form

atio

n

Lou

isia

nafa

mili

es p

rovi

ding

all

requ

ired

ver

ific

atio

n

Mar

ylan

dge

tting

doc

umen

tatio

n in

on

time

for

child

car

e to

beg

in

Mis

siss

ippi

not e

noug

h m

oney

to s

erve

a s

igni

fica

nt p

erce

ntag

e of

thos

e w

ho a

pply

Mis

sour

ila

ck o

f fu

ndin

g to

incr

ease

inco

me-

elig

ibili

ty c

eilin

g

Nor

th C

arol

ina

getti

ng to

cou

nty

Dep

artm

ent o

f So

cial

Ser

vice

s du

ring

bus

ines

s ho

urs

Okl

ahom

afi

ndin

g ch

ild c

are

prov

ider

s w

ho w

ill a

ccep

t sub

sidy

pay

men

ts, t

hen

payi

ng u

ntil

subs

idy

begi

ns

Sout

h C

arol

ina

no a

cces

s to

sub

sidi

es o

n an

on-

goin

g ba

sis;

too

man

y ov

er in

com

e lim

its

Ten

ness

eelim

ited

fund

s to

ser

ve th

e lo

w-i

ncom

e el

igib

le p

opul

atio

n

Tex

aslim

ited

dolla

rs; n

on-T

AN

F fa

mili

es f

ace

long

wai

ting

lists

Wes

t Vir

gini

ain

take

; app

oint

men

ts m

ust b

e sc

hedu

led

only

dur

ing

busi

ness

hou

rs

Tab

le 3

0O

utre

ach

Act

iviti

es

Stat

e

Eff

orts

to in

form

TA

NF

fam

ilies

abo

ut th

eav

aila

bilit

y of

chi

ld c

are

subs

idie

s

Eff

orts

to in

form

inco

me-

elig

ible

fam

ilies

abo

ut th

eav

aila

bilit

y of

chi

ldca

re s

ubsi

dies

Stat

e ha

ses

tabl

ishe

d a

toll-

free

num

ber

for

appl

ican

tsfo

r ch

ild c

are

subs

idie

s

.

Stat

e ha

s ex

pand

edho

urs

for

inta

kew

orke

rs, t

o in

clud

eev

enin

gs a

nd w

eeke

nds

Stat

e ha

sco

nduc

ted

aco

nsum

er-

satis

fact

ion

surv

ey

Ala

bam

a

TA

NF

agen

cy in

form

sap

plic

ants

abo

ut c

hild

car

eas

sist

ance

som

e re

gion

al c

hild

care

man

agem

ent

agen

cies

con

duct

outr

each

but

no

stat

ewid

e po

licy

yes,

reg

iona

llyno

no

Ark

ansa

s

one-

stop

cen

ters

, loc

alco

aliti

on o

utre

ach

cam

paig

n,di

stri

butin

g in

form

atio

n in

publ

ic p

lace

s, p

ilot e

lect

roni

cpa

ymen

t sys

tem

, med

iaca

mpa

ign

for

qual

ity c

are,

CC

R&

R o

utre

ach

stat

ewid

e,w

ebsi

te in

form

atio

n fo

rpa

rent

ssa

me

as f

or T

AN

Fye

sno

no

Del

awar

eal

l TA

NF

appl

ican

ts in

form

edas

par

t of

proc

ess

flye

rs, p

ublic

info

rmat

ion

cam

paig

n, v

ideo

,in

form

atio

n on

bus

es,

info

. at C

HIP

Sye

sye

sno

Dis

tric

t of

Col

umbi

a

com

mun

ity m

eetin

gs, b

uspo

ster

s, o

utre

ach

at f

estiv

als,

wor

k w

ith f

aith

-bas

edco

mm

unity

, eig

ht-m

inut

ein

form

atio

nal v

ideo

ava

ilabl

ein

eve

ry p

ublic

libr

ary

and

heal

th c

linic

, inf

orm

atio

nav

aila

ble

at b

ank

bran

ches

,le

tter

to T

AN

F ap

plic

ants

sam

e as

for

TA

NF

yes,

sin

gle

acce

ssnu

mbe

r

.

