Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
24822571
label
Campus Child Care
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
24822571
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Campus Child Care
citationUrl
collections
Records of the First Lady's Office (Clinton Administration)
Nicole Rabner's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
24822571
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7763278-20121035S-024-008-2015
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
0e3982ec89264476
ocrText
DEC-01-1998 17:44
ACF/ACYF/DCC
202 690 5600 P.01
Room 2046
Washington, DC 20447
wiss will
Date
12/1/98
Number of pages including cover sheet 4
r
states
I
To: Neera Tanden
From: Frank Faentes
Phone
Phone
202-690-6782
Fax Phone
Fax Phone
202-690-5600
CC:
REMARKS:
Urgent
For your review
Reply ASAP
Please comment
This material responds to the Campus Child Care
questions asked of Carmen Nazario. we
have tried to send this Via e-mail but
Our Saftaure is not compatible.
DEC-01-1998 17:45
ACF/ACYF/DCC
202 690 5600
P.02
Campus Based Child Care Questions and Answers
How does the new program fit with existing programs?
The new funds are expected to expand the availability of campus-based child care
available to students. The Department of Education will hold a competition in early 1999
to award funds. Funds will be available to both existing programs and campuses seeking
to establish new programs. Grant levels have not yet been determined.
How many states provide child care for students only?
According to the State Child Care Plans, 30 states explicitly include participation in
postsecondary education (including vocational/technical programs and either two- or four-
year programs) as a qualifying activity for the child care subsidy (AL, AK, AZ, DE, DC, GA,
ID, IL, IA, LA, ME, MD, MA, MN, MT, NE, NJ, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, SC, TX, VT,
VA, WA, WV, WY). Some states will only authorize care for two years of post-secondary
education for some families (AL, AZ, LA, MA, SD). For example, in Alabama, child care is
not routinely authorized for clients to attend four-year programs unless the client is within
two years of completing the Bachelor's degree in a field of good employment potential.
In other states, postsecondary education in a two- or four-year setting is not explicitly named,
although this educational activity may be allowed if it seems to prepare the client for
employment.
In Oklahoma, reimbursement for child care services is not available when both parents are
attending school or for post-graduate education except for high school students or those
obtaining their GED.
How many campus-based child care centers exist?
According to the National Coalition for Campus Children's Centers, there are
approximately 2500 campus based centers serving approximately 170,000 children. Todd
Boressoff, NCCCC Public Policy Chair noted that this data is dated and very much an
approximation. The Center is seeking funding to collect accurate data on the number of
colleges with centers, the number of centers, and the number of children served.
How are campus-based centers funded?
A 1995 survey by the National Coalition for Campus Children's Centers identified these
funding sources for child care centers on campus:
Funding Source
Percentage
Parent Fees
50%
Direct Subsidies
21%
In-Kind Donations from Institutions
10%
DEC-01-1998 17:45
ACF/ACYF/DCC
202 690 5600
P.03
Other (Primarily grants, fundraising)
19%
Who do campus-based centers serve?
The same survey found the clientele for on-campus centers to be:
Parent Group Served
Percentage
Students
97%
Campus Employees
93%
Community
64%
What types of programs do campus-based centers offer?
The survey also found that most programs include a full-day component:
Type of Program
Percentage
Full Day
81%
Half Day
58%
Flexible Schedule
42%
Evening
13%
Weekend
3%
Other
6%
Other Information and Examples
An informal survey by the Coalition found the following information about participation of
low-income families in campus child care programs:
University of Wisconsin-Whitewater Children's Center: 23% of the children served come
from families with low incomes;
Maui Community College: on-campus center is a partnership with Head Start, so 100%
of children served are low-income;
Northern Illinois University Campus Child Care: 37% of families served are low income;
Borough of Manhattan Community College Early Childhood Center: 82.5% of families
served are low income;
Washington State University Children's Center: 38.6% of children are from low income
families;
University of Notre Dame and Saint Mary's College: 21% of children served are low
income;
Parkland College Child Development Center: 14.5% of children in center receive a
subsidy.
DEC-01-1998 17:45
ACF/ACYF/DCC
202 690 5600
P.04
On-campus child care programs are funded in a variety of ways, including parent fees, direct
funding through the institution through various departments, in-kind donations from the
institution, including rent and other operating expenses, institutional subsidies for faculty and
staff, state child care subsidy funds, and other community resources.
