**CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND (CCDF)**

**REPORT TO CONGRESS---FISCAL YEAR 2001**

##### Introduction

This report to Congress is required by Section 658L of the Child Care
and Development Block Grant Act as amended by PRWORA (P.L. 104-193) and
the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (PL 105-33). In this report, ACF
describes and analyzes the most current information about the Child Care
and Development Fund (CCDF) including from State Plans effective October
1, 2001, FY 2001 expenditure reports, FY 2000 case-level reports, and
emerging research. It also includes information about training and
technical assistance that is provided to States, Territories and Tribes.

CCDF, including funds transferred by States from Temporary Assistance to
Needy Families (TANF) to CCDF, is a significant source of Federal
support to improve the affordability, supply, and quality of child care
in the United States. CCDF assists low-income families, including
families receiving or transitioning from temporary public assistance, in
obtaining child care so they can work or, at State option, attend
training or education.

For Fiscal Year (FY) 2001, \$4.6 billion in CCDF was made available
through block grants to all 50 States, the District of Columbia, five
Territories and 257 tribal grantees (representing approximately 500
Indian Tribes). With State Matching and Maintenance of Effort (MOE)
funds and TANF dollars transferred to CCDF or spent directly by States
on child care services, more than \$11 billion in CCDF and TANF-related
funds was available for child care in FY 2001. This compares with \$3.2
billion in FY 1996.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| CCDF Grantees include:                                                |
|                                                                       |
| -   50 States                                                         |
|                                                                       |
| -   District of Columbia                                              |
|                                                                       |
| -   5 Territories                                                     |
|                                                                       |
| -   257 Tribal Grantees including about 500 Indian Tribes             |
|                                                                       |
| These Grantees received \$4.6 billion through CCDF...with related     |
| State and TANF expenditures, more than \$11 billion was available for |
| child care services.                                                  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

The CCDF is administered by the Child Care Bureau, Administration on
Children, Youth and Families of the Administration for Children and
Families (ACF) in collaboration with ACF Regional Offices. States,
Territories and Tribes are responsible for ensuring that their CCDF
grants are administered in compliance with statutory and regulatory
requirements. In administering CCDF, States have significant discretion
in how funds will be used and where emphasis will be placed in achieving
the overall goals of CCDF.

CCDF funds are used primarily to provide subsidized child care services
to low-income working families through vouchers or certificates. Parents
may select any legally operating child care provider---including child
care centers, family members, neighbors, family child care homes,
after-school programs, and faith-based programs. Providers serving
children funded by CCDF must meet basic health and safety requirements
set by States, Territories and Tribes. Within general Federal rules,
States decide how their subsidy system will be administered and
determine the payment rates that providers receive, the co-payment
amounts that parents pay, the specific eligibility requirements that a
family must meet in order to receive a subsidy, and how CCDF services
will be prioritized.

CCDF Lead Agencies must use a minimum of four percent (4%) of CCDF funds
to improve the quality of child care. CCDF also includes earmarks for
specific purposes: quality enhancement; improving the quality of care
for infants and toddlers; and improving school-age care and child care
resource and referral services. Quality activities include training,
grants and loans to providers, health and safety improvements, and other
initiatives. In FY 2001, \$716 million or nine percent (9%) of CCDF
expenditures were used by States to improve child care quality and
accessibility.

# Overview of the Report

The Report consists of seven parts:

-   Part I provides background on the CCDF program including funding,
    eligibility requirements, a description of how funds may be used,
    and information about program administration.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Part II provides information from aggregate and case-level data
    reported by States for FY 2000, including information about children
    receiving subsidized care and the providers who cared for them.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Part III summarizes expenditure data obtained from State quarterly
    financial reports submitted to ACF in FY 2001 (October 1,
    2000-September 30, 2001).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Part IV presents information reported by States in their CCDF plans
    that were effective October 1, 2001. States are required to submit
    plans every two years that describe CCDF policies and services.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Part V describes ongoing research efforts, highlighting projects
    funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),
    and summarizing some of the latest research findings about child
    care.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Part VI describes technical assistance provided by the Child Care
    Bureau to assist States, Territories and Tribes in administering the
    CCDF.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Part VII, the Appendix, provides detailed information about services
    provided as reported in the FY 2000 State aggregate and case-level
    reports as well as State policies and practices from State Plans
    which became effective October 1, 2001 and Child Care Bureau-funded
    research initiatives.

The administrative data included in this report is from FY 2000, which
is the most recent data available. With technical assistance provided by
the Child Care Bureau, many States have made progress in their ability
to report data; however, some States still face challenges in collecting
the required information and reporting it in a timely manner.

# 

# [KEY TERMS]{.underline}

## LEGISLATION/PROGRAMS

*Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF)* -- Integrated entitlement and
discretionary child care funding program created in 1996 as a result of
PRWORA.

*Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) Act* -- The primary law
governing the CCDF. Created by the Omnibus Budget and Reconciliation Act
of 1990, and amended by PRWORA.

*Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA
or P.L. 104-193)* -- the welfare reform legislation of 1996. Statutory
provisions unified a fragmented child care subsidy system to form the
CCDF, and created TANF.

*Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)* -- A comprehensive
welfare reform program with time-limited assistance that focuses on
moving recipients into work and supporting family formation.

## CATEGORIES OF CARE

*Center-based child care provider* -- Provider licensed or otherwise
authorized to provide child care services in a non-residential setting.

*Family child care (FCC) provider* -- An individual who provides child
care services as the sole caregiver in a private residence other than
the child's home.

*Group home child care provider* -- Two or more individuals who provide
child care services in a private residence other than the child's home.

*In-home child care provider* -- An individual who provides child care
services in the child's own home.

## SUBSIDIES AND SERVICES

*Accessibility --* In their Plans, States must demonstrate that families
eligible for services through CCDF can choose from among the same types
of care as privately paying families. Affordable family co-pays and
adequate reimbursement rates are central to access. (States are
encouraged to set their maximum rates no lower than the 75^th^
percentile based on their most recent market rate survey; this is
intended to provide families with access to 75 percent of the child care
slots in their communities.)

*Certificate* -- Also commonly referred to as a *voucher*. A check or
other disbursement that is issued by a State (or Territory/Tribe) to a
parent to reimburse the cost of child care services.

*Health and Safety Requirements \--* States must implement requirements
designed to protect the health and safety of children that are
applicable to child care providers under CCDF. While States have
tremendous discretion in these requirements, they must include
prevention and control of infectious diseases (including immunizations);
building and physical premises safety; and minimum health and safety
training appropriate to the provider setting.

*Low*-*income* \-- States have authority to set income eligibility for
families to 85 percent of State median income; in their biennial State
Plans, they must also indicate how they prioritize services to the very
lowest income families.

*Market rate survey* -- A survey of the child care rates being charged
by providers who care for children within the local market. States are
encouraged to set their provider payment rates based on information from
the survey.

*Quality Set-Asides and Earmarks* -- States must spend at least four
percent (4%) of their CCDF funds to improve the quality of care through
activities such as consumer education, technical assistance and
training, and grants and loans to providers. In addition, there are
specially earmarked funds for quality, school-age care and resource and
referral and services to infants and toddlers.

*Legally Operating without Regulation \--* A caregiver providing
services under CCDF who would not be subject to State or local child
care regulations if she or he were not participating in the CCDF
program. A provider who is \"legally operating without regulation\" is
one that, if not participating in the CCDF program, would not be subject
to State or local child care regulations.

*Licensed/Regulated --* A provider subject to regulation under the laws
of the State or local jurisdiction.

#### Sliding fee scale -- A system of cost sharing by a family. The family's co-payment is determined by the State (or Territory/Tribe) and is based, at a minimum, on income and size of family.

# Highlights from the Report

## [Child care funding is at a historically high level.]{.underline}

## 

There has been a significant increase in Federal and State funds for
child care since the 1996 welfare reform legislation was enacted. The
chart below, \"CCDF and TANF-related Child Care Funding,\" includes
Federal funds appropriated for child care, TANF dollars transferred to
CCDF and spent directly on child care, and State MOE and Matching funds
for child care.

![](media/image1.wmf)

As a result of the increase, an unprecedented level of funding is
available for child care subsidies, quality improvements, and related
programs, including the following (the first three of which are included
in the chart above):

## 

## Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF). Since 1996, Federal funding specifically appropriated for child care has increased five-fold---from \$935 million in 1996 to \$4.6 billion in 2001.

## Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). States can transfer up to 30 percent of their Federal TANF dollars to CCDF and spend TANF funds directly for child care. (See more detailed discussion of TANF funding below).

-   **State Spending Associated with CCDF and TANF.** State spending
    accounts for more than a quarter of total State and Federal child
    care expenditures under CCDF and TANF. In FY 2001, States reported
    spending almost \$2 billion in State funds under CCDF, exceeding the
    amount required to access the maximum amount of available Federal
    funds. As discussed below, States also included child care
    expenditures in reports of State MOE funds for the TANF program in
    2001.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Social Services Block Grant (SSBG or Title XX).** SSBG funds a
    broad range of social services, including child care. Based on the
    most recent data from 2000, 43 States reported spending \$165
    million of SSBG funds for child care.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **State Pre-Kindergarten Programs.** According to the January 10,
    2002 issue of *Education Week,* 39 States and the District of
    Columbia currently spend an estimated \$1.9 billion annually on
    pre-K programs for at least some of their preschool-aged children; a
    portion of these funds is reported as State spending under CCDF.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Other Federal Sources.** Head Start, a \$6.2 billion dollar
    program in FY 2001, provides comprehensive developmental services
    for low-income preschool children and social services for their
    families. The Department of Education provided \$846 million for
    after-school programs through its 21^st^ Century Community Learning
    Centers. .

**[States are using significant amounts of Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF) funds for child care.]{.underline}**

Through transfers to CCDF and direct spending, many States now rely on
TANF as a major funding source for child care. A total of \$2.0 billion
in FY 2001 Federal TANF funds was transferred to CCDF. Forty-two States
transferred funds to CCDF in amounts ranging from \$375 million to \$521
thousand. In addition, in FY 2001 States spent \$1.6 billion in current
and prior year Federal TANF funds directly for child care. Between TANF
transfers and direct spending, States made a total of \$3.6 billion in
TANF funds available for child care in FY 2001. While the amount of TANF
transfers to CCDF in 2001 was less than the previous year (\$2.0 billion
as compared to \$2.3 billion), direct TANF spending increased from \$1.4
billion to \$1.6 billion.

In addition, because child care expenditures under the pre-PRWORA
welfare-related child care programs were included in the MOE
calculations for both TANF and CCDF, States are allowed to include child
care expenditures reported as CCDF MOE in their TANF MOE so long as the
expenditures are for TANF-eligible families. In accordance with a number
of research entities, among them the Congressional Research Service
(CRS), ACF considers TANF MOE child care expenditures that exceed the
CCDF MOE level to be additional unduplicated State spending on child
care. ACF estimates that in FY 2001, nearly \$747 million in TANF MOE
was spent on child care in excess of the amount that could be used for
both CCDF and TANF MOE. (ACF acknowledges that this is a conservative
estimate because it assumes that all States are claiming 100 percent of
their CCDF MOE as TANF MOE).

**[The growth in child care funding has greatly increased the number of
children served.]{.underline}**

In FY 2000, 1.75 million children received child care services with CCDF
funds including TANF transfers and State Matching and MOE funds.
Expenditure data suggest that an estimated 0.7 million children were
receiving subsidized cared through SSBG, direct TANF funding and excess
TANF MOE, resulting in an estimated 2.45 million children receiving
services in an average month in FY 2000. This compares with roughly1.2
million children in FY 1996.

According to estimates prepared by the HHS Assistant Secretary for
Planning and Evaluation (ASPE), this represents 28 percent of children
eligible for CCDF child care assistance under State eligibility rules.
For children in families with income below poverty for a family of
three, the estimated percentage of children served was significantly
higher---45 percent.

**[State policy decisions result in a wide variety of State subsidy
systems and coverage patterns.]{.underline}**

States have a great deal of flexibility under CCDF to develop child care
programs and policies that best suit the needs of children and parents.
States have flexibility in at least four key areas: income eligibility,
target population, parents' co-payments, and provider reimbursement.

-   **Income eligibility**. States have authority to set income
    eligibility up to 85 percent of the State median income, but most
    States set program eligibility below the Federal maximum. As
    indicated in the current State CCDF Plans, income eligibility levels
    across States range from 39 percent to 85 percent of the State
    median income (or 122 percent to 325 percent of the Federal poverty
    level). Most States set program eligibility below 85 percent of the
    Federal maximum in order to concentrate the funding on families with
    very low incomes.

> On average, States set maximum eligibility at 62 percent of State
> median income; however, most families served have income well below
> that level. Based on State case-level reports (assuming a family of
> three), the median annual income for families served by CCDF was
> \$12,684 (FY 2000). Fewer than 10 percent of families had income above
> \$24,000 a year.
>
> By way of context, the following chart displays Federal poverty
> guidelines in FY 2000. Unlike State median income, these guidelines
> provide a consistent standard across States. They do not, however,
> take into account variations in the cost of living among States
> (except Alaska and Hawaii) or the benefits low-income families may
> receive such as food stamps, medical assistance, housing allowances,
> child care assistance, or the Earned Income Tax Credit program.

**2000 HHS Poverty Guidelines (Annual)**

  ------------------- ------------------ ----------------- ----------------
  **Size of Family    **48 Contiguous    **Alaska**        **Hawaii**
  Unit**              States and DC**                      

  **1**               **\$ 8,350**       **\$10,430**      **\$ 9,590**

  **2**               **11,250**         **14,060**        **12,930**

  **3**               **14,150**         **17,690**        **16,270**

  **4**               **17,050**         **21,320**        **19,610**

  **5**               **19,950**         **24,950**        **22,950**
  ------------------- ------------------ ----------------- ----------------

-   **Priorities and target populations.** States decide whether to
    target certain populations; for example, whether to focus on
    families transitioning off TANF or to treat all families the same
    regardless of TANF status or history. Some States serve all eligible
    families who apply, while others have waiting lists of eligible
    families. A number of States, including Illinois, Kansas, Oregon,
    Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin, have created a
    single subsidy system that serves low-income families, regardless of
    welfare status.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Parent co-payments.** Families receiving subsidies through CCDF
    are required to share in the cost of their child care. Co-payments
    are based, at a minimum, on family size and income. States have the
    option to waive co-payments for families at or below the poverty
    level. While some States have co-pay schedules that are designed to
    gradually ease families into paying child care costs, others require
    very small co-pays even for families well above the poverty line.
    Nationally, of families with income who are served through CCDF, 30
    percent have no assessed co-payment. The average co-pay for all
    families receiving CCDF assistance is four percent (4%) of family
    income. Excluding families without co-pays, the national average is
    close to six percent (6%).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Provider reimbursement**. In setting reimbursement rates, States
    must ensure that eligible children have equal access to child care
    services that are comparable to those available to children whose
    parents are not eligible to receive CCDF assistance. States are
    required to conduct a local market rate survey every two years and
    provide a summary of facts that the State relied on in determining
    that the payment rates ensure equal access. While many States
    indicate that they are unable to reimburse providers at the 75^th^
    percentile of the most recent market rate study, 27 States report
    capping rates at the 75^th^ percentile or higher. This means that
    families in these States should have access to at least 75 percent
    of the care in the local market. A growing number of States pay
    higher rates to providers that meet quality benchmarks (such as
    accreditation) or hard-to-find care, providing an incentive to
    improve quality and supply.

**[States use CCDF dollars to fund a variety of innovative efforts to
improve the quality of care.]{.underline}** States are spending
substantial amounts on activities to improve the quality of children\'s
experiences in care. These include efforts to improve the training and
compensation of caregivers so that they have the knowledge and skills to
promote early learning and literacy in young children. CCDF includes
specific funds that States must use to enhance the quality of care,
including infant and toddler care as well as school-age care and
resource and referral services. In addition to these earmarks, States
must spend a minimum of four percent (4%) of their CCDF dollars on
quality activities.

As child care funding has increased in recent years, so has the amount
States are spending to improve the quality of care. In FY 2001, States
spent \$716 million in current and prior year CCDF funds (including
State funds and funds transferred from TANF) to improve the quality of
child care services -- accounting for nine percent (9%) of combined
Federal and State expenditures. (These figures underestimate State
expenditures on quality because they do not include spending on
initiatives to encourage improved caregiver training and program quality
through tiered reimbursement, i.e., payment systems that pay more for
higher quality care.)

### 

### Examples of Quality Activities

*Child Care Services for Infants and Toddlers*

States use CCDF funds to support a variety of initiatives to improve the
quality of care for infants and toddlers, including: practitioner
training and technical assistance; specialists who work with programs on
unique health, safety and developmental needs of infants and toddlers;
and enhancement grants to allow programs to purchase needed equipment,
make minor renovations, develop new curricula, or pursue accreditation.

*Grants and Loans to Providers*

A number of States offer supports to child care programs by making
start-up grants and loans available to providers including school
districts and community-based organizations. In some cases, grants are
targeted to programs that need funds to maintain compliance with health
and safety standards. In others, funds are targeted to quality
improvement such as purchase of equipment.

*Monitoring Compliance with Regulatory Requirements*

CCDF funds support States in monitoring compliance with child care
licensing and regulatory requirements. These Federal funds help States
to lower caseloads for licensing staff, as well as to expand training
opportunities for these staff and create cross-system regulatory and
technical assistance teams. A few States are also looking carefully at
their regulatory requirements and how they link with career development
and reimbursement policy.

*Training and Technical Assistance*

Every State is involved in training and technical assistance.
Increasingly, States view these services as part of a broader career
development approach and link them to training strategies in other
systems (such as Head Start, pre-kindergarten, and early intervention).
States are also working with statewide systems like the child care
resource and referral agencies and institutions of higher education to
administer/coordinate training and technical assistance funds.

*Compensation of Child Care Providers*

Several States provide additional compensation for child care providers
such as grant programs specifically aimed at improving wages for child
care providers. A little over half the States have implemented some form
of a tiered reimbursement to pay higher rates for child care centers and
family child care providers that achieve one or more levels of quality
beyond the

basic licensing requirements.

**[The Child Care Bureau's research initiatives provide States with
scientifically-based evidence on which to base decisions about improving
child care services and systems.]{.underline}**

In collaboration with others in HHS and ACF, the Child Care Bureau makes
substantial investments in child care research. These investments are
increasing our understanding about the child care policy decisions
States have made in the post-PRWORA environment as well as the
implications of these decisions for the availability and quality of
child care, the choices families make, and outcomes for children and
families. Along with findings from the Child Care Bureau's Policy
Research Consortium, the National Study of Child Care for Low-Income
Families and Mathematica's "Welfare-to-Work Transitions for Parents of
Infants: In-Depth Study of Eight Communities," provide important
descriptive information about child care policies and markets at State
and local community levels. Child care research reviews commissioned by
the HHS Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) document
growing consensus that child care quality makes a difference in the
lives of children.

These studies provide the foundation for emerging efforts to examine the
effects of State and community child care policy decisions using
experimental methods. In FY 2001, the Child Care Bureau, in partnership
with ACF's Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, initiated a
multi-year, multi-site evaluation of child care subsidy strategies. This
effort is intended to expand knowledge about child care subsidies,
including State quality initiatives, by assessing causality through
experimental design. In addition, in an attempt to improve the quality
and accessibility of child care research, the Child Care Bureau has
embarked on an initiative to develop the national Child Care Research
Collaboration and Archive (CCRCA).

**[The Child Care Bureau provides training and technical assistance
regarding child care services and systems to thousands of constituents
each year.]{.underline}**

########  

######## Through the Child Care Bureau's Child Care Technical Assistance Network (CCTAN) and Federal leadership, the Bureau provides technical assistance to States, Tribes, and local communities. This involves assessing States' needs, identifying innovations in child care administration, and promoting the dissemination and replication of solutions to the challenges that State and local child care programs face. CCB technical assistance helps States, Tribes and local communities build integrated child care systems that enable parents to work and promote the health and development of children. In support of its technical assistance goals, the Child Care Bureau sponsors:

######## 

######## Center for the Social and Emotional Foundations of Early Learning

######## Child Care Administration Project

-   Child Care Bureau Conference Management Center

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Child Care Aware

######## Child Care Information Systems Technical Assistance Project 

######## Healthy Child Care America

######## National Child Care Information Center (NCCIC)

######## Quality in Linking Together (QUILT) 

######## Tribal Child Care Technical Assistance Center 

######## Part I

######## Background: Child Care and the Child Care and Development Fund

The component funds of the CCDF were provided under the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA).
As of October 1, 1996, PRWORA repealed the old welfare-related child
care programs provided under the Social Security Act (AFDC/JOBS Child
Care, Transitional Child Care, and At-Risk Child Care). The repealed
programs were replaced by Mandatory and Matching Funds appropriated for
FYs 1997 through 2002 under a new section (418) of the Social Security
Act.

## [Funding, Obligations and Expenditures]{.underline}

Each of the four component funds of CCDF has its own rules regarding
funding and periods of obligation and expenditure. The variations are
summarized in the chart below and described in more detail in the pages
that follow.

+-----------+-----------------------------+---------------------------+
| **If      | **Obligation Must Be**      | **And Liquidated by the** |
| Source    |                             |                           |
| of**      | **Made by End of \--**      | **End of \--**            |
|           |                             |                           |
| **Funds   |                             |                           |
| is FY     |                             |                           |
| 2001      |                             |                           |
| \--**     |                             |                           |
+-----------+-----------------------------+---------------------------+
| Disc      | FY 2002 (i.e., by 9/30/02)  | FY 2003 (i.e., by         |
| retionary |                             | 9/30/03)                  |
+-----------+-----------------------------+---------------------------+
| Mandatory | FY 2001 (i.e., by 9/30/01;  | No requirement to         |
|           | but **ONLY** if Matching    |                           |
|           | Funds are used)             | liquidate by a specific   |
|           |                             | date                      |
+-----------+-----------------------------+---------------------------+
| Matching  | FY 2001 (i.e., by 9/30/01)  | FY 2002 (i.e., by         |
|           |                             | 9/30/02)                  |
+-----------+-----------------------------+---------------------------+
| MOE       | FY 2001 (i.e., by 9/30/01)  | FY 2001 (i.e., by         |
|           |                             | 9/30/01)                  |
+-----------+-----------------------------+---------------------------+

**Discretionary Fund** - PRWORA authorized Discretionary Funds to be
appropriated in each of the FY\'s 1996 through 2002. The amount an
individual State receives in a fiscal year is determined according to a
formula that consists of three factors:

-   Young child factor - the ratio of the number of children under age
    five in the State to the number of children under five in the
    country;

-   School lunch factor - the ratio of the number of children in the
    State who receive free or reduced price school lunches under the
    National School Lunch Act to the number of such children in the
    country;

-   Allotment proportion factor - which is determined by dividing the
    three-year average national per capita income by the three-year
    average per capita State income (as calculated every two years).

The Discretionary fund is 100 percent Federal funds. No State match is
required. States have two years to obligate their Discretionary funds
and an additional year to liquidate those obligations.

In FY 2001, Congress earmarked specific amounts of the Discretionary
fund for: (1) Child Care Quality Improvement Activities (\$172.7
million); (2) Infant and Toddler Quality Improvement (\$100 million);
(3) Child Care Resource and Referral and School-Age Child Care
Activities (\$19.1 million of which \$1 million is for the Child Care
Aware toll-free hotline); and (4) \$10 million for child care research,
demonstration and evaluation activities.

**Mandatory Funds** - A State\'s allocation of the Mandatory Funds is
the greater of the:

-   Federal share of expenditures in the State IV-A child care programs
    (AFDC, JOBS, Transitional, and At-Risk Child Care) in 1994 or 1995
    (whichever is greater), **or**

-   Average Federal share of expenditures in the State IV-A child care
    programs (AFDC, JOBS, TCC, At-Risk) for 1992 through 1994.

The Mandatory funds are 100 percent Federal funds. No State match is
required. Mandatory funds are available until expended unless the State
chooses to expend its Matching funds. To qualify for its share of the
Matching funds, a State must obligate its Mandatory funds by the end of
the Federal FY (9/30) in which they are granted.

**Matching Funds** - The Matching funds are the remaining amount
appropriated under section 418(a)(3) of the Social Security Act after
the Mandatory Funds are allotted. A State\'s allocation of the Matching
funds is based on the number of children under age 13 in the State
compared with the national total of children under age 13. The Matching
funds must be matched by a State at its applicable Federal Medical
Assistance Percentage (FMAP) rate. Matching funds are available to a
State if: 1) its Mandatory funds are obligated by the end of the Federal
FY in which they are awarded; 2) within the same FY, the State expends
State funds equal to its State Maintenance of Effort (MOE) level; and 3)
its Federal and State shares of the Matching funds are obligated by the
end of the fiscal year in which they are awarded. Matching funds must be
fully expended in two years.

**Maintenance of Effort (MOE)** -- to be eligible for its share of the
Matching Funds, a State must continue to spend at least the same amount
on child care services that it spent on the repealed title IV-A child
care programs in FY 1994 or FY 1995, whichever was greater.

**[Eligible Families and Children]{.underline}**

By statute, States may serve families when parents are working, in
education or training, or when

children are receiving protective services. The income level of such
families may not exceed the eligibility levels set by the State and the
Federal maximum of 85 percent of the State Median Income (SMI) for a
family of the same size. CCDF services may be provided up to age 13 or
age 19 for children who are under court supervision or are mentally or
physically incapable of self-care. States must give priority to children
with special needs and to children from very low-income families and are
required to define \"special needs\" and \"very low-income\" in their
State Plans. States can also give priority to other categories of
children.

### [How Families Receive Subsidies and Contribute to the Cost of Care]{.underline}

The statute provides for parental choice of child care provider. Parents
may choose any legally operating child care provider. The regulations
define child care provider as one who provides child care in a center, a
group home, a family home, or in the child\'s own home. (States may
limit the use of in-home care.) Care by a faith-based provider, a
relative provider, and any other type of legally provided child care are
allowable choices.

Families must be given the choice either to receive a certificate for
child care services or to enroll the child with a provider who has a
grant from or contract with the State to provide child care. A
certificate is defined in the statute as a check or other disbursement
that is issued by a State or local government directly to a parent who
may use the certificate only as payment for child care services.
Certificates must be flexible enough to allow funds to follow the child
to any child care provider the parent selects.

By statute, a State\'s CCDF Plan must certify that payment rates for the
provision of CCDF child care services facilitate access for eligible
children to child care services that are comparable to those provided to
children whose parents are not eligible to receive assistance. In their
CCDF Plans, States must describe: 1) how a choice of the full range of
providers is made available; 2) how payment rates are adequate based on
a local market rate survey conducted within the previous two years; and
3) the affordability of family co-payments.

Families must contribute to the cost of care on a sliding fee basis. The
CCDF Plan must include the scale or scales used to determine the
family\'s contribution, which must be based on family size and income.
The State may add other factors, e.g., the number of children in care,
and rules for counting income. States may exempt families below the
Federal poverty level from paying a co-payment.

### [Health, Safety and Quality of Care]{.underline}

A State must certify that it has licensing requirements in effect, and
its CCDF Plan must detail the requirements and how they are enforced.
States must also certify that they have health and safety requirements
in place that apply to those providing child care to CCDF children. The
requirements must include measures to prevent and control infectious
diseases (including immunization), to ensure building and physical
premises safety, and provide minimum health and safety training
appropriate to the provider setting.

**Part II**

######### FY 2000 Administrative Data

######### 

## [Background]{.underline}

**Required reports.** The statute governing the CCDF requires that
States, Territories and Tribes provide aggregate and case-level
information about the families and children receiving direct services
through the CCDF. This information is collected from States and
Territories through OMB-approved instruments, the Child Care Annual
Aggregate Report, i.e., ACF-800, and the Child Care Quarterly Case Level
Report, i.e., ACF-801. (A chart in the appendix to this report provides
a summary of the reports grantees are required to submit under CCDF.)

Since funds transferred from TANF to CCDF are subject to the rules
governing the Discretionary Fund, State reports include children who
were served through TANF transfers as well as State Matching and MOE
funds. Although States are encouraged to provide case-level information
about services provided directly with TANF dollars, the statute does not
require States to provide specific information about child care funded
with TANF. Consequently, detailed data about these services are not
available. (States do report expenditure data on TANF services, and
these data have been used to estimate aggregate children served under
TANF, as reported in Part I).

**Pooling.** The ACF-800 provides unduplicated annual counts of children
and families served through the CCDF, payment methods, the number of
child care providers receiving CCDF funding by type of care, consumer
education methods, and information about pooling of funding sources. In
support of integrated approaches to the administration of child care
subsidies, States are encouraged to provide data on the families and
children receiving child care services through all funding sources
(e.g., Title XX, TANF, State dollars). If States choose to report pooled
information, they must indicate the percentage of CCDF funds. This
allows ACF to provide information about the numbers of families and
children whose child care services are provided specifically through
CCDF.

