I 

I Department of Health and Human Services 

I OFFICE OF I

I INSPECTOR GENERAL 

THE AT-RISK CHILD CARE PROGRAM 

AUGUST 1993 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

The mission of the Office of Inspector Gcncrti] (OIG). as mandated by Public Law 95-452, as 

anwndcd. is to protec[ the integri~y of the Dcpannlen( of Health and Human Senices’ (HHS) 

progratws as well as the health and welfare of beneficiaries served by those programs. This 

s[a[uton mission is carried m; through a nationwide network of audi[s, investigations. and 

inspcctiom conducuxi by [hree OIG operating components: the Office of Audit Services, the 

Office of investigations, and the Office of Evaluation and inspections. The OIG also inforrm the 

Sccre[ary of I{HS of program ~nd managcmcn[ prob]ems and recommends courses [o correct them. 

OFFICE OF AUDIT SERVICES 

The OIG”S Office of Audit Services (OAS) provides all auditing ser~’ices for HHS, either by 

conducting audits with its own audit resources or by overseeing audit work done by others. Audits 

examine the performance of HHS programs and/or its grantees and cent ractors in carrying OU[ 

their respective responsibilities and are intended (o provide independent assessments of HHS 

programs and operations in order to reduce waste, abuse. and mismanagement and to promote 

economy and efficiency throughout the Department. 

OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS 

The OIG’S Office of Investigations (01) conducts criminal, civil, and administrative investigations


of allegations of wrongdoing in HHS programs or to HHS beneficiaries and of unjust enrichment


by providers. The investigative efforts of 01 lead to criminal convictions. administrative


sanctions, or civil money penalties. The 01 also oversees State Medicaid fraud control units which


investigate and prosecute fraud and patient abuse in the Medicaid program.


OFFICE OF EVALUATION AND INSPECTIONS 

The OIG’S Office of Evaluation and Inspections (OEI) conducts short-term management and


program evaluations (called inspections) that focus on issues of concern to the Department, the


Congress, and the public. The findings and recommendations contained in these inspection reports


generate rapid, accurate, and up-to-date information on the efficiency, vulnerability, and


effectiveness of departmental programs. This report was prepared in the New York regional office


under the direct ion of Thomas F. Tull y, Regional Inspector General and Alan S. Meyer, Deputy


Regional Inspector General. Project staff


REGION II HEADQUARTERS


Joseph J. Corso, Jr., Project Leader Ruth FoIchrnan


Joseph M. Benkoski


Demetra Arapakos


Lucille M. Cop


For additional copies of this report, contact the New York regional office at 212/244-1998.

Department of Health and Human Services 

OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

THE AT-RISK CH LD CARE PROGRAM 

AUGUST 1993 OEI-02-92-O0140 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

P1”RPOSE 

To du[cmlinc the extent and nature of States” participation in the At-Risk Child Care 

program and to describe their problems and successes with it. 

13.4CKGROUND 

The At-Risk Child Care program pro~’ides child care services for children (usually under 

age 13) of low-income working families not receiving Aid to Families with Dependent 

Children (AFDC). who need child care in order to accept or maintain employment, and 

who would otherv’ise be at risk of becoming eligible for AFDC. 

The program was enac[ed in November 1990. but was made effective October 1, 1990. 

Final regulations give States considerable latitude in implementation. For example. they 

can define “low income” and “at risk. ” Their participation is optional. 

This program is one of several overseen and funded by the Administration for Families 

and Children (ACF) in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The other 

child care programs include AFDC Child Care, Transitional Child Care, the Child Care 

and Development Block Grant and a portion of the Social Services Block Grant used for 

child care. Funding for the At-Risk program was $300 million in each of Fiscal Years 

(FY) 1991 and 1992, and represented 15 percent of the $2.1 billion in total HHS funding 

for child care programs in FY 1992. The ACF has encouraged States to coordinate all the 

funding streams for child care so as to provide “seamless” service to families. This 

means providing eligible parents access to and payment for child care services and 

programs which respond to parents’ child care needs, even as eligibility changes over 

time; services are provided without the necessity of changing the child care provider. 

