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
34428578
label
Child Care Policy Options [2]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
34428578
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Child Care Policy Options [2]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the First Lady's Office (Clinton Administration)
Jennifer Klein's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
34428578
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7422560-20140536S-010-007-2016
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
b0da86b3fc6a7167
ocrText
JUL-10-1997 11:26
ACF/ACYF/DCC
we
202 690 5600 P.01
HEALTH
Administration for Children & Families
8
Facsimile from:
CHILD CARE BUREAU
Administration on Children, Youth and Families
HHH Building, Room 320 F
200 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20201
Phone: 202.690.6782
Fax 202.690.5600
Date: July10
This transmission consists of this cover page plus/pages. 120
To:
From:
JeNN for Klein
Phone, Jos Lombardi
Phone:
Fax:
Fax: 202.690.5600
Message:
Conference Please join us at the
\
JUL-10-1997 11:27
ACF/ACYF/DCC
202 690 5600
P.02
ACF Child Care Bureau
Annual Meeting of State Child Care Administrators
"CHILD CARE: COMING TOGETHER FOR
CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
Washington, DC
July 14-15, 1997
AGENDA
piaza
MONDAY, JULY 14
8:00am
REGISTRATION
Grand Mallroom Poyer
Lobby Level
9:00-10:15am
OPENING SESSION
Grand Baliroom Poyer
Joan Lombardi, Associate Commissioner
Lobby Level
Child Care Bureau, Washington DC
Welcome
Olivia Golden, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Children and Families
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC
Remarks
ID: 15-10:30am
BREAK
Grand Ballroom Foyer
Lobby Level
10:30am-12:00pm
HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE STATES
Grand Ballroom
Facilitator:
Frank Fuentes. Deputy Associate Commissioner
Child Care Bureau, Washington, DC
Panels:
REORGANIZING FOR A SEAMLESS DELIVERY SYSTEM
Glenda Bean, Director
Division of Child Care & Early Childhood Education
Arkansas Department of Human Services, Little Rock, AR
CHILD CARE FOR ALL CHILDREN IN ILLINOIS
Michele Piel, Manager, Child Care & Development Section
Illinois Department of Public Aid, Chicago, IL
CHILD CARE DEVOLUTION: COLORADO STYLE
Grace Hardy, Manager, Office of Child Care Services
Colorado Department of Social Services. Denver. CO
12:00-1:30 pm
LUNCH - On your own
JUL-10-1997 11:27
ACF/ACYF/DCC
202 690 5600
P.03
MONDAY, JULY 14
(continued)
1:30 - - 2:30pm
BRAIN RESEARCH AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR INFANT AND
Grand Battroom
TODDLER CARE
J. Ronald Lally, Director
WestEd, Center for Child & Family Studies, Sausalito, CA
2:30-2:45pm
BREAK
Grand Ballroom Foyer
2:45-3:45 pm
SMALL GROUP WORKSHOPS (Choice of Topics)
Monet IV-2nd Floor
CHILD CARE POLICY RESEARCH CONSORTIUM: AVAILABILITY OF CARE
Members of the Child Care Policy Research Consortium will discuss Massachusetts,
Illinois and Maryland-using census data and geo-mapping of facilities. They will also
describe how the supply of care can be estimated using population (consumer) data
from Oregon. Participants in this session are invited to explore the implications of
these Dindings for child care policies and programs.
Facilitator:
Pia Divine, Child Care Specialist
Child Care Bureau, Washington, DC
Presenters:
Ann Collins; Senior Program Associate
National Center for Children in Poverty, New York. NY
Arthur Emlen, Professor Emeritus
Portland State University, Lake Oswego. OR
Anne Dryden Witte, Professor of Economics
Florida International University, Miami, FL
Quonim-Lobby Level
CHILD SUPPORT: WHAT EVERY CHILD CARE ADMINISTRATOR
NEEDS To KNOW
This workshop will provide an overview of the child support enforcement program,
focusing on what is relevant to child care. Participants will discuss how child care and
child support enforcement сал work together to serve families, including outreach and
policy initiarives.
Facilitator:
Andrew Williams, Child Care Specialist
Child Care Bureau. Washington, DC
Presenters:
John P. Doyle, Program Collaboration Liaison
Office of Child Support Enforcement, Washington, DC
Kathleen Shapiro, Family Service Worker
Deborah M. Shepard. Director, Children, Youth & Family Services
Montgomery County Department of Health & Human Services
Rockville, MD
JUL-10-1997 11:28
ACF/ACYF/DCC
202 690 5600
P.04
MONDAY, JULY 14
(continued)
2:45-3:45 pm
SMALL GROUP WORKSHOPS (continued)
Monet III-2nd Floor
CHILD WELFARE/CHILD CARE
Child Care can provide an important service in a state's child welfare program. Two
Massachusetts programs will share their experiences of using child care in their child
welfare services. One program has used child care in their family preservation
program. The other program provides respite child care services to foster parents.
Facilitator:
Margreta Silverstone, Child Care Specialist
Child Care Bureau, Washington, DC
Moderator:
Bruce Hershfield. Director, Child Day Care Services
Child Welfare League of America, Washington, DC
Presenters:
Al Durham, Family Preservation Specialist
Children's Bureau, Washington, DC
Sherrie Lookner, Director of Child Care
Massachusetts Department of Social Services, Boston, MA
James Ward, Executive Director
Early Childhood Centers, Inc., Springfield, MA
Monet 1-2nd Floor
HEAD START/FAMILY CHILD CARE COLLABORATION
The Administration on Children and Families is seeking to promote more collaborative
work among local Head Start and child care programs in serving young children and
families through the development of a Head Start/Child Care Initiative. This session
will focus on Family Child Care and Head Start Partnerships.
Facilitator:
Rae Anderson, Head Stars Fellow
Child Care Bureau, Washington, DC
Presenters:
Beverly Langford-Duggar, Head Start Director
District of Columbia Public Schools, Washington, DC
Leah Pigani, Head Start Director
Mahube Community Council Head Start, Detroit Lake, MN
Respondent:
Barbara Ferguson Kamara. Executive Director
District of Columbia Department of Human Services
Washington, DC
JUL-10-1997 11:28
ACF/ACYF/DCC
202 690 5600
P.05
MONDAY, JULY 14
(continued)
2:45-3:45 pm
SMALL GROUP WORKSHOPS (continued)
Remoir-2nd Level
INTERGENERATIONAL MODELS
Training older persons to work with young children can meet the needs of both age
groups. This session will explore examples from programs begun in Illinois and
Pennsylvania and now in use across the country. Other aspects of intergenerational
programming will be explored
Facilitator:
Andrew Hagan, Child Care Specialist
Child Care Bureau, Washington. DC
Moderator:
Judy Levitt, Generations United, Washington, DC
Presenters:
Shelley Levin, Manager
Early Childhood Demonstration Centers
Oakton Community College, Des Plaines, IL
Sally Newman, Generations Together
University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA
Lafayethe-2nd Floor
OPPORTUNITIES FOR COLLABORATION IN CHILD HEALTH: AMERICAN
ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS INITIATIVES TO IMPROVE CHILD CARE
This session will showcase model strategies that can be implemented on a statewide
basis to improve the health and safety of children in child care (with examples from
North Carolina). Presenters will provide information on how the American Academy
of Pediatrics (AAP) can assist states and local communities in networking opportunities
to build health systems in child care, and the progress of the Healthy Child Care
Campaign activities being coordinated by AAP.
Facilitator:
Moniquin Huggins, Child Care Specialist
Child Care Bureau, Washington. DC
Presenters:
Laura Aird
American Academy of Pediatrics, Elk Grove Village. IL
James Poole, MD
Poole Pediatrics, Raleigh, NC
JUL-10-1997 11:29
ACF/ACYF/DCC
202 690 5600
P.06
MONDAY, JULY 14
(continued)
2:45-3:45 pm
SMALL GROUP WORKSHOPS (continued)
Monet U-2nd Floor
PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND BENCHMARKS
Developing benchmarks and performance measures is a '90's happening. This session
will explore what is happening in Head Start and several states in setting objectives and
outcome measures.
Facilitator:
Michael Dubinski, Data Specialist/Statistician
Child Care Boreau, Washington, DC
Presenters:
Janis Sabin Elliot, Administrator, Child Care Division
Oregon Department of Employment, Salem, OR
James Harrell, Deputy Commissioner
Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Washington, DC
Bruce Liggen. Program Administrator
Arizona Department of Economic Security, Phoenix, AZ
Ruth Hubble McKey, Vice President for Research & Program Services
Ellsworth Associates, Vienna, VA
3:45-4:00pm
BREAK
Grand Bellroom Foyer
4:00-5:00pm
SMALL GROUP WORKSHOPS (Choice of Topics)
Quorum-Lobby Level
BUILDING CHILD CARE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
Transportation issues interact with child care policy decisions. This session will
present two very different projects attempting to resolve some of these issues.