**Case-level reports.** The ACF-801 provides case-level data on the
children and families served during the month of service, including
demographics, family income and co-payments, and type of setting
including licensure status. States have the option of submitting a
sample or all cases on a monthly or quarterly basis.

As will be described in the technical assistance section of this report,
many States have experienced difficulty in providing case-level data
about families and children served through CCDF. These difficulties are
related to problems with technology, rapid program growth, workload
issues, multiple subsidy programs (as opposed to integrated approaches),
and devolution of child care administration to local entities. The Child
Care Bureau has devoted considerable technical assistance resources to
helping States improve their capacity to provide accurate, timely
reports. While there are still issues with the timeliness of State
reports and California only recently began reporting, significant
progress has been made.

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

####### 

####### 

####### 

####### 

####### 

####### 

####### 

####### Service Patterns

The following patterns of services, including the scope, type, and
methods of child care delivery, as well as the cost and level of child
care services, are derived from the FY 2000 ACF-800 and ACF-801 data
(which are the most recent data available). State and Territorial
break-outs of the FY 2000 data may be found in Part VII, the Appendix,
along with the methodology employed to derive national estimates.
Limitations of the ACF-800 and ACF-801 data are described as well.

FY 2000 data is comparable to FY 1999 data in many respects. Differences
are noted where FY 2000 data varied in interesting or substantial ways.
In some instances similarities across years are noted as well.

Given the flexibility States have in the implementation of CCDF\-\--as
well as variations in demographics, employment, economic circumstances,
and population density that influence the availability of child care and
the choices that parents make within the local context\-\--national
statistics about CCDF mask significant variation among States. For this
reason, the narrative below notes variations among States.

### [Average Monthly Number of Children and Families Served]{.underline}

In FY 2000, approximately 1,038,600 families and 1,744,900 children per
month received child care assistance whereas in FY 1999, approximately
972,100 families and 1,649,700 children received child care assistance
accounting for a six percent (6%) increase in families served and a five
percent (5%) increase in children served (see Table 1 in the Appendix).

####### Family Income

States have the flexibility to serve families with income up to 85
percent of the State Median Income. However, states generally target
eligibility to families most in need. In FY 2000, median monthly income
for families served was \$1,057 (less than 100 percent of the Federal
Poverty Guidelines for a family of three); fewer than 10 percent of
families had income that exceeded \$2,000 per month.

TANF was reported as a source of income for 21 percent of families
receiving services through CCDF. This varied significantly among States
from 85 percent of Wyoming families to fewer than 10 percent of families
in Wisconsin, West Virginia, South Dakota, Pennsylvania, North Carolina,
Minnesota, Kentucky, Kansas, Idaho, the District of Columbia, and
Alabama (See Table 14 in the Appendix).

**[Family Composition]{.underline}**

The CCDF statute requires States to report whether or not families
served are headed by a single parent. In FY 2000, 84.7 percent of
families receiving services through CCDF were single- parent households.
Of the remaining cases, 9.5 percent were not single parents, .7 percent
were child-only families, and 5.1 percent had invalid or missing data.
Only nine (9) States reported that fewer than 80 percent of the families
served were headed by a single parent including Alaska, American Samoa,
Arizona, California, Delaware, the District of Columbia, New Jersey,
Washington, and West Virginia. (Four States failed to provide data for
this element.)

####### 

####### 

####### Family Co-Payment Amounts

Including families with zero co-pays, the average family contribution to
the cost of care was four percent (4%) of reported family income.
Families in seventeen States, including Arkansas, California, the
District of Columbia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Mississippi,
Missouri, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia paid three percent
(3%) or less of their income in child care co-pays. Although parents in
Nevada and North Dakota paid more than 10 percent of their income in
child care co-payments, Nevada had a decrease of more than five percent
(5%) in the mean co-payment excluding zero co-pays between 1999 and
2000. Excluding families that did not make a co-payment, average co-pays
remained unchanged between 1999 and 2000 to nearly six percent (6%) of
income (See Table 15 in the Appendix).

The National Study of Child Care for Low-Income Families draft second
interim report, *Care in the Home: A Description of Family Child Care
and the Experiences of the Families and Children that Use It,* provides
additional insight into what low-income working families pay for child
care. This study focused on low-income working parents with at least one
child under age nine. To be included in the sample, the family needed to
be using a family child care provider and be eligible for or receiving a
child care subsidy. Twenty-two percent of the families paid nothing for
child care. Families receiving a subsidy averaged \$93.33 per month in
out-of-pocket child care costs or \$57.65 per child. Those not receiving
a subsidy paid \$226.50 per month or \$93.33 per child. Among subsidized
families, the amount paid was equal to the assessed co-pay in most
instances (80 percent). For the nine percent (9%) whose monthly payment
was not the same as the required co-payment, about half paid more than
the assessed co-payment amount. (See additional information about
co-payments in Section V, Emerging Child Care Research.)

### 

### [Ages of Children]{.underline} 

Of children served through CCDF in FY 2000, infants and toddlers were 27
percent of the children served (refer to Figure 1 below and Table 2 in
the Appendix). Specifically:

![](media/image2.wmf)

-   Five percent (5%) were infants through 11 months of age;

-   22 percent were toddlers 12 through 35 months;

-   36 percent were preschoolers 36 months through 71 months;

-   36 percent were school-age 72 months through 12 years; and

-   Fewer than one percent (1%) of children were 13 to 18 years old.

**[Race and Ethnicity]{.underline}**

In collecting and reporting race and ethnicity for purposes of CCDF, ACF
uses \"Standards for the Classification of Federal Data and Ethnicity\"
as prescribed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Of the
children served in FY 00, 40 percent were African American; 33 percent
were white; one percent (1%) Asian; and, one percent (1%) Native
American or Native Alaskan. A fraction of one percent (1%) were Native
Hawaiian, Pacific Islander or multiracial. For the balance, race was not
reported (refer to Figure 2 below and Table 3 in the Appendix).

![](media/image3.wmf)

With regard to Latino ethnicity, fifteen percent reported Latino
ethnicity whereas 77 percent reported non-Latino ethnicity. For the
remainder, ethnicity was not reported. After Puerto Rico,

the States with the highest concentrations of Latino children were
Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas (refer to Table 4 in the
Appendix).

####### Child Care Settings

Preschool-age children (three to six years of age) were more likely to
be served in child care centers than children who were younger or older
(refer to Figure 3 below and Table 5 in the Appendix).

![](media/image4.wmf)

**[Average Monthly Hours of Child Care by Child Age and Type of
Care]{.underline}**

Children under the age of five averaged significantly more hours in
child care than children five

years old and older. For instance, three-year olds averaged 160 hours of
care per month compared with 115 hours for children six to thirteen.
This reflects the fact that older children attend school part of the day
during the school-year. The average monthly hours across types of care
was 139. While average hours of care did not vary much among types of
care, the average hours of care in centers was the highest at 140 and
lowest for care in a child's own home at 128 hours (refer to Figure 4
below and Table 6 in the Appendix).

![](media/image5.wmf)

####### 

####### Average Monthly Provider Payment by Age Group and Type of Care

The average monthly provider payment was highest for group homes (\$344)
and center-based care (\$342). Family child care (FCC) homes were less
expensive (\$277) and care provided in the child\'s home was the least
expensive (\$240). With regard to age, provider payments reflected the
average number of hours spent in child care. Specifically, provider
payments were higher for younger children than older children because
younger children tend to be in child care for longer periods (refer to
Table 7 in the Appendix).

####### Reason for Care

Ninety-two percent of families cited either employment or education and
training as the reason for needing child care. Specifically, 80 percent
of families cited employment. Another nine percent (9%) cited training
and education. An additional three percent (3%) cited employment as well
as training and education. Services to the remaining families related to
protective and other needs (refer to Figure 5 below and Table 8 in the
Appendix).

![](media/image6.wmf)

####### Numbers and Types of Child Care Providers

The number of FCC home providers (approximately 463,200) was more than
twice the number of caregivers in a child's home (approximately
213,700). Group homes providing services to CCDF-subsidized children
numbered approximately 22,400. Even though significantly more children
were served in child care centers than FCC homes, fewer centers
(107,500) cared for CCDF-funded children. This relates to the larger
size and capacity of centers as compared to other types of care (refer
to Table 9 in the Appendix).

####### Children Served by Type of Care

In FY 2000, center care was the most prevalent type of care used by
CCDF-subsidized families although there were significant variations
among States. Nationally, 58 percent of children were in center care, 31
percent were in FCC homes, three percent (3%) in group homes, and eight
percent (8%) in the child's own home. In 28 States and Territories, 50
percent or more of the children served through CCDF received care in
child care centers. However, in nine (9) States, i.e., Illinois,
Michigan, Montana, New York, North Dakota, Northern Mariana Islands,
South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming, 33 percent or fewer of children were in
centers. Similarly, in 45 States and Territories, no more than 10
percent of children received care in their own homes, while three States
and one Territory, i.e., Connecticut, Illinois, Michigan, and the
Northern Mariana Islands, had at least 30 percent of children in such
care. Refer to Table 10 in the Appendix.

####### Regulated Versus Unregulated Settings 

![](media/image7.wmf)Approximately 74 percent of children were served in
regulated child care settings versus 26 percent in settings legally
operating without regulation. Nearly all children (i.e., 57 of the 58
percent) served in child care centers were in regulated settings.
Virtually all of the children served in group homes (3%) were in
regulated child care settings too. Conversely, all of the children
served in the child\'s home (8%) were in settings legally operating
without regulation. Of the children served in FCC homes, 14 of the 31
percent were in regulated FCC homes (refer to Figure 6 and Table 10 in
Appendix A). While in the majority of States, more than three-fourths of
children were in regulated care, in 10 States (Connecticut, Guam,
Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and
Utah) fewer than half of children were in regulated care.

####### 

####### 

####### Relative Versus Non-Relative Care

In FY 2000, the proportion of children served in the child\'s home or a
FCC home (in settings legally operating without regulation) were served
just as often by relatives as non-relatives (refer to Table 11 in the
Appendix). In FY 1999, the proportion of children in the same settings
were more often served by relatives (52 percent) than non-relatives (48
percent).

####### Children Served by Payment Method

The most frequently used method of payment in FY 2000 was certificates
(83 percent). In FY 1999, certificates accounted for 82 percent of
payments. In FY 2000, grants and contracts were 11 percent of payments
whereas in FY 1999 they accounted for 12 percent. In both FY 2000 and FY
1999, cash payments accounted for the remaining six percent (6%). In FY
2000, only the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, and Utah, used
certificates less than 50 percent of the time (refer to Figure 7 below
and Table 12 in the Appendix).

####### ![](media/image8.wmf)

**[State and Territorial Methods of Consumer Education]{.underline}**

Brochures, booklets, or written materials about types of care and
quality of care were used by every State and Territory. Lists of legally
operating child care providers were used by 53 of the 56 States and
Territories. Providing parents and the public with information about
policies regarding complaints was reported as a form of consumer
education by 52 of the 56 States and Territories. (refer to Table 13 in
the Appendix).

######### 

###### Part III

######## Fiscal Year 2001 CCDF Financial Data

###### 

Information about FY 2001 CCDF expenditures was obtained from State
quarterly financial reports submitted to ACF for Federal FY 2001
(October 1, 2000-September 30, 2001). The FY 2001 reports detail
expenditures from each of the CCDF funding streams (Mandatory, Matching,
and Discretionary) including expenditures for direct and non-direct
services as well as administration and quality activities. In FY 2001,
States spent and reported on funds from FYs 1999, 2000 and 2001. Because
States continue to report on their expenditures until the funds are
expended, these numbers are subject to update and should not be
considered final. More detail about FY 2001 State expenditures can be
found on the Child Care Bureau website at:
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ccb/research/01acf696/tot01exp.htm.

During FY 2001, States' CCDF expenditures from all fiscal years totaled
\$8.0 billion. Of this amount, expenditures of Federal CCDF funds
(including amounts transferred from TANF) reached \$6 billion while
States' spent \$2.0 billion from their Matching and Maintenance of
Effort (MOE) programs. States reported that of these expenditures,
roughly 81 percent went toward providing direct services; seven percent
(7%) was spent on non-direct services associated with operating voucher
programs including information and referral eligibility determination
and re-determination; nine percent (9%) was spent for quality activities
including funds set-aside for quality improvements; and three percent
(3%) was spent for administration.

![](media/image9.wmf)[^1]

Expenditures of FY 2001 Appropriations in FY 2001

In FY 2001, States spent a total of \$5.8 billion of FY 2001 combined
Federal and State funds, which includes both CCDF and TANF transfers
into CCDF. Expenditures of FY 01 Federal CCDF funds were \$3.9 billion
and State matching and MOE funds were \$1.9 billion.

**[Maintenance of Effort (MOE).]{.underline}**

To be entitled to their share of the Matching funds, States must spend
State funds for child care at a level equal to the greater of their FY
1994 or FY 1995 Title IV-A child care expenditures. All States reported
that they spent their own funds at the required MOE level. Ten States
reported spending a total of \$215 million over the required MOE level.
(It is likely that MOE expenditures reported for CCDF are also reported
as part of the State's TANF MOE expenditures.)

**[Non-Federal Match.]{.underline}**

States must spend State funds at the applicable 2001 FMAP rate to be
eligible for Federal Matching Funds. All but five States provided the
necessary matching funds to draw down Federal Matching Funds. (See
Unobligated Balance paragraph for Matching funds returned for
reallotment.)

**[TANF Block Grant Transfers.]{.underline}**

Forty-two States transferred funds to CCDF in amounts ranging from \$375
million to \$521 thousand. A total of \$2 billion in FY 2001 Federal
TANF funds was transferred to CCDF. The transferred TANF funds were more
than 30 percent of the total CCDF Federal funds available to States for
CCDF in FY 2001.

**[Direct Services.]{.underline}**

CCDF funds spent directly by States on child care services was \$3.7
billion or 79.5 percent of the FY 2001 combined Federal and State CCDF
expenditures (excluding MOE). MOE expenditures on direct services were
an additional \$1.0 billion (92.1 percent of total MOE expenditures.)

**[Administrative Costs.]{.underline}**

By law, no more than five percent (5%) of CCDF funds may be used for
administrative costs. State administrative expenditures were \$149
million in FY 2001, or 3.2 percent of FY 2001 total Federal and State
expenditures\--well below the limit.

**[Quality Services.]{.underline}**

The statute requires that a minimum of four percent (4%) of total CCDF
expenditures be spent on quality activities (excluding earmarks). States
reported spending \$361 million of FY 2001 funds in 2001 on improving
the quality of child care services, 7.7 percent of combined FY 2001
Federal and State expenditures. An additional \$13.9 million was spent
on quality activities from the States' MOE expenditures.

**[Set-asides.]{.underline}**

Of the \$291.7 million in set-aside funds for FY 2001, States have spent
\$89.2 million. They have until the end of the liquidation period
(September 30, 2004) to spend these funds. Expenditures to date include:
\$59.1 million on child care quality improvement; \$22 million on infant
and toddler quality; and \$8.1 million on child care resource and
referral and school-age care.

**[Non-Direct Services.]{.underline}**

States have spent \$363 million in non-direct services or 7.7 percent of
FY 2001 State and Federal expenditures. Non-direct service expenditures
included \$49 million on child care computer information systems, \$154
million on certificate programs, and \$160 million on eligibility
determinations and other costs. MOE expenditures for non-direct services
were \$59.3 million.

**[Unobligated Balances.]{.underline}**

In FY 2001, States obligated 100 percent of the Federal Mandatory funds.
At the end of the year, five States released \$41.1 million, or 3.1
percent in Matching funds for reallotment in FY 2002. The unobligated
balance for the \$3.9 billion of Discretionary funds was \$858 million
or 21.7 percent. States have an additional year to obligate these funds.

**[Unexpended FY 2001 Funds.]{.underline}**

At the end of FY 2001 (September 30, 2001), seventeen States had a
balance of \$167 million in Mandatory funds to spend and twenty-five
States had \$328 million of Matching funds to spend. Thirty-seven States
and Territories had \$1.2 billion of Discretionary funds to spend.
States will continue to spend FY 2001 funds in FYs 2002 and 2003.

######### Part IV

######### October 1, 2001 STATE PLANS

States, Territories, and Tribes are required to submit biennial plans
that describe how they intend to implement CCDF. These plans are
submitted through a preprint (form) that asks for information about the
Lead Agency, CCDF administration, the process for developing the plan
including public hearings, service priorities, processes with parents,
and activities that will be funded with the quality set-aside and
earmarks.

The CCDF Plan, which the Lead Agency must submit to HHS for funding,
identifies and provides the:

-   State Lead Agency (designated by the State chief executive);

-   Entity designated to receive private donated funds (as appropriate);

-   Purposes for which the funds will be expended;

-   Amount of funds requested, as prescribed by HHS; and

-   Information specified by HHS.

In developing the CCDF Plan, the Lead Agency must:

-   Consult with appropriate representatives of local government;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Coordinate the provision of services with other Federal, State, and
    local child care and early childhood development programs including
    such programs for the benefit of Indian children; and,

-   Hold at least one public hearing.

In consultation with the ACF Regional Offices, the Child Care Bureau
reviews the State Plans to ensure compliance with the CCDF statute and
regulations. The following summarizes the information States provided in
the plans that were due July 1, 2001 for the period October 1, 2001
through September 30, 2003. More detailed information about how specific
States are implementing CCDF is provided in the appendix to this report
in a chart entitled "Child Care and Development Fund State Information
Chart."

# [Administration]{.underline}

States indicate that Lead Agencies are working in partnership with
multiple Federal, State, Tribal and local entities to administer CCDF
funds. Many Lead Agencies assume primary responsibility for
administering funds for child care services (e.g. funding child care
certificates/vouchers and/or contracting with child care programs to
serve families that are eligible for child care assistance). However,
all of the Lead Agencies contract with at least one other entity to
assist them in administering funds to improve the quality and
availability of child care.

In some cases, States have devolved substantive administrative
responsibility for CCDF to local jurisdictions. In a number of States,
including California, Colorado, and Indiana, administrative
responsibility for CCDF has been devolved to the county-level. Other
States, such as Texas and Florida have granted non-governmental entities
created by statute the authority to administer CCDF at the local level.

[State Flexibility]{.underline}

States have significant flexibility under CCDF and TANF in administering
and funding their child care programs. Many States (24) indicate that
they give families participating in TANF first priority for child care
assistance. However, a few States use the flexibility under CCDF to
establish eligibility requirements, family co-payment amounts,
reimbursement rates, and funding levels that allow them to provide child
care services to all eligible low-income working family applicants
without regard to TANF status. This approach allows these States to
support working families without creating perverse incentives for those
families not connected with the welfare system.

**[Eligibility]{.underline}**

Income eligibility levels across States range from 39 to 85 percent of
the State Median Income (or 122 percent to 325 percent of the Federal
Poverty Level). While six (6) States reported that they set the income
eligibility ceiling at 85 percent of the State Median Income, the
Federal maximum, most set eligibility at a lower level in order to
prioritize families with very low incomes. On average, States reported
an income eligibility level equivalent to 62 percent of State Median
Income.

Most States use pre-tax gross income, usually expressed in monthly
terms, to determine if a family is eligible to receive child care
assistance. However, some States exclude or exempt certain income, or
allow deductions to income for certain expenses. Most commonly, States
exclude or exempt income received from certain public assistance
programs such as TANF, SSI, VISTA, food stamps, energy assistance, and
housing allotments.

In their definition of "working," 15 States indicate that parents must
be working a certain number of hours per week or month in order to
qualify for child care assistance. The hours specified range from 15 or
more to 35 hours per week.

###### [Priorities]{.underline}

As indicated, States decide whether to target certain populations, for
example, whether to focus on families transitioning off TANF or to treat
all families the same regardless of TANF status. Eleven States indicate
that first priority is given to families that include a child with
special needs. Examples of other populations that are given special
priority by one or more States are: teen parents, non-TANF teen parents
with no high school diploma or GED, families with medical emergencies,
parents who are students in post-secondary education, parents in
homeless or spousal-abuse shelters, children in protective services or
in foster care, and children in need of before- and after-school care.

###### [Family Contributions to the Cost of Care]{.underline}

States are required to establish a sliding fee scale, based on income
and family size, whereby families receiving services through CCDF
contribute to the cost of care. Some States also use other factors
including the price of care, and/or the State reimbursement rate. Little
change was reported between the FY 2000-2001 plans and the current ones.
In the State Plans, effective October 1, 2001, close to 75 percent of
States indicated that co-pays are based on a percentage of family
income. Seven States based co-pays on a percentage of the cost of care.

States may choose to waive co-pays for families with income below the
Federal poverty level. Five States require all families to pay a fee.
Twelve States waive fees for all families with income at or below the
poverty level. Thirty-three States waive fees for some families with
incomes at or below the poverty level.

In addition to assessed family co-pays, many States allow providers to
charge families the difference between their usual and customary rates
and what the State reimburses. Fourteen States reported that they
prohibit providers from charging fees in addition to the co-pays
established by the State. Three additional States said that they
prohibit some, but not all providers from charging families fees in
addition to the established co-pays. Of the seventeen States that have
prohibitions against additional charges, many said providers may charge
fees such as late charges or costs related to registration,
transportation, and field trips.

# 

# [Payment Rates]{.underline}

All States reported that they rely on data from a market rate survey to
establish rates and to ensure that families who receive child care
assistance have equal access to comparable child care services.
Twenty-seven States indicated that they cap reimbursement at levels
equal to or higher than the 75^th^ percentile of the local market rate.
(This means that the State's maximum rates are equal to or more than the
amount charged by 75 percent of child care providers in the market.)
This compares with 29 States in FY 2000 and 2001. While some States have
been unable to update their rates in recent years, 81 percent of States
reported that rates were updated to reflect the results of the market
rate survey within a year of the survey. While there were significant
variations among States and rate categories, overall, States increased
their maximum reimbursement rates an average of 11 percent from the
information reported in the FY 2000-2001 State Plans. The increases
frequently were not consistent across types of care and ages of
children. The largest overall growth in rates was for the care of
preschool children.

The trend continues toward States implementing systems of tiered
reimbursement whereby providers are paid more if they can demonstrate
that they offer higher quality care. In their Plans, 29 States indicated
that they have rate differentials for various levels of quality. An
additional 10 States are in various stages of studying or planning for a
tiered system of rates.

[Limitations on the Use of In-Home Care]{.underline}

States must allow the use of in-home care but may set limits on its use.
While 22 States indicated that they do not limit the use of in-home
care, 28 States said they do impose limits for financial or quality
reasons. Many of the States that impose limits require that a sufficient
number of children be in care to ensure that the provider receives a
minimum wage; e.g., Indiana, Nebraska, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin limit
in-home care to families in which three or more children require child
care. Other States impose special quality provisions for in-home care
including criminal background checks and/or training.

**[Processes with Parents]{.underline}**

Eleven States reported that they contract with a community-based voucher
management agency to determine eligibility for child care assistance;
this compares with 14 in FY 2000 and nine four years ago. Additionally,
four States are using the Internet to disseminate information about
child care subsidies and/or help families request applications for
assistance. Thirty-eight States now indicate that they allow families to
request applications for child care services by mail or telephone.
Fourteen of those States allow families to complete the subsidy
application by mail or telephone.

Sixteen States allow child care programs that collaborate with Head
Start and/or prekindergarten to determine eligibility once a year, at
the beginning of the program year, rather than using the more typical
three-to-six month eligibility period.

# States also have increased their capacity to track and report on complaints against child care programs. Eight States have developed automated systems to track complaints and ensure that staff---and in some cases parents---have access to up-to-date information. States are also establishing toll-free numbers to make it easier for parents to file complaints or request information about complaints against programs or providers.

# [Certificates, grants, and contracts]{.underline}

Although most States administer the bulk of their CCDF funds as
certificates or vouchers, 25 States reported that they also have grants
or contracts for child care slots. In most cases these grants and
contracts are limited to specific populations and low-income
neighborhoods where child care supply is limited. States also use
contracts to support Head Start "wrap around" initiatives, school-age
child care, or programs that target specialized populations such as teen
parents or children with special needs. With the CCDF quality set-aside,
earmarks, and other funds, States are also using grants and contracts to
expand and improve the quality of care for infants and toddlers as well
as to address issues of compensation and professional development. These
quality improvement grants are often combined with funding from child
care certificates/vouchers, parent fees, and other sources.

CCDF plans indicate that an increasing number of States are exploring
the feasibility of awarding grants and contracts targeted to quality
improvement outcomes (e.g. lower child-staff ratios, increased staff
training, or national accreditation). These contracts may be used in
combination with funding from vouchers/certificates, parent fees,
employer contributions, and other fundraising efforts, to support the
cost of good quality child care.

# 

# [Service Coordination]{.underline}

Lead Agencies work with many Federal, State, local and tribal entities
in developing their State Plans. Many States have established State and
local coordinating councils or advisory boards that meet regularly to
provide input and direction on CCDF funded programs. In some States,
social service and education departments are jointly funding and
administering full-day, year-round early care and education systems for
three- and four-year-old children. Head Start is often involved as a
major partner in these efforts as well. School districts are also coming
on board, and have begun to develop collaborative approaches for
preschool-age children, as well as for before- and after-school care.

Collaborative efforts extend far beyond the typical care and education
agencies. States are working with State and local labor and economic
development agencies to support initiatives that allow TANF recipients
or low-income families to apply for a variety of benefits in one place
(typically called "one-stop shopping"). Early intervention experts are
helping to make child care systems more responsive to families that have
children with special needs. Colleges and universities are playing an
important role in creating and implementing career development systems
for early care and education practitioners. Additionally, the juvenile
justice system is exploring a variety of ways that it can prevent crime
by reaching children in their younger years and supporting
out-of-school-time programs.

State health departments are playing a central role in making more
comprehensive services available as well as increasing the quality of
many child care settings. Innovative examples of collaborations with
health agencies include the use of public health nurses to provide
training to child care providers and the funding of a toll-free
telephone line specifically to provide parents and providers with
consultation on health and safety topics related to child care. However,
some States have developed broader, system-wide collaborations such as
ensuring that families seeking child care assistance are also informed
about subsidized health care and coordinating the monitoring of
compliance with health and safety regulations. In 38 States, Lead
Agencies also collaborate with health agencies on data collection and
technology issues, ranging from maintenance of immunization records to
the development of cross-agency, on-line information retrieval systems.

The entities responsible for administering State and local funds for
early care and education are supporting efforts that draw on multiple
funding streams. Administrators from various State agencies are often
working together on writing and implementing the CCDF plan. New cost
allocation and data collection systems---that assume programs will blend
funding from multiple sources---continue to emerge.

All of the State plans contain descriptions of public-private
partnership activity. The States have adopted a wide range of
approaches, from adding programs to building infrastructure to
developing systems of care. Additionally, the States report a wide range
of partners that include child care resource and referral agencies,
businesses, housing authorities, economic development authorities, and
welfare-to-work agencies. Several States discussed their intent to use
private, donated funds to meet part of the CCDF matching requirements.

**Improving the Quality of Early Childhood Services**

The law requires that States spend no less than four percent (4%) of
their CCDF allocation for quality activities. As noted earlier in this
report, in FY 2001, States actually spent closer to nine percent (9%) on
quality. States may use these funds for a variety of quality
initiatives. This includes those that target infants and toddlers, child
care resource and referral services, school-age child care,
comprehensive consumer education, grants or loans to providers to assist
in meeting State and local standards, monitoring compliance with
licensing and regulatory requirements, training and technical
assistance, compensation of child care providers, and other activities
that increase parental choice and/or improve the quality and
availability of child care. In addition, Congress has earmarked portions
of CCDF to be spent on quality and to improve services for infants and
toddlers, resource and referral and school-age care.

**[Child Care Services for Infants and Toddlers]{.underline}**

Increasingly, States are using CCDF funds to improve the quality of care
provided to infants and toddlers, and they are doing so in ways that
promote systemic change. For example, the number of States that have
developed a special infant-toddler credential has doubled since the last
plan period. Many States also describe initiatives that link caregiver
credentials, compensation, and program assessment. More Lead Agencies
have launched planning efforts that target infant-toddler care, and
close to 25 percent of States fund infant-toddler specialists or health
consultants focused on infant-toddler issues. These efforts are
frequently done in collaboration with Healthy Child Care America which
is a partnership between the Child Care Bureau and Maternal and Child
Health to encourage improved health practices in child care.

**[Resource and Referral]{.underline}**

All of the States reported that they provide some type of child care
resource and referral services, which include consumer information and
referrals, development of new FCC homes and centers, training and/or
technical assistance to child care providers, and other quality
enhancement initiatives. These services are typically provided via
contract with a non-profit, community-based organization, although a few
States provide resource and referral services directly and some use
State or local public agencies. Several States described unique
initiatives that use resource and referral agencies as coordinating
bodies to support a range of services for parents and providers,
including infant and toddler training programs.