METHODOLOGY 

We selected a purposive sample of 16 States: 12 drawn from those 45 with approved AtRisk State plans and with At-Risk Child Care expenditures qualifying for !lmding in FYs 

1991 and 1992; two from three with approved State plans but with no expenditures 

qualifying for funding; and two of three which did not submit State plans for approval. 

We then selected respondents purposively and interviewed them by phone. They included 

State officials, local agency representatives, child care providers, and representatives of 

advocacy groups. We analyzed, both qualitatively and quantitatively, State and local 

documents and records and key interview responses by all respondent groups. 

i 
DESPITE SLO\V START, 3!OST SA31PLE STATES !YO\Y EXPECT TO NIAKE 

FULL USE OF AVAILABLE AT-RISK CHILD CARE FUNDS 

Seven of the 13 sample States with At-Risk child Care programs drew down I%dcral 

funds in FY 1991. The number increased to 12 of 13 in FY 1992. and all but 2 States 

report serving more children in FY 1992 than in FY 1991. States initiated or increased 

[heir spending in FY 1992 primarily because their legislatures made initial or additional 

matching funds available. Twelve of the sample States with At-Risk programs expect to 

qualify for all available Federal funds in FY 1993. 

STATES REPORT TARGETING FARIILIES hlOST AT RISK OF GOING ON 

JYELFARE 

The 13 sample States with At-Risk programs have set a wide range of income eligibility 

scales for the At-Risk Child Care program, with ceilings for a family of four ranging from 

$17,982 to $40,491. However. States believe they are serving the families in greatest 

need of child care. In all 13 States, respondents estimate that most of the families actually 

receiving services have annual incomes between $10,000 and $15,000. 

STATES ARE COORDINATING THE AT-RISK CHILD CARE PROGRAM WITH 

OTHER SUBSIDIZED CHILD CARE PROGRAMS; SOME CONCERNS 

EXPRESSED 

t 

States believe they are coordinating the different child care funding streams. However, 

many State, local and advocate respondents feel that States are accomplishing this despite 

funding and statutory variations among Federal funding streams which make them 

fragmented, inconsistent and difficult to administer. 

COMiIIENTS 

We shared a copy of the draft of this repot-t with ACF and subsequently met with ACF 

representatives to discuss their comments. All of ACF’S comments were technical in 

nature, and corresponding changes have been incorporated into this final report. 

ii 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

PAGE


EXECL’TIJ’E SU31\lARY


IXTRODUCT1031 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...1


FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..4


� Despite slow start, Statcs~rill use all At-Risk funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4


.Sta[es are targeting fanli]ies m~st at risk .<...,... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5


� States prcwideseamless sen’ices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

INTRODUCTION 

P[;RPOSE 

To dc[cmlinc the extent and nature of States’ participation in the At-Risk Child Care 

program and to describe their problems and successes with it. 

BACKGROUND 

The At-Risk Child Care progrdm provides child care ser~ices for children (usually under 

age 13) of low-income working families not recei~’ing Aid to Families with Dependent 

Children (AFDC), who need child care in order to accept or maintain employmem, and 

who w’ould otherwise be at risk of becoming eligible for AFDC. States” participation is 

optional. 

Federal Prosrams for Child Care 

The .At-Risk Child Care program is one of several programs overseen and funded by the 

Administration for Families and Children (ACF). Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS), to meet the child care needs of low-income families. The other child 

care programs ACF oversees include: 

�	 the AFDC Child Care Prom-am, which supports current AFDC recipients’ efforts 

to participate in approved education and training activities to help them become 

self-sufficient and leave welfare. Funds are also available to AFDC recipients in 

families who need child care in order to accept or maintain employment: 

�	 the Transitional Child Care t-n-ocram, which provides up to 12 months of child care 

for recipients who leave AFDC due to increased income from employment or the 

loss of income disregards due to established time limitations; 

�	 the Child Care and Development Block Grant m-o~ram, which funds efforts to 

increase the availability, affordability and quality of child care, and provides 

additional funding for child care services; and 

�	 the Social Services Block Grant pro~ram, which is intended to serve a broad range 

of social service needs and is used by some States, in large part, to provide child 

care services. 

Each of these programs constitutes a distinct HHS funding stream for child care services. 