Facilitator:
Karin Dahl, Child Care Specialist
Child Care Bureau, Washington, DC
Presenters:
Verna S. Weber, Child Care Administrator
Kansas Department of Social & Rehabilitation Services
Topeka, KS
Gail T. Wilson, Executive Director
Colorado Office of Resource & Referral Agencies, Inc.
Englewood, CO
JUL-10-1997 11:30
ACF/ACYF/DCC
202 690 5600
P.07
MONDAY, JULY 14
(contimied)
4:00-5:00 pm
SMALL GROUP WORKSHOPS (continued)
Model 1-2nd Floor
CHILD CARE AS A JOB FOR TANF RECIPIENTS
This session will focus on policy and program strategies for preparing TANF recipients
to be child care providers. Among the issues to be discussed are recruitment. training
content and process. support services for providers, and coordination of services for
children and families.
Facilitator:
Jennifer Chang, Special Assistant to the Associate Commissioner
Child Care Bureau. Washington, DC
Moderator:
Andrea Genser, Executive Director
Center for Career Development in Early Care & Education
Boston, MA
Presenters:
Sandra Gellert, Director, National Child Care Program
The Children's Foundation, Washington, DC
Michele Piel, Manager, Child Care & Development Section
Illinois Department of Public Aid. Chicago, IL
Toni Porter, Director, Center for Family Support
Bank Street College of Education, New York, NY
Myset III-2nd Floor
FAMILY-CENTERED CHILD CARE
Learn what makes child care programs family-centered and how different models offer
a continum of services for families. Interactive discussion will focus on issues
regarding parent-provider relations and successful strategies to support family
sufficiency and good parenting
Facilitator:
Julie Feldman. Yale Graduate Student
Child Care Bureau, Washington, DC
Presenters:
M. Elena Lopez. Associate Director
Harvard Family Research Project, Cambridge, MA
Heather B. Weiss, Director
Harvard Family Research Project, Cambridge, MA
JUL-10-1997 11:30
ACF/ACYF/DCC
202 690 5600 P.08
MONDAY, JULY 14
(continued)
4:00-5:00 pm
SMALL GROUP WORKSHOPS (continued)
Monet IV-2nd Floor
REPORTING 101: WHO, WHAT, WHEN AND How!
This workshop will give participants a chance to learn the latest about the CCDF
reporting requirements, sampling, data element recommendations from the States, and
how States are getting ready to report.
Facilitator:
Linda Adams, Child Care Specialist
Child Care Bureau, Washington, DC
Presenter:
Debbie Thomas. Texas Workforce Commission, Austin, TX
Renoir-2nd Floor
SERVING TEENAGE PARENTS
Serving the needs of teenage parents involves many players from differing
backgrounds-families, schools, service agencies, and churches. Massachusetts and
Illinois have programs in place to begin to meet these needs. This session will describe
these programs. their funding and outcomes.
Facilitator:
Brenda Anderson, Child Care Specialist
Child Care Bureau, Washington, DC
Presenters:
Joyce Butler, Early Childhood Policy Consultant, Providence, RI
Nancy Schwachter, Coordinator of Child Care Policy
MA Executive Office of Health & Human Services, Boston. MA
Denise Simon. Manager, Youth Services
Illinois Department of Human Services, Springfield. IL
Monat 11-2nd Floor
STEPPING STONES TO CARING FOR OUR CHILDREN: PROTECTING CHILDREN
FROM HARM
In this session the presentation will include Stepping Stones and the use of standards
to enhance the quality and safety in out-of-home child care settings. The discussion
will include establishing state associate centers to enhance partnerships between health
care and child care providers
Facilitator:
M. Jane Coury, Project Officer
MCHB Health & Safety in Child Care Programs. Rockville, MD
Presenter:
Marilyn J. Krajicek. Associate Professor, Director
University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Denver. CO
5:00-6:30pm
RECEPTION
Grand Ballroom C&D
07/10/1997 09:01
2026394592
CHILDCARETECHASSI
PAGE 08
TUESDAY, JULY 15
8:00am
REGISTRATION
Grand Ballroom Poyer
8:45-10:30am
WELFARE REFORM AND CHILD CARE
Grand Ballroom
Facilitator:
Pia Divine, Child Care Specialist
Child Care Bureau, Washington, DC
GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
CHILD CARE STUDY
Janet L. Mascia, Senior Evaluator, Washington, DC
SEVEN STATE STUDY
Lois Shoemaker. Evaluator. Atlanta. GA
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
EVALUATION OF STATES' CHILD CARE SUBSIDY SYSTEMS
Thomas Komaniecki, Program Analyst, Chicago, IL
Emily Melnick, Program Analyst. Chicago, IL
URBAN INSTITUTE
ASSESSING THE NEW FEDERALISM
Sandra Clark, Research Associate, Washington, DC
Sharon Long, Senior Research Associate, Washington, DC
10:30-10:45am
BREAK
Grand Belkoom Foyer
10:45am-12:00pm
STATE DISCUSSION GROUPS
Moner Ballroom 1
Red
Monet Ballroom n
Green
Monet Ballroom m
Yellow
Month Ballroom IV
Orange
Quetum
Light Blue
Renoit
Purple
Lafayette
Blue
Caucas
Black
12:00-1:30 pm
LUNCH - On your own
1:30 - 2:30pm
MILITARY CHILD CARE SHARING EXPERIENCES
Grand Ballrobm
Facilitator:
Momiquin Huggins, Child Care Specialist
Child Care Bureau, Washington, DC
Presenter:
Linda Smith, Director, Office of Family Policy
U.S. Department of Defense. Washington, DC
60'd
009S 069 202
ACF/ACYF/DCC
11:33 2661-01-701
07/10/1997 09:01
2026394592
CHILDCARETECHASSI
PAGE 09
TUESDAY, JULY 15
(continued)
2:30-2:45pm
BREAK
Grand Ballroom Foyer
2:45-3:45pm
SMALL GROUP WORKSHOPS (Choice of Topics)
Mover IV-2nd Flour
CHILD CARE POLICY RESEARCH CONSORTIUM: QUALITY, FLEXIBILITY AND
EMPLOYMENT
Members of the Child Care Policy Research Consortium will discuss new findings from
the Oregon survey of Quality of Care from a Parent's Point of View and how this
measure can be used by other states to help determine the quality of care they are
purchasing. Researchers will also present comparative findings from Florida and
Oregon on the types of establishments that employ parents of children in subsidized
care. New findings which highlight the importance of flexibility in the triad of
caregiver. employer, and family will be discussed.
Facilitator:
Pia Divine, Child Care Specialist
Child Care Bureau, Washington, DC
Presenters:
Arthur Emien. Professor Emeritus
Portland State University, Lake Oswego, OR
Janis Sabin Elliot, Administrator, Child Care Division
Oregon Department of Employment, Salem, OR
Anne Dryden Witle, Professor of Economics
Florida International University, Miami, FL
Grand Baltroom
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
This workshop will address Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) quarterly
grants allotment policy, the impact of Cash Management Improvement Act policy on
the CCDF drawdowns, the proposed ACF-696 financial reporting form, and
obligation/liquidation provisions for FY 98 grants.
Facilitator:
Barbara Binker. Director, Program Policy Branch
Child Care Buresu, Washington, DC
Presenters:
Joseph Lonergan, Director
Division of Formula Entitlements and Block Grants
Office of Management Services. Washington, DC
Stephen R. Smith, Director
Office of Fiscal Services, Washington, DC
P.10
0095 069 202
ACF/ACYF/DCC
11:31
07/10/1997 09:01
2026394592
CHILDCARETECHASSI
PAGE 10
TUESDAY, JULY 15
(continued)
2:45-3:45pm
SMALL GROUP WORKSHOPS (continued)
Monet 1-2nd Floor
HEAD START/FAMILY CHILD CARE COLLABORATION
The Administration on Children and Families is seeking to promote more collaborative
work among local Head Start and child care programs in serving young children and
families through the development of a Head Start Child Care Initiative. This session
will highlight three model programs with a focus on Family Child Care and Head Stan
Partnerships.
Facilitator:
Rae Anderson. Head Start Fellow
Child Care Bureau, Washington, DC
Presenters:
Beverly Langford-Duggar, Head Start Director
District of Columbia Public Schools, Washington, DC
Leah Pigatti, Head Scart Director
Mahube Community Council Head Start, Detroit Lakes, MI
Respondent:
Barbara Tayman, Assistant Director
Maryland Department of Human Resources, Baltimore. MD
Mouet Il-2nd Floor
MILITARY CHILD CARE: DIALOGUE WITH PROGRAM MANAGERS
This-session will discuss the military service's implementation of the critical elements
of quality child care systems: standards, training and wages, accreditation and the
family child care system. Plans to share this expertise with the civilian sector will also
be addressed.