**[Consumer Education]{.underline}**

All States reported that they support child care resource and referral
services that include, among other activities, consumer education. Most
States also conduct a consumer education campaign that includes, at a
minimum, written information about child care subsidies and services
(via brochures and pamphlets). Some States also utilize broadcast and
news media in their public education campaigns. A few States also have
dedicated staff or have established regional teams to focus on consumer
education.

**[School-Age Child Care]{.underline}**

Most States make funds available to support school-age child care
programs and services. While some Lead Agencies have focused on efforts
to improve the quality and supply of school-age child care, States also
use CCDF funds to help make school-age child care more affordable for
families. States provide this support as subsidies for low-income
children (i.e., certificates that facilitate parent choice). Most States
reported that they use set-aside funds for school-age child care
provider training. In addition to providing scholarships and other
training resources, some States are developing school-age care
credentials, special mentor programs, and targeted distance-learning
courses.

**[Grants and Loans to Providers]{.underline}**

A number of States offer support to child care programs by providing
start-up grants and loans to providers including school districts and
community-based organizations. In some cases, grants are targeted to
programs that need funds to maintain compliance with health and safety
standards. In others, funds are targeted to quality improvement. A
number of States are also linking grant funds to deficiencies that were
identified during a program assessment. In some cases, these assessments
are linked to achieving accreditation or meeting benchmarks established
by the State. Others are based on environmental rating scales. In either
case, the approach is an incentive---in order to receive grant funds,
programs must make progress toward meeting specific goals.

**[Monitoring Compliance with Regulatory Requirements]{.underline}**

CCDF funds support States in monitoring compliance with State child care
licensing and regulatory requirements. Twenty-nine States\-\--up from 25
in the 2000-2001 Plans\-\--reported using CCDF to lower caseloads for
licensing staff. In addition, a growing number of Lead Agencies reported
that they use CCDF quality funds to support training for licensing
staff, with emphasis on improved observation and interaction skills as
well as regulatory knowledge. Seven States also use quality set-aside
funds to help pay for new or upgraded automation systems to track
compliance with licensing standards.

**[Training and Technical Assistance]{.underline}**

Every State reported involvement in training and technical assistance
activities. The number of States that reported using CCDF quality funds
to help build or support a career development system for early care and
education continues to climb, from 17 States in the FY 2000-2001 Plans
to 28 in the current period. In many States, these systems serve as a
framework for other training, technical assistance, and quality
improvement activities. As compared with the 2000-2001 Plans, nearly
twice as many States reported spending CCDF funds for T.E.A.C.H., a
scholarship program that links increased education with compensation.
Fourteen States reported developing early care and education mentoring
initiatives, which typically compensate skilled early childhood teachers
who provide leadership and support to new staff entering the field.

[Compensation of Child Care Providers]{.underline}

As State involvement in career development efforts has grown, so has the
desire to have direct impact on caregiver compensation. States described
initiatives including wage supplements, mentoring programs, and one-time
bonuses or quality awards. Several States have multiple initiatives.
Twelve States reported that they use CCDF to support wage and/or benefit
initiatives for the early care and education workforce, up from eight
States in the last plan period.

**Part V**

# Emerging Child Care Research

##### 

###### [The Child Care Bureau's Involvement in Child Care Research]{.underline}

Beginning with the creation of the Child Care and Development Block
Grant (CCDBG) in 1990, Federal child care policy has focused on
providing low-income working families with access to the child care
market. CCDBG required States to provide parents with vouchers designed
to facilitate access to the same types of child care as privately paying
families including care by relatives and friends. This emphasis on
parental choice continues in CCDF and means that decision-makers need
good information about how child care markets work and the choices
parents make in those markets.

In 1995, the Child Care Bureau provided modest grants to teams of policy
makers, practitioners, and researchers (Partnerships) to study State and
local child care markets using data collected by States and communities
in the course of operating subsidy, licensing, and resource and referral
programs. These Partnerships provide the foundation for the Child Care
Bureau's research efforts and generate State and cross-State information
on child care needs, utilization patterns, and outcomes for low-income
families. Nearly two dozen States and many local communities have been
involved in Partnership studies. (Research findings from these grantees
are included later in this section.)

Welfare reform under PRWORA generated questions about the child care
market's ability to meet increased child care demands associated with
the TANF work requirements. In addition, issues were raised about the
costs associated with providing child care for families transitioning
off welfare, adequacy of the care children would receive, and long-range
outcomes for children and families.

To help respond to these questions, ACF funded several descriptive
studies to promote better understanding of State and local child care
policies and child care markets, and the choices low-income parents make
within the context of those policies and markets. Two major studies
include:

-   "A National Study of Child Care for Low-Income Families," conducted
    by Abt Associates in cooperation with the National Center for
    Children in Poverty at Columbia. This study, which focused on 17
    States, is now nearing the end of its five-year project period. It
    will provide information on: 1) how States and communities formulate
    and implement policies and programs to meet the needs of families
    moving from welfare to work, as well as those of low-income
    families; 2) the employment and child care decisions of low-income
    families; 3) the characteristics and functioning of family child
    care; and 4) the experiences of children and families with family
    child care. The first report, which focuses on the linkages among
    welfare reform, other policies and programs, and the child care
    market, was released in 2000 and is available at
    <http://www.abtassoc.com/reports/welfare-download/NSCCLIF.pdf>

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   In 2001, Mathematica Policy Research (MPR) completed a study
    entitled "Welfare-to-Work Transitions for Parents of Infants:
    In-Depth Study of Eight Communities." This study found that even
    though Federal rules allow States to exempt the primary caregiver of
    an infant from work participation requirements, 23 States required
    such caregivers to meet TANF participation requirements before their
    babies were a year old. Among its discoveries, the study found that
    while parents of infants face greater but not different challenges
    from other parents, States did not see them as a group with
    categorical needs that are substantially different from the rest of
    TANF families. (This report is available at:
    <http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/PDFs/weltransfull.pdf>.)

###### [The Child Care Bureau's Research Agenda]{.underline}

Starting in FY 2000, the Child Care Bureau was authorized by Congress to
spend \$10 million annually in CCDF for research, demonstration, and
evaluation. Based on recommendations obtained through a broad-based
planning process that included an HHS task force, a two-day Child Care
Research Leadership Forum, and a written request for input, the Child
Care Bureau developed a strategic research agenda designed to build the
child care research infrastructure and yield timely, useful information
for child care policy makers.

The Bureau's research agenda is designed to respond to the following
questions:

1.  **What does child care look like today?** What types of care do
    families use? What quality of care do children receive? What does
    child care cost and how much do parents pay? What is the
    availability and accessibility of subsidies to eligible families and
    children? Who are the providers of child care and what are their
    characteristics? What are the interrelationships among child care
    market forces, social and cultural influences, policies, programs,
    and outcomes?

2.  **How do the variations in child care affect children?** This
    question asks how children develop in different care environments,
    how various features of child care (e.g., quality, type, cost)
    affect children, and how child care relates to other important
    factors such as school readiness and achievement.

3.  **How do the variations in child care affect parents?** This
    question examines the interrelationships among market forces,
    workplace factors, child care policies and programs, community
    supports, and outcomes for parents (e.g., family functioning,
    employment, earnings, career progression).

4.  **How do the answers to these broad questions translate into
    specific policy and program choices at the state and local levels?**
    This question explores the interrelationships among market forces,
    policies and programs carried out by states and local communities,
    and the outcomes of these factors for children and families.

5.  **How do the answers to all the questions above differ for
    sub-groups of children and families?** This question examines how
    different groups of children and families are affected by the major
    variations in child care market structures, policies and programs in
    the light of social and cultural trends.

As child care services and systems have evolved and grown in response to
the changing economy, welfare reform, and increased child care funding,
the important child care research questions have evolved as well. In
particular, policy makers indicate the desire to know more about the
implications of various policy choices on the quality and availability
of care and outcomes for families and children.

####### Research Activities in Progress

During Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001, the Child Care Bureau greatly
expanded its national Child Care Policy Research Consortium of grants
and contracts to develop critically needed information on child care and
its effects on child development and family well-being. The purpose of
this consortium is to help the Child Care Bureau increase the national
capacity for sound child care research, identify and respond to critical
issues, and link child care research with policy, practice, and consumer
demand.

Six major goals underlie the work of the consortium:

-   To address issues facing child care administrators who must
    implement child care policies and programs that support
    employment-related goals for parents, promote healthy child
    development, and meet emerging needs;

-   To stimulate greater collaboration and interdisciplinary research on
    issues affecting children, families, and communities;

-   To develop greater compatibility among child care data systems and
    create longitudinal data sets from child care subsidy systems,
    regulatory information systems, resource and referral systems, and
    other key sources;

-   To establish a Child Care Research Collaboration and Archive to
    develop a national research infrastructure;

-   To evaluate State child care policies and programs; and

-   To increase State-level capacity for research and data collection.

The consortium is undertaking a wide array of research efforts, several
of which have already been noted. While a more complete summary of Child
Care Bureau research projects is included in the appendix to this
report, the following is a brief description of the initiatives in
progress:

**Child Care Research Collaboration and Archive (CCRCA).** This project,
now in development, will: 1) serve as a repository of child care
research and data through a web-based archive; 2) conduct literature
reviews; 3) develop and disseminate materials designed to improve child
care policy research; 4) provide assistance to users; 5) promote
collaboration among researchers and policy makers; and 6) synthesize
findings for policy makers and other stakeholders. In addition, the
CCRCA will support researchers, policy makers, and practitioners in
furthering knowledge about child care quality and ways providers and
parents can support early literacy.

**Child Care Research Partnerships.** As noted above, these teams of
policy-makers, practitioners, and researchers study State and local
child care markets using data collected by States and communities in the
course of operating subsidy, licensing, and resource and referral
programs. These partnerships have provided State and cross-State
information on child care needs, utilization patterns, and outcomes for
low-income families. The partnership projects have been conducting
research involving nearly half of the States and many local communities.

# Field Initiated Research Projects. The Child Care Bureau has funded 24 Field Initiated Research Grantees who are currently conducting research on a broad range of topics, including: assessing outcomes for children related to the quality of child care received; rating child care facilities and evaluating parents' choice of child care based on information about quality of care; availability of care for infants and toddlers, children with special needs and underrepresented populations; child care workforce issues; administrative barriers that may affect low-income families' access to child care; and strategies States and communities are implementing to improve child care services and systems.

**Child Care Subsidy Evaluation Project**. ACF has contracted with Abt
Associates, Inc., for a multi-site evaluation to study the net impact,
implementation, costs and benefits of selected child care subsidy
strategies. This evaluation will expand the knowledge of child care
subsidy policies by assessing causality through experimental design.
Exploratory work is in progress with States and communities to identify
sites and topics that may be appropriate for study using experimental
methods. Early indications are that States are invested in knowing more
about how they can support child care quality, school readiness, and
early literacy.

**State Child Care Data and Research Capacity Projects**. The purpose of
this priority area is to assist State CCDF Lead Agencies in improving
their capacity to conduct policy-relevant research and analysis in order
to design and implement child care policies and programs that promote
positive outcomes for children, families and communities. The primary
goal is to create a Statewide research infrastructure to better
understand child care needs, services, and outcomes for families in the
context of social, economic and cultural change. Grantees will conduct
an assessment of their current CCDF administrative data systems and
research needs, develop and implement a plan for improving their
capacity for data collection and analysis, and conduct policy relevant
research. Three States received grants in FY 2001 and the intent is that
these efforts will evolve into a comprehensive strategy for ongoing
development of a national State-by-State research infrastructure.

**Child Care Research Scholars.** In Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001, nine
grants were awarded in this priority area to support the development of
new researchers by funding Ph.D. candidates to conduct dissertation
research on issues related to child care. These scholars are conducting
research on such issues as the effects of child care disruptions on
working parents, informal caregiving in a tribal community, and the
influences of caregiver, contextual, and group characteristics on the
quality of family child care. With support from the Child Care Bureau,
three of the five scholars funded in FY 2000 completed their
dissertations within 18 months of receiving their grants.

##### Emerging Findings about Child Care for Low-Income Families

### 

###### [Providing the Context: Growth in Maternal Employment and Use of Out-of-Home Care]{.underline}

Currently more than two-thirds of mothers with children under six years
of age are in the labor force (U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, 2000). Never-married single mothers, many of whom previously
relied on welfare, are the driving force behind the latest surge in
female labor force participation. Due to work requirements and lifetime
limits on cash assistance instituted by PRWORA, as well as the strong
economy in recent years, the employment rates of single-mother heads of
households with incomes less than 200 percent of the Federal poverty
line increased from 44 to 57 percent between 1992 and 1999. This trend
is expected to continue and accelerate as more mothers reach the
five-year limit on Federal cash assistance.

These employment trends have been accompanied by a parallel increase in
the non-parental care of children. An Urban Institute study, using data
from the 1997 National Survey of America's Families (NSAF), found that
76 percent of children under age five with working mothers were in
non-parental care while their mothers worked. Forty-one percent were in
care for 35 hours or more each week. Nearly three-in-five (58 percent)
of the 11.6 million children under age three live with an employed
parent. Approximately three-fourths (73 percent) of these infants and
toddlers were cared for by someone other than a parent while their
mother was working. Nearly two-fifths (38 percent) had two or more
regular child care arrangements (Capizzano & Adams, 2000).

The NSAF also found that fewer low-income working families (below 200
percent of Federal poverty) pay for child care as compared with their
higher income counterparts. The NSAF data indicate that 40 percent of
low-income families pay for child care, compared with 53 percent of
higher-earning families. Single parent families and families in which
the youngest child was under age five were more likely to have child
care expenses. While low-income families were less likely to have child
care expenditures, 50 percent of single parents with earnings under 200
percent of Federal poverty paid for child care. These families paid an
average of \$230 per month or 19 percent of their earnings on child
care. It must be noted, however, that \"earnings\" do not include other
supports that may be available to low-income families such as food
stamps, medical assistance, and EITC benefits. In addition, some
low-income families in the sample received child care subsidies and
their monthly child care expenses were reduced accordingly. (Giannarelli
& Barsimantov, 2000)

####### State Implementation of CCDF and Related Child Care Programs

Research confirms what we know from State case-level and financial
reports\--public investment in child care subsidies has increased
rapidly in recent years and State flexibility under CCDF results in
patterns of subsidy use that vary greatly among States.

-   **Increased investments in child care.** The National Study of Child
    Care for Low-Income Families found that State child care spending
    increased by more than 78 percent between 1997 and 2000 in the 17
    States studied. Research conducted by the Child Care Bureau's Child
    Care Policy Research Consortium also shows that States are
    experiencing tremendous growth in expenditures for subsidized child
    care. This growth in demand is especially apparent among the
    low-income working families who were formerly on TANF. For example,
    in Illinois between 1997 and 1999, the number of children in current
    and former TANF families receiving subsidies grew by 80 percent. The
    largest proportion of that growth came from former TANF families,
    whose usage grew by 200 percent. In Maryland, during the same two
    years, the number of children receiving subsidies grew by over 30
    percent. Again, the largest growth rate was seen among former TANF
    families, whose use of subsidized care increased by over 100 percent
    (Piecyk, Collins & Kreader, 1999).

> In 1999, the National Study of Child Care for Low-Income Families
> found that total expenditures for child care subsidies were more than
> \$4 billion for 16 States, suggesting that States are spending far
> more on child care than the amount available through CCDF.

-   **Proportion of eligible children served.** In FY 2000, 1.75 million
    children received child care services with CCDF-related funds
    including TANF transfers and State matching and MOE funds.
    Expenditure data suggest that an estimated 0.7 million children were
    receiving subsidized care through SSBG, direct TANF funding, and
    excess TANF MOE, resulting in an estimated 2.45 million children
    receiving services in an average month in FY 2000.

> Based on an analysis completed by the HHS Assistant Secretary for
> Planning and Evaluation (ASPE), this enrollment represents 28 percent
> of the 8.87 million children ages birth through 12 who are potentially
> eligible for child care services under State CCDF eligibility rules
> (see Table A).
>
> *Table A. Subsidized Children in Fiscal Year 2000 as Percentage of
> Potentially Eligible under Actual State Rules (average monthly
> estimates, in millions)*

+-------------------------------+-----+-----+-------+------+----------+
|                               | Ag  | A   | Sub   | Ages | Total    |
|                               | es0 | ges | total | 6 -- | Children |
|                               | --  | 3-5 | Under | 12\* |          |
|                               | 2   |     | 6     |      | 0 --     |
|                               |     |     |       |      | 12\*     |
+-------------------------------+-----+-----+-------+------+----------+
| Enrollment in CCDF, TANF &    | 0   | 0   | 1.56  | 0.89 | 2.45     |
| SSBG Funded Care (FY2000)     | .66 | .89 |       |      |          |
+-------------------------------+-----+-----+-------+------+----------+
| Potentially Eligible Children | 2   | 1   | 3.95  | 4.91 | 8.87     |
| (2000, based on State         | .01 | .94 |       |      |          |
| eligibility rules as of Oct   |     |     |       |      |          |
| 1999)                         |     |     |       |      |          |
+-------------------------------+-----+-----+-------+------+----------+
| Percentage Served             | 33% | 46% | 39%   | 18%  | 28%      |
+-------------------------------+-----+-----+-------+------+----------+

> \* Children 13 and older who are eligible for subsidies because of
> special needs are included in these age brackets.
>
> For children in families with income below the poverty level for a
> family of three, the proportion of children served increases to 45
> percent for children birth through 12, and 66 percent for
> three-to-five year olds (See Table B).

*Table B. Subsidized Children Below Poverty Level for Family of Three as
Percentage of Eligible Children Below Same Poverty Level (average
monthly estimates, in millions)*

+-------------------------------+-----+-----+-------+------+----------+
|                               | Ag  | Ag  | Sub   | Ages | Total    |
|                               | es0 | es3 | total | 6-   | Children |
|                               | --  | --  | Under | 12\* |          |
|                               | 2   | 5   | 6     |      | 0 --     |
|                               |     |     |       |      | 12\*     |
+-------------------------------+-----+-----+-------+------+----------+
| Enrollment of Poor Children   | 0   | 0   | 0.93  | 0.46 | 1.39     |
| in CCDF, TANF & SSBG Funded   | .43 | .50 |       |      |          |
| Care (FY 2000)                |     |     |       |      |          |
+-------------------------------+-----+-----+-------+------+----------+
| Potentially eligible children | 0   | 0   | 1.65  | 1.44 | 3.09     |
| below poverty for a family of | .90 | .75 |       |      |          |
| three (2000)                  |     |     |       |      |          |
+-------------------------------+-----+-----+-------+------+----------+
| Percentage Served             | 48% | 66% | 56%   | 32%  | 45%      |
+-------------------------------+-----+-----+-------+------+----------+

> \* Includes a few children 13 and older who are eligible for subsidies
> because of special needs.
>
> The eligibility estimates for 2000 are based on State rules effective
> October 1, 1999 and Current Population Survey data for calendar year
> 2000. The eligibility estimates exclude children ages four through
> twelve with parents who work part-time. Part-time is defined as
> working less than the specified minimum hour requirements in the 12
> states that explicitly reported such requirements (ranging from 15-40
> hours) as a condition of eligibility for child care subsidies. In all
> other States, part-time is defined as less than 20 hours for parents
> of children aged four and over.
>
> While these estimates of children served are more realistic than those
> commonly cited, they do not provide a true estimate of take-up rates
> among families who are eligible and have expressed a need for child
> care. Instead, they show the extent to which CCDF, TANF, and SSBG
> funds serve the broad pool of children and families whose age, income,
> and parental work status indicate a possible need for child care. In
> fact, research indicates that many parents prefer unpaid care provided
> by relatives and friends, especially for very young children.

-   **Waiting lists.** In recent months, according to State reports, 16
    States have families on waiting lists. California and Florida
    reported the largest number with 250,000 and 40,000 respectively.
    However, while the existence of a waiting list indicates that the
    need for child care subsidies is not fully met, it does not provide
    a true estimate of the demand due to differences in how States and
    communities maintain their waiting lists. Some States purge their
    waiting lists on a regular basis; others add to the lists
    indefinitely. Waiting lists are also affected by the amount of
    information about subsidies that is available and the length of time
    families must wait to receive subsidies. (See CCDF State Information
    Chart in the appendix to this report.)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Eligibility.** The National Study of Child Care for Low-Income
    Families found significant variation among States in initial child
    care subsidy eligibility limits; eight of the 17 study States had
    additional eligibility requirements related to hours of employment.
    State policies also vary with regard to frequency of certification
    and recertification. (Glantz & Collins, 2002, unpublished)

-   **Income of families served.** The Study of Child Care Subsidy
    Duration, a five-State Partnership Study, found that median income
    of families served through State child care subsidy programs was
    lower than eligibility limits would suggest and that median income
    varied tremendously among the States in the study. In Illinois, a
    family with \$1,807 in monthly income was technically eligible for
    subsidies, but the median income of families served was \$920. In
    Massachusetts, a family earning \$1,947 a month could apply for and
    access subsidies, but the median income for families served was
    \$468. Similarly, eligibility was set at \$2,088 in Oregon, but
    families served had a median income of \$573.

-   **Family co-payments.** While most States base child care subsidy
    co-payments on family income and number of children in care, some
    tie co-pays to the cost of care. The Duration Study found that for a
    family earning \$1,500 per month, assessed co-pays ranged from \$121
    in Massachusetts to \$230 in Oregon. However, the average co-pays
    actually paid by families in Oregon were \$67 per month, likely
    because the median income of families served was significantly lower
    than \$1,500 per month.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Barriers.** A study conducted by the Urban Institute indicates
    that administrative barriers faced by families may contribute to low
    child care subsidy take-up rates as well as short subsidy and
    arrangement spells (Adams 2001). While barriers vary based on how
    States administer their programs, common challenges include
    burdensome paperwork and reporting requirements; many parents must
    take time off from work to maintain their eligibility for subsidies.

> As discussed earlier, Mathematica's "Welfare-to-Work Transitions for
> Parents of Infants: In-Depth Study of Eight Communities" found that
> States tend not to treat parents of infants differently than other
> parents in terms of work participation requirements. Focus group
> parents in this study indicated difficulties with child care
> accessibility and affordability. Special concerns were expressed with
> regard to non-standard-hour care, care for sick children and children
> with special needs, and the fact that participation in post-secondary
> education programs was not counted toward required hours of
> work-related activity. Some parents reported turning down higher
> paying jobs or having to quit or cut back job hours due to
> difficulties in maintaining non-standard hour care. Access to and
> continued receipt of subsidies appeared to be easier in States that
> had created an integrated child care subsidy system based on income as
> opposed to relationship to TANF. This seemed to be especially true for
> families on TANF and transitioning off TANF. This report is available
> at: <http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/PDFs/weltransfull.pdf>.

###### 

###### 

###### [Parent Choice and Patterns of Child Care Use]{.underline}

The research about what parents of all incomes want and need for their
children in care indicates that parents want the best for their
children. They prefer a variety of options including child care centers
and homes as well as family members and friends. In making child care
choices, parents balance many considerations including the hours of care
they need, whether there's another adult in the household, the
experiences they want for their child, affordability, and convenience.
On average, parents seek care from family and friends for very young
children. Mothers with more years of education and parents with
preschool children are more likely to select child care centers.
Bottom-line, parents say they want a caregiver they can trust. Research
conducted through Portland State University indicates that when parents
have care they trust, and that allows them to balance the demands of
parenting and work, they express satisfaction with the quality of their
child care.

-   Data from TANF leavers surveys and welfare reform evaluations
    indicate that many families opt to use informal care arrangements.
    For those using non-parental care, relatives and siblings of the
    children are by far the most common sources of care. A review of
    ASPE-funded TANF leavers studies found that among those families
    using child care, between 41 and 65 percent of children are cared
    for by relatives and siblings. An additional 6 to 13 percent of
    children are cared for by friends or neighbors. Partly because of
    the use of informal care, many working parents do not pay for child
    care arrangements. In fact, among the ASPE-funded leavers studies
    reporting this measure, only 40 to 61 percent of employed leavers
    with child care arrangements paid for that care.

-   A new study of 1200 randomly selected parents across incomes in
    Washington State, conducted by the University of Washington Human
    Services Policy Center, found informal arrangements to be the
    predominant mode of care for infants, toddlers and school-age
    children. When not in the care of parents, these children spent more
    time in the care of family members, friends and neighbors (FFN care)
    than in centers or licensed family child care homes. (Children age
    three-to-five, however, spent more time in center programs.) About a
    third of subsidized families used FFN care as their primary
    arrangement. This study also found that 40 percent of providers were
    being paid for such care. Among those who were paid, hourly rates
    were somewhat comparable to those of centers and licensed family
    child care homes.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The Study of Child Care Subsidy Duration found that despite
    variations in child care subsidy program policy and administration
    across States, the duration of subsidy use was uniformly brief.
    Median duration ranged from a low of three months in one State to a
    slightly longer median of seven months in another. These spells
    typically involved only one primary child care provider. However,
    since spells were so short, this did not ensure continuity of care
    for children. Many of the families who had exited subsidies returned
    later. By the end of one year, between one-third and one-half of
    exiting families were again receiving subsidies. At this point, we
    do not know whether and to what extent these findings reflect
    discontinuities in employment and patterns of work, dissatisfaction
    with the care purchased, problems related to policies and procedures
    for child care subsidies, or other issues. We do know that in
    developing their child care policies, States must balance many
    competing needs. Of particular concern to states is the ongoing
    tension between policies that might promote quality and continuity
    of care and the potential costs involved. To better understand these
    factors, the Child Care Bureau intends to launch a follow-up
    qualitative study in FY 2002 that will involve interviews with
    parents who have left child care subsidy programs.

####### 

####### Child Care Supply

Evidence regarding the supply of care for low-income families (whether
subsidized or not) is mixed. Some studies document increased
availability and access, while others suggest that demand is overtaking
supply, there is considerable "churning" in the marketplace, and the
distribution of care in many communities is skewed away from the needs
of low-income families toward those of the middle class.

-   Supply studies by the Child Care Policy Research Consortium using
    geo-coding (mapping) techniques have documented the extent to which
    the existing supply of child care is unevenly distributed, with
    shortages in many local communities for families in a variety of
    circumstances (Queralt & Witte, 1999; Collins & Li, 1997).
    Researchers in Illinois and Maryland found that the net supply of
    care grew little between 1996 and 1998 and that the communities with
    the highest concentrations of low-income people had significantly
    fewer regulated slots per 1000 children as compared to communities
    with fewer low income individuals.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The National Study of Child Care for Low-Income Families found that
    the availability and array of subsidized child care services and
    early education programs differed considerably among their study
    communities. Local demographics and economic conditions, child care
    licensing and regulation, and other early childhood policies all
    contributed to local patterns and complexities. In addition to CCDF,
    child care subsidies and pre-kindergarten programs were supported by
    a variety of other Federal, State and local funds, often through
    blended funding streams. Although the local nature of subsidy
    programs results in complex and varied opportunities for residents,
    this complexity can also inhibit flexibility and innovation as needs
    change.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   In most of the communities in the National Study, without child care
    subsidies, care offered on the open market was largely unaffordable
    to low-income families. In 11 of the study communities, 10 percent
    or less of the center-based care was affordable to low-income
    parents. At the same time, child care subsidies were found to make
    many centers and regulated family child care homes more accessible
    to low-income families. For both centers and family child care
    homes, subsidies were adequate to purchase care at the 75^th^
    percentile of local market rates for regulated care. This pattern
    held for the care of infants, preschoolers, and school-age children.
    In 10 communities, 35 percent or more of center-based programs
    received public funding. In all but four communities, at least 20
    percent received public support through the CCDF or other subsidy
    programs. Nonetheless, there was still wide variation in the
    distribution of subsidized care arrangements across the study sites.