According to ACF, in FY 1992 the Child Care and Development Block Grant was funded 

at $825 million (40 percent); the exact child care portion of Social Services Block Grant 

funding is unknown but is estimated at $510.6 million (24 percent); and the AFDC and 

Transitional Child Care programs at $437.9 million (21 percent). The At-Risk Child Care 

funding represented the smallest portion (15 percent) of the $2.1 billion in total HHS 

1 
funding. The ACF cstimmcs owr $24 billion in national spending for child care for all 

children by all sources. 

The AFDC and Transitional programs require a Staw to usc its funds as a match for 

Federal funds at the State”s Fcdcriil Medical Assistance Percentage rate. This rate is 

Mmmined by formulae using Dcpartmcm of Commerce statistics for State and national 

pcr capita income. 

The ACF has encouraged States to coordinate all the funding streams for child care so as 

to provide “seamless” service to families. Basically, this means providing eligible parents 

access to and payment for child care services and programs which respond to the parents’ 

child care needs, even as eligibility changes over time; ser~’ices are provided without the 

necessity of changing the child care provider. 

The At-Risk Child Care Program 

Legislation and Regulations. The At-Risk Child Care program was part of the omnibus 

Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA 90). Section 402(i) was added to title IV-A of the 

Social Security Act. Legislation was signed in November 1990, but was effective October 

1. 1990. The Family Support Administration, ACF’s predecessor, sent instructions to 

States on how to apply for At-Risk Child Care funding in December 1990. On June 25, 

1991, ACF published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. States participate in the program 

when they submit an At-Risk Child Care plan as an amendment to the State Supportive 

Services Plan, and receive approval by the HHS Secretary. 

The At-Risk Child Care final regulations, published on August 4, 1992, give States 

considerable latitude in implementation. For example, they are permitted to define “low 

income” and “at risk. ” Low income may be set at a percentage of the Federal poverty 

level, a percentage of the State’s median income, or some other calculation. At risk may 

be defined in terms of low income alone, or in combination with other “risk” factors 

which the State may establish. 

State Administration. The State agency responsible for administering or supervising the 

State’s title IV-A Plan is also responsible for the At-Risk Child Care program. This 

agency must submit its plan to the Secretary for approval, as an amendment to the State 

Supportive Services plan. 

Funding. Federal funding for the At-Risk Child Care program, in the form of Federal 

Fimncial Participation, was $300 million in each of Fiscal Years 1991, 1992, and 1993. 

A State’s share of the national total of available funds for a fiscal year is based on the 

ratio of the number of its children under 13 to the national total of children under 13. 

According to ACF this age limit is used because it conforms to age limits for the AFDC, 

Transitional and Child Care Development Block Grant programs. Also, each State defines 

its At-Risk population, making national, low-income population measures impractical. 

States must expend their funds in cash at their Fedem-l Medical Assistance Percentage 

2

riiws, in order to rccciw IT-P. These cxpcndimrcs are reported to ACF on a quarterly 

basis. 

For its firs[ year, a Sti]te may request Fedcrd funds up to its limitation. The limitation 

represents the State’s share by formula of the amount appropriated for the fiscal year. If 

a State does not claim the full limitation, then the difference between the limitation and 

[he total claims paid for the fiscal year is added to the next year’s limitation. The sum of 

the second year’s limitation and the excess funds from the first year comprises the State’s 

maximum grant. A State may claim its full maximum gmnt for the second year. 

States may add to each year’s limitation only the amount that represents the difference 

between the prior year’s limitation and the total in claims paid for the prior year. This 

ensures that the statutory requirement is met, i.e.. that excess funds for one fiscal year are 

only used for the immediately succeeding fiscal year. 

Familv Contributions. The State IV-A agency must establish a sliding fee formula, based 

on the family’s ability to pay, which provides for contributions from each family towards 

the cost of care. The agency may waive contributions if a family’s income is at or below 

the poverty level for a family of the same size. States have the option of collecting fees 

from families or of having the family pay fees directly to providers. 

Arraruzements for Services. A State may use any of several methods of payment to 

provide care, while allowing the family the opportunity to choose the arrangement. if 

more than one category of child care is available. Options include child care centers and 

family child care providers. 