Facilitator:
Linda Graziano, Child Care Program
Child Care Bureau, Washington. DC
Presenters:
Juanita Armbrister. Head, Naval Child Development Program
Department of Navy, Memphis, TN
Sandra Evans, Marine Corps Child Care Program Director
Department of Navy, Washington, DC
M.-A. Lucas, Director. Soldier & Family Support Directorate
Department of Arroy. Washington, DC
Beverly Schmalzreid, Chief. Community Activities Policy Branch
Department of Air Force, Washington, DC
IT'd
0095 069 202
ACF/ACYF/DCC
11:32 2661-01-701
07/10/1997 09:01 2026394592
CHILDCARETECHASSI
PAGE 11
TUESDAY, JULY 15
(continued)
2:45-3:45pm
SMALL GROUP WORKSHOPS (continued)
Monst Ill-2nd Floor
POSSIBILITIES FOR CHILD CARE DATA
The Personal Responsibilities and Work Opportunities Act of 1996 includes a set of
congressionally mandated reporting requirements. This workshop will describe how
the implementation of this date set and other child care data collections can support
policy analysis and research at the national and state levels.
Facilitator.
Margreta Silverstone, Child Care Specialist
Child Care Bureau. Washington, DC
Presenters:
Doug Klayman, Ellsworth Associates, Washington, DC
LisaAnn Benham. Research Coordinator
Florida Children's Forum, Tallahassee, FL
Quorum-Lobby Level
PRIVATIZING SERVICES
This small group workshop will provide an in-depth opportunity to discuss state
practices in privatization. The challenges and possiblitities and liabilities of this
developing rend will be explored.
Facilitator:
Richard Sternowski. Child Care Specialist
Child Care Bureau, Washington, DC
Presenters:
Beverly Lynn, Administrator, Child Care Operations
New Jersey Department of Human Services, Trenton, NJ
Louise Stoney. Early Childhood Policy Specialist
Stoney Associates. Averill Park. NY
Lafayette-2nd Floor
STATE/TRIBAL COLLABORATION
Prior to collaborating, many states and Tribes find it necessary to lay groundwork,
open the channels for communication, and establish mutual respect. State
administrators and Tribal participants will share experiences describing their
preliminary efforts toward collaboration.
Facilitator:
Ginny Gorman. Child Care Specialist
Child Care Bureau, Washington, DC
Presenters:
Albert Long, Department Director
Navajo Nation, Window Rock, AZ
Will Numkena, Director
Utah Division of Indian Affairs, Salt Lake City, UT
Tony Zabicki, State Plan Coordinator/ Tribal Liaison
Arizona Department of Economic Security, Phoenix. AZ
P.12
009S 069 202
ACF/ACYF/DCC
1113
TOTAL P.13
07/10/1997 09:01
2026394592
TUESDAY, JULY 15
(continued)
3:45-4:00pm
BREAK
Grand Ballroom Foyer
4:00-4:30pm
CLOSING PLENARY SESSION
Grand Bellroom
WEDNESDAY, JULY 16
8:30am-4:00pm
ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES WORK GROUP MEETING
Quotom-Lobby Level
P.13 0095 069 202
ACF/ACYF/DCC
11:33 2661-01-701
TO:
Jack Lew
Bruce Reed
Gene Sperling
FROM:
Jennifer Klein
DATE:
June 25, 1997
RE:
Proposals on Child Care and Adoption
Attached please find a document describing our priorities for spending. Melanne
asked me to get this to you.
The Dependent Care Tax Credit could also be expanded without making it
refundable, but our first priority is to make it refundable to help low-income working
families. Please feel free to call with any questions or concerns.
cc:
Melanne Verveer, Elena Kagan, Nicole Rabner
JUN-24-1997 14:53 FROM
TO
94562878
P.02
DRAFT
DRAFT
DRAFT
DRAFT
DRAFT
CHILD CARE
1. Expand the Dependent Care Tax Credit to reach one to two
million more families by making it refundable.
The Dependent Care Tax Credit is an income tax credit for
taxpayers who incur employment related expenses for child care.
The credit is available to single parents who work and to two-
parent families in which both parents work. The maximum
allowable credit, available on a sliding scale depending on
income, ranges from $480 to $720 for families with one child, and
from $960 to $1440 for families with two or more children.
Since the credit is not refundable, it can not be used by low
income working families with incomes below the federal income tax
threshold (approximately $24,000 for family of four). Thus the
credit is not available to the low income working families most
in need of child care assistance.
Cost estimate: $3-5 billion
2. Increase by $1 billion the Child Care Development Fund in
order to:
Double the number of working families receiving child care
assistance.
$500 million
Low income working parents face major obstacles paying for
the child care they need in order to remain in the
workforce. It is estimated that more than 10 million
children from working families will be eligible for federal
child care assistance, yet such assistance is currently
provided to less than 1.5 million children. Among working
families earning 150 percent of poverty, 4 out of 5 are not
receiving assistance. Among working families earning at or
below the poverty line, 2 out of 3 are not receiving this
assistance.
Improve program quality by adopting the military approach to
guality enhancement.
$200 million
At the Early Childhood Development Conference held at the
White House in April, President Clinton pointed to the
military child care program as a model for the rest of the
country. of particular note was the focus on establishing
family child care networks, accreditation, and training tied
to compensation. Unfortunately, very limited dollars are
available to programs in the civilian community to promote
such quality provisions. Adopting the military approach for
quality enhancement and providing assistance to child care
programs to implement this approach will make a significant
JUN-24-1997 14:53 FROM
TO
94562878 P.03
contribution to improving the quality of child care services
across the country.
Through a collaborative approach with the Department of
Education, increase the number of school programs providing
before and after school care.
$300 million
Each day, millions of school age children across the country
go home to an empty house after school. The vast majority
of mothers with school-age children are now in the labor
market. Despite this fact, most schools still close at 3:00
and remain closed for the summer months. While the number
of school-age programs has grown over the last decade, there
are still dramatically few school-age programs for low-
income working families. Despite the poor access to quality
programs, recent research has documented the positive
effects that school-age programs can have on academic
achievement of low-income children. This proposal would
double the number of schools providing extended day
services.
JUN-24-1997 14:54 FROM
TO
94562878 P.04
ADOPTION
1.
One-year Reimbursement for Reunification Services.
(Section 304 of the Chafee/Rockefeller legislation - S.511)
The ability to use foster care maintenance funds to provide
reunification services will promote timely decisions
regarding permanency. The availability of such services
will allow the child welfare agency to better identify those
families who are likely to reunify and those that are not --
thus expediting their ability to develop alternate permanent
plans for these children.
Cost estimate: Approximately $500 million over five years.
2.
Innovation Grants to Reduce Backlogs of Children in Awaiting
Adoption.
(Section 401 of S. 511)
Funds grants for innovative projects that will reduce
barriers to adoption and reduce backlog of children awaiting
adoption. (Similar to $10 million for barrier grants
proposed in Adoption 2002 Report)
Cost estimate: $250 million over five years
JUN-30-1997 15:33 FROM
TO
94562878 P.02
HHS draft - Child Care Package The Working to Unveil Family at Conf DRAFT
Child Care Initiative 2002
At the turn of the century, more American families than ever
include two working parents or are headed by a single working
parent. Yet the child care available for their children is far
from adequate. Meeting this critical need calls for major new
public and private investment and a bold comprehensive approach
based on the following principles:
Child care is critical to workforce development
and child development
The quality of care affects school readiness and
academic achievement
A broad range of working parents need some assistance in
accessing quality affordable care
The quality of care is directly related to the
investments made in programs and providers
To address these principles, any new initiative must balance the
need to address affordability as well as to improve quality. What
follows are six sample strategies that could be included in any new
investment package. Some of the initiatives address the
affordability issue directly: expanding the Dependent Care Tax
Credit or increasing funds for subsidy. Others address the quality
issue: special incentive grant programs or support for family
child care. Some strategies provide funds to programs while others
fund parents more directly. Some approaches rely totally on
federal dollars, while others combine federal and state resources
and still others call for partnerships with the private sector.
1. Expand the Dependent Care Tax Credit
The Dependent Care Tax Credit is an income tax credit for
taxpayers who incur employment related expenses for child care.
The credit is available to single parents who work and to two-
parent families in which both parents work. The maximum allowable
credit, available on a sliding scale depending on income, ranges
from $480 to $720 for families with one child and from $960 to
$1440 for families with two or more children.
