Images (22)
Document
| id |
id
621036207
|
|---|---|
| contentType |
contentType
document
|
| source |
source
import
|
Source image fields (6)
Extracted text
OCR Page 1 of 22EARLY WPD
Page 1
Early Learning Fund
January 14, 1998
Funding levels (mandatory):
FY 1999:
$600 million
FY 2000:
$600 million
FY 2001:
$600 million
FY 2002:
$600 million
FY 2003:
$600 million
Five-year total:
$3 billion
Federal role: Distribute funding to States by formula--either an existing formula such as the
CCDBG allocation or a new formula placing a greater emphasis on a poverty measure. One
percent of the funds would be set aside for a national evaluation of State and local efforts funded
under this initiative and for technical assistance. There would also be a tribal set-aside (between
one and two percent, probably two percent, similar to the tribal set-aside within the mandatory
child care funds).
State role: Set benchmarks, in consultation with HHS, in the areas of early learning and child care
quality. Benchmarks could include, for example, increasing the percentage of centers which are
accredited, boosting the percentage of at-risk children who receive early intervention services
(including home visits and parent education), increasing the percentage of providers with training
in child development, or reducing average group sizes or child:staff ratios.
Continued funding would be contingent on progress toward the benchmarks; a State that fell
well short of the benchmarks would have to develop a plan in cooperation with HHS to improve
its performance, or risk a reduction in the grant. [This aspect of the proposal will be further
developed through consultation with States, advocates and members of Congress.]
States would distribute at least 90 percent of the funds to communities on either a competitive or
formula basis, generally for purposes consistent with the State-level benchmarks. In either case,
States would be required to use a measure of poverty as one of the major factors in
distributing the dollars (e.g., by giving additional points in a competitive process to poorer
localities). States could reserve up to 9 percent of the funds for technical assistance and research,
as well as State administrative costs.
There would be a 20 percent State (cash) match requirement--one dollar of State funds for every
four dollars of Federal funds. Matching dollars could be provided by local or private sources (as
well as the State).
Local role: As a condition of receiving funds, each community would have to develop, in
conjunction with the State, a plan for expenditure of early learning funds that would both meet
Relations
belongs_to