-   Another Consortium project found wide disparities in the
    availability of center and family child care slots across zip codes
    that included high numbers of TANF families (California Child Care
    Resource and Referral Network, 1999). Replication of this research
    in 2001 found that shortages continued to exist across the State and
    in local markets. Total licensed care remained in short supply with
    only one slot at a licensed center or family child care home for
    every 4.5 children with working parents. Only five percent (5%) of
    licensed center slots were available for the care of infants and
    toddlers. And few licensed facilities offered evening care. At the
    same time, the total supply of licensed care has been increasing in
    California and the rate of increase appears to be accelerating. From
    1998 to 2000, the total number of licensed slots grew 8.4 percent,
    up from a 6.8 percent increase between 1996 and 1998. The rate of
    increase in California has been particularly strong among family
    child care homes which grew 19 percent between 1998 and 2000 in
    contrast to a growth rate of 11 percent between 1996 and 1998.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Other research is showing that TANF is creating new and expanded
    demands on State child care systems. As families have moved off TANF
    and into the labor market, many parents have taken jobs that require
    them to work evenings, weekends, and other non-traditional
    schedules. This relates in large part to an economy that
    increasingly operates seven days a week, 24-hours a day. Based on an
    analysis of data from the May 1997 Current Population Survey (CPS),
    Presser found that approximately 40 percent of jobs now require
    working other than eight-to-five, five days a week; and low-skilled
    workers in services and sales are even more likely to work
    non-traditional hours (1999). According to the California study
    cited above, only four percent (4%) of all licensed center slots
    were designated for children under age two and that only four
    percent (4%) of centers and 33 percent of FCC homes offered care
    during the evening, overnight, or on weekends. A study in Chicago
    found a similar lack of child care during non-standard hours. (Earl
    & Carlson, 1999)

####### 

####### Child Care Quality and Outcomes for Children

A large and growing body of research shows that young children who grow
up in families with limited incomes are at risk for poor social
outcomes. The most effective early childhood programs can positively
influence a child\'s social and emotional development, enhance the
likelihood of successful school performance in the early grades and, in
some instances, reduce later risks of involvement with the special
education and juvenile justice systems. Scientists have recently made
many discoveries about how a child's earliest experiences affect the way
the brain is organized. For example, brain research now confirms that
interactions and experiences in a child\'s early years have a big impact
on a child\'s emotional development, learning abilities and functioning
in later life. Researchers are also finding that the kind of care
parents and others provide has an even greater effect on brain
development than most people previously suspected.

-   A literature review recently funded by ASPE (Vandell & Wolfe, 2000),
    entitled \"Child Care Quality: Does it Matter and Does it Need to be
    Improved\" reports that when caregivers are not overburdened with
    too many children and interact positively with the children in their
    care, children seem happier and more cognitively engaged. In
    addition, caregiver training and compensation is associated with
    positive interactions between caregivers and children. These
    positive interactions are associated with better cognitive,
    language, and social outcomes for children.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Among the studies that support these findings is the NICHD Study of
    Early Child Care. This study found that the key characteristic for
    quality in child care is the relationship between the child and the
    child care provider. Positive caregiver-child interactions are
    developmentally appropriate, language-stimulating interactions in
    which the caregiver is warm, engaged, and responsive. Adult-child
    ratios, group size, caregiver training, and caregiver education are
    related to caregiver-child interaction and positive interactions are
    positively associated with school readiness in children. Despite
    professional consensus and scientific evidence about the importance
    of group size and ratios, a large proportion of centers appear to
    have larger group sizes and more children per caregiver than is
    recommended by professionals. NICHD\'s "When Child-Care Classrooms
    Meet Recommended Guidelines for Quality," (1998) reports that most
    of the child care settings studied did not meet the standards
    recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American
    Public Health Association. Compliance ranged from 10 percent for
    infant classrooms to 34 percent for three-year-olds. Of the 50 sets
    of State child care regulations only three were found to meet the
    recommended child/staff ratio for toddlers. In addition, only nine
    States met the teacher-training standards for infants.

-   A GAO study completed in January 2000, "Child Care: State Efforts to
    Enforce Safety and Health Requirements," found that States have
    increased the resources devoted to regulation and monitoring in
    recent years and are more likely to report regular monitoring visits
    to child care centers and family child care homes. However, only 20
    States routinely conducted background checks on all providers who
    receive payment through CCDF and only 11 States had caseloads at or
    below the recommended level of 75 facilities per licensor.

-   The second interim report of \"The National Study of Child Care for
    Low-Income Families,\" examines family child care used by families
    eligible for or receiving child care subsidies (unpublished). For
    purposes of this study, family child care includes care provided by
    relatives, neighbors, friends and other unrelated adults as well as
    regulated homes. This study found that homes used by families in the
    sample were on average safe, healthy places for children. However,
    most homes had at least one risk factor including electrical outlets
    that were not covered, bedroom and bathroom doors that children
    could lock from the inside, not placing infants on their backs for
    sleeping, and inadequate practices relating to hand-washing and the
    handling of blood. In general, more risks were found in homes that
    provided care for related children only. In addition, this study
    found that while children in care were well-supervised, many
    providers failed to play with babies in care, and reading to
    children was observed in only 37 percent of the homes.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   As the ASPE-funded literature review on health and safety in child
    care documents, there is growing consensus that higher quality care
    makes a difference in the lives of children. (Fiene, 2002) This
    review examines recent research in the context of key regulatory
    variables that: 1) statistically predict compliance with State child
    care regulations; and 2) show that compliance with these indicators
    is associated with positive outcomes for children. (This review is
    available at: [http://www.aspe.gov](http://www.aspe.gov/).) The
    findings of this review include:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Entry into child care places young children at greater risk for
    infectious disease and the increased use of non-parental care has
    furthered the spread of communicable diseases within the preschool
    age group. However, licensed facilities help offset this risk since
    they typically require up-to-date immunizations. Small group size is
    an important determinant of health and safety in child care
    programs. In groups of three or fewer, infants and toddlers face no
    greater risk of infection than they would if cared for at home.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Low staff-to-child ratios are important for health and safety by
    providing more opportunities for interaction with individual
    children, reducing caregiver stress and reducing the chance for
    child abuse or neglect. When adults care for a reasonable number of
    children, they tend to be more highly involved with the children
    individually and as a group. More time is spent in interacting
    positively with the children through such activities as praising,
    responding, comforting, questioning, and instructing. Less time is
    spent in being restrictive or punitive. Children are more
    cooperative, compliant, verbal, and creative as well as more
    attached to their caregivers, more socially adept, and more secure,
    leading them to be more exploratory and advanced in their play as
    well as more engaged with their caregivers and other children. They
    also show less distress, apathy, aggression, and withdrawal.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Caregivers who are more highly educated and trained are more likely
    to promote the physical, emotional, social and cognitive development
    of the children in their care. They are more likely to view
    themselves as professionals and to focus on children's readiness for
    school. They remain in their jobs longer and tend to stay in the
    field, thereby promoting continuity and stability of care -- an
    important aspect of quality.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Small group size, low caregiver to child ratio and professional
    qualifications combine to exert beneficial effects on children's
    early learning and readiness for school. Children who do better on
    measures of cognition and language development typically are members
    of smaller groups who receive more individual attention, interact
    verbally with their caregivers more, and have caregivers who are
    more responsive, more sensitive, and less detached. Their teachers
    are also more highly educated and more likely to have had specific
    training in the care and education of young children.

####### Child Care Workforce Issues

As indicated above, child care quality and positive outcomes for
children are associated with caregivers who are engaged and responsive
to the needs of the children in their care, caregivers who are
consistent, have established trusting relationships, and are better
educated, trained and paid. Indications are, however, that turnover
continues to be a barrier to the continuity and development of
responsive relationships that are critical to child care quality.
According to the *"Then and Now"* study (Whitebook, 2000), two-thirds of
the child care workforce is gone in four years. (Phillips, unpublished)
Most States are spending some of their CCDF quality funds to address
workforce issues including initiatives that link training and
compensation. In addition, a number of the Child Care Bureau's research
grantees are exploring issues related to the child care workforce.

-   A study of paid and unpaid informal care in Washington State was
    conducted by the Human Services Policy Center at the University of
    Washington with support from the Washington Department of Social and
    Human Services. This research found that such care accounted for
    about two-thirds of all non-parental care hours for infants, almost
    half for toddlers and about three-fifths of school-age children.
    Most informal caregivers were grandparents (36 percent), other
    relatives (22 percent) and friends or neighbors (32 percent). About
    40 percent of the family, friends, and neighbors providing care in
    this study were paid, often with the help of child care subsidies.
    The caregivers were less affluent than the general adult population
    with a median household income of \$30,000 compared to \$42,000 for
    the State as a whole. They were also less educated with a smaller
    percentage having college degrees. Forty percent had received
    child-care related training of some kind, but few had received the
    combination of training in child development, early childhood
    education and parenting that has been shown to facilitate children's
    social and cognitive development. Two-thirds of these caregivers
    said that training and support would help them do a better job.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The child care workforce is the most important and costly component
    of the child care system, yet data has not been available to
    accurately describe it. A Child Care Bureau-funded study being
    conducted by the Center for the Child Care Workforce in cooperation
    with the University of Washington Human Services Policy Center
    developed a model for identifying the size and characteristics of
    the current child care workforce. Based on data from the 1999
    National Household Education Survey, this study finds that
    approximately 2.3 million individuals are paid to care for preschool
    children (0-5 years). By provider setting, 550,000 are working in
    centers, 650,000 in family child care, 804,000 are paid relatives
    (other than family child care providers), and 298,000 are other paid
    non-relatives. Nearly half of these providers care for toddlers
    (19-36 months). This model is intended to support development of
    appropriate training strategies across a range of caregivers and to
    contribute to discussions about the financing of the child care
    system.

**[Outcomes for Families]{.underline}**

Research consistently suggests a positive relationship between subsidies
and employment, although the strength of the correlation varies
significantly among studies.

-   Starting with studies initiated by Child Care Bureau Partnership
    States, seven States have examined the question of where parents
    receiving child care subsidies work. These studies have used
    administrative data from State subsidy systems and linked this data
    with information from the Unemployment Insurance system. Across
    States, the major employers of parents receiving subsidies are the
    retail trade and service industries. Almost three-quarters of
    subsidy-receiving workers are employed in these two industries in
    Alabama, Florida, Oregon, and the District of Columbia (Glantz &
    Collins, unpublished).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   In "Child Care: Child Care Subsidies Increase the Likelihood that
    Low-Income Mothers Will Work," GAO demonstrates the pervasiveness of
    these issues by analyzing the trade-offs low-income mothers confront
    when they want to work but face high child care costs. According to
    this study, child care subsidies are often a strong factor in a
    parent's ability to work, and reducing child care costs increases
    the likelihood that poor and near-poor mothers will be able to work.
    The GAO observed that affordable child care is a decisive factor
    that encourages low-income mothers to seek and maintain employment.
    In a 1996 study, the GAO found that single parents who received
    child care assistance more often successfully completed their
    training, obtained jobs or experienced other positive outcomes.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Findings from the Child Care Bureau's Policy Research Consortium
    also demonstrate the connection between child care subsidies and
    employment of TANF recipients. A longitudinal study of child care,
    employment and earnings during the early stages of welfare reform in
    Miami-Dade County, Florida, shows that increases in child care
    subsidies were associated with an increase of approximately 10
    percent in the likelihood that work-ready welfare recipients would
    become employed (Queralt, Witte & Griesinger, 1999). While this
    study reflects conditions in only one site and is not representative
    of other areas, it may be an important barometer for other States
    and locales. Specifically, an increase of \$145 yearly in subsidy
    spending per potentially eligible child (under federal rules)
    increased the likelihood of employment from 59 to 71 percent for
    current and former recipients with few barriers to employment.
    Augmenting child care subsidy funding increased not only employment
    rates but also the earnings of current and former welfare recipients
    who were already working. The \$145 increase in subsidy funding per
    child was associated with a 3.9 percent increase in earnings for
    those with few barriers to employment and a 7.2 percent increase for
    current and former recipients with moderate to severe barriers to
    employment.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Employers also say that lack of good child care is a major issue in
    their attempts to build a stable, productive workforce. In studies
    cited by the National Conference of State Legislatures in their
    publication, *"Early Childhood Care and Education: An Investment
    that Works"* (1997), employers noted child care as causing more
    problems in the workplace than any other family-related issue.
    Increases in absenteeism and tardiness due to difficulties with
    child care were reported in nine out of 10 companies. Eighty percent
    of the companies surveyed said that workdays were cut short because
    of child care problems.

PART VI

**TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE**

The Child Care and Development Block Grant Act requires that the
Department of Health and Human Services provide technical assistance
(TA) to help Child Care Lead Agencies with administering the CCDF. To
satisfy this requirement, the Federal regulation reserves one quarter
(1/4) of one percent (1%) of each year's CCDF appropriation for
technical assistance. This technical assistance is targeted to the needs
of State, Territorial, and Tribal grantees.

The creation of the Child Care and Development Fund resulted in
significantly increased Federal and State funding for child care and
more flexibility for States in the design and implementation of
programs. This necessitated a change in the Federal government\'s role,
from one of exercising control, to a greater emphasis on providing
technical assistance and support. The Child Care Bureau created a
network of technical assistance providers, the Child Care Technical
Assistance Network, designed to be responsive to current and emerging
needs of child care administrators, as well as parents, providers, and
the public. The Child Care Bureau promotes improvements in child care
delivery systems through conferences and training, consultation with
CCDF administrators, and assistance provided through ACF Regional
Offices.

State Child Care and Development Fund administrators face significant
competing demands for finite resources. They struggle to improve the
affordability and supply of child care for low-income families, while
making quality investments. Through its technical assistance efforts,
the Child Care Bureau assesses States' needs, identifies innovations in
child care administration, and promotes the dissemination and
replication of solutions to challenges that State and local child care
programs face.

**CHILD CARE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE NETWORK**

The Child Care Bureau promotes the collaboration among its technical
assistance (TA) providers through the Child Care Technical Assistance
Network (CCTAN). CCB uses the network to assess TA needs among CCDF
grantees, strategically plan to meet those needs, share resources
between projects, and coordinate efforts to improve TA services. The
variety and scope of the projects ensure consistency and expertise to
address the broad range of administrative, provider, and consumer
technical assistance needs identified by CCDF grantees. These services
are provided without charge to States, Territories, Tribes, and the
public.

The technical assistance providers work in three broad categories:

1)  Technical Assistance to CCDF Administrators on Program
    Administration, Data and Policies;

2)  Partnerships for Quality; and

3)  Public Outreach and Information Dissemination

In the section below, we describe each TA project in relation to these
activities.

[Child Care Administration Project]{.underline}

In response to the increased complexity and size of child care programs,
as well as turnover among State child care administrators, the Child
Care Bureau funded the Child Care Administration Project to provide
technical assistance to States on subsidy administration and quality
issues. This project facilitates peer technical assistance by providing
opportunities for States to learn about innovative practices in other
States. The project also highlights collaboration with other programs,
including Child Support Enforcement and TANF.

[Child Care Information Systems Technical Assistance
Project]{.underline}

The Child Care Information Systems Technical Assistance Project helps
States meet their reporting obligations and plays a key role in the
analysis of the data provided by States. States face many challenges in
data collection and submission, including outdated systems, the use of
multiple systems across jurisdictions in the State, and often the lack
of communication between State data and information system staff and
child care program staff.

As a CCTAN provider, the information systems project offers technical
assistance to States on collecting, managing, and reporting child care
data. Technical assistance methods include free software to help States
and Tribes with their data collection and reporting, computer-based
training, a toll-free hot line, and site visits to trouble-shoot
difficult systems problems. Recently contractor and Federal staff
conducted a site visit to California to address reporting problems that
have been ongoing since the inception of CCDF. Given California\'s size
and the proportion of the CCDF dollars it receives, these problems have
seriously hampered the Child Care Bureau in its ability to provide
timely information about services provided through CCDF. California is
now providing case-level data about children served through CCDF, a
major step toward having a national, reliable data set. In addition,
site visits have been conducted in a number of other States and
Territories, including the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,
District of Columbia, Guam, Hawaii, Maryland, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and
Utah.

The Project\'s Child Care Automation Resource Center hosts a website and
a toll-free hot line. The Child Care Information Systems Project also
provides technical workshops at CCB-sponsored conferences and training.

[National Child Care Information Center (NCCIC)]{.underline}

The National Child Care Information Center (NCCIC) provides technical
assistance and support to the Child Care Bureau, CCDF administrators,
ACF Regional Offices, and the general public. These services have played
a significant role in helping Federal and State governments make
positive changes in the way child care is delivered across the country.

Technical assistance is provided to States on an ongoing basis through
telephone consultation, research on innovative practices that might
benefit the State, and on-site consultation through technical assistance
liaisons. In addition, NCCIC produces TA publications on issues of
concern to State administrators, such as a guide on conducting child
care market rate surveys, materials on the recruitment and retention of
child care staff, and a paper on States' initiatives in tiered
reimbursement (in progress).

The following are examples of specific technical assistance and support
NCCIC has provided to CCDF grantees.

-   In Colorado, the technical assistance specialist provided
    consultation, information and materials about various licensing
    models and conducted research on other States\' requirements and
    caseloads for licensing staff. Using this information, Colorado
    developed three pilot programs to test these models and increased
    the number of State child care licensors and their qualifications.

-   States, including Alabama, Tennessee, and Washington, used
    information or technical assistance to change licensing regulations
    or to begin developing tiered licensing systems.

-   Technical assistance was provided to Hawaii, resulting in the
    development of a request for proposals for two pilot programs
    designed to improve the quality of legal exempt care (kith and kin).

-   In Illinois, a technical assistance specialist developed three
    training sessions on improving the quality of legal exempt care.
    More than 100 participants attended these sessions.

-   NCCIC also provided information to States regarding criminal
    background checks (at least 18 States have requested information on
    this topic); provider training (at least half of States have
    requested information about other States\' training requirements for
    family child care providers); and infant and toddler quality care
    (more than 30 States have asked for technical assistance related to
    their use of CCDF-earmarked funds to improve infant and toddler
    care).

    **[Tribal Child Care Technical Assistance Center
    (TriTAC)]{.underline}**

The Tribal Child Care Technical Assistance Center (TriTAC) supports over
260 Tribal Child Care grantees in their efforts to increase the
availability and quality of child care, develop coordinated delivery
systems, promote linkages with State and local programs, and improve
child care opportunities for families, providers and Tribal communities.

TriTAC focuses on child care capacity building efforts that link Tribes
nationally to share information and innovations. TriTAC sponsors a
tribal child care home page, (http:/nccic.org/tribal), a toll-free
information and referral line, an electronic listserv to promote
communication by Tribal programs, and an annual conference that brings
together Tribal grantees. In addition, they facilitate peer-to-peer
learning among Tribes and provide specialized training tailored to meet
Tribal grantees' needs. This includes training in program management,
use of the free program management software developed by the Information
Systems project, and other training to improve quality in Tribal
programs.

[Center for the Social and Emotional Foundations of Early
Learning]{.underline}

The Center on the Social and Emotional Foundations of Early Learning
will identify and implement practices with demonstrated effectiveness in
promoting children's social and emotional competence. Jointly funded by
the Head Start and Child Care Bureaus, this five year project began in
2001. The University of Illinois has developed a consortium of
universities and early childhood organizations to carry out the aims and
activities of the Center. Partners include the University of Colorado at
Denver, the University of South Florida, the University of Connecticut,
Tennessee Voices for Children, Inc., and Education Development Center,
Inc. The Center will strengthen the capacity of child care and Head
Start to improve the social and emotional outcomes for young children.
It will promote the social and emotional development of children as a
means of preventing challenging behaviors, disseminate evidence-based
practices, identify training needs of local programs and technical
assistance providers, and collaborate with existing technical assistance
providers to implement and sustain practices at the local level.

[Child Care Partnership Project]{.underline}

The Child Care Partnership Project, which concluded in FY 2001, provided
information and technical assistance to State child care administrators
to help them work with businesses, government organizations,
philanthropic organizations, and other groups to build and sustain
partnerships. The project produced materials that will be used on an
ongoing basis to promote public-private partnerships. These include
profiles and case studies of successful models, materials for working
with employers interested in child care, information on how to include
parents when designing child care partnerships, a video to promote the
public-private partnership model, and tools for successful ongoing
partnerships. Tools and materials developed by the project are available
in print and on the Internet at www.nccic.org/ccpartnerships.

[Healthy Child Care America (HCCA)]{.underline}

The Healthy Child Care America Campaign (HCCA) is a collaboration of
health professionals, child care providers, and families to improve the
health and well being of children in child care. The Child Care Bureau
sponsors technical assistance for Healthy Child Care America, in
partnership with the Maternal and Child Health Bureau at HHS's Health
Resources Services Administration (HRSA). The campaign assists States,
Tribes, and communities in creating and enhancing the public and private
linkages between families, child care providers, and health care
professionals. Many of these partnerships help ensure that children in
child care programs have access to medical services such as
immunizations, health screening, and health education. Over 40 States
receive Healthy Child Care America grants from the Maternal and Child
Health Bureau. The technical assistance provided by the HCCA Campaign
assists them in those efforts.

The Healthy Child Care America Campaign produces newsletters, blueprints
for action, publications, brochures, and fact sheets. In addition, the
project recruits pediatricians, pediatric nurse practitioners, and other
health professionals to serve as health consultants in child care
settings. Information on the project can be located on the National
Child Care Information Center's website at
http://ericps.ed.uiuc.edu/nccic/hcca/abthcca.html.

[Map to Inclusion: Child Care for Children with
Disabilities]{.underline}

The Map to Inclusion: Child Care Project for Children with Disabilities
was a three-year technical assistance initiative launched by CCB in
October of 1997. The project provided technical assistance to States and
jurisdictions in designing, implementing, and evaluating policies and
practices that successfully include children with disabilities in child
care settings. Map to Inclusion encouraged States to implement systems
and practices to ensure that children with disabilities have access to
child care alongside their typically developing peers.

Thirty-one States participated over the course of the project.
Participating States and jurisdictions included: Alaska, Arizona,
California, Colorado, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Florida,
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada,
Ohio, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virgin Islands,
Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

Technical assistance staff worked with teams from each State to conduct
a strategic planning process through which priorities and work plans
were developed to address the needs of children with disabilities in
each State. States promoted public awareness; trained administrators,
providers, and consumers; provided on-site support or mentoring for
child care providers; improved data collection and dissemination; and
pursued policy initiatives at the executive or legislative branches of
State government. States participating reported stronger interagency
partnerships at the State level. CCB continues to incorporate lessons
learned from the Map to Inclusion Project to increase the availability
and quality of child care for children with disabilities.

[Quality in Linking Together (QUILT)]{.underline}

The Head Start and Child Care Bureaus initiated the Quality in Linking
Together project

(QUILT) in 1998 to focus attention on the importance of partnerships
among child care, Head Start, and other early childhood programs, to
expand and enhance services for young children and their families. QUILT
fosters full-day, full-year early education partnerships among Head
Start, child care, pre-kindergarten, and other programs at the local,
State, Tribal, Territorial, regional, and national levels. The Bureaus
support the work of the QUILT by clarifying Federal policies including
the publication of instructions regarding partnership models,
eligibility policies, and blended funding.

Through presentations at national, regional and State events as well as
interactive website sessions, dissemination of documents and written
materials, and responses to hotline calls, QUILT provides multiple
approaches to reach many audiences.

Since QUILT's inception, its website has recorded over 2 million hits,
its hot line has handled over 2500 calls, and technical assistance has
been provided to at least 46 States and nearly 1000 local programs.
QUILT has developed and distributed over 60 local partnership profiles
and 20 State profiles. These profiles, which are available on the QUILT
website, [http://www.quilt.org](http://www.quilt.org/), illustrate how
early education programs are partnering to provide high quality,
comprehensive full-day, full-year services for children and families.

**3) Public Outreach and Dissemination**

> [Child Care Aware]{.underline}

[Child Care Aware]{.underline}

Child Care Aware is a national toll-free child care consumer education
hot line and website, administered by National Association of Child Care
Resource and Referral Agencies, funded through an appropriations
earmark. The toll-free number (1-800-424-2246) and searchable website
([**www.childcareaware.org**](http://www.childcareaware.org/)) link
parents with child care providers in their local communities. Both the
hotline and the website are accessible in Spanish. During FY 2000, the
toll-free number appeared in over 20 leading national media sources. The
Better Business Bureau has produced a video featuring the Child Care
Aware number and website. This video outlines the steps to finding
quality child care, and will be distributed to over 16,000 public
libraries.

Child Care Aware responds to almost 10,000 calls annually, primarily
from parents looking for child care. Over 50 percent of the calls are
from families relocating from one State to another. The Child Care Aware
information is included in the Postal Services packet for customers who
are moving. Both the hot line staff and the website connect users to
local resource and referral agencies, which give families valuable
information on choosing child care and help families identify local
providers who can meet their needs.

Child Care Aware is also improving consumer education services at the
nearly 800 local child care resource and referral agencies throughout
the country. Child Care Aware has launched a quality assurance
initiative that sets voluntary standards for parent referral at local
child care resource and referral agencies, including factors such as
hours of service and accuracy of information provided to parents. In
addition, Child Care Aware has produced a portfolio of brochures on
choosing child care, including special brochures for finding care for
children with disabilities, infants and toddlers, and school age
children, as well as materials for families who plan to use a relative
caregiver. All brochures are in English and Spanish. The materials are
distributed nationwide through the local resource and referral agencies
that ordered over 300,000 brochures to distribute to parents in 2001.

**[National Child Care Information Center (NCCIC)]{.underline}**

The National Child Care Information Center (NCCIC) collects, develops,
and disseminates child care information to a wide variety of audiences,
including Federal, State and local policymakers, providers, parents, and
the general public. Since it's inception in 1995, NCCIC has responded to
over 45,000 information requests. All information is provided free of
charge, and recipients may reproduce and distribute any resources
received. In order to support the information services, the NCCIC
maintains a library of almost 14,000 child care related documents.
During 2002, NCCIC will work to make many of the most frequently
requested library holdings available in full text on the website.

NCCIC's website ([nccic.org](http://www.nccic.org/)) is a leading source
of child care information and referral. Since it was established in
January 1996, the website has received more than 2.3 million hits. The
website provides information about State child care systems, resource
lists on common child care topics, answers to frequently asked questions
and links to dozens of child care organizations.

In addition, NCCIC publishes the quarterly *Child Care Bulletin,* on
behalf of the Child Care Bureau.

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE LEADERSHIP

The Child Care Bureau and the ACF Regional Offices provide leadership to
grantees using a variety of methods including child care meetings and
leadership forums, conference calls, and ongoing consultation.

[National and Regional Conferences and Training]{.underline}

Each year, the Child Care Bureau produces national conferences for
State, Territorial and Tribal Administrators, leadership forums on
emerging child care issues, and a series of regional conferences that
focus on the needs of smaller groups of State and Tribal Grantees.

Annually, the Bureau sponsors three national meetings: the National
State Child Care Administrators Meeting, the Child Care Policy Research
Consortium meeting, and the Healthy Child Care America Conference. We
also respond to emerging issues through topical National Leadership
Forums. In the past two years, CCB has hosted national leadership forums
focused on child care issues in rural communities, child care issues for
Hispanic families, and promoting early literacy in child care settings.

With financial support from the Child Care Bureau, each ACF Regional
Office annually sponsors child care meetings and conferences. State
child care administrators are involved in planning for regional meetings
and conferences which are tailored to the needs of State child care
administrators in the region. For instance, the Region VI Mid-Winter
Leadership Conference for Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and
Texas included a full day devoted exclusively to State child care
administrators' discussion of ways to enhance child care quality and
quantity. The two primary issues discussed were public-private
partnerships and providing child care in rural areas.

[Ongoing Consultation with States, Territories, and Tribes]{.underline}

The Child Care Bureau maintains two informal workgroups of State and
Tribal grantees to provide consultation and feedback on the needs of
grantees and emerging issues in the field. These groups meet quarterly
or as needs arise.

Through a listserv established by the Child Care Bureau, State child
care administrators communicate with each other about emerging policy
issues. Topics discussed in recent months through the listserv include:
eligibility policy, reimbursement rates and payment policies, serving
special populations, licensing, interactive websites for subsidy
applications, employer contributions and child care subsidies, State
contracts procedures, State administrative structures, mobile training
for providers, and the use of TANF monies for child care.

For consultation and information purposes, the Child Care Bureau also
sponsors national audioconferences for CCDF Administrators. In 2002, the
Bureau intends to sponsor calls regarding Department of Education
programs that lend themselves to partnerships with child care.

[Technical Assistance provided by ACF Regional Offices]{.underline}

ACF\'s Regional Offices also provide technical assistance leadership to
States. For example:

-   Region III developed a \"Back-to-Basics\" notebook for Delaware,
    Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, DC, and West Virginia. This
    notebook includes regional State profiles, CCB information, CCDF
    Program Instructions and Information Memoranda, data tables and
    charts from State annual reports, a matrix that summarizes State
    policies and practices and other information of relevance to States.

-   Region VIII developed a research notebook, including copies of
    recent journal and professional articles, for distribution to child
    care administrators in Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South
    Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.

-   Region VIII also established a Regional Early Childhood Council
    (RECC) consisting of approximately 40 child care, Head Start, and
    other early childhood representatives from the six States.

# CONCLUSION

Training and technical assistance are critical supports to child care
providers and State CCDF administrators. In addition to the technical
assistance initiated and coordinated by CCB, States have also taken the
lead in meeting certain technical assistance needs. States have made
training available to providers through scholarships for Child
Development Associate (CDA) and other credential training, and
scholarships that have allowed providers to attend State and national
conferences. Some States have established statewide career development
systems and funded mobile vans to take training materials to rural
providers. The Child Care Bureau\'s partnerships with States and
technical assistance strategies have contributed to the success of State
and local programs during an unprecedented period of change. Through its
many technical assistance, training and research efforts, the Child Care
Bureau provides leadership in responding to the needs of grantees and
the child care field.