Since the credit is not refundable, it cannot be used by most
low income working families with incomes below the federal income
tax threshold (approximately $24,000 for a family of four). Less
than one percent of tax filers earning at or below poverty now
claim the credit and about 13 percent of filers earning 100-200
percent of poverty claim the credit. In addition, the amount that
families can claim and the range of families that can claim the
JUN-30-1997 15:33 FROM
TO
94562878 P.03
DRAFT
maximum amount needs to be readjusted to reflect the increasing
costs of care and to provide additional assistance to middle class
working families.
Option: Make the Dependent Care Tax Credit refundable for child
care expenses SO that it can be used by the lowest income working
families. Increase the amount of credit available on a sliding
scale to low and moderate income working families.
2. Double the number of children from working families receiving
child care assistance through CCDF
Low-income families face major obstacles in finding or
affording child care services. While the average family spends
about 7 percent of their income on child care, low-income families
spend approximately a quarter of their income for child care
services. It is estimated that more than 10 million children from
working families will be eligible for federal child- care
assistance, yet we currently provide such assistance to only 1-1.4
million children. Among working families earning 150 percent of
poverty, 4 out of 5 are not receiving federal assistance. Among
working families earning at or below the poverty line, 2 out of 3
are not being provided with assistance.
Option: Increase CCDF funds over the next five years to double the
number of children served, reaching 2 million children by 2002.
3. Establish A Quality Incentive Grant Fund
The year 1999 will mark the tenth anniversary of the education
goals established by the President and the Nation's Governors. The
first goal was that all children start school ready to learn.
Recent research on brain development reaffirms the importance of
the early years. Similarly, the NICHD study on Infant Care
underscores the importance of quality care to language and
cognitive development. Despite these facts, study after study
reveals a serious crisis in the quality of care across the country.
At the Early Childhood Development Conference held at the
White House last month, President Clinton pointed to the military
child care program as a model for the rest of the country. of
particular note was the focus on establishing family child care
networks, accreditation, and training tied to compensation.
Option: Provide grants to states (with match from the private
sector) to improve child care for young children based on the
military model, including support for accreditation.
JUN-30-1997 15:34 FROM
TO
94562878 P.04
DRAFT
4. Launch an Infant Toddler Family Child Care Initiative
As the number of infants and toddlers in care increases, many
families are turning to small family child care homes to provide a
more home-like setting for their children. One of the most
effective strategies to improve the quality of these settings is
the establishment of networks of support and training specifically
designed for family child care providers. Examples of such
networks have been developed through the Child Care and Adult Food
program or through the Child Care and Development Fund in the
states.
Option: Provide additional funds through CCDF or other funding
mechanisms to encourage communities to establish and support family
child care networks.
5. Establish a Scholarship Program for Child Care Staff
Over the past two decades research has documented the
importance of early childhood staff to the quality of child care
services. Yet child care providers receive inadequate wages and
there are limited training resources to recruit and retain staff.
When scholarships are provided, with linkages to better
compensation, the quality of care improves (the TEACH scholarship
program in North Carolina).
Option: Explore ways to provide both loan forgiveness and
scholarship funds for child care staff, perhaps as part of the
Higher Education Act or through a special Child Care Corp.
6. Double the number of school age children who have access to
quality child care
Each day, millions of school age children across the country go
home to an empty house after school. The vast majority of mothers
with school age children are now in the labor market. Despite this
fact, most schools still close at 3:00 PM and remain closed for the
summer months. While the number of school age programs has grown
over the last decade, there are still dramatically few school age
programs for low-income working families, particularly for children
10-13. Despite the poor access to quality programs, recent
research has documented the positive effects that school age
programs can have on academic achievement of low-income children.
Option: Develop an initiative jointly across the Departments of
HHS and Education, to provide incentive funding to stimulate
community-wide school-age child care initiatives, including
involvement of both schools and community based organizations.
JUN-30-1997 15:34 FROM
TO
94562878 P.05
DRAFT
There are several models that could be included in a menu of
approaches communities could use to address school age issues
including: keeping schools open through Title I school-wide
projects, establishing 21st Century Schools with extended day
components, or more comprehensive strategies such as the MOST
model. The MOST initiative (Making the Most out of School Time) is
an effort funded by DeWitt Wallace-Readers Digest Fund to improve
and expand the supply of child care in three cities.
CONGRESSION POSAL STATEMENT DRENSAFE
<<<
Proposed Amendments
S. 511*
H.R. 867**
(Sens. Chafee/
(Reps. Camp/
Rockefeller/Jeffords/
Kennelly)
DeWine)
Enhance the Safety of Children:
Clarify importance of safety in "reasonable
Yes
Yes
efforts" decisions
Clarify importance of safety in case planning and
Yes
No
case reviews for children in foster care
Require statewide multi-agency child death
Yes
No
review teams
Require criminal records and child abuse registry
Yes
No
checks for foster parents, group care providers
(State option)
and adoptive parents
Provide Incentives for Permanence:
Require "reasonable efforts" to move children
Yes
Yes
toward adoption or other permanent homes
Establish permanency planning hearing within
Yes
Yes
12 months rather than 18
Require state to file for termination of parental
No
Yes
rights when child under age 10 is in foster care
for 18 out of 24 months
Require that foster parents and relative caretakers
No
Yes
be notified of reviews and hearings and be given
the opportunity to be heard
Expand eligibility for federal adoption assistance
Yes
No
payments for children with special needs
Guarantee adoption incentive payments for states
No
Yes
that increase the number of foster children who
are adopted
Authorize funds for technical assistance to
No
Yes
promote adoption of children in foster care
Allow federal foster care funds to be used for
Yes
No
substance abuse, mental health and domestic
violence services for children and parents to
promote prompt permanency decisions
Authorize the use of the federal parent locator in
No
Yes
establishing child custody and visitation
Establish advisory panel to facilitate out-of-state
Yes
No
and out-of-county adoptions
#
The Safe Adoptions and Family Environments (SAFE) Act is pending in the Senate.
The Adoption Promotion Act was passed (416-5) by the House of Representatives on April 30. 1997.
Proposed Amendments
S. 511*
H.R. 867**
(Sens. Chafee/
(Reps. Camp/
Rockefeller/Jeffords/
Kennelly)
DeWine)
Enhance Capacity and Accountability for
Safety and Permanence:
Encourage collaboration between substance
Yes
Yes
abuse and child welfare agencies
Establish priority for substance abuse treatment
Yes
No
for families referred by child welfare
Fund care for children placed with their parents
Yes
No
in residential service programs
Fund cross-agency training for staff working
Yes
No
with abused and neglected children
Establish grants for state innovations in child
Yes
No
protection, and permanence
Expand the child welfare waivers from 10 to 15
Yes
Yes
states
(At least 1 of new 5
for kinship care)
Develop state benchmarks for quality care
Yes
No
Require HHS/advisory panel report and
No
Yes
recommendations on kinship care policies
Establish state reports on child protection agency
No
Yes
performance
Clarify eligibility for independent living services
No
Yes
Sense of the Congress that states should establish
No
Yes
standby guardianship laws
Require that funds under the Act be accompanied
No
Yes
by a notice of the Sense of the Congress that, as
practicable, they be used for American-made
products
CDF 5/5/97
05-06-97 05:37PM
ROM
USSEN
LABOR
MA
ORITY
TO
94562878
P002/010
cc: Jen Klein
MarkMarer
Co.EK,CR,DF,
Background Information
Child Care Proposal
A high-quality child care program is one that makes the healthy development and
education of children its first objective and strives to stimulate the learning process of
all children through developmentally appropriate activities that foster social,
emotional, and intellectual growth.
Research has clearly demonstrated that no single factor ensures the quality of a child
care program, but rather a combination of factors. This proposal incorporates current
research into a multi-level approach for improving the quality of child care.
In the proposal, the terms credential and accreditation are used to refer to formal
credentialing and accreditation processes by a private non-profit or public entity that
is state recognized (minimum requirements: age-appropriate health and safety
standards, age appropriate developmental and educational activities as an integral
part of the program, outside monitoring of the program/individual,
accreditation/credent aling instruments based on peer-validated research,
programs/facilitics mcct any applicable state and local licensing requirements, and on-
going staff development/training). There are several organizations that currently
provide accreditation and/or credentialing for early childhood development programs
and professionals.
There is no question that higher quality child care is more expensive than custodial
care. Therefore, most of these proposals will entail an increased expenditure of funds.
When possible, potential budget offsets have been identified.