yes

yes,

in 1

999

Flor

ida

form

atio

n of

57

loca

lsa

me

as f

or T

AN

Fye

s, r

egio

nally

;ye

s, v

arie

s by

loca

tion

yes,

ann

ually

154

155

Tab

le 3

0O

utre

ach

Act

iviti

es

Stat

e

Eff

orts

to in

form

TA

NF

fam

ilies

abo

ut th

eav

aila

bilit

y of

chi

ld c

are

subs

idie

s

Eff

orts

to in

form

inco

me-

elig

ible

fam

ilies

abo

ut th

eav

aila

bilit

y of

chi

ldca

re s

ubsi

dies

Stat

e ha

ses

tabl

ishe

d a

toll-

free

num

ber

for

appl

ican

tsfo

r ch

ild c

are

subs

idie

s

Stat

e ha

s ex

pand

edho

urs

for

inta

kew

orke

rs, t

o in

clud

eev

enin

gs a

nd w

eeke

nds

Stat

e ha

sco

nduc

ted

aco

nsum

er-

satis

fact

ion

surv

ey

.

coal

ition

s, w

eb-b

ased

sim

plif

ied

poin

t of

entr

y, lo

cal

pres

ence

via

wor

kfor

cede

velo

pmen

t boa

rds

and

cent

ral a

genc

ies

stat

ewid

e Ju

ly20

01

Geo

rgia

publ

ic a

war

enes

s ca

mpa

ign,

R&

Rs

reac

h fa

mili

es,

coor

dina

te w

ith h

igh

scho

ols,

park

ssa

me

as f

or T

AN

Fno

yes

no

Ken

tuck

y

R&

Rs

do p

ublic

aw

aren

ess,

pam

phle

ts, p

aren

t mee

tings

,po

ster

ssa

me

as f

or T

AN

Fno

yes,

eve

ning

hou

rs in

som

ear

eas;

no

wee

kend

hou

rs

limite

d nu

mbe

r of

rand

om c

alls

tocl

ient

s in

Jun

e 20

00

Lou

isia

nano

neno

neno

nono

Mar

ylan

d

stat

ewid

e I&

R f

or p

aren

tslo

okin

g fo

r ch

ild c

are,

soc

ial

serv

ice

wor

kers

info

rmed

abou

t chi

ld c

are

poss

ibili

ties,

child

car

e su

bsid

y in

form

atio

nav

aila

ble

at p

ublic

sch

ools

,ki

nder

gart

ens,

Pre

-Ks

and

all

soci

al s

ervi

ce o

ffic

es, p

lann

ing

maj

or o

utre

ach

cam

paig

n,ch

ild c

are

subs

idy

wor

kers

go

to jo

b si

tes,

pla

nnin

g st

ate

broc

hure

ssa

me

as f

or T

AN

Fno

yes

no

Mis

siss

ippi

med

ia c

ampa

ign,

app

licat

ions

avai

labl

e at

mul

tiple

loca

tions

, sim

plif

ied

appl

icat

ion

proc

ess

sam

e as

for

TA

NF

yes

nono

Mis

sour

ist

atew

ide

R&

R c

ampa

ign

for

sam

e as

for

TA

NF

nono

no

Tab

le 3

0O

utre

ach

Act

iviti

es

Stat

e

Eff

orts

to in

form

TA

NF

fam

ilies

abo

ut th

eav

aila

bilit

y of

chi

ld c

are

subs

idie

s

Eff

orts

to in

form

inco

me-

elig

ible

fam

ilies

abo

ut th

eav

aila

bilit

y of

chi

ldca

re s

ubsi

dies

Stat

e ha

ses

tabl

ishe

d a

toll-

free

num

ber

for

appl

ican

tsfo

r ch

ild c

are

subs

idie

s

Stat

e ha

s ex

pand

edho

urs

for

inta

kew

orke

rs, t

o in

clud

eev

enin

gs a

nd w

eeke

nds

Stat

e ha

sco

nduc

ted

aco

nsum

er-

satis

fact

ion

surv

eyqu

ality

chi

ld c

are,

per

iodi

cm

ailin

gs, b

roch

ures

,co

mm

unity

out

reac

h th

roug

hsc

hool

s, in

form

atio

n on

web

site

.