**PART VII: APPENDICES**

-   Reporting Overview for States and Territories

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Child Care and Development Fund State Information Chart

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   FY 2000 CCDF Data from Aggregate and Case-Level Reports

> Table 1\--Average Monthly Adjusted Number of Families and Children
> Served
>
> Table 2\--Average Monthly Percentages of Children by Age Group
>
> Table 3\--Average Monthly Percentages of Children by Racial Group
>
> Table 4\--Average Monthly Percentages of Children by Latino Ethnicity
>
> Table 5\--Percentage of Children in Care by Age Category and Type of
> Care
>
> Table 6\--Average Monthly Hours of Child Care by Age Group and Type of
> Care
>
> Table 7\--Average Monthly Provider Payment by Age Group and Type of
> Care
>
> Table 8\--Reasons for Care
>
> Table 9\--Number of Child Care Providers Receiving CCDF Funds
>
> Table 10\--Percent of Children Served in All Types of Care
>
> Table 11\--Children Served in Settings Legally Operating with
> Regulation: Percent Served by Relatives vs. Non-Relatives
>
> Table 12\--Percent of Children Served by Payment Method
>
> Table 13\--Consumer Education Strategies Summary
>
> Table 14\--Percent of Families with TANF as One of their Sources of
> Income
>
> Table 15\--Mean Family Co-Payment as a Percentage of Family Income

-   FY 2000 Child Care Bureau Research Grants

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   FY 2001 Child Care Bureau Research Grants

## Reporting Overview for States and Territories

August 2000

+---------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
|         | # State/Terr | **Financial  | **Aggregate  | **Case-level |
|         | itorial Plan | Report**     | Data         | Data         |
|         |              |              | Report**     | Report**     |
+=========+==============+==============+==============+==============+
| ###     | ACF-118      | ACF-696      | ACF-800      | ACF-801      |
| ## Form |              |              |              |              |
|  number |              |              |              |              |
+---------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
| #####   | Serves as    | States are   | Provides     | Provides     |
| Purpose | the          | required to  | unduplicated | case-level   |
|         | agreement    | use the      | annual       | data on the  |
|         | between the  | ACF-696 to   | counts of    | families and |
|         | Lead Agency  | report       | children and | children     |
|         | and the      | estimates    | families     | served       |
|         | Federal      | and          | served       | during the   |
|         | Government   | expenditures | through the  | month of the |
|         | as to how    | for the      | CCDF;        | report,      |
|         | CCDF         | Mandatory    | payment      | including    |
|         | programs     | Fund, the    | methods;     | d            |
|         | will be      | Matching     | CCDF         | emographics, |
|         | administered | Fund, and    | providers;   | family       |
|         | in           | the          | state        | income and   |
|         | conformance  | D            | licensed     | co-payments, |
|         | with         | iscretionary | capacity by  | and type of  |
|         | legislative  | Fund.        | type of      | setting with |
|         | r            | Territories  | child care   | licensure    |
|         | equirements, | are required | setting;     | status.      |
|         | pertinent    | to use the   | consumer     | States have  |
|         | federal      | ACF-696 to   | education    | the option   |
|         | regulations, | report       | methods; and | of           |
|         | and other    | estimates    | pooling      | submitting a |
|         | instructions | and          | information. | sample or    |
|         | and          | expenditures |              | all cases.   |
|         | guidelines   | for the      |              |              |
|         | issued by    | D            |              |              |
|         | ACF.         | iscretionary |              |              |
|         |              | Fund only.   |              |              |
+---------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
| *       | Biennially   | Quarterly    | Annual       | Monthly or   |
| *Report |              |              |              | Quarterly\   |
| freq    |              |              |              | (Grantee's   |
| uency** |              |              |              | choice)      |
+---------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
| **Re    | Two-year     | 1\. Oct 1 -- | Federal      | Every month  |
| porting | periods      | Dec 31       | fiscal year\ | or quarter   |
| peri    | starting     |              | (Oct 1 --    |              |
| od(s)** | with an      | 2\. Jan 1 -- | Sep 30)      |              |
|         | e            | Mar 31       |              |              |
|         | ven-numbered |              |              |              |
|         | fiscal year\ | 3\. Apr 1 -- |              |              |
|         | (e.g. FY2002 | Jun 30       |              |              |
|         | -- FY2003,\  |              |              |              |
|         | or Oct 1,    | 4\. Jul 1 -- |              |              |
|         | 2001 -- Sep  | Sep 30       |              |              |
|         | 30, 2003)    |              |              |              |
+---------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
| **Due   | #            | #### 30 d    | #### Dec     | #### F       |
| when**  | ### The July | ays after en |  31 (three m | or monthly r |
|         |  1^st^ prior | d of quarter | onths after  | eporting: 90 |
|         |  to the repo |              | end of repor |  days after  |
|         | rting period |              | ting period) | end of month |
|         |              |              |              |              |
|         |              |              |              | #### For q   |
|         |              |              |              | uarterly rep |
|         |              |              |              | orting: 60 d |
|         |              |              |              | ays after en |
|         |              |              |              | d of quarter |
+---------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
| **Sub   | #### H       | #            | #### Inter   | ####         |
| mission | ard copy, or | ### Currentl | net data ent | Electronic d |
| m       |              | y: Hard copy | ry and submi | ata files (v |
| ethod** | #### Ema     |              | ssion (at <h | ia Social Se |
|         | il attachmen | ####         | ttp://www.ac | curity Admin |
|         | t (to ACF Re |  In the futu | f.dhhs.gov/c | istration's  |
|         | gional Offic | re: Via new  | gi-bin/ccis/ | Connect:Dire |
|         | e, by prior  | ACF forms da | acf800.cgi>) | ct network)  |
|         | arrangement) | tabase (prob |              |              |
|         |              | ably startin | #            |              |
|         |              | g sometime i | ### Electron |              |
|         |              | n late 2001) | ic and hard- |              |
|         |              |              | copy attachm |              |
|         |              |              | ents (to inf |              |
|         |              |              | o@nccic.org) |              |
+---------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
| *       | #### ACF Reg | #### ACF Reg | #### C       | ####         |
| *Submit | ional Office | ional Office | hild Care Bu | Department o |
| to**    |              |              | reau, Report | f Health and |
|         |              |              | s Manager (v |  Human Servi |
|         |              |              | ia internet) | ces (via Con |
|         |              |              |              | nect:Direct) |
+---------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
| **Te    | -   ACF      | #### ACF Reg | #### On-l    | #### ACF Reg |
| chnical |     Regional | ional Office | ine help for | ional Office |
| assis   |     Office   |              |  ACF-800: <h |              |
| tance** |              |              | ttp://www.ac | #### C       |
|         | ####         |              | f.dhhs.gov/p | hild Care Au |
|         |              |              | rograms/ccb/ | tomation Res |
|         |              |              | report/formh | ource Center |
|         |              |              | elp/acf800/> |              |
|         |              |              |              |              |
|         |              |              | #### ACF Reg |              |
|         |              |              | ional Office |              |
|         |              |              |              |              |
|         |              |              | #### C       |              |
|         |              |              | hild Care Au |              |
|         |              |              | tomation Res |              |
|         |              |              | ource Center |              |
+---------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+

CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND STATE INFORMATION CHART 5/15/02

+--------+------+-------+--------+---+--------+------+------+------+
| *      | **   | ***I  | ***W   | * | *      | ***  | ***  | ***\ |
| State* | *85% | ncome | aiting | * | **CCDF | TANF | TANF | *TAN |
|        | of   | E     | List   | * | Pr     | FY   | D    | F*** |
|        | S    | ligib | as of  | S | iority | 2001 | irec |      |
|        | tate | ility | March  | i | for    | Fun  | t*** | *    |
|        | Me   | if    | /April | n | Child  | ds - |      | **Un |
|        | dian | Lower | 2002*  | g | Care   | TANF | ***  | obli |
|        | In   | than  | **[^4] | l | Ser    | Tran | Spen | gate |
|        | come | 85%   |        | e | vices* | sfer | ding | d*** |
|        | (An  | (in   |        | S | **[^6] | to   | o    |      |
|        | nual | clude |        | y |        | CCDF | n*** | *    |
|        | )*** | d     |        | s |        | as   |      | **Ba |
|        | [^2] | ollar |        | t |        | of   | ***C | lanc |
|        |      | amou  |        | e |        | 9/   | hild | es - |
|        |      | nt)** |        | m |        | 30/0 | Care | F    |
|        |      | *[^3] |        | * |        | 1*** | -*** | Y*** |
|        |      |       |        | * |        | [^7] |      |      |
|        |      |       |        | * |        |      | *    | **   |
|        |      |       |        | [ |        |      | **FY | *200 |
|        |      |       |        | ^ |        |      | 200  | 1*** |
|        |      |       |        | 5 |        |      | 1*** | [^9] |
|        |      |       |        | ] |        |      | [^8] |      |
+========+======+=======+========+===+========+======+======+======+
| **Ala  | \$37 | 43%   | 4,500  | N | JOB,   | 20%  | \$   | \$   |
| bama** | ,416 | (\$19 |        | o | TCC,   |      | -0-  | 62   |
|        |      | ,020) |        |   |        | \$26 |      | ,222 |
|        |      |       |        |   | S      | ,638 |      | ,509 |
|        |      |       |        |   | pecial | ,578 |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | needs  |      |      |      |
+--------+------+-------+--------+---+--------+------+------+------+
| **Al   | \$53 | 62%   | Does   | N | TANF   | 11%  | \$   | \$   |
| aska** | ,772 | (\$38 | not    | o | fa     |      | 8    | 4    |
|        |      | ,928) | ma     |   | milies | \$3  | ,254 | ,441 |
|        |      |       | intain |   | en     | ,286 | ,461 | ,810 |
|        |      |       | a      |   | rolled | ,015 |      |      |
|        |      |       | w      |   | in     |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | aiting |   | el     |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | list.  |   | igible |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | Serves |   | tr     |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | all    |   | aining |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | el     |   | or     |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | igible |   | empl   |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | appl   |   | oyment |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | icants |   |        |      |      |      |
+--------+------+-------+--------+---+--------+------+------+------+
| **Ari  | \$37 | 54%   | None   | N | TANF   | .28% | \$   | \$   |
| zona** | ,872 | (\$24 | --     | o | and    |      | 33   | 962  |
|        |      | ,156) | Serves |   | TCC    | \    | ,841 | ,209 |
|        |      |       | all    |   | el     | $650 | ,087 |      |
|        |      |       | el     |   | igible | ,000 |      |      |
|        |      |       | igible |   | fa     |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | appl   |   | milies |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | icants |   |        |      |      |      |
+--------+------+-------+--------+---+--------+------+------+------+
| **Arka | \$33 | 60%   | 853    | N | TANF   | 18%  | \$   | \$   |
| nsas** | ,324 | (\$23 |        | o | and    |      | 3    | -0-  |
|        |      | ,520) |        |   | Very   | \$12 | ,927 |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | low    | ,000 | ,728 |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | income | ,000 |      |      |
+--------+------+-------+--------+---+--------+------+------+------+
| **     | \$39 | 75%   | 2      | N | CPS    | 0%   | \$   | \$   |
| Califo | ,780 | (\$35 | 50,000 | o | fa     |      | 507  | -0-  |
| rnia** |      | ,100) |        |   | milies |      | ,079 |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | first, |      | ,327 |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | lowest |      |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | income |      |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | fa     |      |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | milies |      |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | next   |      |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | pri    |      |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | ority. |      |      |      |
+--------+------+-------+--------+---+--------+------+------+------+
| **Colo | \$45 | 62%   | 567    | N | Pr     | 11%  | \$   | \$ 1 |
| rado** | ,288 | (\$32 |        | o | iority |      | 3    |      |
|        |      | ,916) |        |   | to     | \$16 | ,602 |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | fa     | ,234 | ,754 |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | milies | ,443 |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | below  |      |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | 130%   |      |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | FPL    |      |      |      |
+--------+------+-------+--------+---+--------+------+------+------+
| **C    | \$53 | 75%   | Does   | N | TANF   | 0%   | \$   | \$   |
| onnect | ,940 | (\$47 | not    | o | and    |      | -0-  | -0-  |
| icut** |      | ,592) | ma     |   | Very   |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | intain |   | low    |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | a      |   | income |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | w      |   |        |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | aiting |   |        |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | list.  |   |        |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | Serves |   |        |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | all    |   |        |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | el     |   |        |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | igible |   |        |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | appli  |   |        |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | cants. |   |        |      |      |      |
+--------+------+-------+--------+---+--------+------+------+------+
| **Dela | \$46 | 53%   | None   | N | TANF   | 0%   | \$   | \$   |
| ware** | ,824 | (\$29 | --     | o | and    |      | -0-  | 25   |
|        |      | ,280) | Serves |   | TANF   |      |      | ,000 |
|        |      |       | all    |   | em     |      |      | ,000 |
|        |      |       | el     |   | ployed |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | igible |   | fa     |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | appli  |   | milies |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | cants. |   |        |      |      |      |
+--------+------+-------+--------+---+--------+------+------+------+
| **     | \$44 | 80%   | 9,236  | N | Very   | 18%  | \$   | \$   |
| D.C.** | ,472 | (\$41 |        | o | low    |      | 14   | -0-  |
|        |      | ,640) |        |   | income | \$18 | ,698 |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | and    | ,521 | ,014 |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | Transi | ,963 |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | tional |      |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | Fa     |      |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | milies |      |      |      |
+--------+------+-------+--------+---+--------+------+------+------+
| **Flo  | \$39 | 63%   | 40,000 | N | Abuse  | 23%  | \$   | \$   |
| rida** | ,684 | (\$29 |        | o | and    |      | 38   | -0-  |
|        |      | ,268) |        |   | negl   | \    | ,165 |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | ected, | $150 | ,225 |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | A      | ,447 |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | t-Risk | ,769 |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | of     |      |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | TANF   |      |      |      |
+--------+------+-------+--------+---+--------+------+------+------+
| **Geo  | \$42 | 85%   | 13,166 | N | TANF,  | 11%  | \$   | \$   |
| rgia** | ,828 | (\$42 |        | o | Low    |      | -0-  | 93   |
|        |      | ,828) |        |   | income | \$40 |      | ,623 |
|        |      |       |        |   |        | ,000 |      | ,742 |
|        |      |       |        |   |        | ,000 |      |      |
+--------+------+-------+--------+---+--------+------+------+------+
| **Ha   | \$41 | 80%   | Does   | N | CPS    | 6%   | \$   | \$   |
| waii** | ,748 | (39   | not    | o | fam    |      | -0-  | 39   |
|        |      | ,288) | ma     |   | ilies, | \$4  |      | ,969 |
|        |      |       | intain |   | TCC,   | ,800 |      | ,716 |
|        |      |       | a      |   | very   | ,000 |      |      |
|        |      |       | w      |   | low    |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | aiting |   | income |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | list.  |   | or     |      |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | TANF   |      |      |      |
+--------+------+-------+--------+---+--------+------+------+------+
| **I    | \$34 | 51%   | Does   | N | TANF   | 24%  | \$   | \$   |
| daho** | ,056 | (\$20 | not    | o | fa     |      | -0-  | -0-  |
|        |      | ,472) | ma     |   | milies | \$8  |      |      |
|        |      |       | intain |   |        | ,511 |      |      |
|        |      |       | a      |   |        | ,050 |      |      |
|        |      |       | w      |   |        |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | aiting |   |        |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | list.  |   |        |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | Serves |   |        |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | all    |   |        |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | el     |   |        |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | igible |   |        |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | appli  |   |        |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | cants. |   |        |      |      |      |
+--------+------+-------+--------+---+--------+------+------+------+
| **Illi | \$47 | 39%   | None   | Y | None   | 5%   | \$   | \$   |
| nois** | ,376 | (\$21 | --     | e | --     |      | 102  | -0-  |
|        |      | ,816) | Serves | s | Serves | \$30 | ,445 |      |
|        |      |       | all    |   | all    | ,087 | ,190 |      |
|        |      |       | el     |   | el     | ,522 |      |      |
|        |      |       | igible |   | igible |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | appl   |   | appl   |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | icants |   | icants |      |      |      |
+--------+------+-------+--------+---+--------+------+------+------+
| **Ind  | \$39 | 57%   | 14,043 | N | TANF,  | 28%  | \$   | \$   |
| iana** | ,473 | (\$26 |        | o | Transi |      | 39   | -0-  |
|        |      | ,484) |        |   | tional | \$53 | ,414 |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | fam    | ,250 | ,994 |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | ilies, | ,771 |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | CPS    |      |      |      |
+--------+------+-------+--------+---+--------+------+------+------+
| **     | \$41 | 47%   | None   | N | Fa     | 21%  | \$   | \$   |
| Iowa** | ,460 | (22   | --     | o | milies |      | 8    | 9    |
|        |      | ,680) | Serves |   | below  | \$27 | ,802 | ,676 |
|        |      |       | all    |   | 100%   | ,471 |      | ,951 |
|        |      |       | el     |   | FPL    | ,328 |      |      |
|        |      |       | igible |   | and    |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | appl   |   | work   |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | icants |   | at     |      |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | least  |      |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | 28 hrs |      |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | or     |      |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | en     |      |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | rolled |      |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | in     |      |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | tr     |      |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | aining |      |      |      |
+--------+------+-------+--------+---+--------+------+------+------+
| **Ka   | \$46 | 49%   | None   | N | Fa     | 11%  | \$   | \$   |
| nsas** | ,488 | (\$27 | --     | o | milies |      | -0-  | 6    |
|        |      | ,060) | Serves |   | p      | \$10 |      | ,627 |
|        |      |       | all    |   | artici | ,989 |      | ,895 |
|        |      |       | el     |   | pating | ,284 |      |      |
|        |      |       | igible |   | in     |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | appl   |   | work   |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | icants |   | and    |      |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | rec    |      |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | eiving |      |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | TANF,  |      |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | Fa     |      |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | milies |      |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | rec    |      |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | eiving |      |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | Social |      |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | S      |      |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | ervice |      |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | Child  |      |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | Care,  |      |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | Transi |      |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | tional |      |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | fa     |      |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | milies |      |      |      |
+--------+------+-------+--------+---+--------+------+------+------+
| **Kent | \$37 | 55%   | None   | N | S      | 27%  | \$   | \$   |
| ucky** | ,260 | (\$24 | --     | o | pecial |      | 12   | 20   |
|        |      | ,144) | Serves |   | needs, | \$36 | ,530 | ,608 |
|        |      |       | all    |   | Prot   | ,240 | ,291 | ,501 |
|        |      |       | el     |   | ective | ,000 |      |      |
|        |      |       | igible |   | Se     |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | appl   |   | rvices |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | icants |   |        |      |      |      |
+--------+------+-------+--------+---+--------+------+------+------+
| *      | \$35 | 60%   | None   | N | TANF   | 30%  | \$   | \$   |
| *Louis | ,304 | (\$24 | --     | o | and    |      | -0-  | 8    |
| iana** |      | ,924) | Serves |   | Very   | \$54 |      | ,319 |
|        |      |       | all    |   | low    | ,299 |      | ,268 |
|        |      |       | el     |   | income | ,699 |      |      |
|        |      |       | igible |   |        |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | appl   |   |        |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | icants |   |        |      |      |      |
+--------+------+-------+--------+---+--------+------+------+------+
| **M    | \$36 | 85%   | 2,100  | N | Very   | 3%   | \$   | \$   |
| aine** | ,456 | (\$36 |        | o | low    |      | 7    | 9    |
|        |      | ,456) |        |   | i      | \$2  | ,188 | ,688 |
|        |      |       |        |   | ncome, | ,547 | ,616 | ,952 |
|        |      |       |        |   | S      | ,712 |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | pecial |      |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | needs  |      |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | ch     |      |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | ildren |      |      |      |
+--------+------+-------+--------+---+--------+------+------+------+
| **Mary | \$53 | 40%   | None   | N | TANF   | 24%  | \$   | \$   |
| land** | ,412 | (25   | --     | o | and    |      | 377  | 29   |
|        |      | ,140) | Serves |   | Transi | \$40 | ,082 | ,296 |
|        |      |       | all    |   | tional | ,837 |      | ,893 |
|        |      |       | el     |   | fa     | ,806 |      |      |
|        |      |       | igible |   | milies |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | appl   |   |        |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | icants |   |        |      |      |      |
+--------+------+-------+--------+---+--------+------+------+------+
| **Mas  | \$49 | 50%   | 21,000 | N | Fa     | 20%  | \$   | \$   |
| sachus | ,248 | (\$   |        | o | milies |      | 106  | -0-  |
| etts** |      | 28,96 |        |   | cur    | \$91 | ,216 |      |
|        |      | 9.91) |        |   | rently | ,874 | ,905 |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | using  | ,224 |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | CCDF   |      |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | se     |      |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | rvices |      |      |      |
+--------+------+-------+--------+---+--------+------+------+------+
| **Mich | \$43 | 47%   | None - | N | All    | 2%   | \$   | \$   |
| igan** | ,740 | (\$26 | Serves | o | el     |      | 165  | 129  |
|        |      | ,064) | all    |   | igible | \$14 | ,185 | ,421 |
|        |      |       | el     |   | fa     | ,678 | ,097 | ,704 |
|        |      |       | igible |   | milies | ,240 |      |      |
|        |      |       | appl   |   | served |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | icants |   |        |      |      |      |
+--------+------+-------+--------+---+--------+------+------+------+
| *      | \$47 | 75%   | 4,714  | N | Very   | 8%   | \$   | \$   |
| *Minne | ,604 | (\$42 | as of  | o | low    |      | 1    | 65   |
| sota** |      | ,012) | 12/01  |   | income | \$21 | ,090 | ,657 |
|        |      |       |        |   |        | ,099 |      | ,242 |
|        |      |       |        |   |        | ,900 |      |      |
+--------+------+-------+--------+---+--------+------+------+------+
| **M    | \$30 | 85%   | 11,200 | N | Transi | 20%  | \$   | \$   |
| ississ | ,156 | (\$30 |        | o | tional |      | 25   | -0-  |
| ippi** |      | ,156) |        |   | fam    | \$19 | ,761 |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | ilies, | ,636 |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | Very   | ,326 |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | low    |      |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | income |      |      |      |
+--------+------+-------+--------+---+--------+------+------+------+
| **Miss | \$36 | 42%   | None   | N |        | 9%   | \$   | \$ 1 |
| ouri** | ,120 | (\$17 | --     | o |        |      | -0-  |      |
|        |      | ,784) | Serves |   |        | \$20 |      |      |
|        |      |       | all    |   |        | ,712 |      |      |
|        |      |       | el     |   |        | ,684 |      |      |
|        |      |       | igible |   |        |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | appl   |   |        |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | icants |   |        |      |      |      |
+--------+------+-------+--------+---+--------+------+------+------+
| **Mon  | \$36 | 51%   | None   | N | TANF   | 16%  | \$   | \$   |
| tana** | ,384 | (\$21 | --     | o |        |      | -0-  | 22   |
|        |      | ,948) | Serves |   |        | \$7  |      | ,674 |
|        |      |       | all    |   |        | ,612 |      | ,936 |
|        |      |       | el     |   |        | ,239 |      |      |
|        |      |       | igible |   |        |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | appl   |   |        |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | icants |   |        |      |      |      |
+--------+------+-------+--------+---+--------+------+------+------+
| **Nebr | \$40 | 53%   | None   | N | S      | 16%  | \$   | \$   |
| aska** | ,476 | (\$25 | --     | o | pecial |      | -0-  | 14   |
|        |      | ,260) | Serves |   | needs, | \$9  |      | ,778 |
|        |      |       | all    |   | Very   | ,000 |      | ,066 |
|        |      |       | el     |   | low    | ,000 |      |      |
|        |      |       | igible |   | income |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | appl   |   |        |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | icants |   |        |      |      |      |
+--------+------+-------+--------+---+--------+------+------+------+
| **Ne   | \$42 | 75%   | None   | N | S      | 0%   | \$   | \$   |
| vada** | ,468 | (\$37 | --     | o | pecial |      | -0-  | 22   |
|        |      | ,476) | Serves |   | needs  |      |      | ,796 |
|        |      |       | all    |   | fa     |      |      | ,323 |
|        |      |       | el     |   | milies |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | igible |   | with   |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | appl   |   | income |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | icants |   | below  |      |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | 75%    |      |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | SMI,   |      |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | TANF   |      |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | fa     |      |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | milies |      |      |      |
+--------+------+-------+--------+---+--------+------+------+------+
| **New  | \$43 | 62%   | Does   | N | S      | 0%   | \$   | \$   |
| Hamps  | ,560 | (\$31 | not    | o | pecial |      | -0-  | 15   |
| hire** |      | ,776) | ma     |   | needs  |      |      | ,429 |
|        |      |       | intain |   | Ch     |      |      | ,847 |
|        |      |       | a      |   | ildren |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | w      |   | and    |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | aiting |   | Very   |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | list.  |   | low    |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | Serves |   | income |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | all    |   |        |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | el     |   |        |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | igible |   |        |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | appl   |   |        |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | icants |   |        |      |      |      |
+--------+------+-------+--------+---+--------+------+------+------+
| **New  | \$50 | 61%   | 8,724  | N | Prot   | 19%  | \$   | \$   |
| Je     | ,682 | (\$36 |        | o | ective |      | -0-  | -0-  |
| rsey** |      | ,570) |        |   | Se     | \$79 |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | rvices | ,806 |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | and    | ,965 |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | S      |      |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | pecial |      |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | needs  |      |      |      |
+--------+------+-------+--------+---+--------+------+------+------+
| **New  | \$31 | 78    | Does   | N | TANF   | 24%  | \$   | \$   |
| Me     | ,896 | (\$29 | not    | o | and    |      | -0-  | 35   |
| xico** |      | ,256) | ma     |   | Very   | \$31 |      | ,280 |
|        |      |       | intain |   | low    | ,215 |      | ,461 |
|        |      |       | a      |   | income | ,087 |      |      |
|        |      |       | w      |   |        |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | aiting |   |        |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | list.  |   |        |      |      |      |
+--------+------+-------+--------+---+--------+------+------+------+
| **New  | \$40 | 61%   | Does   | N | S      | 15%  | \$   | \$   |
| York** | ,800 | (\$29 | not    | o | pecial |      | -0-  | 6    |
|        |      | ,256) | ma     |   | needs, | \    |      | ,523 |
|        |      |       | intain |   | Very   | $375 |      | ,441 |
|        |      |       | a      |   | low    | ,000 |      |      |
|        |      |       | w      |   | income | ,000 |      |      |
|        |      |       | aiting |   |        |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | list   |   |        |      |      |      |
+--------+------+-------+--------+---+--------+------+------+------+
| *      | \$38 | 75%   | 22,616 | N | Low    | 28%  | \$   | \$   |
| *North | ,784 | (\$34 |        | o | i      |      | 26   | 65   |
| Caro   |      | ,224) |        |   | ncome, | \$72 | ,621 | ,651 |
| lina** |      |       |        |   | Prot   | ,549 | ,242 | ,762 |
|        |      |       |        |   | ective | ,902 |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | Se     |      |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | rvices |      |      |      |
+--------+------+-------+--------+---+--------+------+------+------+
| *      | \$36 | 69%   | None   | N | TANF   | 0%   | \$   | \$   |
| *North | ,420 | (\$29 | --     | o | fa     |      | 748  | 11   |
| Da     |      | ,556) | Serves |   | milies |      | ,045 | ,393 |
| kota** |      |       | all    |   |        |      |      | ,398 |
|        |      |       | el     |   |        |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | igible |   |        |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | appli  |   |        |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | cants. |   |        |      |      |      |
+--------+------+-------+--------+---+--------+------+------+------+
| **     | \$40 | 57%   | None   | N | TANF,  | 19%  | \$   | \$   |
| Ohio** | ,152 | (\$27 | --     | o | Transi |      | -0-  | 105  |
|        |      | ,060) | Serves |   | tional | \    |      | ,433 |
|        |      |       | all    |   | fam    | $136 |      | ,009 |
|        |      |       | el     |   | ilies, | ,654 |      |      |
|        |      |       | igible |   | A      | ,269 |      |      |
|        |      |       | appli  |   | t-risk |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | cants. |   | fa     |      |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | milies |      |      |      |
+--------+------+-------+--------+---+--------+------+------+------+
| **Okla | \$37 | 53%   | None   | N | TANF   | 20%  | \$   | \$   |
| homa** | ,320 | (\$23 | --     | o | and    |      | -0-  | 92   |
|        |      | ,232) | Serves |   | S      | \$30 |      | ,909 |
|        |      |       | all    |   | pecial | ,330 |      | ,516 |
|        |      |       | el     |   | needs  | ,284 |      |      |
|        |      |       | igible |   | ch     |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | appli  |   | ildren |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | cants. |   |        |      |      |      |
+--------+------+-------+--------+---+--------+------+------+------+
| **Or   | \$38 | 60%   | Does   | Y |        | 0%   | \$   | \$   |
| egon** | ,496 | (\$27 | not    | e |        |      | 9    | 597  |
|        |      | ,060) | ma     | s |        |      | ,387 | ,592 |
|        |      |       | intain |   |        |      | ,772 |      |
|        |      |       | a      |   |        |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | w      |   |        |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | aiting |   |        |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | list.  |   |        |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | Serves |   |        |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | all    |   |        |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | el     |   |        |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | igible |   |        |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | appli  |   |        |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | cants. |   |        |      |      |      |
+--------+------+-------+--------+---+--------+------+------+------+
| **Pe   | \$42 | 58%   | 2,599  | N | TANF   | 4%   | \$   | \$   |
| nnsylv | ,516 | (\$29 |        | o |        |      | 5    | 37   |
| ania** |      | ,256) |        |   |        | \$25 | ,135 | ,112 |
|        |      |       |        |   |        | ,558 | ,343 | ,126 |
|        |      |       |        |   |        | ,000 |      |      |
+--------+------+-------+--------+---+--------+------+------+------+
| **     | \$15 | 85%   | None   | N | S      |      |      |      |
| Puerto | ,348 | (\$15 | --     | o | pecial |      |      |      |
| Rico** |      | ,348) | Serves |   | needs  |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | all    |   | ch     |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | el     |   | ildren |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | igible |   |        |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | appli  |   |        |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | cants. |   |        |      |      |      |
+--------+------+-------+--------+---+--------+------+------+------+
| *      | \$46 | 60%   | None   | Y | Ava    | 1%   | \$   | \$   |
| *Rhode | ,740 | (\$32 |        | e | ilable |      | -0-  | -0-  |
| Is     |      | ,917) |        | s | to all | \    |      |      |
| land** |      |       |        |   | fa     | $520 |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | milies | ,910 |      |      |
+--------+------+-------+--------+---+--------+------+------+------+
| *      | \$39 | 47%   | None-  | N | TANF,  | 1%   | \$   | \$   |
| *South | ,960 | (\$21 | Does   | o | Prot   |      | -0-  | -0-  |
| Caro   |      | ,948) | not    |   | ective | \$1  |      |      |
| lina** |      |       | ma     |   | se     | ,354 |      |      |
|        |      |       | intain |   | rvice, | ,617 |      |      |
|        |      |       | a list |   | S      |      |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | pecial |      |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | needs  |      |      |      |
+--------+------+-------+--------+---+--------+------+------+------+
| *      | \$42 | 44%   | None,  | N | S      | 20%  | \$   | \$   |
| *South | ,048 | (\$21 | serves | o | pecial |      | -0-  | 6    |
| Da     |      | ,948) | all    |   | needs  | \$4  |      | ,051 |
| kota** |      |       | el     |   | and    | ,255 |      | ,045 |
|        |      |       | igible |   | TANF   | ,930 |      |      |
|        |      |       | appl   |   | fa     |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | icants |   | milies |      |      |      |
+--------+------+-------+--------+---+--------+------+------+------+
| *      | \$37 | 60%   | 12,500 | N | Very   | 30%  | \$   | \$   |
| *Tenne | ,116 | (\$26 |        | o | low    |      | 14   | 42   |
| ssee** |      | ,208) |        |   | i      | \$66 | ,565 | ,820 |
|        |      |       |        |   | ncome, | ,293 | ,603 | ,219 |
|        |      |       |        |   | TANF   | ,517 |      |      |
+--------+------+-------+--------+---+--------+------+------+------+
| **T    | \$38 | 85%   | 37,000 | N | TANF   | 0%   | \$   | \$   |
| exas** | ,052 | (\$38 | --     | o | and    |      | -0-  | -0-  |
|        |      | ,052) | 39,000 |   | Transi |      |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | tional |      |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | fa     |      |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | milies |      |      |      |
+--------+------+-------+--------+---+--------+------+------+------+
| **     | \$40 | 56%   | Does   | N | TANF   | 0%   | \$   | \$   |
| Utah** | ,872 | (\$26 | not    | o | fa     |      | 24   | 46   |
|        |      | ,928) | ma     |   | milies |      | ,008 | ,528 |
|        |      |       | intain |   | p      |      |      | ,001 |
|        |      |       | a      |   | artici |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | list,  |   | pating |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | dif    |   | in     |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | ficult |   | empl   |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | tr     |   | oyment |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | acking |   |        |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | fa     |   |        |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | milies |   |        |      |      |      |
+--------+------+-------+--------+---+--------+------+------+------+
| **Ver  | \$34 | 76.   | None   | Y | All    | 13%  | \$   | \$   |
| mont** | ,404 | 67% - |        | e | el     |      | 2    | -0-  |
|        |      | \$3   |        | s | igible | \$6  | ,959 |      |
|        |      | 1,032 |        |   | fa     | ,159 | ,208 |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | milies | ,809 |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | served |      |      |      |
+--------+------+-------+--------+---+--------+------+------+------+
| **Virg | \$45 | 50.   | 2,962  | N | TANF   | 17%  | \$   | \$   |
| inia** | ,948 | 06% - |        | o | and    |      | 140  | -0-  |
|        |      | \$2   |        |   | Transi | \$27 | ,246 |      |
|        |      | 7,060 |        |   | tional | ,699 |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | fam    | ,905 |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | ilies. |      |      |      |
+--------+------+-------+--------+---+--------+------+------+------+
| **     | \$44 | 63%   | None,  | Y | Very   | 22%  | \$   | \$   |
| Washin | ,040 | (\$32 | all    | e | low    |      | 87   | -0-  |
| gton** |      | ,916) | el     | s | income | \$86 | ,450 |      |
|        |      |       | igible |   | and    | ,738 | ,764 |      |
|        |      |       | appl   |   | S      | ,000 |      |      |
|        |      |       | icants |   | pecial |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | served |   | needs  |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | (occa  |   | ch     |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | sional |   | ildren |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | se     |   | first  |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | asonal |   |        |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | CC     |   |        |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | wait   |   |        |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | list)  |   |        |      |      |      |
+--------+------+-------+--------+---+--------+------+------+------+
| **West | \$32 | 7     | None   | N | Teen   | 0%   | \$   | \$   |
| Virg   | ,268 | 4.54% |        | o | p      |      | 25   | 3    |
| inia** |      | (\$28 |        |   | arents |      | ,412 | ,615 |
|        |      | ,296) |        |   | and    |      | ,693 | ,242 |
|        |      |       |        |   | Prot   |      |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | ective |      |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | S      |      |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | ervice |      |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | cases  |      |      |      |
+--------+------+-------+--------+---+--------+------+------+------+
| *      | \$45 | 51%   | None   | Y | Serves | 19%  | \$   | \$ 1 |
| *Wisco | ,288 | (\$27 |        | e | all    |      | 132  |      |
| nsin** |      | ,060) |        | s | el     | \$63 | ,748 |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | igible | ,500 | ,560 |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | appl   | ,000 |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | icants |      |      |      |
+--------+------+-------+--------+---+--------+------+------+------+
| **Wyo  | \$39 | 58%   | None,  | N | S      | 20%  | \$   | \$   |
| ming** | ,720 | (\$27 | all    | o | pecial |      | -0-  | 3    |
|        |      | ,060) | el     |   | needs  | \$4  |      | ,690 |
|        |      |       | igible |   | and    | ,019 |      | ,032 |
|        |      |       | ch     |   | w      | ,565 |      |      |
|        |      |       | ildren |   | orking |      |      |      |
|        |      |       | served |   | fa     |      |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | milies |      |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | below  |      |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | 115%   |      |      |      |
|        |      |       |        |   | FPL    |      |      |      |
+--------+------+-------+--------+---+--------+------+------+------+