At Glendale Community College in Glendale, California, the college operates a
Laboratory/demonstration school, which serves as a laboratory for college students,
families, educators and the community. The center operates two programs. The first is a
full-day, full-year program completely supported by parent fees and open to faculty and
staff, students and other parents in the community. A second program is open from 6:00
p.m. to 10:00 p.m. four days a week during the Fall and Spring Semesters, and is funded
through grants from various campus departments, the Associated Student Body and state
block grant funds.
The University of California, Los Angeles operates several child care centers on campus
to meet the needs of faculty, staff and students. The University Child Care Services
contracts with the state to provide services to a limited number of low-income student
families, as long as one parent is a full-time UCLA student or working full-time and
meets the income eligibility guidelines.
The Ohio Board of Regents has embarked on a state-funded plan to build, expand or
renovate space for child-care centers on more than ten state college campuses. Almost
$1.5 million in funds was earmarked in a capital bill for campus child-care facilities in
1997. The projects are part of a sustained effort to place child-care facilities on Ohio's
state college and university campuses in response to student needs. To date, Ohio has
committed a total of $6.5 million. Licensed child-care facilities are either in operation or
scheduled to open at 57 campuses. Each state capital budget appropriation for child-care
facilities has required that colleges and universities match state funds with their own
resources. In addition, each appropriation has directed that priority be given to: (1)
colleges and universities without child-care facilities, (2) centers where the principal
clients are children of students enrolled in the college or university, and (3) centers used
as classrooms/training labs for child-care/pre-school certification programs.
TOTAL P.04
NOV-09-1998 15:23
AACC, WASH. , DC
202 223 9390
P.02/04
6661
OF
9 HH
TO ACCOMPANY
CONFERENCE REPORT
OF 1998
THE HIGHER HER EDUCA H3 JON AMENDMENT
04 THE SAY 128.10 THE
93
"(g) DATA COLLECTION.-The National Center for Education
Statistics shall collect postsecondary education data on migrant stu-
"(A) DURATION.-The Secretary shall award a grant
dents.".
under this section for a period of 4 years.
(d) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.-Section 418A(e) is amended by
"(B) PAYMENTS.-Subject to subsection (e)(2), the Sec-
striking "authorized by subpart 4 of this part in accordance with
retary shall make annual grant payments under this sec-
202 223 9390 P.03/04
section 417A(b)(2)" and inserting "in accordance with section
tion.
402A(c)(1)".
ind.
"(4) ELIGIBLE INSTITUTIONS.-An institution of higher edu-
SEC. 409. ROBERT C. BYRD HONORS SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM.
advet
cation shall be eligible to receive a grant under this section for
a fiscal year if the total amount of all Federal Pell Grant funds
(a) FAS ELIGIBILITY.-Section 419D (20 U.S.C. 1070d-34) is
awarded to students enrolled at the institution of higher edu-
amended by adding at the end thereof the following:
cation for the preceding fiscal year equals or exceeds $350,000.
"(e) FAS ELIGIBILITY.-
"(5) USE OF FUNDS.-Grant funds under this section shall
"(1) FISCAL YEARS 2000 THROUGH 2004.-Notwithstanding
be used by an institution of higher education to support or es-
any other provision of this subpart, in the case of students from
tablish a campus-based child care program primarily serving
the Freely Associated States who may be selected to receive a
the needs of low-income students enrolled at the institution of
scholarship under this subpart for the first time for any of the
higher education. Grant funds under this section may be used
fiscal years 2000 through 2004
to provide before and after school services to the extent nec-
"(A) there shall be 10 scholarships in the aggregate
essary to enable low-income students enrolled at the institution
awarded to such students for each of the fiscal years 2000
through 2004; and
of higher education to pursue postsecondary education.
"(6) CONSTRUCTION.-Nothing in this section shall be con-
"(B) the Pacific Regional Educational Laboratory shall
strued to prohibit an institution of higher education that re-
administer the program under this subpart in the case of
scholarships for students in the Freely Associated States.
ceives grant funds under this section from serving the child care
"(2) TERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY.-A student from the
needs of the community served by the institution.
Freely Associated States shall not be eligible to a receive schol-
arship under this subpart after September 30, 2004.".
mistby
"(7) DEFINITION OF LOW-INCOME STUDENT.-For the pur-
pose of this section, the term "low-income student" means a stu-
(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.-Section 419K (20
dent who is eligible to receive a Federal Pell Grant for the fiscal
U.S.C. 1070d-41) is amended by striking "$10,000,000 for fiscal
devel
year for which the determination is made.
year 1993" and inserting "$45,000,000 for fiscal year 1999".
vjm?