Nor

thC

arol

ina

som

e lo

cal a

genc

ies

offe

rex

tend

ed e

veni

ng h

ours

, som

eta

ke a

pplic

atio

ns a

tco

mm

unity

site

s, s

ome

doou

trea

ch, p

ublis

h in

form

atio

nin

loca

l new

spap

ers,

info

rmat

ion

on a

div

isio

nw

ebsi

te, s

ome

coun

ties

allo

wpa

rent

s to

sig

n ap

plic

atio

n at

child

car

e ce

nter

sam

e as

for

TA

NF

avai

labl

e in

som

eco

untie

sav

aila

ble

in s

ome

coun

ties

not s

tate

wid

e, b

utso

me

coun

ties

have

cond

ucte

d th

em

Okl

ahom

a

outr

each

cam

paig

n,di

stri

butin

g in

form

atio

n in

publ

ic p

lace

s, p

ilot e

lect

roni

cpa

ymen

t sys

tem

sam

e as

for

TA

NF

noye

s, c

ount

y op

tion

no, b

ut s

ome

coun

ties

surv

ey

Sout

hC

arol

ina

case

wor

kers

info

rm T

AN

Ffa

mili

es a

bout

chi

ld c

are

subs

idie

s.

use

"enh

ance

dpr

ovid

ers"

todi

stri

bute

appl

icat

ions

, R&

Rs,

WIC

-out

reac

h,fa

mily

-nig

htpr

ogra

ms

yes,

but

can

'tha

ndle

all

the

calls

yes

yes,

in A

ugus

t,Se

ptem

ber

and

Oct

ober

199

9

Ten

ness

ee

post

ers,

pam

phle

ts, n

otic

es in

busi

ness

es a

nd s

ocia

l ser

vice

agen

cies

, cou

nsel

ing

duri

ngap

plic

atio

n pr

oces

ssa

me

as f

or T

AN

Fye

sye

sye

s, in

199

9

158

159

Tab

le 3

0O

utre

ach

Act

iviti

es

Stat

e

Eff

orts

to in

form

TA

NF

fam

ilies

abo

ut th

eav

aila

bilit

y of

chi

ld c

are

subs

idie

s

Eff

orts

to in

form

inco

me-

elig

ible

fam

ilies

abo

ut th

eav

aila

bilit

y of

chi

ldca

re s

ubsi

dies

Stat

e ha

ses

tabl

ishe

d a

toll-

free

num

ber

for

appl

ican

tsfo

r ch

ild c

are

subs

idie

s

Stat

e ha

s ex

pand

edho

urs

for

inta

kew

orke

rs, t

o in

clud

eev

enin

gs a

nd w

eeke

nds

Stat

e ha

sco

nduc

ted

aco

nsum

er-

satis

fact

ion

surv

ey

Tex

as

loca

l boa

rds

run

care

erce

nter

s (o

ne-s

top,

eas

y ac

cess

reso

urce

roo

ms

with

sta

ff to

help

pot

entia

l chi

ld c

are

subs

idy

reci

pien

ts);

sta

tew

ide

R&

R, w

ebsi

tesa

me

as f

or T

AN

F

all l

ocal

boa

rds

have

est

ablis

hed

loca

l 800

num

bers

for

inta

ke a

ndpu

blic

inqu

irie

s

hour

s ar

e no

t set

by

the

stat

e, b

ut m

ost l

ocal

boa

rds

have

exp

ande

d in

take

hour

s

surv

eys

not d

one

atst

ate

leve

l, bu

t som

elo

calit

ies

have

cond

ucte

d co

nsum

er-

satis

fact

ion

surv

eys

Wes

t Vir

gini

a

new

soc

ial s

ervi

ces

web

pag

eha

s ch

ild-c

are

elig

ibili

tygu

idel

ines

, wor

king

on

onlin

eap

plic

atio

n fo

rm w

ith in

com

e-el

igib

ility

cal

cula

tor

sam

e as

for

TA

NF

nono

no

1 6

06

t

Tab

le 3

1St

ate

Inco

me

Tax

Pro

visi

ons

for

Chi

ld C

are'

Stat

e

Typ

e of

child

car

epr

ovis

ion

Des

crip

tion

Ref

unda

ble

Is th

ere

anin

com

e ca

p?