METHODOLOGY 

We selected a purposive sample of 16 States: 12 drawn from those 45 with approved AtRisk State plans and with At-Risk Child Care expenditures qualifying for finding in FYs 

1991 and 1992; two from three with approved State plans but with no expenditures 

qualifying for funding; and two of three which did not submit State plans for approval. 

This purposive sample permitted a selection of small, medium and large States with varied 

patterns of participation and expenditures. The States with approved plans and with FFP 

drawn”are Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Indiana, Massachusetts, Mimesota, New 

York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Utah. Louisiana and West 

Virginia were approved for funding in FY 1991 and FY 1992 but did not draw down 

funds; Louisiana has not started an At-Risk Child Care program, while West Virginia 

implemented its program in the first month of FY 1993. It has not yet been able to draw 

down any Federal finds for At-Risk Child Care because that program is on a credit line 

which is experiencing financial difficulty. Michigan and Tennessee did not apply for 

funding in FYs 1991-1992. We selected the latter four States in order to learn why they 

drew down no FFP or chose not to apply. The sample States’ expenditures qualified for a 

total of $172.4 million in FFP for both FYs, representing 45 percent of all qualifying 

expenses for that period. Twelve of the 13 States with At-Risk programs have 

3

implemented them Statewide: the other Swtc has sm’cral coun[ics which chose not to have 

.4t-Risk programs. 

.41116 sample States were contacted in March 1993 to Icarn the basis for their decisions 

regarding the program. They provided related data and documents at our request. From 

the 13 States with At-Risk programs, we sclcctcd a total of 92 rmpondcnts purposively 

and interviewed [hem by phone during .April, May, and June 1993. They included 16 

State officials. 16 local agency representatives, 40 child care providers, and 20 

representatives of advocacy groups. 

We analyzed. both qualitatively and quantitati\’ely, State and local documents and records 

and key intemiew’ responses by all respondent groups. 

FINDINGS 

DESPITE SLOW’ START, N40ST SAhfPLE STATES NOW EXPECT TO MAKE 

FULL USE OF AVAILABLE AT-RISK CHILD CARE FUNDS 

Only seven of the 13 sample States with At-Risk programs drew down Federal At-Risk 

funds in FY 1991. However. this increased to 12 States in FY 1992. The total amount of 

At-Risk expenditures by the 13 States in FY 1991 was $46.1 million, which qualified for 

47 percent of available Federal funds. In FY 1992, expenditures nearly tripled, resulting 

in the use of 76 percent of available funds for both years. (See Table 1 below. ) Eleven 

of the 12 States with data report serving more children in the At-Risk Child Care program 

in FY 1992 than in FY 1991. One State reports serving the same number. 

The experience of the sample States is similar to the national experience. For FY 1992, 

48 State At-Risk Child Care programs (including the District of Columbia) were approved 

for finding. According to ACF, through May 1993, 45 States have reported expenditures 

eligible for $406.1 million in FFP. This represents 68 percent of the $600 million 

available for FYs 1991-92. Most of these expenditures ($309 million) took place in FY 

1992. 

For the first half of FY 1993, all sample States with At-Rkk programs report expenditures 

totalling $56.5 million. All but one of these States expect to qualify for the full amount of 

Federal funds in FY 1993. 

A number of factors appear to have contributed to the slow start. As noted earlier, AtRisk Legislation was signed in November 1990, but was effective October 1, 1990. The 

Family Support Administration, ACF’S predecessor, sent instructions to States on how to 

apply for At-Risk Child Care finding in December 1990. On June 25, 1991, ACF 

published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Thus, States could not implement the AtRisk Child Care program when it was first effective. States also needed time to 

appropriate State matching fimds, further delaying implementation. According to most 

4 
respondents, states initiated or incrcascd their expenditures in FY 92 primarily because 

[heir legislatures made initial or additional matching funds available. This allowed them 

K) establish or expand [heir programs. In some States with county-administered programs, 

some counties experienced further delays because States were S1OWto disburse At-Risk 

Child Care funds to them. 

The three sample Staws without A[-Risk programs cite a ]UCk of available State funding as 

the primary reason for not implementing a progmrn in FY 1991 and FY 1992. However. 

one has had its program approved and is providing services; another is awaiting ACF 

approval of its program. The third continues to lack matching funds and does not expect 

to have an At-Risk program in FY 1993. 