Provisions to Encourage Parents to Place their Children in High Quality Care
1. Dependent Care Tax Credit
Increase either the percentage of allowable child care expenses (current law - 20%
to 30%) or the total amount of the eligible child care expenses (current law - $2.400
for 1 child; $4,800 for 2 or more) when the parent places a child in an accredited
child care center or with a credentialed child care professional
AND
Make the Dependent Care Tax Credit refundable for working families eligible for
the ETIC,
costs for this option: no budget impact if the Dependent Care Tax Credit is
limited to families with adjusted gross incomes under $90,000 per year and a
balance is reached regarding lowering the percentage of allowable child care
05-06-97 05:37PM
ROM USSEN LABOR MAJORITY
TO
94562878
P003/010
expenses for non-adcredited/non-credentialed care balanced with an equal but
opposite raise in the percentage for a ccredited/credentialed care.
2. Dependent Care Assistance Plans (part of Flexible Spending Accounts authorized in the
Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981) -
Increase the amount whichsparents can contribute to a Dependent Care Assistance
Plan when the parcnt places a child in an accredited child care center or with a
credentialed child care professional
Include a provision which requires federal agencies (including legislative, executive
branch, and judicial) to offer Dependent Care Assistance Plans to federal employees.
Permit working mothers who contribute to Dependent Care Assistance Plans to use
the funds to pay themselves to stay home with their child--(best example, working
woman finds out she is pregnant. signs up for the Dependent Care Assistance Plan,
between the time she signs upland the time she gives birth she accumulates $4,000 in
her account; upon the birth of her child, she stays home from work on maternity
leave and draws down $1,000 per month for the next 4 months to help offset her loss
of income for the time she stays home - advantage: the $4,000 she used is untaxed
resulting in a tax liability savings).
AND
Increase the maximum amount that can be placed in a Dependent Care Assistance
Plan when dependent care is being provided for 2 or more persons.
Much of the cost can be offset by lowering the amount which parents can
contribute for everyone, except those placing children in accredited/
credentialed care
5. Require states to include the costs of child care into calculations of child support
obigations for custodial parents who work or are actively seeking employment
with a differential ratelf for parents placing their children into accredited child
care centers or with a credentialed professional.
No costito federal, state, or local government
Provisions to Encourage Child Care Providers to Offer Higher Quality Care
1. Extend Perkins Loan forgiveness to individuals who accept employment in the
child care field as a credentialed child care professional.
Miminal cost, no estimatelavailable
05-06-97 05:37PM FROM USSEN LABOR MA ORITY TO 94562878
P004/010
2. Provide a a tax exclusion or credit for businesses who provide educational
assistance to child care providers which leads to accreditation or credentialing;
if the child care provider is a 501(c)(3) this can already be donc as a charitable
deduction, if the provider is a religious provider or a "for-profit" entity such as
a family child care home! then the contribution will need to be sent to a
501(c) (3) for distribution as scholarships or grants to the religious and family
child care providers
:
Currenth allowable by law, but should be referenced in package to encourage
businesses to use their charitable giving in this manner. No additional costs.
3. Provide a time-limited, capped tax exclusion for employers or partnerships of
employers who initiate child care arrangements for their employees- limit to
start-up costs and the child care must be accredited or credentialed to qualify
[can include starting child care center, funding family child care associations
and child care resource and referral agencies to recruit and train new child care
providers, sick care centers, funding on- or off-site after school programs, etc.]
Cost depends oh the caps that are applied; will be written as a business
expense deduction for emp oyers under §162 of the tax code
4. Permitting businesses to receive a charitable tax deduction for donating
educational equipmentiand materials to public schools and accredited/
credentialed child care providers (not related to employer sponsored or
employer provided child care)
Donations to family and other "for profit" child care providers will need to be
made through a non-profit association, resource and referral agencies or other
similar entity currently qualified as a charitable entity under the tax code; the
addition of public schools will entail minimal costs but is a necessary element
politically and practically.
5. Expanding the federal cleartnghouse activities regarding child care to: disseminate
information to states, child care providers, and parents, initiating a public
awareness campaign stressing the importance of high quality child care and
how to identify such child care, and providing child care accreditation and
credentialing entities that have been in existence for 5 years or less support and
assistance (including competitive grants) to refine and evaluate their
instruments/processes
05-06-97 05:37PM
ROM
USSEN
LABOR
MA
ORITY
TO
94562878
P005/010
Discretionary funding costs, no estimates yet on the amount of funds
realistically needed to expand the clearinghouse activities, support for
accreditation entities is pretty flexible.
6. Establish an incentive program for states who affirmatively move to improve the
quality of child care by Establishing a subsidity program for child care
professionals who are credentialed (to supplement their salaries); Increasing on-
itemonitoring to a minimum of twice yearly, including at least one
unannounced visit; Developing state accreditation, credentialing standards for
child care professionals Establishing a scholarship program for child care
providers to help in educational or training costs leading toward
accreditation/gredential ing; Expanding training and technical assistance
vities; Improving state consumer education efforts re: child care including
the expansion of resource and referral services, and Improving state child care
complaint systems; and Providing increased rates of reimbursement available
under all state and federal child care assistance programs for child care that is
accredited or preformed by credentialed professionals. MIMIMUM
REQUIREMENT FOR STATES TO PARTICIPATE: State has not lowered
child care standards since 1995, State has not reduced the type of child care
requiring state licensing or otherwise constricted the application of state child
care licensing since 1995, and State is in compliance with the Child Care and
Development Block Grant Act.
Funding is discretionary, unless the leftover funds from the welfare related
child care (entitlement $) is designated for this purpose. Because states are
required to match the federal funds to draw down a portion of the welfare-
related child care entitlement funds, it is anticipated that there will be leftover
funds at the end of each year. Under current law, those leftover funds are to
be distributed the following year tostates which have drawn down their full
allocation of matching funds and demonstrate the ability to match and need
for additional childicare funds. It is estimated that at least $200 million will
be needed to make this an effective incentive for states.
7. Require child care paid for from funds made available in the Social Services Block
Grant, Public Housing Demonstration Grants, the Corporation for National
and Community Service and other federal programs utilized in part for child
care services to pay differential rates (20% higher) for accredited or
credentialed child care services or activities leading to accreditation or
credentialing
No additional cost.
05-08-97 05:37PM
ROM USSEN LABOR MA ORITY
TO 94562878
P006/010
8. Provide a tax deduction fortchild careicenters and providers for the costs required
to achieve accreditation or receive professional credentials (including required
in
training or education and the cost of obtaining the accreditation or
credentialing)
Can already be deducted asia necessary business expense if the provider is a
for profitientity, or as a Schedule C deduction for sole proprietors such as
family child care providers. We need to get additional information to
determine the feasibility of reducing the current tax floor for the costs of child
care credentialing in order to make the tax deduction within the reach of
individuals who obtain additional education or training leading to child care
credentialing.
9: Createla national infrastructure to facilitate child care training and professional
development including hardware needed to build interactive satellite network
with at least 2 receiving locations in each state (number dependent upon
geographic and population size of state); logistical mechanism for scheduling
training events broadcast over the system; limited to 3 years for development
and start-up of the system and infrastructure.
Discretionary funding. Proposal being developed by coalitionof child care
professionals and groups. Costs to be determined.
10: Increase the use of funds of the Community Development Block Grant to
include upgrading child care facilities to meet accreditation standards, and for
renovating buildings for use as child care facilities; as long as the facilities
achieve accreditation within 3 years.
No additional cost just an expansion of the allowable uses for CDBG funds.
6-20-1997 11:17AM
FROM MARY BOURDETTE 96905750
P.1
HUMAN SERVICES USA
DATE: 6/20
&
HEALTH
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
200 INDEPENDENCE AVE., SW
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20201
OF
DEVERTMENT
PHONE: (202) 690-6311
FAX: (202) 690-8425
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR LEGISLATION
HUMAN SERVICES LEGISLATION
ROOM 413 H HUMPHREY BUILDING
FROM:
TO
: Jennifer Kleen
[]
MARY M. BOURDETTE
OFFICE
:
[
] BARBARA P. CLARK
[
] GREG JONES
ROOM NO
:
[
] PATRICIA SAVAGE
PHONE NO :
[
]
JOSEPH WARDEN
FAX NO
:
456-2878
[
] LAUREN GRIFFIN
[
] LULA BARNES
TOTAL PAGES
INCLUDING COVER) :
8
REMARKS:
(from December 96)
This is old prpu, So I Can't
thenk is would he very helpful
verify all fortared ferus butl
to yn.
6-20-1997 11 18AM
FROM MARY BOURDETTE 96905750
P.2
A Refundable Child Care Tax Credit
For the first time in American history, this country will have a seamless system for
supporting child care expenses. By making the Child Care Tax Credit refundable, every
working family in America will have access to some child care support.