Max

imum

bene

fits

(1

depe

nden

t/2 o

rm

ore

depe

nden

ts)

Ala

bam

ano

ne

Ark

ansa

scr

edit

20%

of

fede

ral c

redi

t

no, e

xcep

t for

care

for

3-

to 5

-ye

ar-o

lds

inac

cred

ited

cent

erno

$144

/ $2

88

Del

awar

ecr

edit

50%

of

fede

ral c

redi

tno

no$3

60 /

$720

Dis

tric

t of

Col

umbi

acr

edit

32%

of

fede

ral c

redi

tno

no$2

30 /

$461

Flor

ida

N/A

; no

stat

e pe

rson

al in

com

e ta

x

Geo

rgia

none

Ken

tuck

ycr

edit

20%

of

fede

ral c

redi

tno

no$1

44 /

$288

Lou

isia

na'

cred

it10

% o

f fe

dera

l cre

dit,

up to

$25

nono

$25

/ $25

Mar

ylan

d'de

duct

ion

expe

nses

elig

ible

for

fed

eral

cre

dit

nono

$117

/ $2

344

Mar

ylan

dcr

edit

begi

nnin

g in

tax

year

200

1, 3

2.5%

of

fede

ral c

redi

t if

fede

ral

AG

I le

ss th

an o

r eq

ual t

o $4

0,00

0, r

educ

ed b

y 10

% f

or e

ach

$1,0

00 o

r fr

actio

n th

ereo

f by

whi

ch f

eder

al A

GI

exce

eds

$40,

000

no$5

0,00

0fe

dera

l AG

I$2

34 /

$468

Mis

siss

ippi

none

Sour

ce: N

atio

nal W

omen

's L

aw C

ente

r, 2

000,

"M

akin

g C

hild

Car

e L

ess

Tax

ing:

Im

prov

ing

Stat

e C

hild

and

Dep

ende

nt C

are

Tax

Prov

isio

ns,"

Was

hing

ton,

DC

.2

Lou

isia

na: I

n co

ntra

st, L

ouis

iana

off

ers

a cr

edit

for

expe

nses

und

erta

ken

for

"dep

ende

nts

phys

ical

ly o

r m

enta

lly in

capa

ble

of s

elf-

care

"eq

ual t

o 10

0 pe

rcen

t of

the

fede

ral c

redi

t.'M

aryl

and:

Beg

inni

ng in

tax

year

200

0, M

aryl

and

fam

ilies

may

cla

im b

oth

the

dedu

ctio

n an

d th

e cr

edit.

4Mar

ylan

d: M

aryl

and'

s to

p ta

x ra

te is

4.8

75 p

erce

nt.

Tab

le 3

1St

ate

Inco

me

Tax

Pro

visi

ons

for

Chi

ld C

are'

Stat

e

Typ

e of

child

car

epr

ovis

ion

Des

crip

tion

Ref

unda

ble

Is th

ere

anin

com

e ca

p?

Max

imum

bene

fits

(1

depe

nden

t/2 o

rm

ore

depe

nden

ts)