"(c) APPLICATIONS.-An institution of higher education desiring
a grant under this section shall submit an application to the Sec-
SEC. 410. CHILD CARE ACCESS MEANS PARENTS IN SCHOOL.
retary at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by such in.
Part A of title IV (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.) is amended by insert-
formation as the Secretary may require. Each application shall-
HACC, WASH., DC
ing after subpart 6 (20 U.S.C. 1070d-31 et seq.) the following:
"(1) demonstrate that the institution is an eligible institu-
tion described in subsection (b)(4);
"Subpart 7-Child Care Access Means Parents in
"(2) specify the amount of funds requested;
School
"(3) demonstrate the need of low-income students at the in-
stitution for campus-based child care services by including in
"SEC. 419N. CHILD CARE ACCESS MEANS PARENTS IN SCHOOL.
the application-
"(a) PURPOSE.-The purpose of this section is to support the
"(A) information regarding student demographics;
participation of low-income parents in postsecondary education
"(B) an assessment of child care capacity on or near
through the provision of campus-based child care services.
campus;
"(b) PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.-
"(C) information regarding the existence of waiting lists
"(1) AUTHORITY.-The Secretary may award grants to insti-
for existing child care;
tutions of higher education to assist the institutions in provid-
"(D) information regarding additional needs created by
ing campus-based child care services to low-income students.
concentrations of poverty or by geographic isolation; and
"(2) AMOUNT OF GRANTS.-
"(E) other relevant data;
NOV-09-1998 15:25
"(A) IN GENERAL-The amount of a grant awarded to
"(4) contain a description of the activities to be assisted, in-
an institution of higher education under this section for a
cluding whether the grant funds will support an existing child
fiscal year shall not exceed 1 percent of the total amount of
care program or a new child care program;
all Federal Pell Grant funds awarded to students enrolled
"(5) identify the resources, including technical expertise and
at the institution of higher education for the preceding fis-
financial support, the institution will draw upon to support the
cal year.
child care program and the participation of low-income stu-
"(B) MINIMUM.-A grant under this section shall be
dents in the program, such as accessing social services funding,
awarded in an amount that is not less than $10,000.
using student activity fees to help pay the costs of child care,
"(3) DURATION; RENEWAL, AND PAYMENTS.-
using resources obtained by meeting the needs of parents who
are not low-income students, and accessing foundation, cor-
95
94
or other institutional support, and demonstrate student that tui- the
"(ii) information on campus and community re-
sources and funding used to help low-income students
porate use of the resources will not result in increases in
access child care services;
tion;
contain an assurance that the institution will meet the
"(iii) information on progress made toward accred-
TOTAL P.04
"(6) needs of low-income students through the provision services;
itation of any child care facility; and
"(iv) information on the impact of the grant on the
child of services, care or through a contract for the provision of will
quality, availability, and affordability of campus-based
coordinate to the extent the curriculum is available, to
"(7) with the institution's early childhood education meet the
describe the extent to which the child care program cur-
child care services.
"(2) CONTINUING ELIGIBILITY-The Secretary shall make
202 223 9390
the third annual grant payment under this section to an insti-
riculum, the students in the early childhood education and program children
needs the of institution, and the needs of the parents this
lution of higher education only if the Secretary determines, on
the basis of the 18-month report submitted under paragraph
participating at in the child care program assisted under sec-
(1), that the institution is making a good faith effort to ensure
tion;
"(8) in the case of an institution seeking assistance for a
that low-income students at the institution have access to af-
fordable, quality child care services.
new child care program-
"(A) provide a timeline, covering the period from services, receipt
"(f) CONSTRUCTION.-N funds provided under this section
shall be used for construction, except for minor renovation or repair
of delineating the specific steps the institution with
the grant through the provision of the child care will take lo
to meet applicable State or local health or safety requirements.
"(g) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.-There are authorized
achieve the goal of providing low-income students
to be appropriated to carry out this section $45,000,000 for fiscal
child care services;
year 1999 and such sums as may be necessary for each of the 4 suc-
"(B) specify any measures the institution will take the to
ceeding fiscal years.".
low-income students with child care during and pe-
assist riod before the institution provides child care services;
SEC. 411. LEARNING ANYTIME ANYWHERE PARTNERSHIPS.
the child care services, including space in which to provide
"(C) include a plan for identifying resources needed for
Subpart 8 of part A of title IV (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.) is
amended to read as follows:
child care services, and technical assistance if necessary;
"(9) contain an assurance that any child care facility local as-
"Subpart 8-Learning Anytime Anywhere
sisted under this section will meet the applicable State or re-
Partnerships
government licensing, certification, approval, or registration
AACC, WASH., DC
"SEC. 420D. FINDINGS.