**\***While these funds are available to be used for child care and
other purposes, some States reserve \"rainy day\" funds against future
problems with the economy and TANF caseload growth.

Table 1 - Child Care and Development Fund

Average Monthly Adjusted Number of Families and Children Served (FY
2000)

States/Territories Average Number of Families Average Number of Children

Alabama 18,200 31,500

Alaska 3,700 6,200

Arizona 22,800 38,400

Arkansas 6,500 10,900

California 123,800 183,400

Colorado 13,900 24,900

Connecticut 6,600 11,800

Delaware 4,200 7,100

District of Columbia 5,200 9,500

Florida 40,300 70,800

Georgia 30,600 53,400

Hawaii 4,500 7,200

Idaho 4,800 8,300

Illinois 54,800 106,800

Indiana 13,800 24,500

Iowa 10,800 17,400

Kansas 7,800 13,900

Kentucky 20,900 36,100

Louisiana 23,900 40,300

Maine - -

Maryland 11,800 19,500

Massachusetts 21,800 30,800

Michigan 14,500 28,000

Minnesota 13,700 24,500

Mississippi 9,300 11,000

Missouri 29,900 35,900

Montana 3,900 6,900

Nebraska 7,100 12,400

Nevada 3,400 5,700

New Hampshire 2,600 3,900

New Jersey 30,700 45,800

New Mexico 10,400 17,600

New York 124,800 200,200

North Carolina 53,000 82,700

North Dakota 2,900 4,500

Ohio 41,800 71,900

Oklahoma 17,400 28,300

Oregon 10,500 20,100

Pennsylvania 37,800 81,300

Rhode Island 4,300 7,000

South Carolina 9,800 16,500

South Dakota 2,100 3,600

Tennessee 29,100 57,800

Texas 56,100 103,100

Utah 5,800 11,300

Vermont 3,900 5,700

Virginia 10,800 17,300

Washington 32,000 54,000

West Virginia 6,600 11,100

Wisconsin 11,900 21,100

Wyoming 1,800 3,000

Total 1,038,600 1,744,900

Notes:

1\. The source for this table is the ACF-801 data from FY 2000.

2\. The adjusted number of families and children served is the average
number reported by each State on the monthly ACF-801 submission
multiplied by the pooling factor reported in the ACF-800 form.

3\. For all States, the average monthly number of children is
extrapolated from data provided by States, based on the ratio of
children to families.

4\. Maine, Guam, Northern Marianas, Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands were
unable to report any ACF-801 case-level data in FY 2000 at the time of
report preparation.

5\. California, District of Columbia, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, New
Jersey, North Carolina, and Tennessee average monthly numbers are based
on FY 2000 pooling factors that only apply to the ACF-801 data.

6\. California average monthly numbers are based on October 2000 counts
and FY 1999 ACF-696 data, the most reliable estimate of the number of
families and children served for FY 2000, and on an estimated FY 2000
pooling factor that only applies to the ACF-801 data. CA and the Child
Care Bureau are continuing to analyze FY 2000 data to obtain better
estimates of the number of families and children served.

Table 2 - Child Care and Development Fund

Average Monthly Percentages of Children by Age Group (FY 2000)

0 to 1 yr to 2 yrs to 3 yrs to 4 yrs to 5 yrs to 6 yrs to

States/Territories \< 1 yr \< 2 yrs \< 3 yrs \< 4 yrs \< 5 yrs \< 6 yrs
\< 13 yrs 13 + yrs Total

Alabama 7% 14% 15% 14% 13% 10% 26% 0% 100%

Alaska 4% 9% 11% 12% 12% 12% 40% 0% 100%

American Samoa 4% 10% 19% 26% 15% 20% 7% 0% 100%

Arizona 6% 11% 12% 13% 12% 11% 34% 0% 100%

Arkansas 10% 16% 16% 16% 14% 9% 20% 0% 100%

California 2% 5% 8% 14% 19% 13% 39% 0% 100%

Colorado 7% 12% 11% 12% 13% 10% 34% 0% 100%

Connecticut 5% 10% 10% 10% 10% 9% 46% 1% 100%

Delaware 7% 12% 12% 14% 12% 11% 32% 0% 100%

District of Columbia 3% 9% 15% 20% 16% 8% 29% 0% 100%

Florida 5% 12% 13% 14% 12% 10% 33% 0% 100%

Georgia 7% 13% 14% 15% 13% 9% 30% 0% 100%

Guam - - - - - - - - -

Hawaii 4% 11% 13% 14% 14% 8% 34% 1% 100%

Idaho 8% 13% 12% 13% 13% 11% 30% 0% 100%

Illinois 5% 9% 10% 10% 10% 10% 44% 0% 100%

Indiana 7% 11% 12% 11% 11% 10% 37% 1% 100%

Iowa 7% 12% 12% 12% 11% 9% 36% 1% 100%

Kansas 7% 12% 13% 13% 13% 12% 30% 0% 100%

Kentucky 7% 12% 14% 12% 12% 10% 34% 0% 100%

Louisiana 7% 13% 16% 14% 12% 9% 30% 0% 100%

Maine - - - - - - - - -

Maryland 5% 11% 12% 13% 12% 10% 38% 0% 100%

Massachusetts 4% 10% 11% 14% 14% 11% 36% 0% 100%

Michigan 5% 9% 10% 10% 10% 10% 45% 1% 100%

Minnesota 6% 10% 12% 12% 11% 10% 38% 0% 100%

Mississippi 5% 13% 16% 15% 13% 10% 27% 0% 100%

Missouri 5% 10% 12% 13% 13% 10% 36% 0% 100%

Montana 7% 11% 12% 12% 11% 11% 35% 0% 100%

Nebraska 9% 11% 13% 13% 11% 10% 32% 1% 100%

Nevada 7% 11% 13% 13% 13% 11% 32% 1% 100%

New Hampshire - - - - - - - - -

New Jersey 5% 10% 11% 15% 16% 11% 31% 0% 100%

New Mexico 6% 12% 12% 13% 11% 11% 35% 0% 100%

New York 3% 7% 9% 13% 14% 11% 42% 0% 100%

North Carolina 8% 12% 14% 14% 12% 9% 31% 0% 100%

North Dakota 7% 13% 15% 15% 12% 11% 27% 0% 100%

Northern Mariana Islands - - - - - - - - -

Ohio 6% 11% 13% 13% 14% 10% 32% 0% 100%

Oklahoma 8% 12% 14% 12% 13% 10% 30% 0% 100%

Oregon 6% 11% 11% 11% 11% 9% 41% 0% 100%

Pennsylvania 4% 8% 9% 11% 11% 11% 45% 0% 100%

Puerto Rico - - - - - - - - -

Rhode Island 5% 10% 11% 12% 11% 10% 40% 1% 100%

South Carolina 3% 8% 12% 13% 15% 15% 34% 0% 100%

South Dakota 8% 12% 13% 13% 13% 10% 30% 0% 100%

Tennessee 7% 12% 12% 12% 12% 10% 34% 0% 100%

Texas 7% 12% 14% 13% 12% 10% 32% 0% 100%

Utah 7% 10% 13% 12% 12% 10% 35% 0% 100%

Vermont 4% 10% 12% 13% 14% 12% 35% 0% 100%

Virgin Islands - - - - - - - - -

Virginia 4% 10% 13% 12% 14% 11% 35% 0% 100%

Washington 6% 11% 12% 12% 12% 11% 36% 0% 100%

West Virginia 6% 10% 11% 12% 12% 11% 38% 0% 100%

Wisconsin 9% 12% 13% 14% 12% 10% 31% 0% 100%

Wyoming 7% 12% 14% 13% 13% 10% 31% 0% 100%

National Average 5% 10% 12% 13% 13% 10% 36% 0% 100%

Notes:

1\. The source of this table is from FY 2000 ACF-801 data.

2\. The National Average was determined by weighting each states
percentage by the number of adjusted children in each category, summing
across the states and then dividing by the sum of the weights (National
adjusted number of children served by CCDF).

3\. A \"0%\" indication often means the value is less than 0.5% rather
than actually zero.

4\. In some instances the sum may appear to add to 99% or 101% because
of rounding.

5\. Guam, Maine, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and the
Virgin Islands did not submit ACF-801 data for FY 2000.

Table 3 - Child Care and Development Fund

Average Monthly Percentages of Children by Racial Group (FY 2000)

Native

Native American Black or Hawaiian

or Alaskan African or Pacific Multi- Race not

States/Territories Native Asian American Islander White Racial Reported
Total

Alabama 0% 0% 73% 0% 27% 0% 0% 100%

Alaska 10% 1% 12% 1% 55% 11% 8% 100%

American Samoa 0% 2% 0% 97% 0% 1% 0% 100%

Arizona 5% 0% 15% 0% 69% 0% 10% 100%

Arkansas 0% 1% 66% 0% 32% 0% 0% 100%

California 2% 5% 26% 1% 30% 2% 34% 100%

Colorado 1% 1% 21% 0% 69% 0% 9% 100%

Connecticut 0% 0% 40% 0% 20% 0% 40% 100%

Delaware 0% 0% 65% 0% 26% 0% 8% 100%

District of Columbia 0% 0% 92% 0% 0% 0% 8% 100%

Florida 0% 0% 54% 0% 29% 0% 17% 100%

Georgia 0% 0% 77% 0% 22% 0% 0% 100%

Guam - - - - - - - -

Hawaii 0% 18% 3% 52% 8% 0% 19% 100%

Idaho 2% 0% 1% 0% 86% 0% 11% 100%

Illinois 0% 0% 67% 2% 17% 0% 14% 100%

Indiana 1% 0% 45% 0% 46% 7% 1% 100%

Iowa 1% 1% 20% 0% 76% 0% 3% 100%

Kansas 1% 0% 33% 0% 59% 0% 6% 100%

Kentucky 0% 0% 32% 0% 62% 0% 6% 100%

Louisiana 0% 0% 81% 0% 18% 1% 0% 100%

Maine - - - - - - - -

Maryland 0% 1% 77% 0% 19% 1% 3% 100%

Massachusetts 0% 1% 11% 0% 26% 0% 62% 100%

Michigan 0% 0% 53% 0% 35% 8% 4% 100%

Minnesota 3% 4% 21% 0% 67% 0% 4% 100%

Mississippi 0% 0% 87% 0% 12% 1% 0% 100%

Missouri 0% 0% 47% 0% 36% 0% 17% 100%

Montana 11% 1% 1% 0% 78% 0% 10% 100%

Nebraska 2% 0% 29% 0% 62% 0% 6% 100%

Nevada 2% 1% 27% 4% 50% 0% 15% 100%

New Hampshire 0% 0% 0% 0% 9% 0% 90% 100%

New Jersey 0% 1% 48% 0% 14% 0% 37% 100%

New Mexico 6% 0% 5% 0% 86% 2% 1% 100%

New York 0% 1% 23% 0% 18% 0% 57% 100%

North Carolina 3% 0% 58% 1% 36% 1% 1% 100%

North Dakota 17% 0% 2% 0% 79% 1% 0% 100%

Northern Mariana Islands - - - - - - - -

Ohio 0% 0% 54% 0% 43% 0% 3% 100%

Oklahoma 9% 0% 35% 0% 56% 0% 0% 100%

Oregon 2% 2% 10% 0% 72% 0% 14% 100%

Pennsylvania 0% 0% 26% 0% 28% 1% 44% 100%

Puerto Rico - - - - - - - -

Rhode Island 0% 0% 13% 0% 38% 1% 48% 100%

South Carolina 0% 0% 81% 0% 19% 0% 0% 100%

South Dakota 28% 0% 4% 0% 66% 0% 2% 100%

Tennessee 0% 0% 71% 1% 28% 0% 0% 100%

Texas 0% 0% 40% 0% 16% 0% 43% 100%

Utah 0% 6% 5% 0% 75% 0% 14% 100%

Vermont 0% 1% 1% 0% 98% 0% 0% 100%

Virgin Islands - - - - - - - -

Virginia 0% 1% 68% 0% 28% 1% 2% 100%

Washington 2% 1% 8% 0% 34% 0% 54% 100%

West Virginia 0% 0% 16% 0% 78% 3% 4% 100%

Wisconsin 1% 0% 33% 0% 35% 1% 29% 100%

Wyoming 4% 0% 4% 0% 82% 0% 10% 100%

National Average 1% 1% 40% 1% 33% 1% 23% 100%

Notes:

1\. The source of this table is from FY 2000 ACF-801 data.

2\. The National Average was determined by weighting each states
percentage by the number of adjusted children in each category, summing
across the states and then dividing by the sum of the weights (National
adjusted number of children served by CCDF).

3\. A \"0\" may indicate that the percentage was less than 0.5%.

4\. In some instances the sum may appear to add to 99% or 101% because
of rounding.

5\. Guam, Maine, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and the
Virgin Islands did not submit ACF-801 data for FY 2000.

Table 4 - Child Care and Development Fund

Average Monthly Percentages of Children by Latino Ethnicity (FY 2000)

Ethnicity not

States/Territories Latino Not Latino Reported Total

Alabama 0% 100% 0% 100%

Alaska 7% 92% 0% 100%

American Samoa 0% 100% 0% 100%

Arizona 39% 61% 0% 100%

Arkansas 0% 100% 0% 100%

California 42% 51% 7% 100%

Colorado 33% 67% 0% 100%

Connecticut 36% 63% 1% 100%

Delaware 6% 94% 0% 100%

District of Columbia 7% 93% 0% 100%

Florida 17% 83% 0% 100%

Georgia 1% 99% 0% 100%

Guam - - - -

Hawaii 2% 98% 0% 100%

Idaho 11% 89% 0% 100%

Illinois 5% 87% 8% 100%

Indiana 4% 96% 0% 100%

Iowa 3% 97% 0% 100%

Kansas 6% 94% 0% 100%

Kentucky 0% 94% 5% 100%

Louisiana 0% 100% 0% 100%

Maine - - - -

Maryland 2% 98% 0% 100%

Massachusetts 23% 40% 37% 100%

Michigan 12% 88% 0% 100%

Minnesota 5% 95% 0% 100%

Mississippi 0% 100% 0% 100%

Missouri 1% 99% 0% 100%

Montana 1% 99% 0% 100%

Nebraska 6% 94% 0% 100%

Nevada 15% 85% 0% 100%

New Hampshire 1% 0% 99% 100%

New Jersey 23% 63% 13% 100%

New Mexico 67% 33% 0% 100%

New York 12% 80% 8% 100%

North Carolina 3% 96% 1% 100%

North Dakota 2% 98% 0% 100%

Northern Mariana Islands - - - -

Ohio 3% 0% 97% 100%

Oklahoma 3% 97% 0% 100%

Oregon 14% 86% 0% 100%

Pennsylvania 6% 94% 0% 100%

Puerto Rico - - - -

Rhode Island 23% 77% 0% 100%

South Carolina 0% 100% 0% 100%

South Dakota 2% 98% 0% 100%

Tennessee 0% 100% 0% 100%

Texas 40% 60% 0% 100%

Utah 14% 86% 0% 100%

Vermont 0% 100% 0% 100%

Virgin Islands - - - -

Virginia 4% 96% 0% 100%

Washington 15% 85% 0% 100%

West Virginia 1% 66% 34% 100%

Wisconsin 4% 58% 38% 100%

Wyoming 10% 90% 0% 100%

National Average 15% 77% 8% 100%

Notes:

1\. The source of this table is from FY 2000 ACF-801 data.

2\. The National Average is based on weighting the percentage for each
state by the adjusted number of children receiving services from CCDF
funding, summing these products, and then dividing by the sum of the
weights (National adjusted number of children).

3\. A \"0\" may indicate that the percentage was less than 0.5%.

4\. In some instances the sum may appear to add to 99% or 101% because
of rounding.

5\. Guam, Maine, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and the
Virgin Islands did not submit ACF-801 data for FFY 2000.

Table 5 - Child Care and Development Fund

Percentage of Children in Child Care by Age Category and Type of Care
(FY 2000)

Age Group Child\'s Home Family Home Group Home Center Total

Infants (0 to \< 1 yr) 9.5% 37.9% 3.9% 48.6% 100%

Toddlers (1 yr to \< 3 yrs) 8.0% 32.1% 4.6% 55.2% 100%

Preschool (3 yrs to \< 6 yrs) 7.3% 23.0% 3.6% 66.1% 100%

School Age (6 yrs to \< 13 yrs) 15.7% 31.7% 3.2% 49.4% 100%

13 years and older 23.7% 49.5% 2.8% 24.0% 100%

All Ages 10.6% 29.0% 3.7% 56.7% 100.0%

Notes:

1\. The source of this table is from FY 2000 ACF-801 data.

2\. Some children are reported to have multiple settings for the same
month.

3\. If a child utilized more than one of the above categories of
settings within the same month, the child was counted in more than one
setting. The denominator for all the percentages shown was the number of
child-setting-category combinations which results in the totals adding
to 100%.

Table 6 - Child Care and Development Fund

Average Monthly Hours of Child Care by Age Group and Type of Care (FY
2000)

Age Group Child\'s Home FCC Home Group Home Center Average

0 to \< 1 yr 141 150 146 152 152

1 yr to \< 2 yrs 141 154 151 161 158

2 yrs to \< 3 yrs 144 156 156 164 162

3 yrs to \< 4 yrs 142 156 155 161 160

4 yrs to \< 5 yrs 138 148 146 156 155

5 yrs to \< 6 yrs 135 138 136 139 140

6 yrs to \< 13 yrs 118 121 113 107 115

13+ yrs 108 128 115 100 117

Average 128 139 138 140 139

Notes:

1\. The source of this table is from FY 2000 ACF-801 data.

2\. Some children are reported to have multiple settings for the same
month.

3\. If a child utilized more than one of the above categories of
settings within the same month, the associated hours were accumulated in
the respective table cell. The average was obtained by dividing each
accumulated cell total by the number of child-setting category
combinations. If a child had two or more settings that were in the same
setting category, hours were aggregated and counted as one child-setting
combination in the cell category.

Table 7 - Child Care and Development Fund

Average Monthly Provider Payment by Age Group and Type of Care (FY 2000)

Age Group Child\'s Home FCC Home Group Home Center Average

0 to \< 1 yr \$266 \$303 \$361 \$377 \$337

1 yr to \< 2 yrs \$250 \$323 \$391 \$385 \$353

2 yrs to \< 3 yrs \$277 \$325 \$379 \$370 \$349

3 yrs to \< 4 yrs \$258 \$302 \$376 \$380 \$353

4 yrs to \< 5 yrs \$256 \$295 \$349 \$386 \$356

5 yrs to \< 6 yrs \$247 \$274 \$342 \$349 \$322

6 yrs to \< 13 yrs \$225 \$235 \$290 \$273 \$253

13+ yrs \$227 \$253 \$391 \$257 \$252

Average \$240 \$277 \$344 \$342 \$312

Notes:

1\. The source of this table is from FY 2000 ACF-801 data.

2\. Some children are reported to have multiple settings for the same
month.

3\. If a child utilized more than one of the above categories of
settings within the same month, the associated hours were accumulated in
the respective table cell. The average was obtained by dividing each
accumulated cell total by the number of child-setting category
combinations. If a child had two or more settings that were in the same
setting category, hours were aggregated and counted as one child-setting
combination in the cell category.

Table 8 - Child Care and Development Fund

Reasons for Care (FY 2000)

Both Emp. &

Training/ Training/ Protective

State/Territory Employment Education Education Services Other Total

Alabama 85% 8% 3% 4% 1% 100%

Alaska 85% 3% 6% 1% 5% 100%

American Samoa 23% 1% 77% 0% 0% 100%

Arizona 78% 1% 7% 13% 1% 100%

Arkansas 80% 6% 0% 3% 10% 100%

California 84% 7% 5% 2% 3% 100%

Colorado 82% 11% 4% 0% 2% 100%

Connecticut 95% 3% 2% 0% 0% 100%

Delaware 85% 5% 1% 5% 4% 100%

District of Columbia 72% 16% 0% 2% 10% 100%

Florida 73% 7% 6% 14% 1% 100%

Georgia 83% 13% 1% 0% 2% 100%

Guam - - - - - -

Hawaii 64% 32% 0% 0% 3% 100%

Idaho 77% 9% 14% 1% 0% 100%

Illinois 86% 9% 3% 0% 2% 100%

Indiana 86% 6% 4% 1% 4% 100%

Iowa 78% 13% 0% 8% 0% 100%

Kansas 91% 6% 1% 0% 2% 100%

Kentucky 76% 15% 3% 6% 0% 100%

Louisiana 82% 6% 11% 1% 0% 100%

Maine - - - - - -

Maryland 80% 12% 7% 0% 1% 100%

Massachusetts 76% 10% 0% 11% 3% 100%

Michigan 94% 3% 2% 0% 1% 100%

Minnesota 79% 11% 8% 0% 3% 100%

Mississippi 88% 10% 0% 0% 2% 100%

Missouri 17% 4% 0% 0% 79% 100%

Montana 81% 13% 4% 2% 0% 100%

Nebraska 78% 14% 0% 7% 1% 100%

Nevada 84% 7% 2% 2% 5% 100%

New Hampshire 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100%

New Jersey 69% 3% 1% 5% 22% 100%

New Mexico 49% 11% 11% 0% 29% 100%

New York 92% 5% 1% 1% 2% 100%

North Carolina 89% 11% 0% 0% 0% 100%

North Dakota 67% 21% 11% 0% 0% 100%

Northern Mariana Islands - - - - - -

Ohio 71% 15% 3% 0% 11% 100%

Oklahoma 72% 4% 20% 4% 0% 100%

Oregon 93% 4% 2% 1% 0% 100%

Pennsylvania 90% 2% 0% 0% 7% 100%

Puerto Rico - - - - - -

Rhode Island 81% 15% 4% 0% 0% 100%

South Carolina 87% 13% 0% 0% 0% 100%

South Dakota 60% 11% 18% 10% 0% 100%

Tennessee 61% 28% 10% 0% 1% 100%

Texas 74% 21% 2% 2% 1% 100%

Utah 87% 12% 1% 0% 0% 100%

Vermont 74% 18% 0% 4% 4% 100%

Virgin Islands - - - - - -

Virginia 87% 5% 6% 1% 1% 100%

Washington 86% 6% 1% 7% 0% 100%

West Virginia 79% 11% 6% 0% 3% 100%

Wisconsin 94% 1% 3% 0% 1% 100%

Wyoming 86% 13% 0% 0% 0% 100%

National Average 80% 9% 3% 3% 5% 100%

Notes:

1\. The source of this table is from FY 2000 ACF-801 data.