STATES REPORT TARGETING FAhIILIES N1OST AT RISK OF GOING ON 

JYELFARE 

The 13 sample States with At-Risk programs have set a wide range of income eligibility 

scales for the At-Risk Child Care program. Their ceilings for a family of four range from 

$17,982 to $40,491. (See Table 1 below. ) However, States believe they are serving the 

families in greatest need of child care. In all 13 States, respondents estimate that most of 

the families actually receiving services have annual incomes between $10,000 and 

$15,000. One State respondent says that families at the high end of the income eligibility 

scale do not even apply for At-Risk child care. As a family’s income increases, it is 

required to pay a greater percentage of its child care fees. 

States have set their income eligibility ceilings for different reasons. For example, some 

with high eligibility ceilings chose a percent of their State median income which matched 

the liberal rate previously set for their own State-subsidized child care programs. Most 

States also have the same income eligibility levels for their At-Risk and block grant child 

care programs. Another State chose its level to allow families to remain eligible if their 

income increased, but they still needed some subsidized child care. Others established 

their levels because of the high cost of living, coupled with high child care costs, in their 

States. In two of the latter States, income eligibility ceilings are high, but families must 

have incomes of under $27,000 to establish initial eligibility. (See Table 1 below.) 

States have made various efforts to serve the neediest families, as illustrated by their 

experience with waiting lists for child care and outreach activities: 

1. Eight States have general waiting lists for all of their subsidized child care 

programs with eligible At-Risk Child Care families currently on them. Seven of 

these give priority to what they deem to be the most vulnerable families. In four 

of these States, families previously on AFDC, including former Transitional Child 

Care recipients and caretakers without a high school diploma or GED, are placed 

on the top of the list; those families not previously enrolled in any subsidized child 

care program are given lower priority. In the three remaining States with county5 
--- -------

TABLE 1 

SA31PLE STATE CHARACTERISTICS RAXKED BY LNCONIE 

ELIGIBILITY CEILINGS FOR A FAhfILY OF FOUR 

.,.------,.-—-. ~---—.— ------.-.-,—.—. .. .. ..—..--——. .—.,.-e ..-.. s-—_..-. -—&..”,—-..—-. —-

S 

T EXPEND- EXPEND- , SOURCE OF ~TCOhiE FAIAP BASE A ITURE ITURE ELIGIBILITY % LNCONIE T % 91 % 92 CEILINGS AYD 70 E ,———-.————-— ---—--——- .. —.————. ._—_— ...—

xc ..—— 

AR 

OK 

SD 

TX 

UT 

IN 

:KY’ 

CA 

CT 

~ MA 

++ 

* 

FMAP: 

SM1: 

FPL: 

100 60 66 57%SM1 $17,982# .———— _ .- ——— ———... — 

o	 13 74 S1.i38/MO $18,460# 

0 70 $1.674/MO $20,088# ~ 

o 0 77 60%SMI 

o 13 71 150%FPL $21,600# ~ 

25 67 64; 150%FPL $21,600# ~ 

75 22 75 : 59%SMI $22,793# ~ 

o 51 63 190%FPL $27,360# 

100: 100 I 50 ~ 200%FPL ~ $28,800# ~ 

o’ 200 I 50 / 84%SMI \ $37,955# : 

75 125” i 50 ~ 50%SMI : $26,965+ + ‘! 

I $40,448 ~ 

; 100, 100 50 i 50%SMI ! $26,994+ + ~ 

I $40,491 ~ 

Eligibilityin theseStatesbegins at or below these income levels and ends when these levels are


exceeded.


The income for a family of four must be below these levels to establish eligibility; thereafter, income


may increase to the second figure before eligibility may be terminated.


Includes prior year FFP not previously matched.


Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (matching) rate: averaged for the two years and rounded


1992/1993 State Median Income - family of four


1992 Federal Poverty Level - family of four: $14,400


6 

I 

i 
administered programs. priority u’as gilwn to the neediest fdmilies in some counties 

where former Transitional Child Cart recipients and low-income fami!ics are 

targeted. A Stute respondent underscores this priority process, stating: “WC 

always try to reach (he low-income families just off or rcccntly off AFDC. They 

get first priority for this program. ” Another State respondent offers: “It”s my 

sense that most At-Risk families are former TCC recipients. ” 

-) 

-.
 Respondents from 12 of the 13 States mention (hat they ad~’ertise their subsidized 

child care programs, including the At-Risk program, primarily to the neediest 

f~mi]ies. For example. they focus their publicity efforts on low-income 

communities, welfare offices and Food Stamp offices. 