quirements; and
contain a plan for any child care facility assisted the
"Congress makes the following findings:
"(10) this section to become accredited within 3 years section. of
"(1) The nature of postsecondary education delivery is
under the institution first receives assistance under this
changing, and new technology and other related innovations
date PRIORITY.-The Secretary shall give priority in awarding that
can provide promising education opportunities for individuals
grants "(d) under this section to institutions of higher education
who are currently not being served, particularly for individuals
submit applications describing programs that-
without easy access to traditional campus-based postsecondary
leverage significant local or institutional resources, assisted in-
education or for whom traditional courses are a poor match
cluding "(1) in-kind contributions, to support the activities
with education or training needs.
"(2) Individuals, including individuals seeking basic or
under this section; and
utilize a sliding fee scale for child care services pro-
technical skills or their first postsecondary experience, individ-
vided "(2) under this section in order to support a high number the in- of
uals with disabilities, dislocated workers, individuals making
low-income parents pursuing postsecondary education at
the transition from welfare-to-work, and individuals who are
limited by time and place constraints can benefit from non-
NOV-09-1998 15:25
stitution. "(e) REPORTING REQUIREMENTS; CONTINUING ELIGIBILITY-
traditional, noncampus-based postsecondary education opportu-
nities and appropriate support services.
"(1) REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.-
"(A) REPORTS.-Each institution of higher education Sec-
"(3) The need for high-quality, nontraditional, technology-
receiving a grant under this section shall report to the
based education opportunities is great, as is the need for skill
retary 18 months, and 36 months, after receiving the first
competency credentials and other measures of educational
progress and attainment that are valid and widely accepted,
grant payment under this section.
"(B) CONTENTS.-The report shall include-
but neither need is likely to be adequately addressed by the un-
"(i) data on the population served under this sec-
coordinated efforts of agencies and institutions acting independ-
ently and without assistance.
tion;
November 16, 1998
MEMORANDUM FOR GENE SPERLING
FROM:
CECILIA ROUSE AND BOB SHIREMAN
SUBJECT:
CHILD CARE FOR ADULT STUDENTS
Attached is a proposal to increase funding for a program within the Dept. of Education to
subsidize the provision of child care on college campuses. This proposal has not been vetted (in
fact, Dept. of Ed only developed this under duress), however we believe that the Dept. of
Education (David Longenecker) is now on board. (Community colleges have been extremely
interested in this funding source and so an expansion of this program would likely be well
received.)
We have also considered expanding the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit to individuals who
work and who attend classes (say, at night). Both Treasury and the folks who work on child care
(from DPC and the First Lady's Office) oppose the extension (see the attached memo).
Therefore, we have focused on this program within the Dept. of Ed. The other support service
that we have considered is transportation, but we have yet to make any progress there.
November 16, 1998
CHILD CARE ACCESS MEANS PARENTS IN SCHOOL
Lack of affordable, quality child care is often cited as a primary obstacle for adults desiring to
continue their education. And colleges often complain that their lack of sufficient child care
facilities is a leading cause of student attrition. DPC is proposing an expansion of the Child Care
and Development Block Grant (of $7.5 billion over five years). We could, in addition, propose a
$35 million increase in funding for child care on college campuses through the "Child Care
Access Means Parents in School" program that is currently authorized under the Higher
Education Act.
Summary of Existing Program
The 1998 amendments to the Higher Education Act of 1965 authorize supporting the
participation of low-income parents in postsecondary education through the provision of campus-
based child care services. Under the program, the Department will award grants to institutions of
higher education to assist in providing campus-based child care services to low-income students.
Among the specific requirements of the program are:
For an institution to be eligible to receive a grant, it's Pell Grant funding in the
preceding fiscal year must equal or exceed $350,000.
For each fiscal year, the grant amount awarded to an institution shall not exceed 1
percent of the total Pell funds awarded to students at that institution in the
preceding year.
Priority must be given to institutions that leverage significant local or institutional
resources and utilize a sliding fee scale for child care services.
No funds made available under the program can be used for construction other
than minor renovation or repair to meet State or local health or safety
requirements.
The Department of Education Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1999 provides $5 million for the
Child Care Access Means Parents in School program.
Proposal
The proposal would be to increase funding to $40 million (the theoretical maximum is $60
million because of the limitation that the grants shall not exceed 1% of the institution's Pell
Grant funds in the preceding year, however the Dept. Of Education does not believe that it could
sensibly expand the program that much in one year).