2\. Most states keep track of whether the Reason for Subsidized Child
Care is for employment or education. However, several states identify a
family where both employment and education is occurring as only the
employment reason.

3\. New Hampshire only provided a valid reason when the reason was
protective services.

4\. Guam, Maine, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and the
Virgin Islands did not submit ACF-801 data for FY 2000.

Table 9 - Child Care and Development Fund

Number of Child Care Providers Receiving CCDF Funds (FY 2000)

States/Territories Child\'s Home FCC Home Group Home Center Total

Alabama 49 2,850 373 1,700 4,972

Alaska 249 2,664 50 363 3,326

American Samoa 0 0 0 17 17

Arizona 730 4,467 213 1,171 6,581

Arkansas 72 722 0 860 1,654

California 7,388 40,759 6,311 13,888 68,346

Colorado 4,223 9,537 0 1,564 15,324

Connecticut 18,446 1,588 49 1,295 21,378

Delaware 370 1,478 27 351 2,226

District of Columbia 14 87 0 140 241

Florida 484 6,080 0 5,841 12,405

Georgia 2,115 6,129 357 5,887 14,488

Guam 255 575 3 70 903

Hawaii 186 7,894 2 501 8,583

Idaho 167 3,482 414 446 4,509

Illinois 59,443 46,191 333 3,305 109,272

Indiana 2,805 19,485 0 2,214 24,504

Iowa 326 8,263 877 745 10,211

Kansas 790 1,474 2,005 706 4,975

Kentucky 529 7,679 99 1,546 9,853

Louisiana 8,230 5,757 0 1,338 15,325

Maine 65 2,012 0 2,340 4,417

Maryland 4,630 7,597 0 1,499 13,726

Massachusetts 5,404 3,619 1,651 1,368 12,042

Michigan 37,743 45,641 2,632 2,397 88,413

Minnesota 2,885 18,728 0 11,504 33,117

Mississippi 2,066 2,284 103 1,172 5,625

Missouri 413 14,652 121 2,413 17,599

Montana 27 1,735 494 251 2,507

Nebraska 470 4,717 369 489 6,045

Nevada 155 724 11 478 1,368

New Hampshire 0 0 0 0 0

New Jersey 1,085 11,259 0 2,430 14,774

New Mexico 28 9,930 205 531 10,694

New York 12,619 39,652 1,627 3,820 57,718

North Carolina 501 7,268 113 4,036 11,918

North Dakota 1 1,964 818 96 2,879

Northern Mariana Islands 55 37 0 6 98

Ohio 33 12,480 78 3,164 15,755

Oklahoma 72 3,295 0 3,840 7,207

Oregon 2,339 10,119 110 2,812 15,380

Pennsylvania 4,526 22,405 559 3,226 30,716

Puerto Rico 30 5,448 29 704 6,211

Rhode Island 816 1,929 9 298 3,052

South Carolina 551 1,824 210 1,377 3,962

South Dakota 261 1,482 49 114 1,906

Tennessee 180 3,398 431 1,489 5,498

Texas 8,365 13,841 952 5,738 28,896

Utah 0 9,826 345 1,385 11,556

Vermont 322 1,897 0 342 2,561

Virgin Islands 7 45 69 112 233

Virginia 0 0 0 0 0

Washington 20,393 15,396 0 1,901 37,690

West Virginia 17 3,378 38 361 3,794

Wisconsin 47 5,599 0 1,711 7,357

Wyoming 723 1,831 242 134 2,930

National Total 213,700 463,173 22,378 107,486 806,737

Notes:

1\. New Hampshire and Virginia did not report the number of providers by
setting type.

2\. The source for this table is ACF-800 data for FY 2000.

Table 10 - Child Care and Development Fund

Percent of Children Served in All Types of Care (FFY 2000)

> Licensed or Regulated Providers Providers Legally Operating Without
> Regulation

Child\'s Home FCC Home Group Home

States/Territories Total Percentage Child\'s Home FCC Home Group Home
Center Relative Non-Relative Relative Non-Relative Relative Non-Relative
Center

Alabama 100% 0% 8% 6% 61% 0% 0% 7% 0% 0% 0% 18%

Alaska 100% 0% 10% 2% 43% 2% 3% 12% 28% 0% 0% 0%

American Samoa 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Arizona 100% 0% 10% 5% 73% 2% 0% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Arkansas 100% 1% 22% 0% 77% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

California 100% 0% 13% 6% 57% 4% 1% 11% 6% 0% 0% 1%

Colorado 100% 0% 20% 0% 56% 2% 8% 9% 5% 0% 0% 0%

Connecticut 100% 0% 8% 0% 35% 42% 14% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

Delaware 100% 0% 34% 2% 45% 3% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 10%

District of Columbia 100% 0% 2% 0% 97% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Florida 100% 0% 10% 0% 82% 0% 0% 1% 2% 0% 0% 5%

Georgia 100% 0% 9% 2% 80% 0% 1% 2% 6% 0% 0% 0%

Guam 100% 0% 0% 0% 31% 11% 6% 34% 8% 0% 1% 9%

Hawaii 100% 0% 5% 0% 13% 5% 3% 45% 9% 0% 0% 21%

Idaho 100% 0% 0% 13% 44% 1% 1% 21% 20% 0% 0% 0%

Illinois 100% 0% 13% 1% 30% 11% 19% 20% 3% 0% 0% 3%

Indiana 100% 0% 19% 0% 20% 3% 2% 17% 21% 0% 0% 17%

Iowa 100% 0% 27% 12% 35% 0% 1% 6% 18% 0% 0% 0%

Kansas 100% 0% 8% 41% 36% 3% 3% 8% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Kentucky 100% 0% 5% 1% 66% 1% 1% 16% 9% 0% 0% 0%

Louisiana 100% 0% 0% 0% 64% 6% 13% 1% 16% 0% 0% 0%

Maine 100% 0% 35% 0% 42% 3% 5% 4% 10% 0% 0% 0%

Maryland 100% 0% 34% 0% 38% 12% 5% 10% 0% 0% 0% 1%

Massachusetts 100% 0% 7% 16% 62% 4% 6% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Michigan 100% 0% 9% 8% 16% 16% 17% 34% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Minnesota 100% 0% 32% 0% 31% 4% 4% 8% 17% 0% 0% 3%

Mississippi 100% 0% 0% 2% 75% 8% 2% 6% 6% 0% 0% 0%

Missouri 100% 0% 17% 1% 68% 0% 0% 3% 10% 0% 0% 1%

Montana 100% 0% 21% 33% 33% 0% 1% 1% 10% 0% 0% 0%

Nebraska 100% 0% 25% 11% 41% 0% 2% 0% 22% 0% 0% 0%

Nevada 100% 0% 4% 0% 68% 1% 0% 1% 7% 0% 0% 19%

New Hampshire - - - - - - - - - - - -

New Jersey 100% 0% 12% 0% 73% 1% 0% 4% 10% 0% 0% 0%

New Mexico 100% 0% 2% 5% 41% 0% 0% 36% 17% 0% 0% 0%

New York 100% 0% 12% 5% 30% 7% 10% 15% 22% 0% 0% 0%

North Carolina 100% 0% 13% 1% 82% 0% 0% 3% 1% 0% 0% 0%

North Dakota 100% 0% 40% 29% 28% 0% 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Northern Mariana Islands 100% 45% 38% 0% 17% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Ohio 100% 0% 37% 1% 63% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Oklahoma 100% 0% 18% 0% 82% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Oregon 100% 0% 9% 1% 34% 3% 8% 10% 32% 0% 0% 2%

Pennsylvania 100% 0% 6% 3% 49% 3% 4% 8% 26% 0% 0% 0%

Puerto Rico 100% 0% 0% 1% 52% 1% 0% 22% 23% 0% 0% 0%

Rhode Island 100% 0% 16% 0% 64% 3% 5% 12% 0% 0% 0% 0%

South Carolina 100% 0% 5% 3% 77% 0% 4% 0% 10% 0% 0% 0%

> Licensed or Regulated Providers Providers Legally Operating Without
> Regulation

Child\'s Home FCC Home Group Home

States/Territories Total Percentage Child\'s Home FCC Home Group Home
Center Relative Non-Relative Relative Non-Relative Relative Non-Relative
Center

South Dakota 100% 0% 41% 9% 31% 2% 1% 12% 4% 0% 0% 0%

Tennessee 100% 0% 7% 5% 75% 1% 0% 2% 10% 0% 0% 0%

Texas 100% 0% 3% 3% 76% 7% 0% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Utah 100% 0% 10% 4% 32% 0% 0% 24% 30% 0% 0% 0%

Vermont 100% 0% 43% 0% 39% 1% 5% 1% 11% 0% 0% 0%

Virgin Islands 100% 0% 0% 14% 74% 1% 0% 4% 3% 0% 0% 3%

Virginia 100% 0% 26% 0% 58% 1% 0% 10% 4% 0% 0% 0%

Washington 100% 0% 26% 0% 40% 11% 11% 11% 0% 0% 0% 0%

West Virginia 100% 0% 46% 2% 46% 0% 0% 6% 0% 0% 0% 1%

Wisconsin 100% 0% 37% 0% 63% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Wyoming 100% 0% 7% 14% 30% 9% 5% 15% 20% 0% 0% 0%

National Average 100% 0% 14% 3% 57% 4% 4% 9% 8% 0% 0% 1%

Notes:

1\. New Hampshire did not report number of children by setting type.

2\. The source for this data is ACF-800 data from FY 2000.

Table 11 - Child Care and Development Fund

Of Children in Settings Legally Operating Without Regulation, Percent
Served by Relatives vs. Non-Relatives (FY 2000)

States/Territories Relative Non-Relative

Alabama 28% 72%

Alaska 31% 69%

American Samoa - -

Arizona 100% 0%

Arkansas - -

California 63% 37%

Colorado 44% 56%

Connecticut 73% 27%

Delaware 45% 55%

District of Columbia 73% 27%

Florida 16% 84%

Georgia 22% 78%

Guam 65% 35%

Hawaii 60% 40%

Idaho 51% 49%

Illinois 56% 44%

Indiana 34% 66%

Iowa 26% 74%

Kansas 77% 23%

Kentucky 62% 38%

Louisiana 20% 80%

Maine 33% 67%

Maryland 80% 20%

Massachusetts 58% 42%

Michigan 75% 25%

Minnesota 34% 66%

Mississippi 65% 35%

Missouri 25% 75%

Montana 10% 90%

Nebraska 0% 100%

Nevada 9% 91%

New Hampshire - -

New Jersey 33% 67%

New Mexico 67% 33%

New York 40% 60%

North Carolina 80% 20%

North Dakota 100% 0%

Northern Mariana Islands - -

Ohio - -

Oklahoma - -

Oregon 25% 75%

Pennsylvania 26% 74%

Puerto Rico 51% 49%

Rhode Island 74% 26%

South Carolina 1% 99%

South Dakota 74% 26%

Tennessee 18% 82%

Texas 100% 0%

Utah 45% 55%

Vermont 12% 88%

Virgin Islands 44% 56%

Virginia 73% 27%

Washington 68% 32%

West Virginia 80% 20%

Wisconsin - -

Wyoming 49% 51%

National Average 50% 50%

Notes:

1\. New Hampshire did not report the number of children by setting type.

2\. American Samoa, Arkansas, Northern Marianas, Ohio, Oklahoma, and
Wisconsin did not report having children served in settings legally
operating without regulation.

3\. The source of this table is ACF-800 data for FY 2000.

Table 12 - Child Care and Development Fund

Percent of Children Served by Payment Method (FY 2000)

States/Territories Grants / Contracts % Certificates % Cash %

Alabama 0% 99.99% 0.00%

Alaska 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%

American Samoa 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%

Arizona 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%

Arkansas 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%

California 43.07% 56.93% 0.00%

Colorado 1.54% 96.26% 2.20%

Connecticut 17.94% 82.06% 0.00%

Delaware 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%

District of Columbia 72.98% 27.02% 0.00%

Florida 70.83% 28.86% 0.30%

Georgia 2.05% 97.95% 0.00%

Guam 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%

Hawaii 15.94% 0.00% 84.06%

Idaho 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%

Illinois 11.71% 88.29% 0.00%

Indiana 4.41% 95.59% 0.00%

Iowa 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%

Kansas 0.00% 93.09% 6.91%

Kentucky 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%

Louisiana 0.00% 63.74% 36.26%

Maine 23.57% 75.58% 0.85%

Maryland 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%

Massachusetts 41.42% 58.58% 0.00%

Michigan 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%

Minnesota 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%

Mississippi 3.35% 96.65% 0.00%

Missouri 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%

Montana 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%

Nebraska 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%

Nevada 18.71% 81.29% 0.00%

New Hampshire 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%

New Jersey 18.27% 81.73% 0.00%

New Mexico 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%

New York 23.55% 76.45% 0.00%

North Carolina 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%

North Dakota 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%

Northern Mariana Islands 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%

Ohio 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%

Oklahoma 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%

Oregon 8.93% 91.07% 0.00%

Pennsylvania 0.00% 72.41% 27.59%

Puerto Rico 36.31% 63.69% 0.00%

Rhode Island 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%

South Carolina 13.45% 86.55% 0.00%

South Dakota 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%

Tennessee 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%

Texas 0.00% 80.43% 19.57%

Utah 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%

Vermont 2.69% 97.31% 0.00%

Virgin Islands 2.99% 97.01% 0.00%

Virginia 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%

Washington 0.00% 66.84% 33.16%

West Virginia 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%

Wisconsin 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%

Wyoming 0.36% 99.64% 0.00%

National Average 11% 83% 6%

Notes:

1\. The source for this table is ACF-800 data for FY 2000.

Table 13 - Child Care and Development Fund

Consumer Education Strategies Summary (FY 2000)

Number of

Grants/Contracts Child Care Child Care Families

or Certificate Resource Provider Types/Quality Health Regulatory
Complaint Mass Receiving

States/Territories Information & Referral List of Care Materials &
Safety Information Policy Media Other Information

Alabama Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 50,266

Alaska NA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N 9,331

American Samoa Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N 450

Arizona Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N 390,092

Arkansas Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N 60,000

California Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N 1,448,111

Colorado Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N 86,380

Connecticut Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y 72,288

Delaware Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 16,216

District of Columbia Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 24,056

Florida Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 152,621

Georgia Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N 77,800

Guam Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N 1,844

Hawaii N Y Y Y Y Y Y N N 13,140

Idaho NA Y N Y Y N N N N 9,805

Illinois Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N 265,000

Indiana Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N 46,972

Iowa N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N 33,685

Kansas NA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N 92,382

Kentucky N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 58,101

Louisiana NA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N 43,744

Maine Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N 8,271

Maryland Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 325,194

Massachusetts Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y 98,613

Michigan NA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N 920,427

Minnesota NA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N 1,832,191

Mississippi Y N Y Y Y N N N N 21,789

Missouri Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N 450,614

Montana Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N 291,157

Nebraska N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 418,471

Nevada Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 8,049

New Hampshire Y Y Y Y Y N N N N 8,251

New Jersey Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N 143,842

New Mexico NA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 18,217

New York Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N 343,968

North Carolina Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N 266,684

North Dakota NA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N 3,842

Northern Mariana Islands Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N 117

Ohio Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N 110,164

Oklahoma NA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N 1,249,785

Oregon Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N 40,753

Pennsylvania NA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N 156,623

Puerto Rico Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 14,903

Rhode Island NA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 27,500

South Carolina Y Y Y Y Y N Y N N 21,044

South Dakota NA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N 167,924

Tennessee NA Y Y Y Y N Y N N 41,240

Texas Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N 104,965

Utah NA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N 7,626

Vermont N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N 6,762

Virgin Islands NA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N 101,809

Virginia Y N Y Y N N Y N N 65,000

Washington NA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N 1,211,239

West Virginia Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 1,728

Wisconsin Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N 100

Wyoming Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N 13,506

Total Yes 35 53 53 56 54 47 52 48 14 11,454,652

Notes:

1\. NA=Not applicable, does not offer grants or contracts for subsidized
child care slots.

2\. Source for this table is the ACF-800 data for FY 2000.

Table 14 - Child Care and Development Fund

Percent of Families with TANF as One of their Sources of Income (FY
2000)

State TANF (Yes)

Alabama 7.20%

Alaska 12.90%

Arizona 19.70%

Arkansas 38.50%

California 20.10%

Colorado 17.90%

Connecticut\\ 20.70%

Delaware 15.30%

District of Columbia 2.10%

Florida 16.40%

Georgia 17.90%

Hawaii 55.60%

Idaho 2.20%

Illinois 24.70%

Indiana 10.30%

Iowa 43.80%

Kansas 8.80%

Kentucky 9.60%

Louisiana 13.70%

Maine -

Maryland 12.70%

Massachusetts 13.50%

Michigan 17.50%

Minnesota -

Mississippi 14.60%

Missouri 26.00%

Montana 21.70%

Nebraska 24.70%

Nevada 23.30%

New Hampshire -

New Jersey 15.50%

New Mexico 25.10%

New York 40.70%

North Carolina 7.50%

North Dakota 10.20%

Ohio 22.90%

Oklahoma 19.40%

Oregon 19.30%

Pennsylvania 8.80%

Rhode Island 34.30%

South Carolina 20.40%

South Dakota 8.00%

Tennessee 26.20%

Texas 15.60%

Utah 19.60%

Vermont 19.80%

Virginia 29.00%

Washington 27.20%

West Virginia 9.00%

Wisconsin 8.10%

Wyoming 85.10%

National 20.77%

Notes:

1\. The source for this table is ACF-800 data for FFY2000.

2\. Maine did not submit ACF-801 data for FFY2000.

3\. New Hampshire did not provide sources of income data.

4\. Minnesota reported that no family has TANF as a source of income.

Table 15 - Child Care Development Fund

Mean Family Co-payment as a Percentage of Family Income

Percent of Families with \$0 CoPay Mean CoPay/Income\* in % Mean
CoPay/Income\* in %

(among those with Income \> \$0) (Excluding \$0 CoPay) (Including \$0
CoPay)

State FFY 1999 FFY 2000 FFY 1999 FFY 2000 FFY 1999 FFY 2000

Alabama 11.9% 7.1% 11.0% 7.3% 9.7% 6.8%

Alaska 33.2% 7.9% 5.9% 6.5% 3.9% 5.9%

Arizona 15.3% 12.8% 4.7% 4.9% 4.0% 4.3%

Arkansas 77.0% 78.8% 1.3% 7.2% 0.3% 1.5%

California 82.3% 79.6% 3.1% 3.0% 0.6% 0.6%

Colorado 9.9% 8.5% 8.8% 8.7% 7.9% 8.0%

Connecticut 33.5% 21.7% 5.2% 5.1% 3.4% 4.0%

Delaware 18.9% 21.2% 7.5% 8.7% 6.1% 6.9%

District of Columbia 34.7% 26.3% 3.6% 3.6% 2.3% 2.7%

Florida 5.2% 1.1% 5.2% 6.0% 4.9% 5.9%

Georgia 17.1% 10.8% 4.5% 4.6% 3.7% 4.1%

Hawaii 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Idaho 1.4% 0.6% 4.2% 5.1% 4.2% 5.1%

Illinois 1.7% 1.6% 5.8% 6.0% 5.7% 5.9%

Indiana 60.6% 61.9% 3.2% 2.6% 1.3% 1.0%

Iowa 66.5% 62.8% 5.8% 6.5% 2.0% 2.4%

Kansas 11.8% 17.4% 7.3% 6.9% 6.4% 5.7%

Kentucky 22.4% 32.3% 7.0% 7.2% 5.4% 4.9%

Louisiana 54.0% 50.8% 4.3% 6.6% 2.0% 3.2%

Maine

Maryland 25.0% 18.2% 5.8% 6.9% 4.4% 5.7%

Massachusetts 32.7% 21.7% 8.5% 7.8% 5.7% 6.1%

Michigan 24.0% 18.6% 3.0% 3.1% 2.3% 2.6%

Minnesota 36.2% 20.9% 3.7% 4.1% 2.3% 3.3%

Mississippi 18.4% 14.1% 2.1% 2.3% 1.7% 2.0%

Missouri 33.7% 40.6% 4.1% 3.6% 2.7% 2.1%

Montana 0.0% 0.0% 3.1% 3.3% 3.1% 3.3%

Nebraska 63.8% 56.0% 9.6% 9.9% 3.5% 4.4%

Nevada 21.3% 13.3% 17.3% 12.0% 13.6% 10.4%

New Hampshire 63.7% 54.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%

New Jersey 13.6% 18.3% 8.6% 8.0% 7.4% 6.6%

New Mexico 15.7% 14.6% 6.3% 6.5% 5.3% 5.6%

New York 29.0% 30.0% 5.3% 5.5% 3.8% 3.9%

North Carolina 10.3% 10.9% 7.7% 7.8% 6.9% 7.0%

North Dakota 2.8% 1.5% 12.3% 12.7% 11.9% 12.6%

Ohio 2.2% 1.6% 5.0% 4.9% 4.9% 4.8%

Oklahoma 52.4% 49.9% 8.0% 6.8% 3.8% 3.4%

Oregon 7.4% 5.3% 8.2% 8.0% 7.6% 7.5%

Pennsylvania 7.9% 6.6% 9.1% 7.7% 8.4% 7.2%

Rhode Island 44.0% 42.9% 4.1% 4.8% 2.3% 2.8%

South Carolina 37.7% 46.0% 2.4% 3.1% 1.5% 1.7%

South Dakota 65.3% 69.6% 8.3% 8.4% 2.9% 2.6%

Tennessee 49.8% 62.3% 1.3% 1.7% 0.7% 0.6%

Texas 7.5% 7.2% 8.4% 8.7% 7.8% 8.1%

Utah 32.5% 26.4% 4.9% 5.3% 3.3% 3.9%

Vermont 49.0% 39.7% 4.2% 4.9% 2.2% 3.0%

Virginia 33.1% 26.8% 9.6% 9.5% 6.4% 7.0%

Washington 36.6% 75.0% 3.6% 5.2% 2.3% 1.3%

West Virginia 10.8% 33.1% 4.0% 3.3% 3.6% 2.2%

Wisconsin 1.9% 1.4% 8.8% 7.1% 8.6% 7.0%

Wyoming 1.2% 0.8% 5.8% 5.6% 5.7% 5.6%

National Mean 29.2% 29.9% 6.1% 6.1% 4.3% 4.3%

(weighted)

National Mean 29.7% 28.6% 6.0% 6.0% 4.4% 4.5%

(un-weighted)

Notes:

\*All the data in the above table is based only on families that
reported income greater than zero (since co-pay/income is undefined for
a zero income). Also excluded were data where the co-pay was larger than
the income, the co-pay was larger than or equal to family child care
costs, and families where the child was reported as head of the family
(no parent/protective services). In some states, the total payment to
many providers is reported as \$0 (which is clearly invalid). However, a
zero payment alone was not used to reject a family (among multiple
providers and children) because the number of occasions where the co-pay
exceeds family costs were small.

1\. The first pair of columns are the percentage of the count of
families that had a \$0 co-pay divided by the count of families with a
valid co-pay (greater than or equal to zero). In the remaining columns,
the mean co-pay as a percent of income for each family was calculated by
dividing a valid co-pay (either including \$0 or excluding \$0 as
indicated) by the reported family Income (\>\$0). Then for each state
the mean of the individual family percentages was calculate to obtain
the values in columns 3 thru 6.

2\. Maine did not report any ACF 801 data in FFY 1999 or 2000. Hawaii
reported \$0 co-pay for all families, therefore there is no entry where
\$0 co-pay was excluded.

3\. The Weighted National Mean was determined by weighing each state\'s
mean by the number of families meeting the above criteria in each state,
summing the weighted results, and then dividing by the sum of the
weights. The weight was the mean number of families receiving services
in each state as reported on the ACF-801, adjusted downward for the
pooling factor reported on the ACF-800, then adjusted downward for the
percentage of families headed by a child, and then for the columns that
excluded \$0 co-pay, adjusted downward for the number with \$0 co-pay.

4\. The weight used for California only was based on the number of CCDF
families reported in Oct 2000, where for the first time, 99% of CCDF
funded agencies reported data. Then the FFY 1999 and FFY 2000 number of
CA families was estimated by extrapolating this Oct 2000 number based on
the direct serves cost reported on the ACF-696 and the ratio of average
cost per child as reported on the ACF-801.

5\. In determining the Weighted National Mean, the weights for each
state were not adjusted downward for the number of families reported to
have zero income, because the percentage of families reporting a zero
income in many states was considered to be non-representative. In
particular it was noted that a high percentage of families reporting a
\$0 income, also reported employment as a source of income and/or
employment as the reason for qualifying for a child care subsidy.

6\. The Un-weighted National Mean is a simple mean of all the state
values (each state and DC weighted equally regardless of the number of
families served in each state).

STATUS: FY 2000 CHILD CARE BUREAU RESEARCH GRANTS

*Field Initiated Child Care Research Projects*

These grants were awarded in September 2000 with FY 2000 funds. Most of
the grantees requested and received second-year non-competing
continuations in FY 2001 and many will receive third and final year
funds in September 2002.