Mis

sour

ino

ne

Nor

th C

arol

ina

cred

it

13%

of

expe

nses

elig

ible

for

fed

eral

cre

dit f

or c

are

for

child

ren

unde

r 7,

9%

for

chi

ldre

n ov

er 7

, if

fede

ral A

GI

is le

ss th

an$2

5,00

0; 1

1.5%

of

elig

ible

exp

ense

s fo

r ca

re f

or c

hild

ren

unde

r 7,

8% f

or c

hild

ren

over

7 if

AG

I is

$25

,001

-$40

,000

; 10%

of

elig

ible

expe

nses

for

car

e fo

r ch

ildre

n un

der

7, 7

% f

or c

hild

ren

over

7, i

fA

GI

is m

ore

than

$40

,000

5no

no$3

12 /

$624

Okl

ahom

acr

edit

20%

of

fede

ral c

redi

t act

ually

rec

eive

d th

ough

if s

tate

AG

I is

less

than

fed

eral

AG

I, c

redi

t is

pror

ated

nono

$144

/ $2

88

Sout

h C

arol

ina

cred

it7%

of

expe

nses

elig

ible

for

fed

eral

cre

dit

nono

$168

/ $3

36

Ten

ness

eeN

/A; n

o st

ate

pers

onal

inco

me

tax

Tex

asno

ne

Wes

t Vir

gini

ano

ne

5 N

orth

Car

olin

a: T

he a

pplic

able

inco

me

rang

es v

ery

with

taxp

ayer

fili

ng s

tatu

s. T

he f

igur

es g

iven

abo

ve a

re f

or m

arri

ed ta

xpay

ers

filin

gjo

intly

.

SOUTHERN INSTITUTE ON CHILDREN AND FAMILIES1821 HAMPTON STREETCOLUMBIA, SC 29201

(803) 779-2607

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Unita Blackwell Washington Clark Hill The Southern Institute onChairman Director, Maternal-Fetal Medicine Children and Families is anPresident Emeritus Sarasota Memorial Hospital independent nonprofit publicNational Conference of Black Mayors Sarasota, Florida policy organization. ItMayersville, Mississippi endeavors to improve

Judy Langford opportunities for children andSarah C. Shuptrine Senior Consultant families in the South with aPresident Family Resource Coalition focus on disadvantagedSouthern Institute on Children Chicago, Illinois children. Through special

and Families projects and surveys, theColumbia, South Carolina Ray Marshall Southern Institute on Children

Michael N. CastleRapoport Centennial Chair in

Economics and Public Affairsand Families spotlights health,social, education and

Congressman At Large, Delaware University of Texas economic issues of regionalU. S. House of Representatives Austin, Texas significance. It works toWashington, DC encourage public/private

F. David Mathews sector collaboration on behalfMarian Wright Edelman President and CEO of children and families andPresident ,

Children's Defense FundThe Kettering FoundationDayton, Ohio

seeks to remove bureaucraticand other barriers that restrict

Washington, DC access to needed services.Paul M. Starnes The Southern Institute on

Reuben M. Greenberg President Children and Families isChief of Police Star Trend Products funded through grants andCharleston Police Department Chattanooga, Tennessee contributions.Charleston, South Carolina

Beegie TruesdaleProducerLos Angeles, California

Southern Regional Task Force on Child CareSouthern Institute on Children and Families Project Staff

Zenovia VaughnDeputy Director for Child CareSouthern Institute on Children and Families1821 Hampton StreetColumbia South Carolina 29201Phone: 8031779-2607 Fax: 8031254-6301E-mail: zenovia©kidsouth.org

Kristine HartvigsenCommunications DirectorSouthern Institute on Children and Families1821 Hampton StreetColumbia South.Carolina 29201Phone: 8031779-2607 Fax: 803/254-6301E-mail: kristine©kidsouth.org

Lynn AmmonsExecutive AssistantSouthern Institute on Children and Families1821 Hampton StreetColumbia South Carolina 29201Phone: 803/779-2607 Fax: 8031254-6301E-mail: lynn©kidsouth.org

87

iik511 INISTI1-U1-5

ov eqargN cva F&ACwf2. I Hotmpi-o% Si-reei-

Col Immbiat, SC 2.92.01Voice: 8'03-771-2.607 Fax: $03-23-4-4301

168

YI0 F

40s4

71,7

75..

stirEs

U.S. Department of EducationOffice of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)

National Library of Education (NLE)

Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)

NOTICE

Reproduction Basis

ERIC

This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release(Blanket)" form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing allor classes of documents from its source organization and, therefore,does not require a "Specific Document" Release form.

This document is Federally-funded, or carries its own permission toreproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore, maybe reproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Release form(either "Specific Document" or "Blanket").

EFF-089 (3/2000)

p5 0071,13 7

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that …DOCUMENT RESUME PS 029 987 Sound Investments:...

Documents

Transcript of Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that …DOCUMENT RESUME PS 029 987 Sound Investments:...