Here are some estimates based on what we know:
2
Current Approp.
High end estimate
$5 million
$40 million
Number of inst.
31.2
900
Average award
$160,000
$44,000
Number of children
3,000
25,000
Average # of children per inst.
100
27
Est. avg. Federal cost/child
$1,620
$1,620
Assuming that at the current appropriations level, the schools that would be eligible to receive
the most would apply for and receive funding. The high end estimate is based on the assumption
that most institutions would not wish to apply for grants when the total amount of the grant they
could potentially receive was less than $20,000. Thus, only about ½ of the schools that would be
eligible for between $15,000 and $20,000 are assumed to apply for a grant. In addition, schools
are assumed to receive the full 1% of Pell Grants to which they are allowed, but the amount is
capped at $200,000 (only 13 schools are capped).
Background Information On Campus Child care Available at Institutions
Data from the NCES institutional surveys reveal that 1,365 of the 7,160 institutions, or 19
percent, had on-campus child care available in award year 1996-97.
Four-year (55 percent) and two-year (43 percent) public colleges were most likely to have on-
campus child care. For-profit institutions were least likely to have on-campus child care ,with
only 2 percent offering on-campus child care.
Institutional Eligibility for the Grant. Data for award year 1997-98 reveals that 2,812 institutions
had Pell Grant funding equal to or exceeding $350,000. The total amounted of Pell Grants to
these institutions was slightly over $6 billion. These institutions enrolled 3 million Pell Grant
recipients.
Percentage of Students Paying Child Care Costs. Data from the 1996 National Postsecondary
Study Aid Survey indicates that 20 percent of Federal student aid applicants paid child care
expenses in 1996. Of those students who received a Pell grant, 32.5 percent had child care
expenses in 1996.
Information by type of institution attended, marital status, gender, and race/ethnicity is presented
in the following table.
3
PERCENT OF STUDENTS REPORTING CHILD CARE EXPENSES
Estimates based on NPSAS:96
Child care paid?
Percent responding yes.
Total
20.1
Institution type (level & control) 1995-96
Public 4-year
13.9
Public 2-year
29.5
Public less-than-2-year
40.9
Private nfp, 4-year
9.8
Private nfp, 2-year
27.8
Private nfp, less-than-2-year
18.6
Private for profit, 4-year
25.9
Private for profit, 2-year
27.7
Private for profit, less-than-2-year
41.9
Gender
Male
11.0
Female
26.2
Race/ethnicity (citizens/perm residents)
White, non-Hispanic
18.3
Black, non-Hispanic
29.8
Hispanic
21.2
Asian/Pacific Islander
6.3
American Indian/Alaskan Native
41.4
Other
17.7
Non-resident alien
low n
Race/ethnicity and gender
American Indian/Alaskan Native male
31.2
American Indian/Alaskan Native female
45.6
Asian/Pacific Islander male
4.7
Asian/Pacific Islander female
7.9
Black, non-Hispanic male
17.2
Black, non-Hispanic female
35.5
Hispanic male
15.1
Hispanic female
25.5
White, non-Hispanic male
9.5
White, non-Hispanic female
24.6
4
Treatment of Child Care Expenses in the Calculation of Financial Aid
It is important to remember that child care expenses can be paid for with Federal student
financial aid. When calculating a student's financial need for federal student aid, the financial aid
administrator treats "child care expenses" as a line item in a student's "cost of attendance" budget
based on the definition of "Cost of Attendance" under section 472 of the Higher Education Act
of 1965, as amended. Specifically, the section 472 states that the term "cost of attendance"
means: for a student with one or more dependents, an allowance based on the estimated actual
expenses incurred for such dependent care, based on the number and age of such dependents,
except that - such allowance shall not exceed the reasonable cost in the community in which
such student resides for the kind of care provided; and - the period for which dependent care is
required includes, but is not limited to, class-time, study-time, field work, internships, and
commuting time.
stayhome.n08
Page 1
Tax Relief for Parents, Including Parents who Stay at Home
Stay-at-Home Options (all estimates are rough and preliminary)
1. Expand the Child Tax Credit:
The Child Tax Credit is currently $500 per child for children under 17. We propose
to double the credit to $1,000 per child for those children under the age of four.
The Child Tax Credit begins to fade out for taxpayers whose adjusted gross income
exceeds $110,000 each year ($75,000 if not married). Cost: Roughly between
$11 and $18 billion over 5 years. [Will get more definite numbers from Janet.]