*Project Officer: Joanna Grymes/Ivelisse Martinez-Beck*

-   **Bank Street College of Education**, New York City, NY, \$276,546
    (FY 2000) for \"Assessing the Effectiveness of State and Local
    Quality Initiatives.\" During year one, this study identified,
    reviewed, and analyzed initiatives designed to improve the quality
    of child care for infants and toddlers, children with special needs,
    school-age children, and children who need evening, night, weekend,
    and shift hours care. During year two, the project is developing and
    testing instruments to assess the efficacy of initiatives designed
    to improve child care quality. (Contact: Toni Porter, 212-875-4478)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Center for Child Care Workforce**, Washington, DC, \$248,932
    (FY 2000) for \"How Many is Enough? Estimating the Size of the U.S.
    Child Care Workforce.\" A literature review has been completed and a
    flexible computation routine developed for quantifying the current
    U.S. child care workforce and for projecting future workforce needs.
    Preliminary testing of the model has been conducted and piloting of
    the computational model has been conducted to test its application
    and State-specific conditions and variables. (Contact: Marci Young,
    202-737-7700)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Cornell University**, Ithaca, NY, \$254,102 (FY 2000) for \"Child
    Care Quality and Consumer Education.\" The quality of child care
    providers in four counties has been assessed and rated and these
    ratings are being made available to parents. The impact of ratings
    on parent choice and the child care market structure, including
    supply, prices, and turnover are being evaluated. Year one
    activities produced a baseline survey of parents. Providers were
    recruited, assessments administered, and a communication strategy
    for informing parents developed. During year two, the project has
    continued the assessment of child care providers and is creating a
    child care consumer report. (Contact: Elizabeth Peters,
    607-255-2595)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation**, New York City, NY,
    \$209,807 (FY 2000) for \"Employment and Child Care: What Can We
    Learn from Experimental Studies that Encourage Low-Income Parents to
    Work?\" The primary product is a report that describes the
    interrelationships among employment, income, child care, racial and
    ethnic background, and child care barriers. (Contact: Charles
    Michalopoulos, 212-340-8692)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Temple University**, Philadelphia, PA, \$299,358 (FY 2000) for
    \"Barriers to Child Care Subsidies.\" Using focus groups and
    standardized surveys of families eligible for child care subsidies,
    this project is exploring the following questions: Why do some
    eligible families fail to use subsidies? In what ways do families
    who use subsidies differ from those who do not? During the first
    year, focus groups and development of the surveys were conducted.
    During year two, the project is analyzing data from the focus groups
    and administering surveys on subsidy utilization and child care
    preferences. (Contacts: Anne Shlay, 215-204-2748; Marsha Weinraub,
    215-204-7183)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **The Urban Institute**, Washington, DC, \$208,369 (FY 2000) for
    \"Child Care, Welfare and Families: The Nexus of Policies,
    Practices, and Systems.\" This study is examining the role of
    welfare policies and practices in shaping child care for low-income
    families. Key issues include the organization of child care and
    welfare systems, the advantages and disadvantages of various
    approaches, and how overlap and duplication are being addressed.
    During year two, the project has identified a subset of local
    communities where child care and welfare systems intersect and vary
    along different key organizational and service delivery dimensions
    and is investigating the implications of these approaches on the
    child care experiences of low-income families. (Contacts: Gina
    Adams, 202- 261-5674; Pamela Holcomb, 202-261-5618)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **University of California at Berkeley** Institute of Industrial
    Relations, Berkeley, CA, \$300,000 (FY 2000) for \"Who Leaves? Who
    Stays? A Longitudinal Study of the Child Care Workforce.\" This
    investigation is a multi-sector analysis of factors that promote
    quality and stability among home-based providers who serve
    subsidized and non-subsidized children. During the first year, this
    research identified the types of professional and financial supports
    available to providers and how these impact stability and quality.
    During year two, the project is following the same sample of
    providers to trace patterns and predictors of movement within and
    out of child care employment. (Contacts: Marcy Whitebook,
    510-643-7091; Deborah Cassidy, 336-256-0090; Deborah Phillips,
    202-687-4042)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **University of Chicago** Chapin Hall Center for Children, Chicago,
    IL, \$299,839 (FY 2000) for \"Child Care Subsidy Use and
    Self-Sufficiency Pathways of Low-Income Mothers: A Three-State
    Study.\" During the first year this study examined patterns of child
    care subsidy use and the effects of subsidies on welfare and
    employment among current and former TANF recipients (single mothers)
    between January 1997 and June 2000 using data from three States.
    During year two, the project has expanded to construct local child
    care supply indicators and to incorporate them into the analysis of
    patterns of subsidy use and their effects on welfare and employment
    outcomes. (Contacts: Bong Joo Lee, 773-256-5156; Robert Goerge,
    773-256-5174)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **University of Montana** Rural Institute on Disabilities, Missoula,
    MT, \$237,699 (FY2000) for \"Access to Quality Child Care in
    Montana: Exploring Parent and Provider Perspectives.\" A substantial
    base of information is being collected in three descriptive studies
    to explore the perspectives and needs of child care providers who
    provide services to tribal families and young children with
    disabilities and their families. During year two, the project is
    examining program quality and will provide recommendations to
    providers as well as information to parents. (Contacts: Gail
    McGregor, 406-243-2348; Sarah Mulligan, 406-243-5814)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **University of North Carolina** Frank Porter Graham Child
    Development Center, Chapel Hill, NC, \$299,576 (FY 2000) for
    \"Variations in Child Care and School Success: Longitudinal
    Follow-up of the Cost, Quality and Outcomes Study.\" This study is
    examining the effects of differences in preschool child care
    experiences on children's long-term school success, as measured by
    data from parent surveys and school records commonly available
    across four States (California, Colorado, Connecticut, and North
    Carolina). During the first year the study designed and administered
    the parent surveys. During year two, the study is conducting school
    data collection, school data entry and verification, gathering of
    school characteristics, and preliminary analyses of combined data.
    (Contacts: Ellen Peisner-Feinberg, 919-962-7354; Carollee Howes,
    310-825-8336; Sharon Lynn Kagan, 203-432-9931; Noreen Yazejian,
    919-962-7361)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Wellesley College**, MA, \$300,000 (FY 2000) for \"Child Care
    Today: Cost and Quality of Family Child Care and Infant/Toddler
    Care.\" This project includes a random sample of 200 family child
    care homes and 100 centers serving infants and toddlers. Variations
    in quality and costs are being compared across types of care, child
    ages, workforce characteristics, and community/neighborhood factors.
    In year one, data was collected on quality and cost in 200 family
    child care homes. During year two, data on centers serving infants
    and toddlers is being collected. (Contact: Nancy L. Marshall,
    781-283-2551)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Zero to Three**, Washington, DC, \$300,000 (FY 2000) for \"A Study
    of Community Strategies for Enhancing the Quality and Affordability
    of Infant Toddler Child Care for Low Income Families.\" This study
    will identify common barriers faced by low-income families in
    accessing good quality infant and toddler care. The research will
    build on the National Head Start Research and Evaluation Project. A
    first year report described barriers and community strategies for
    addressing barriers based on discussions with key informants. During
    year two, the project is collecting in-depth information about child
    care issues and strategies from individual and group discussions
    with staff and administrators, providers, parents, resource and
    referral staff, and others, in three selected communities of Early
    Head Start Programs. (Contact: Emily Fenichel 202-638-1144)

*Wave II Child Care Policy Research Partnerships*

*(These grantees received their first year of funding in FY 1997 and
annual non-competing continuation grants through FY 2001. Most continued
into FY 2002 with no-cost extensions.)*

*Project Officer: Pia Divine*

***Additional information about these grants including findings can be
obtained at***
[www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/ccb](http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/ccb)***.***
Typically, Child Care Policy Research Partnerships involve significant
funding from non-ACF sources in addition to any required non-federal
share.

-   **California Child Care Resource and Referral (CCR&R) Network,**
    \$200,000. This project involves a three-State consortium consisting
    of the California CCR&R Network, the University of California, Yale
    University, and the Florida Children\'s Forum along with State- and
    community-level agencies and organizations. Substudy I was a
    comparative study of child care supply in California and Florida.
    Substudy II documented child care conditions in New Haven,
    Connecticut, examining how mothers are selecting their child care
    providers as they enter the workforce or job-related activities
    under welfare reform, and tracking the effects on young children\'s
    early development. (Contact: Shelley Waters Boots, 415-882-0234)

-   **Columbia University, School of Public Health and the National
    Center on Children in Poverty (NCCP)**. This project includes 11
    partners, including State-level partners in Illinois, Maryland and
    New Jersey, city-level partners from New York City, the Manpower
    Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC), and Rutgers University.
    This partnership engaged in four distinct lines of work to answer
    basic questions about the nature of low-income child care markets
    and the effects of new policies on child care and children's
    development. Research questions included: What is the availability
    and distribution of subsidized care for low-income families in
    different States and communities? What are the interrelationships
    between child care and welfare policies, child care services,
    children\'s development, and parental outcomes? What role does
    license-exempt child care play in the larger market and what are the
    implications for children and families? How well does the child care
    system serve special populations? (Contact: J. Lee Kreader,
    212-304-7112)

-   **Harvard Medical School,** Chicago, IL. This partnership is a
    sub-study of the Project on Human Development in Chicago
    Neighborhoods (PHDCN) and involves collaboration with the Child Care
    Program of the Illinois Department of Human Services (IDHS), the
    Children\'s Services of the Chicago Department of Human Services
    (CDHS), and the Early Childhood Education Department of the Chicago
    Public Schools (CPS). The study expanded the PHDCN to include a
    child care component. Central to this enterprise is a comprehensive
    assessment of the pre-school and after-school care settings used by
    the nearly 6,000 families of all incomes and from all neighborhoods
    across the city who are participating in the longitudinal study.
    (Contacts: Mary (Maya) Carlson, 617-495-5381; Felton Earls,
    617-495-5381)

-   **Linn Benton Community College**, Albany, OR. The Oregon Child Care
    Research Partnership brings together university-based researchers,
    State agency child care staff, the Head Start Collaboration Project,
    and the Oregon Child Care Resource and Referral Network along with
    other child care practitioners. The Partnership works
    collaboratively with a national partner, the National Association of
    Resource and Referral Agencies (NACCRRA). The Oregon Partnership is
    focused on three areas: parent child care choices, community and
    State needs assessments, and welfare reform. (Contact: Bobbie Weber,
    541-917-4903)

-   **Wellesley College**, Department of Economics, MA. The Wellesley
    Child Care Research Partnership includes child care researchers,
    State and local child care administrators and elected and appointed
    officials, resource and referral agencies, child development
    specialists, employers and researchers with specialty in labor
    markets, industrial organizations, and social welfare programs. The
    work of the project is coordinated with the Urban Institute's work
    on the New Federalism and with the National Study of Low-Income
    Child Care. The major objective of the Wellesley Child Care Research
    Partnership is to generate new knowledge to help guide the
    development of child care delivery systems that are more efficient,
    effective and responsive to the needs of low-income families and
    their children. The partnership employs a dual focus on family
    self-sufficiency and on the quality of care received by children. To
    ensure that results provide accurate, consistent and structured
    policy guidance, Wellesley Child Care Research Partnership
    researchers use a conceptual framework that incorporates child care
    and welfare policies, family child care choices, provider choices,
    and family and child care outcomes. Based on the conceptual
    framework, partnership researchers estimate empirical models to
    answer policy questions. (Contacts: Ann Dryden Witte, 781-283-2163;
    Magaly Queralt, 781-283-2163)

-   **Oregon State University**. This project is a consortium-level
    study being carried out through a research grant to Oregon State
    University, a member of the Oregon Child Care Research Partnership.
    The study is exploring relationships between State subsidy policies,
    the duration of individual subsidy use, patterns of child care and
    duration of individual child care arrangements. Participating States
    include Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, and Texas. Child
    care policies related to the Child Care and Development Fund,
    Temporary Assistance to Needy Families and State-funded subsidy
    programs are being examined. Each State is contributing records for
    a large number of households who receive subsidized child care
    services. The project has developed: 1) State-level longitudinally
    reconfigured data sets with identical data elements and
    structures; 2) a multi-State data set combining samples from each of
    the six States; 3) institutional-level policy variables which will
    be added to the combined data set; 4) linkage of monthly records
    within each State data set over time at the child level to create
    six anonymous, longitudinally reconfigured State data sets; and 5) a
    single, multi-State database for analysis. (Contact: Elizabeth
    Davis, 612-625-3772)

*Wave III Child Care Policy Research Partnerships*

*(These Partnerships received their first year of funding in FY 2000 and
second year non-competing continuations in FY 2001. They will receive
their final year of funding in FY 2002.)*

*Project Officer: Pia Divine*

-   **Midwest Child Care Research Partnership**, lead partner is the
    University of Nebraska, \$300,000. This partnership, independently
    formed in 1997, is composed of the four Midwestern States in ACF
    region VII: Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska. The Ewing Marion
    Kauffman Foundation is a major funding partner. The overall goal of
    this partnership is to establish a baseline of child care quality
    using performance indicators and to track changes in quality over
    time. In year one, this Partnership surveyed child care quality
    indicators and workforce characteristics using a large, stratified
    random sample of regulated providers and teachers. The survey is
    being supplemented by a smaller observational study of care quality
    embedded in the representative sample. The survey and observation
    results will be used as baseline data for developing Child Care
    Performance Indicators and tracking changes in quality. (Contacts:
    Brian Wilcox, 402-472-3479; Helen Raikes, 402-486-6504)

-   **Minnesota Child Care Research Partnership**, lead partner is the
    Minnesota Department of Children, Families & Learning, \$300,000.
    This partnership is exploring how child care affordability, quality
    and accessibility affect outcomes for families and children. A key
    objective is to understand the effect of State policies such as
    level of subsidies, tiered reimbursement, and quality regulations.
    By the end of its first year, the Minnesota Partnership had:
    estimated the impact of different factors on parents\' choice of
    care; analyzed and produced a report on the patterns of employment
    for families receiving child care assistance; developed a database
    of child care sites receiving tiered reimbursement; developed a
    State Descriptive Profile detailing the characteristics subsidized
    care; and, developed policy research briefs. (Contact: Deb
    Swenson-Klatt, 651-582-8450)

-   **University of Southern Maine**, \"New Partners\" \$300,000. This
    partnership includes all six ACF Region I States (Connecticut,
    Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, & Vermont) and
    focuses on child care workforce issues. The partners are developing
    an infrastructure for routine data collection and analysis in each
    State, describing the child care workforce in New England, and
    translating data and findings into policy development, refinement
    and implementation. In the first funding period, New Partners
    produced a document outlining policy innovations in New England; a
    report on the availability and reliability of data resources
    regarding the child care workforce in New England; a status report
    on the New England child care workforce; analyses of specific
    research and policy questions; and a framework for improving
    workforce data collection and evaluation. (Contact: Erin Oldham,
    207-780-5838)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Wisconsin Child Care Research Partnership**, lead partner is the
    University of Wisconsin, \$300,000. State data from Wisconsin's
    Child Care Data Warehouse and the Child Care Resource & Referral
    Data Base is being analyzed to better understand the population of
    families who receive child care subsidies as well as the supply of
    care from which they choose. The quality of subsidized and
    non-subsidized child care is being examined to identify indicators
    of quality and beneficial policies. Child care facilities are being
    observed and interviews held with 200 programs to assess structural
    features and processes in subsidized and non-subsidized care. The
    research is examining child care quality in relationship to State
    child care policies, focusing on shifts in usage of subsidies,
    changes in the child care marketplace, and assessments of child care
    quality over time. (Contact: Mary Roach, 608-262-6041)

*Scholarships for Dissertation Research*

*These grantees received their first year funding in September 2000.
Each of these grants supports a doctoral candidate in conducting their
dissertation research. Grants are one-year with a second-year option.*

*Project Officer: Pia Divine*

-   **Harvard College**, \"Child Care Arrangements Among Low-Income
    Families: A Qualitative Approach,\" \$39,900. Child care
    arrangements among urban low-income families were analyzed using
    qualitative research methods including interviews with mothers over
    a twelve month period and observations in child care settings. This
    study explored the following: What are the strategies working
    families in low income urban communities adopt for their young
    children\'s care and development? How do different strategies affect
    the way children spend their time during early childhood? What
    comparisons, if any, can be made in the care offered families with
    young children in American inner-city communities that differ by
    racial and ethnic composition, and/or the types of services
    available in those neighborhoods? The goal was to better understand
    individual family decisions within the context of the choices
    available at the community-level. (Contact: Jeffrey Smith,
    617-496-3334; Scholar: Ajay Chaudry, 718-783-9664)

-   **Rice University**, TX, \"The Effects of Child Care Disruptions on
    Working Parents: An Experience Sampling Approach,\" \$40,000. This
    study is examining the interaction between child care and parent
    workplace stress. Ethnically and socioeconomically diverse parents
    are being followed and their behaviors and attitudes randomly
    sampled to measure the effects of child care disruptions as they
    occur. The researcher predicts that: parents using workplace-site
    child care will experience fewer negative consequences as a result
    of child care; women will be more likely to experience the effects
    of child care problems spilling over and affecting outcomes at work
    than are men; and low-income families will experience more negative
    outcomes as a result of child care problems. (Contact: Michelle R.
    Hebl, 713-348-5221; Scholar: Jessica Foster, 713-348-5149)

-   **University of Arizona**, \"Informal Caregiving Among the White
    Mountain Apache and its Impact on Child Health and Well-Being\"
    \$40,000. This dissertation is an ethnographic study of informal
    kith and kin care among the White Mountain Apaches and the effects
    of child care practices on child health. The implications of welfare
    reform to parent employment and child care are being explored as
    well. The project has three basic components: patterns of
    caregiving; the practice of (alternative) caregiving and health
    related behaviors; and community attitudes. (Contact: Mark A.
    Nichter, 520-621-2665; Scholar: Shannon Sparks, 520-327-0370)

-   **University of North Carolina**, \"The Responses of Single Mothers
    to Welfare and Child Care Subsidy Programs under the New Welfare
    Reform Act,\" \$39,919. This project involved a comprehensive
    analysis of single mothers' employment, child care payment, welfare,
    and child care subsidy decisions in the new welfare environment.
    Using a recent data set from the National Survey of America\'s
    Families, the study modeled the effects of wages, child care prices,
    welfare program rules, subsidy benefit, and reimbursement rates on
    single mothers' welfare participation, use of child care subsidies,
    employment, and child care payment decisions. In this dissertation,
    the researcher sought to better understand the barriers that
    discourage mothers from participating in welfare and child care
    subsidy programs. (Contact: David Blau, 919-966-3962; Scholar: Erdal
    Tekin, 919-967-7639)

-   **University of Wisconsin**, \"The Habitat of Family Child Care
    Providers: The Influences of Caregiver, Contextual and Group
    Characteristics on Quality Care,\" \$37,893. This study of 67
    licensed family child care providers examined the unique and
    combined influences of factors including education and training,
    psychological well-being, adult attachment style, commitment to
    care, and social support that promote or undermine quality care
    giving. Guided by an ecological model, the study explored links
    between determinants of caregiver behavior and quality of care.
    (Contact: Inge Bretherton, 608-263-9602; Scholar: Ruth Weaver,
    608-231-1863)

FY 2001 CHILD CARE BUREAU RESEARCH GRANTS

(New grants issued in September 2001)

*State Child Care Data Capacity and Research Projects*

*These grants were awarded in September 2001 with FY 2001 funds. They
will receive continuation funding in FY 2002 for their second year. Most
will be refunded again for a third and final year in FY 2003.*

*Project Officer: Joanna Grymes/Joe Gagnier*

-   **Connecticut Department of Social Services**, Hartford, CT,
    \$250,000 (FY 2001) for "Connecticut Early Childhood Research and
    Development Project: Child Care Data *CONN*ections." During the
    first year of this project, Connecticut undertook plans to build a
    statewide research infrastructure for well-informed, effective, and
    efficient child care program and policy development at State and
    local levels. Ongoing work includes building an inventory of
    databases, prioritizing recommendations for aligning existing
    databases and related information dissemination processes, and
    implementing a comprehensive research agenda. (Contact: Peter
    Palermino, 860-424-5006)

-   **Commonwealth of Massachusetts Office of Child Care Services**,
    Boston, MA, \$249,600 (FY 2001) for "Massachusetts Research,
    Analysis, and Evaluation Project." The State is building capacity by
    developing a Research Analysis and Evaluation Unit as well as a
    state-of-the--art child care data warehouse. A strong research
    component will focus on evaluating State quality program initiatives
    and the longitudinal impact of quality on school readiness.
    (Contact: Rodney Southwick, 617-626-2089)

-   **Oregon Employment Department**, Child Care Division, Salem, OR,
    \$250,000 (FY 2001) for "Oregon Child Care Research and State
    Capacity Project." Building upon previous research efforts, Oregon
    is: (1) developing a comprehensive, systemic performance measurement
    process; (2) redesigning the child care licensing database
    system; (3) continuing its work with the child care subsidy duration
    studies; and (4) developing methodology guidebooks to assist others
    with similar research efforts. (Contact: Tom Olsen, 503-947-1409)

#### Field Initiated Child Care Research Projects

*The following grants represent new Field Initiated Research Projects
funded in FY 2001. They will be issued a non-competing continuation for
their second year in FY 2002 and again in FY 2003 for their third and
final year.*

*Project Officer: Joanna Grymes/Joe Gagnier*

-   **Education Development Center**, Inc, Newton, MA, \$249,992
    (FY 2001) for "Partnering for Quality: The Impact of Partnerships on
    Child Care Quality and Accessibility." This project is studying the
    approaches to child care partnerships in existence across the
    country today and the impact of child care/Head Start partnerships
    on quality and access. Included in the project will be the analysis
    of an existing database of quantitative and qualitative data to
    describe current approaches as well as a study using a random sample
    of child care centers and a comparison group not engaged in
    partnerships. (Contact: Diane Schilder, 617-969-7100 x. 2757)

-   **Illinois Department of Human Services**, Springfield, IL,
    \$193,098 (FY 2001) for "A Study of Informal Child Care." This study
    is using a multi-method, descriptive approach to the study of
    informal care. Data will be analyzed to assess utilization of
    subsidized informal care statewide. Focus groups and interviews are
    being conducted to gain the perspectives of parents, providers, and
    staff of Child Care Resource and Referral agencies (Contact: Patty
    Berndt, 217-785-0754)

-   **National Bureau of Economic Research**, Cambridge, MA, \$250,000
    (FY 2001), for "Impact of Child Care Policy and Welfare Reform on
    Child Care Markets and Low-Income Parents and Children." Using
    longitudinal data from three states, this study focuses on child
    care needs in local areas, particularly low-income communities and
    those with large numbers of ethnic minority families. Analyses will
    answer three key questions: (1) what does child care look like
    today; (2) how do variations in child care and child care policy
    affect children; and (3) how do variations affect parents? (Contact:
    Ann Dryden Witte, 781-283-2163)

# Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, \$250,000 (FY 2001) for "Community Variations in Child Care for Working Poor Families: Contributions to Child Development and Parental Employment Opportunities." This research describes and compares the "child care landscapes" in four communities with diverse subsidy policies, identifying the community-level variables that are most strongly associated with quality of care and child and family outcomes. Linkages between child care characteristics and parental work outcomes will also be determined. Data are being collected from community informants, parents, children, and child care providers. (Contact: Susan Kontos, 765-494-2942)

-   **The SPHERE Institute**, Burlingame, CA, \$175, 322 (FY 2001) for
    "Child Care Price Dynamics in California." Using a trend analysis of
    provider prices from market surveys and a longitudinal study of
    providers, this study is: (1) tracing trends in price; (2) relating
    price changes to characteristics of supply and demand in county and
    sub-county markets; (3) analyzing how providers set prices; and (4)
    assessing the effect of vouchers, reimbursement rate ceilings or
    other policies on the overall price of care in the private market.
    (Contact: Margaret O'Brien-Strain, 650-558-3980 x. 15)

# Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, \$249,922 (FY 2001) for "Influence of Welfare Reform and Child Care Problems on the Detailed Employment Experiences of Low-income Mothers.\" Key questions investigated by this project include: (1) how do child care characteristics and constraints affect success at work; (2) what are the effects of policies associated with welfare, work, and child care; (3) how are work outcomes different for TANF mothers compared with a control group of working mothers; and (4) how are the answers to these questions different for mothers from different racial/ethnic groups, neighborhoods, family characteristics, and social resources? (Contact: Julie Press, 215-204-2710)

# Texas Tech University, Austin, TX, \$188, 590 (FY 2002) for "Child Care Use in Mexican American Families." An integrative process-oriented model of minority children's development is being used to examine community and employment factors, cultural beliefs and caregiving practices, extended family and non-kin networks, family characteristics, and child care characteristics that may influence child care practices and choices of Mexican American families with infants and toddlers. (Contact: Yvonne Caldera, 806-742-3000)

# University of Georgia, Athens, GA, \$249,962 (FY 2001) for "America Cares for Children and Youth: School-Age Care Needs Assessment and Training Project." The project is documenting the demand and supply of formal and informal school-age care, particularly for ethnic minority or low-income youth in inner city and remote rural areas of Georgia. Community needs assessment tools and training protocols for informal caregivers will be developed and evaluated. (Contact: Christine Todd, 706-542-2817)

-   **University of North Carolina** -- Chapel Hill, NC, \$250,000
    (FY 2001) for "A Longitudinal Study of Legal, Unregulated Family
    Child Care Providers Who Participate in the Child Care Subsidy
    Program." This study will follow family child care providers who
    participate in the subsidy system for three years. A variety of
    measures will assess quality of care, continuity of care, and
    improvement of quality as result of participation in quality
    activities. (Contact: Kelly Maxwell, 919-966-9865)

# University of Southern Maine, Portland, ME, \$250,000 (FY 2001) for "Child Care and Special Needs Children: Challenges for Low-income Families." This project is focusing on low-income parents of children with special needs. It also collects data from welfare caseworkers, early intervention case managers, child care providers, and low-wage employees to provide a context for parents' perspectives. While the primary focus is on child care, this research also looks at the related issues of welfare reform and coordination with early intervention services at the community level. (Contact: Helen Ward, 207-780-5831)

# University of Texas -- Austin, Austin, TX, \$250,000 (FY 2001) for "Devolution of Subsidized Child Care in Texas." This project is a study of the relationship among child care subsidy management policies and the supply, usage, and quality of subsidized care for low-income families. Administrative data from several State agencies in combination with other public data are being used to develop a summary profile for each region including key policies, demographics, economic characteristics, and child care measures. (Contact: Deanna Schexnayder, 512-471-2193).

# Wellesley College, Wellesley, MA, \$203,976 (FY 2001) for "Family Income, Infant Child Care, and Child Development." A random sample of 200 infants (100 girls, 100 boys) and their families from 100 centers that care for infants is being studied. Links are being explored among poverty, other key family characteristics, quality and cost of care, family outcomes, and infant development at twelve and twenty-four months. This project is part of a larger study addressing important issues of quality and cost in early care and education. (Contact: Wendy Wagner-Robeson, 781-283-3499)

#### Scholar Grants

*The following grants represent new Scholar Grants funded in FY 2001.
Grantees will be issued a non-competing continuation for their second
and final year in FY 2002.*

*Project Officer: Pia Divine*

-   **University of Chicago**, \"Informal Social Support Roles of
    African American Child Care Providers in Low-Income Communities,\"
    \$30,000. This dissertation will examine the ways African-American
    child care providers support low-income African-American parents and
    neighborhoods beyond the daily responsibilities of child care and
    the relationships that develop among providers, parents, and
    communities. The extent to which providers offer parents emotional
    and financial support in addition to child care will be explored as
    well as how providers expand their caring to local neighborhoods
    through informal monitoring and organizing. (Contact: Juliet Bromer,
    773-643-6397)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **University of Massachusetts**, \"Exit and Voice: Labor Turnover in
    Child Care Centers,\" \$30,000. This research project will assess
    the relationship between working conditions and staff turnover in
    child care centers, and create materials that policy-makers,
    researchers, and practitioners can use to encourage higher quality
    child care. Some economic theories predict lower turnover at child
    care centers where workers feel that they have a voice in the
    operation and organization of their work lives. Using the theory of
    exit-voice created by economist Albert Hirschman, the Scholar will
    look at different institutional settings to see if voice
    alternatives to quitting are a cost-effective method of lowering
    turnover. (Contact: Lynn Hatch, 413-256-4113)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **President and Fellows of Harvard College**, \"The Relationship
    Between Early Childhood Caregivers\' Beliefs About Child-Rearing and
    Young Children\'s Development: A Secondary Analysis of Data from the
    National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Study of
    Early Child Care,\" \$30,000. This research will examine the
    child-rearing beliefs of caregivers (i.e. center staff, family child
    care providers, grandparents, other relatives, and
    babysitters/nannies) in the National Institute of Child Health and
    Human Development Study of Early Child Care (NICHD, 1994).
    Caregivers\' authoritarian/non-authoritarian values (Schafer &
    Edgerton, 1985) will be indexed to their child-rearing beliefs. This
    study will further an understanding of non-parental caregivers\'
    role in young children\'s development. Findings may have social
    policy implications related to developing effective education and
    training programs for caregivers. (Contact: Jane Katz, 617-495-3546)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **President and Fellows of Harvard College**, \"Child-Care Selection
    from Birth to Age Three: The Influence of Family Economy,
    Demographics, and Parenting Beliefs,\" \$30,000. This project will
    provide new information on differences in single and two parent
    families, family socio-economics, and parent beliefs. It will also
    identify timing and sequence of care over children\'s first three
    years of life. Specifically, this study will: (1) examine whether
    and when children enter care of different types (e.g., relative care
    vs. family child care) and intensity (e.g., part versus
    full-time); (2) examine the sequence of arrangements over the first
    three years; (3) consider how time-variant (e.g., income, parenting
    beliefs) and time in-variant (e.g., ethnicity) family
    characteristics affect child care decisions, and (4) consider
    whether these effects vary by child age. (Contact: Ann Wolf,
    410-367-4423)

[^1]: TANF direct spending on child care is not categorized; therefore,
    the \$1.6 billion in TANF direct expenditures are not included in
    this chart.

    2 Non-direct services include State expenditures related to the
    operation of voucher programs and include such costs as information
    and referral, eligibility determination and redetermination, and
    maintaining computer systems.

    3 Quality activities include the expenditure of earmarked funds.

[^2]: ^1^ Source: FY 2002-2003 CCDF State Plans; median income based on
    a family of 3.

[^3]: ^1^ Source: FY 2002-2003 CCDF State Plans; median income based on
    a family of 3.

[^4]: ^3^ource: State Child Care Lead Agency

[^5]: ^4^Source: Children's Defense Fund Report (A Fragile Foundation:
    State Child Care Assistance Policies), Urban Institute Policy Brief
    #4, February 2002.

[^6]: ^5^Source: FY 2002-2003 CCDF State Plans

[^7]: ^6^Source: ACF 696 CCDF State Reports for FY 2001, quarter ending
    9/30/01. **Note:** Amounts reported for the following States are
    different than the data reported on the ACF 196 State reports: AL,
    CO, HI, ID, LA, ME, MD, MA, NC, RI and WI.

[^8]: ^7^Source: ACF 196 State TANF Report for FY 2001 assistance and
    non-assistance expenditures, quarter ending 9/30/01.

[^9]: ^8^Source: ACF 196 State TANF Report for FY 2001, quarter ending
    9/30/01.