Currently, the Child Care Tax Credit provides essential child care support for millions of working
families with employment-related child care expenses. However, the credit is not available for
working families who have no federal income tax liability. By making the credit refundable, the
tax credit would be available for the first time to all working families with children. The new
group consists of low wage earners who pay 20 percent of their income for child care, a
disproportionate share of their income when compared to higher income families who pay only six
percent of their income. By the year 2002, Treasury estimates that refundability would'benefit
over two million low wage working families who have little or no tax liability. Most of these
working families have incomes below $30,000 and would receive an average benefit of $500-600
annually toward their child care expenses.
Using a tax mechanism to provide child care assistance is both good policy and good politics.
The Child Care Tax Credit is enormously popular. Since families see the results on their income
tax returns, it is one of the most positive benefits they know they receive from the federal
government. Ask any family that uses the credit, and almost inevitably they will be able to tell you
how much help they received toward their child care expenses.
The Child Care Tax Credit has long enjoyed bipartisan support. In the last two decades, the U.S.
Senate has voted to make the credit refundable several times. President Bush proposed making
this credit refundable and child care organizations and women's groups strongly support it.
Further it is anticipated that the Republicans will propose significant tax cuts for the wealthy. As
a result, it will be difficult as a result for them to argue against an Administration tax proposal to
help hard-working low income families with significant child care costs.
Making the tax credit refundable helps low income working families get child care assistance
without going through the welfare line. While the welfare reform law (The Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act) authorizes $20 billion in federal child
care funding over six years, most of the funds will be needed to support welfare families moving
to work, leaving little room for assisting working poor families. We expect that the credit will be
used largely by working families who do not receive direct subsidies. Using the tax code to serve
these families is an equitable and nonstigmatizing approach that complements the Administration's
initiatives -- Earned Income Tax Credit, Minimum Wage, health care portability and Family and
Medical Leave for working families.
At a time when we are devoting significant attention and resources to welfare families, this would
be a visible source of help to working famlies who are not on welfare but are struggling to stay in
the laborforce. For the first time in history, all working families with child care expenses would
receive some federal support.
3
ESTIMATED NUMBER OF POOR CHILDREN WHICH WOULD RECEIVE
P.
A REFUNDABLE CHILD AND DEPENDENT CARE TAX CREDIT
PRELIMINARY HHS ESTIMATES for FY 1997
Number of Children Under Age 13 in Working Families Below Poverty
4,000,000
Impact of Refundability
(1995 Urban Institute Analysis)
Number of additional working families that would
Number of Children in Working Families Below Poverty Served by
claim a refundable credit
1,100,000
Child Care Subsidy in FY 1997
Number of full-year, part-time child care slots funded by total mandatory
Number below 150 percent of poverty
1,000,000
and discretionary federal dollars, with state match in FY 1997
1,200,000
Number below 100 percent of poverty
700,000
Number of siols needed to meet TANF requirements
493,000
Number of additional children under age 13
Remaining slots for non-TANF working poor children
707,000
below 100 percent of poverty 4/
1,108,000
Number of Children in Working Families Below Poverty Not Served
By Subsidy in FY 1997
3,293,000
FROM MARY BOURDETTE 96905750
Number of Children in Working Families Below Poverty That Would
Claim a Refundable Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit
Number of working families claiming credit in 1993 2/
6,090,000
Number of working families claiming credit in 1993 with incomes
below $15,000 (1993$) 3/
390,000
Number of children under age 13 in working families claiming the credit
with incomes below $15,000 4/
616,000
Number of Children in Working Families Below Poverty
Currently Not Receiving Subsidy or the Non-Refundable Credit 5/
2,677,000
Notes:
1/ Estimate of number of children under age 13 below poverty in 1993 Current Population Survey is 11 million. HHS estimates that about 37 percent of these children five in families with either two
working parents or a single working parent.
6-20-1997 18AM
2/ Internal Revenue Service, Statistics of Income - 1993. This is the most recent year for which data on number of claims by income group is available.
3/ Number of claims is from the Internal Revenue Service, Statistics of Income. 1993. The poverty threshold for 8 family of four in 1995 was $15,570.
4/ This analysis assumes families claiming the credit have an average of 1.58 children under age 13 in care. This is the average number of children under 13 in AFDC families.
5/ This estimate assumes there is no overlap between families receiving direct subsidy and families receiving the non-refundable credit.
Source: This is a preliminary HHS analysis using Urban Institute and Treasury data. Numbers are rounded.
December 18, 1996
6-20-1997 19AM
FROM MARY BOURDETTE 96905750
P.4
Options for Expanding the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit
Following are four options for a refundable tax credit for dependent care expenses.
Refundability is clearly the only way to provide low-income working families with child care
support through the tax system. These options respond to three key child care issues facing
working families with incomes slightly above poverty:
(1)
Low-income working families are spending a disproportionate percent of their income for
child care -- almost 20 percent compared to approximately 6 percent for higher-
income families;
(2)
Many working families with incomes slightly above poverty are not able to access direct
subsidies -- an estimated three-quarters of all families served with subsidies are below
poverty; and
(3)
The cost of child care has increased, particularly for young children, since the Dependent
Care Tax Credit was last modified in 1981.
Option 1: Make the current credit refundable. A preliminary Treasury estimate of the
cost of making the credit refundable is $4.2 billion over six years. A preliminary Joint
Committee on Taxation estimate of this six-year cost is $2.1 billion.
Option 2: Make the credit refundable and expand the income slide. This option
would enable more low-income working families to have access to the maximum amount
of the credit. Families with income up to $17,000 would receive 30 percent of eligible
dependent care expenses; this rate would phase down to 20 percent for families with
incomes at $45,000 or more (compared to $10,000 and $28,000 under current law).
There is currently no cost estimate for this option.
Option 3: Make the credit refundable, expand the income slide, and expand the
expenses allowed for the credit for all families with children ages 0-5. This option
would recognize the higher costs of child care for younger children. The credit rate
would be applied to up to $4,000 in child care costs for one child and up to $8,000 for
two or more children (compared to $2,400 and $4,800 under currrent law) below age 6.
This would increase the maximum credit for one child to $1,200 and for two children to
$2,400. There is currently no cost estimate for this option. The preliminary Treasury
estimate of the cost of increasing eligible expenses for young children without
refundability or changes to the income slide is $1.5 billion over six years.
Option 4: Make the credit refundable, expand the income slide, and expand the
maximum percentage of expenses allowed for the credit. This option would also
recognize the higher cost of child care by expanding the maximum credit from 30 to 35 or
40 percent of expenses for families with incomes below $17,000. There is currently no
cost estimate for this option.
6-20-1997 19AM
FROM MARY BOURDETTE 96905750
P.5
REFUNDABLE CHILD AND DEPENDENT CARE TAX CREDIT
Preventing Fraud and Abuse
It will be argued that making the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit refundable creates an
incentive for families to overreport child care expenses to gain a larger credit. While this
incentive arguably exists in all tax credits, the Department of the Treasury already has in place a
number of safeguards designed to reduce fraud and abuse. In addition, to the extent this is a real
problem, the actual scale of the problem with respect to the Child and Dependent Care Tax
Credit will likely be small given the size of the individual credit and the total amount of the
credit claimed.
The combination of current law reporting requirements and IRS audit processes should go a long
way to minimize fraud and abuse in a refundable Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit.
First, many of the new claimants for the refundable credit will be working families
already qualifying for the EITC. To increase compliance with the Earned Income Tax
Credit (EITC), the Treasury already requires that parents report the name, age and social
security number of each dependent child. This has proven to be effective in reducing
fraudulent EITC claims and should limit abuse of the Child and Dependent Care Tax
Credit.
Second, the Family Support Act of 1988 made several changes related to eligibility for
the child care credit. To increase tax compliance in the current non-refundable
Dependent Care Tax Credit for both families and providers, Treasury requires the tax-
filer to report the Social Security Number (SSN) or Employer Identification number
(EIN) of the child care provider. As noted in the 1996 GREEN BOOK, when Treasury
instituted these changes in 1989, claims for the current non-refundable credit decreased
by about one-third.
Third, there are increasing abilities to link administrative and tax data that could reduce
the ease with which parents could (a) falsely claim a Child and Dependent Tax Credit for
children who are not actually living with them and (b) falsely claim expenses that were
not allowable.
There is an additional concern that refundability will provide an incentive to families currently
using unpaid, informal yet satisfactory child care arrangements (e.g. grandmothers) to switch to
paid care and unnecessarily increase Federal costs. While this behavior may occur, it is not fraud
nor abuse. We expect that this effect will be small. The issue of formalizing unpaid
arrangements was a concern during the implementation of the JOBS program where the total cost
of child care for program participants would be borne by the agency. There is little evidence that
whole scale changes in child care arrangements were made in that program; the financial
incentive was much larger under the JOBS program than that offered by the refundability
proposals for the child care credit. A positive aspect to the credit is that it will reduce the cost of
child care, thus offering parents an increased choice of providers.