B
Other options:
A. Increase the Child Credit by $250 per child under four, covering roughly 6.5
million taxpayers 6.8 million taxpayers with 7.9 million children. Average tax cut
per family is $278. Cost: $7.657 billion over 5 years.
B. Increase the Child Credit by $500 per child under two, covering roughly 1.8
million taxpayers with 1.9 million children. Average tax cut per family is $481.
Cost: $3.593 billion over 5 years.
C. Expand the Child Credit $250 per child under one, covering 1.8 million
taxpayers with 1.9 million children. Average tax cut per family is $249. Cost:
$1.845 billion over 5 years.
Evaluation
Pro: The child tax credit is partially refunded and helps mitigate the effects of the
alternative minimum tax.
Pro: This proposal reaches more families than a standard deduction proposal
because it reaches more higher-income families, as well as moderate-income
families who itemize deductions.
Pro: A number of Congressional Republicans have supported expanding the child
tax credit as part of their own child care initiatives. For example, Representative
Frank Wolf (R-VA) introduced the Family-Friendly Tax Relief Act, which doubled the
$ 500 per-child tax credit for children under 5 years old. And Senator Gordon
Smith introduced legislation to triple the per- child tax credit from $500 to $1,500
for parents of children under age 6, as part of a response to the Administration's
child care proposal.
Pro: This proposal benefits all families equally, including those where a parent
stays at home as well as those where both or the only parent work outside the
home.
stayhome.n08
Page 2
Con: This proposal will help all families, and is not targeted to those where one
spouse stays at home (though this could also be seen as a positive attribute as
well).
Con: If this proposal is put forward in addition to a child care tax proposal,
Congress may consider this the more politically palatable proposal, and pass it in
lieu of a tax credit for child care expenses.
Con: This proposal will not benefit the lowest-income families because they don't
have tax liability and the child tax credit is only partially refunded.
Con: This kind of proposal will not substantially affect behavior because it provides
too little support for families. Indeed, it provides a relatively small benefit to a large
number of taxpayers.
II. Increasing the Standard Deduction
Most lower-income families (incomes of less than $50,000) do not itemize their
deductions, choosing to take the standard deduction (and using the simpler form)
instead, while most higher income families choose to itemize. Therefore, a
proposal to expand the standard deduction for children would help lower-income
families. Currently, the standard deduction is roughly $7,200 for married couples,
and $6,350 for heads of households. We could increase the standard deduction by
$1,000 for families with children for each child under 3, regardless of the marital
status of the parents, and would cover roughly 3 million taxpayers (three quarters
of whom are married couples) and 3 million children. The average benefit would be
$170 per taxpayer. Cost: $2.5 to $3.5 billion over five years.
Other Options
A. Increase standard deduction by $1,500 for all joint returns (no limitation based
on children), which covers 22 million taxpayers. Average tax cut is $248. Cost:
$22.475 billion over 5 years.
B. Increase standard deduction by $1,500 for returns with a child under age 4,
which covers 3.9 million taxpayers. Average tax cut per family is $223. Cost:
$3.674 billion over 5 years.
C. Increase standard deduction by $1,500 per child under age 4, which covers 4
million taxpayers. Average tax cut per family is $252. Cost: $4.181 billion over 5
years.
D. Increase by $1,500 per child under age 4, for joint returns for married couples
only, which covers 2.8 million taxpayers. Average tax cut per family is $264.
Cost: $3.029 billion over 5 years. (We would only support such an initiative as part
of a marriage penalty proposal.)
700 M N/ WASO incomes below $ 50,000
stayhome.n08
Page 3
Evaluation
Pro: This proposal may simplify the tax code by creating an incentive to take the
standard deduction for some families who are currently itemizing their deductions.
Pro: Such an initiative could be cast in some form as limited marriage penalty relief.
Representative Archer has proposed expanding the deductions for married couples,
with or without children.
Pro: This option benefits both stay-at-home parents as well as those who work
outside the home equally.
Pro/Con: This proposal covers far fewer people from $50,000 to $100,000 relative
to child credit expenses, and therefore is less likely to buy conservative support,
though may well be better targeted policy.
Con: The current standard deduction does not vary with the age and number of
children in the household. Therefore, adding these criteria will complicate standard
tax filing.
Con: This proposal would not help the lowest income families because they already
do not pay taxes.
Con: Moderate income people who itemize because of high medical costs, high
state taxes or mortgage expenses, would not benefit from this proposal.
III. Expansion of the DCTC to Provide Benefits to Stay-at-Home Parents
We could extend the benefits of our DCTC proposal to stay-at-home parents with
children age three and under, by applying the same eligibility guidelines and
assuming minimum child-care expenses of $150 per family per month. This
Minimum
proposal would also phase out the credit for families with annual income over
$105,000. Cost: A variant of this proposal was estimated at $13 billion over 5
years, ($8 billion over our DCTC proposal). [Note: Janet is working on a further
billerpenses real
refinement of this initiative that is less expensive.]
Ex: If one parent earns $30,000, and the other parent stays at home for one year
to care for the child, they would be eligible for the following credit: (50%) X
Either or
($150/month) X (12 months) = $900.
imputed expenses includes phase out to 0 as in Chafee
$
of
Evaluation
Pro: This proposal has been adopted by a number of Republicans in the Senate, led
Both
by Chafee, and a few in the House, including Bob Franks (R-NJ).
imputeen 18.56 expenses, and
Pro: This tax credit builds on our current DCTC proposal, and therefore, does not
require a whole new initiative for stay-at-home parents.
add
18 real over expenses add h imputed if to you caplowable 1 maxi expense: 3,600 600
Modify budget proposal
over 5 yrs = over
$
stayhome.n08
Page 4
Pro: By having one tax proposal that supports child care as well as stay-at-home
parents, it builds support for the initiative from two different constituencies.
Con: This proposal raises equity concerns by benefiting some stay-at-home families
more than those families where both parents work.
Con: A proposal that builds on the DCTC is inherently more complicated than
expansion of the child tax credit, as well as other possible initiatives.
1
DCTC proposal w/in cost of our original proposal
Max credit of 4070 instead of 50 %
$1.40 less than our original proposal.
Stay-at-home $ 600 of " expenses for each child under 1
up to 2
MA 4070 of $600 = $ 240 = $ 1.4 B children
Added to expenses allowed under DCTC but
constrained by $ 2,400 01 $ 4,800
- How many helped?
- Income distribution
$30,000 / / head of households suffer For
boaseholds
2
Current (5090) proposal + imputed expenses
a) #600 for kids under 4 a
b) $ 1,200 for wids under /
c) Raise maximum limit - - not constrained by $ 2,400
Andrea Kane
Record Type:
Record
To:
Jennifer L. Klein/OPD/EOP
CC:
Subject: Child Care Program
Here's the info from Ed. I haven't heard back from Carmen -- any chance you can follow up?
Forwarded by Andrea Kane/OPD/EOP on 11/17/98 12:51 PM
@
Cecilia E. Rouse
11/10/98 04:27:19 PM
Record Type:
Record
To:
Andrea Kane/OPD/EOP
CC:
Subject: Child Care Program
Here's the info I got from Ed. I also spoke to David B. this afternoon and said that we'll need to do
better than this (because of the great interest in the field and in the Administration). He's going to
see what he can do (we'll also be discussing this at my post-secondary meeting on Friday at 2pm).
He claims there is no other statutory language under which child care subsidies (or something)
could be accommodated in the HEA. Therefore, we'll have to see what we can do with this or
come up with something new. I was also wondering if there was anything at HHS
ceci
Forwarded by Cecilia E. Rouse/OPD/EOP on 11/10/98 04:27 PM
David Bergeron @ ed.gov (David Bergeron)
11/06/98 10:40:02 AM
Record Type:
Record
To:
Cecilia E. Rouse/OPD/EOP, Robert M. Shireman/OPD/EOP
CC:
David_Longanecker @ ed.gov (David Longanecker) @ inet, Maureen_McLaughlin @ ed.gov (Maureen
McLaughlin) @ inet, Maria_Rojtman @ ed.gov (Maria Rojtman) @ inet
Subject: Child Care Program
Ceci--
Here is a paper on the child care program as you requested.
David
CHILD CARE ACCESS MEANS PARENTS IN SCHOOL
SUMMARY OF PROGRAM
The 1998 amendments to the Higher Education Act of 1965 authorize
supporting the participation of low-income parents in postsecondary
education through the provision of campus-based child care services. Under
the program, the Department will award grants to institutions of higher
education to assist in providing campus-based child care services to
low-income students. Among the specific requirements of the program are:
For an institution to be eligible to receive a grant, an it's Pell Grant
funding in the preceding fiscal year must equal or exceed $350,000.
For each fiscal year, the grant amount awarded to an institution shall
not exceed 1 percent of the total Pell funds awarded to students at that
institution in the preceding year.
Priority must be given to institutions that leverage significant local or
institutional resources and utilize a sliding fee scale for child care services.