6-20-1997 20AM
FROM MARY BOURDETTE 96905750
P.6
The Impact of a Refundable Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit on Low-Income
Families
Making the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit refundable will help low-income working
families pay for child care. A 1995 Urban Institute analysis of a refundable Dependent Care Tax
Credit concluded that 1.1 million, or about 20 percent, more working families would claim the
credit if it were refundable. The vast majority of these working families would be low-income.
Using 1992 Current Population Survey data, the Urban Institute concluded:
About 690,000 more families earning at or below poverty would claim the Child
and Dependent Care Tax Credit if it were refundable -- a substantial increase over
the 10,000 families earning at or below poverty that claimed the non-refundable
credit in the base year.
The number of families earning between 100 and 200 percent of poverty would
increase 400,000 from about 1.6 million to about 2.0 million.
In terms of percent of families claiming the credit, the increase would also be greatest among the
lowest-income tax filers.
Less than one percent of tax-filers earning at or below poverty now claim the non-
refundable credit. About 12 percent would claim the credit if it were refundable.
About 13 percent of filers earning between 100 and 200 percent of poverty claim
the credit. About 17 percent would claim a refundable credit.
The lowest income groups would receive the greatest share of the increase in claims.
About 100,000 tax-filers earning less than half of the poverty line would receive
about $260 (1994 dollars) if the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit were
refundable. Because their earnings are so low, these families are not eligible for a
credit under the current system.
Tax-filers earning between 50 and 100 percent of the poverty line would receive
an additional $310 (1994 dollars) if the credit were refundable. Tax-filers earning
between 100 and 150 percent of poverty would receive an additional $200 (1994
dollars).
Note: Since the number of families using the credit increases each year, an analysis using more
current data would probably show about the same increase in the percentage of families claiming
the credit, but a greater number of families than in this analysis.
Option 1
Impact of Refundability on Average
Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit Claimed
$600
$530
$500
$500
$500
$490
$490
$470
$400
6-20-1997 11:21AM FROM MARY BOURDETTE 96905750
1994 Dollars
$330
$300
Non-refundable
$260
$200
Refundable
$180
$100
$0
$0
<50%
50-105% 106-149% 150-199% 200%+
Percent of Poverty
Source: HHS analysis based on Urban Institute's TRIM2 model using 1992 CPS data.
P.7
1
Option 1
Impact of Refundability on Number of Families
Claiming the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit
5000
4,4004,500
4000
Number of Families (in thousands)
6-20-1997 21AM FROM MARY BOURDETTE 96905750
Non-refundable
3000
Refundable
2000
1,200
1,100
1000
800
600
500
100
0
0
10
<50%
50-105%
106-149%
150-199%
200%+
Percent of Poverty
Source: HHS analysis based on Urban Institute's TRIM2 model using 1992 CPS data.
P.8
TO:
John Hilley
CC:
Elena Kagan
FROM:
Jennifer Klein J.K.
DATE:
7/10/97
RE:
Child Care and Child Welfare Proposals
As you consider uses for the toabacco tax funds, you had asked for descriptions of
our child welfare and child care priorities.
1.
Child Welfare
The Administration has stated its strong support for the House child welfare bill
sponsored by Camp and Kennelly (H.R. 867). We would recommend supporting
two additional provisions in the Senate bill sponsored by Chafee, Rockefeller,
Jeffords and DeWine. The first proposal provides funds for services to resolve
family problems that have caused the child to be placed in the foster care system as
well as to develop alternative permanent arrangements for the child. The second
provides grants to states to remove barriers to adoption. I have attached a more
detailed description of these proposals.
2.
Child Care
We are considering three child care proposals.
The first would make the Dependent Care Tax Credit refundable for child
care expenses so that it could be used by the lowest income working
families and would increase the amount of credit available on a sliding scale
to low and moderate income working families.
The second would expand Healthy Start programs. This would link child
care providers and health care providers to ensure that children are in safe,
healthy and high quality environments. (We are waiting for more detail
from HHS. Secretary Shalala prefers this option because she thinks the
tobacco tax money should be used for initiatives closely tied to health care.)
The third would provide funding for child care subsidies and create a
quality incentive grant fund. It would: (1) increase child care development
fund subsidies over the next five years to double the number of children
served, reaching 2 million children by 2002; and (2) provide grants to states
(with matching funds from the private sector) to improve the quality of
child care for young children by modeling programs after the military
system.
JUL-08-1997 18:11
CHILDREN, BUREAU
202 260 9345
P.02
CHILD WELFARE PROPOSALS
Permanency Planning Funds
Rationale: To assure safe and expeditious permanent placement for children entering the
foster care system, appropriate services for both the family and the child must be available as
soon as a child enters care. These services are critical to determining the ability of the
biological family to safely resume care of their child or the need for an alternative permanent
family.
Currently title IV-E funds can be used to pay the cost of foster care maintenance and related
administrative costs. Services which could facilitate permanency (i.e. the child's return
home, adoption, or guardianship) for the child cannot be funded through the IV-E program.
Strategy: Fund one year of permanency planning services for children entering foster care
through the title IV-E program. These funds will be used to identify and resolve family
problems that led to the out of home placement or to develop adoption or other alternative
permanent arrangements for the child.
Cost: $480 million for five years
Grants to States to Remove Barriers to Permanency
Rationale: The "Adoption 2002" report proposed a number of strategies to improve the
timeliness of decision making and permanency outcomes for children in foster care. These
recommendations, as embodied in pending federal legislation, will establish new permanency
standards for the States. States will be required to make reasonable efforts to secure a
permanent family for children who cannot return home.
To achieve the intent of "Adoption 2002," States will have to make significant changes in
policy and operations to achieve one or more of the following goals:
- reduce the backlog of children in long-term foster care or awaiting adoption
placement;
- develop and implement community-based child protection activities that involve
partnerships among State and local governments; and
- develop a regional approach to use resources of several States to conduct
recruitment, placement, adoption and post-adoption services.
Strategy: Provide funds for five year grants to States to remove barriers to adoption and
improve the permanency outcomes for children in foster care.
Costs: Chafee/Rockefeller legislation - not to exceed $50 million per year for five years
TOTAL P.02
JUN-30-1997 15:44 FROM
TO
94562878 P.02
The Working Family
DRAFT
Child Care Initiative 2002
At the turn of the century, more American families than ever
include two working parents or are headed by a single working
parent. Yet the child care available for their children is far
from adequate. Meeting this critical need calls for major new
public and private investment and a bold comprehensive approach
based on the following principles:
Child care is critical to workforce development
and child development
The quality of care affects school readiness and
academic achievement
A broad range of working parents need some assistance in
accessing quality affordable care
The quality of care is directly related to the
investments made in programs and providers
To address these principles, any new initiative must balance the
need to address affordability as well as to improve quality. What
follows are six sample strategies that could be included in any new
investment package. Some of the initiatives address the
affordability issue directly: expanding the Dependent Care Tax
Credit or increasing funds for subsidy. Others address the quality
issue: special incentive grant programs or support for family
child care. Some strategies provide funds to programs while others
fund parents more directly. Some approaches rely totally on
federal dollars, while others combine federal and state resources
and still others call for partnerships with the private sector.
1. Expand the Dependent Care Tax Credit
The Dependent Care Tax Credit is an income tax credit for
taxpayers who incur employment related expenses for child care.
The credit is available to single parents who work and to two-
parent families in which both parents work. The maximum allowable
credit, available on a sliding scale depending on income, ranges
from $480 to $720 for families with one child and from $960 to
$1440 for families with two or more children.
Since the credit is not refundable, it cannot be used by most
low income working families with incomes below the federal income
tax threshold (approximately $24,000 for a family of four). Less
than one percent of tax filers earning at or below poverty now
claim the credit and about 13 percent of filers earning 100-200
percent of poverty claim the credit. In addition, the amount that
families can claim and the range of families that can claim the
JUN-30-1997 15:45 FROM
TO
94562878 P.03
DRAFT
maximum amount needs to be readjusted to reflect the increasing
costs of care and to provide additional assistance to middle class
working families.
Option: Make the Dependent Care Tax Credit refundable for child
care expenses SO that it can be used by the lowest income working
families. Increase the amount of credit available on a sliding
scale to low and moderate income working families.
2. Double the number of children from working families receiving
child care assistance through CCDF
Low-income families face major obstacles in finding or
affording child care services. While the average family spends
about 7 percent of their income on child care, low-income families
spend approximately a quarter of their income for child care
services. It is estimated that more than 10 million children from
working families will be eligible for federal child care
assistance, yet we currently provide such assistance to only 1-1.4
million children. Among working families earning 150 percent of
poverty, 4 out of 5 are not receiving federal assistance. Among
working families earning at or below the poverty line, 2 out of 3
are not being provided with assistance.