No funds made available under the program can be used for construction
other than minor renovation or repair to meet State or local health or
safety requirements.
The Department of Education Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1999
provides $5 million for the Child Care Access Means Parents In School
program.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
On Campus Child care Available at Institutions. Data from the NCES
institutional surveys reveal that 1,365 of the 7,160 institutions, or 19 percent,
had on-campus child care available in award year 1996-97.
Four-year (55 percent) and two-year (43 percent) public colleges were most
likely to have on-campus child care. For-profit institutions were least
likely to have on-campus child care ,with only 2 percent offering on-campus
child care.
Institutional Eligibility for the Grant. Data for award year 1997-98 reveals
that 2,812 institutions had Pell Grant funding equal to or
exceeding $350,000. The total amounted of Pell Grants to these
institutions was slightly over $6 billion. These institutions enrolled 3
million Pell Grant recipients.
Percentage of Students Paying Child Care Costs. Data from the 1996
National Postsecondary Study Aid Survey indicates that 20 percent of
Federal student aid applicants paid child care expenses in 1996. Of those
students who received a Pell grant, 32.5 percent had child care expenses in
1996.
Information by type of institution attended, marital status, gender, and
race/ethnicity is presented in the following table.
PERCENT OF STUDENTS REPORTING CHILD CARE EXPENSES
Child care paid?
Percent responding yes.
Estimates based on NPSAS:96
Total
20.1
Institution type (level & control) 1995-96
Public 4-year
13.9
Public 2-year
29.5
Public less-than-2-year
40.9
Private nfp, 4-year
9.8
Private nfp, 2-year
27.8
Private nfp, less-than-2-year
18.6
Private for profit, 4-year
25.9
Private for profit, 2-year
27.7
Private for profit, less-than-2-year
41.9
Gender
Male
11.0
Female
26.2
Race/ethnicity (citizens/perm residents)
White, non-Hispanic
18.3
Black, non-Hispanic
29.8
Hispanic
21.2
Asian/Pacific Islander
6.3
American Indian/Alaskan Native
41.4
Other
17.7
Non-resident alien
low n =
Race/ethnicity and gender
American Indian/Alaskan Native male
31.2
American Indian/Alaskan Native female
45.6 =
Asian/Pacific Islander male
4.7 =
Asian/ Pacific Islander female
7.9 =
Black, non-Hispanic male
17.2 =
Black, non-Hispanic female
35.5 =
Hispanic male
15.1 =
Hispanic female
25.5 =
White, non-Hispanic male
9.5 =
White, non-Hispanic female
24.6 =
TREATMENT OF CHILD CARE EXPENSES IN THE CALCULATION OF FINANCIAL AID
It is important to remember that child care expenses can be paid for with Federal student financial
aid. When calculating a student's financial need
for federal student aid, the financial aid administrator treats "child care
expenses" as a line item in a student's "cost of attendance" budget based
on the definition of "Cost of Attendance" under section 472 of the Higher
Education Act of 1965, as amended. Specifically, the section 472 states that
the term "cost of attendance" means:
for a student with one or more dependents, an allowance based on the
estimated actual expenses incurred for such dependent care, based on the
number and age of such dependents, except that - such allowance shall not exceed the reasonable
cost in the community in
which such student resides for the kind of care provided; and - the period for which dependent care
is required includes, but is not limited to, class-time, study-time, field work, internships, and
commuting time.
CONCLUSION
The fiscal year 1999 appropriations bill provides $5 million for the Child
Care Access Means Parents In School program. Based on the analysis
described above, it appears that approximately 2,812 institutions would be
eligible to receive support totaling up to $60 million. With the $5
million appropriated, an estimated 30 grants could be made averaging $160,000.
However, institutions must demonstrate that there is a need for campus-based child care services
by providing:
- information on student demographics;
- an assessment of the existing child care capacity on or near campus;
- information regarding the existence of waiting lists for existing childcare; and
- information regarding additional needs created by concentrations of
poverty or geographic isolation.
Thus, we will not know until we evaluate proposals submitted under the
program the extent to which institutions actually need and request funds
under the program. We would expect that those institutions that had demand
for child care services on campus would be providing them. This seems to
be the case for the public institutions but, again, we will not know until
we receive applications. Further, many institutions lack the physical
space to house child care. The prohibition against the use of funds for
construction could result in some institutions in need of on-campus child
care being unable to apply. For these reasons, expansion of the program
beyond the amount appropriated for fiscal year 1999 should be approached
with caution.