Option: Increase CCDF funds over the next five years to double the
number of children served, reaching 2 million children by 2002.
3. Establish A Quality Incentive Grant Fund
The year 1999 will mark the tenth anniversary of the education
goals established by the President and the Nation's Governors. The
first goal was that all children start school ready to learn.
Recent research on brain development reaffirms the importance of
the early years. Similarly, the NICHD study on Infant Care
underscores the importance of quality care to language and
cognitive development. Despite these facts, study after study
reveals a serious crisis in the quality of care across the country.
At the Early Childhood Development Conference held at the
White House last month, President Clinton pointed to the military
child care program as a model for the rest of the country. of
particular note was the focus on establishing family child care
networks, accreditation, and training tied to compensation.
Option: Provide grants to states (with match from the private
sector) to improve child care for young children based on the
military model, including support for accreditation.
JUN-30-1997 15:45 FROM
TO
94562878 P.04
DRAFT
4. Launch an Infant Toddler Family Child Care Initiative
As the number of infants and toddlers in care increases, many
families are turning to small family child care homes to provide a
more home-like setting for their children. One of the most
effective strategies to improve the quality of these settings is
the establishment of networks of support and training specifically
designed for family child care providers. Examples of such
networks have been developed through the Child Care and Adult Food
program or through the Child Care and Development Fund in the
states.
Option: Provide additional funds through CCDF or other funding
mechanisms to encourage communities to establish and support family
child care networks.
5. Establish a Scholarship Program for Child Care Staff
Over the past two decades research has documented the
importance of early childhood staff to the quality of child care
services. Yet child care providers receive inadequate wages and
there are limited training resources to recruit and retain staff.
When scholarships are provided, with linkages to better
compensation, the quality of care improves (the TEACH scholarship
program in North Carolina).
Option: Explore ways to provide both loan forgiveness and
scholarship funds for child care staff, perhaps as part of the
Higher Education Act or through a special Child Care Corp.
6. Double the number of school age children who have access to
quality child care
Each day, millions of school age children across the country go
home to an empty house after school. The vast majority of mothers
with school age children are now in the labor market. Despite this
fact, most schools still close at 3:00 PM and remain closed for the
summer months. While the number of school age programs has grown
over the last decade, there are still dramatically few school age
programs for low-income working families, particularly for children
10-13. Despite the poor access to quality programs, recent
research has documented the positive effects that school age
programs can have on academic achievement of low-income children.
Option: Develop an initiative jointly across the Departments of
HHS and Education, to provide incentive funding to stimulate
community-wide school-age child care initiatives, including
involvement of both schools and community based organizations.
JUN-30-1997 15:46 FROM
TO
94562878 P.05
DRAFT
There are several models that could be included in a menu of
approaches communities could use to address school age issues
including: keeping schools open through Title I school-wide
projects, establishing 21st Century Schools with extended day
components, or more comprehensive strategies such as the MOST
model. The MOST initiative (Making the Most out of School Time) is
an effort funded by DeWitt Wallace-Readers Digest Fund to improve
and expand the supply of child care in three cities.
JUN-30-1997 15:33 FROM
TO
94562878 P.02
HHS draft - Child care Package The to Uaveil Family at Conf DRAFT
Working
Child Care Initiative 2002
At the turn of the century, more American families than ever
include two working parents or are headed by a single working
parent. Yet the child care available for their children is far
from adequate. Meeting this critical need calls for major new
public and private investment and a bold comprehensive approach
based on the following principles:
Child care is critical to workforce development
and child development
The quality of care affects school readiness and
academic achievement
A broad range of working parents need some assistance in
accessing quality affordable care
The quality of care is directly related to the
investments made in programs and providers
To address these principles, any new initiative must balance the
need to address affordability as well as to improve quality. What
follows are six sample strategies that could be included in any new
investment package. Some of the initiatives address the
affordability issue directly: expanding the Dependent Care Tax
Credit or increasing funds for subsidy. Others address the quality
issue: special incentive grant programs or support for family
child care. Some strategies provide funds to programs while others
fund parents more directly. Some approaches rely totally on
federal dollars, while others combine federal and state resources
and still others call for partnerships with the private sector.
1. Expand the Dependent Care Tax Credit
The Dependent Care Tax Credit is an income tax credit for
taxpayers who incur employment related expenses for child care.
The credit is available to single parents who work and to two-
parent families in which both parents work. The maximum allowable
credit, available on a sliding scale depending on income, ranges
from $480 to $720 for families with one child and from $960 to
$1440 for families with two or more children.
Since the credit is not refundable, it cannot be used by most
low income working families with incomes below the federal income
tax threshold (approximately $24,000 for a family of four). Less
than one percent of tax filers earning at or below poverty now
claim the credit and about 13 percent of filers earning 100-200
percent of poverty claim the credit. In addition, the amount that
families can claim and the range of families that can claim the
JUN-30-1997 15:33 FROM
TO
94562878 P.03
DRAFT
maximum amount needs to be readjusted to reflect the increasing
costs of care and to provide additional assistance to middle class
working families.
Option: Make the Dependent Care Tax Credit refundable for child
care expenses so that it can be used by the lowest income working
families. Increase the amount of credit available on a sliding
scale to low and moderate income working families.
2. Double the number of children from working families receiving
child care assistance through CCDF
Low-income families face major obstacles in finding or
affording child care services. While the average family spends
about 7 percent of their income on child care, low-income families
spend approximately a quarter of their income for child care
services. It is estimated that more than 10 million children from
working families will be eligible for federal child- care
assistance, yet we currently provide such assistance to only 1-1.4
million children. Among working families earning 150 percent of
poverty, 4 out of 5 are not receiving federal assistance. Among
working families earning at or below the poverty line, 2 out of 3
are not being provided with assistance.
Option: Increase CCDF funds over the next five years to double the
number of children served, reaching 2 million children by 2002.
3. Establish A Quality Incentive Grant Fund
The year 1999 will mark the tenth anniversary of the education
goals established by the President and the Nation's Governors. The
first goal was that all children start school ready to learn.
Recent research on brain development reaffirms the importance of
the early years. Similarly, the NICHD study on Infant Care
underscores the importance of quality care to language and
cognitive development. Despite these facts, study after study
reveals a serious crisis in the quality of care across the country.
At the Early Childhood Development Conference held at the
White House last month, President Clinton pointed to the military
child care program as a model for the rest of the country. of
particular note was the focus on establishing family child care
networks, accreditation, and training tied to compensation.
Option: Provide grants to states (with match from the private
sector) to improve child care for young children based on the
military model, including support for accreditation.
JUN-30-1997 15:34 FROM
TO
94562878
P.04
DRAFT
4. Launch an Infant Toddler Family Child Care Initiative
As the number of infants and toddlers in care increases, many
families are turning to small family child care homes to provide a
more home-like setting for their children. One of the most
effective strategies to improve the quality of these settings is
the establishment of networks of support and training specifically
designed for family child care providers. Examples of such
networks have been developed through the Child Care and Adult Food
program or through the Child Care and Development Fund in the
states.
Option: Provide additional funds through CCDF or other funding
mechanisms to encourage communities to establish and support family
child care networks.
5. Establish a Scholarship Program for Child Care Staff
Over the past two decades research has documented the
importance of early childhood staff to the quality of child care
services. Yet child care providers receive inadequate wages and
there are limited training resources to recruit and retain staff.
When scholarships are provided, with linkages to better
compensation, the quality of care improves (the TEACH scholarship
program in North Carolina).
Option: Explore ways to provide both loan forgiveness and
scholarship funds for child care staff, perhaps as part of the
Higher Education Act or through a special Child Care Corp.
6. Double the number of school age children who have access to
quality child care
Each day, millions of school age children across the country go
home to an empty house after school. The vast majority of mothers
with school age children are now in the labor market. Despite this
fact, most schools still close at 3:00 PM and remain closed for the
summer months. While the number of school age programs has grown
over the last decade, there are still dramatically few school age
programs for low-income working families, particularly for children
10-13. Despite the poor access to quality programs, recent
research has documented the positive effects that school age
programs can have on academic achievement of low-income children.
Option: Develop an initiative jointly across the Departments of
HHS and Education, to provide incentive funding to stimulate
community-wide school-age child care initiatives, including
involvement of both schools and community based organizations.
JUN-30-1997 15:34 FROM
TO
94562878 P.05
DRAFT
There are several models that could be included in a menu of
approaches communities could use to address school age issues
including: keeping schools open through Title I school-wide
projects, establishing 21st Century Schools with extended day
components, or more comprehensive strategies such as the MOST
model. The MOST initiative (Making the Most out of School Time) is
an effort funded by DeWitt Wallace-Readers Digest Fund to improve
and expand the supply of child care in three cities.