STATES ARE COORDINATING THE AT-RISK CHILD CARE PROGRAhi WITH 

OTHER SUBSIDIZED CHILD CARE PROGRAhlS; SOhlE CONCERNS 

EXPRESSED 

States report thal they are providing seamless citi[d care services 

All of the State respondents from the 13 States with At-Risk Child Care programs believe 

that their States are coordinating the different child care funding streams. Five States 

have established either a single government unit for the different child care programs or 

combined the administration of them. Four States have promoted good relations between 

different State agencies and with child care providers and advocates. For example, they 

have established State child care task forces or cabinets. One State respondent says, “We 

brought partners together that never really talked before. ” 

States’ administrative processes have also enhanced coordination. The designated State 

IV-A agency directly administers the At-Risk Child Care program in six of the 13 States; 

in the remaining seven, the agency contracts with outside agencies, including other State 

offices and resource and referral agencies, to administer part or all of the program. In 

one State, child care provider organizations operate the program on a day-to-day basis 

under contractual arrangements with the State. In another, each county has a local 

council, comprised of schools, local government, nonprofit agencies, providers and 

consumers, which conducts needs assessments and develops a plan of action. These 

councils, directly or by contract, also coordinate the different child care funding streams, 

determine eligibility and process applications. 

Most States utilize the same policies on income eligibility, payment rates and sliding fee 

scales for At-Risk Child Care, and Child Care Development and Social Services Block 

Grants. (See Table 2 below). Families, therefore, are able to retain or change providers 

without being burdened with how, and by whom, their child care is subsidized. One State 

respondent says, “We’ve attempted to make funding streams invisible to families and 

providers. ” 

7 
. . . .

.

TABLE 2 

STATES’ POLICIES OX CCDBG AXD SSBG lNCO\lE ELIGIBILITY, PAY\lEXT RATES, 

AND FEE SCALES CO\lPARED IVITH THOSE FOR AT-RISK CHILD CARE 

POLICIES STATE RESPONSES . . . . . . .. .. . . .. .,--- .-. . ... . ... 

SA31E AS AT-RISK? AR CA CT IN 31A 31N xc N’ OK SD ~ T?i UT \?’V -. . .- .. .. —–. ..— .—. ... —–..— ... ..— —.— .... ——. ... ..—_._.,.— ...—..—. ——. .— ..-— _,...—.——— ..——— ...

CCDBG I?JCOhfE YNYYYYY Y YYY’YY 

ELIGIBILITY 

—. — .. —— ,.—.. —...... -..—.—..— ,..-– —.-.—. —-—<. —.. .—..— ..—

CCDBG PAYMENT Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y YYY” Y 

RATES .—.—.. ._.. — .— —:. ——. 

CCDBG FEE YY’Y’YYY’Y ‘YY’Y :Y: Y:Y: 

SCALES 1 .—-.. ———— ... ...,_____ ... .. . . _____ ...__— ,,— _._. —._ —_____ ..—, ~ ~

SSBG INCOME ‘Y NA*YY:NA’YY: NY NAi YjYY 

ELIGIBILITY — .—.—, —. .—~ — — I

— — — I

-..__.4.___U ! 

SSBGPAYMENTYi NA’Yj N: 

IUTES : ! [ 

NA’Yi NY, Y;NA 

1 

jY~Y 

I 1 

~Y 

.- _ . . . .—; — ~— u —— .— 

SSBG FEE tY~NA\Y\YINA~Y~ Y~YY~NAIYJY’Y ~ 

SCALES ~ ‘ ~ —-._ .—— —__ ~ l~,i]~~l .— —————_J!

.—- ——- ..— —J ~.~ I

~ - —. —.; -— J——=J~ 

* The designation “NA” represents “Not applicable, ” as the State does not use SSBG funds for child care. 

Several States also sequence the different child care funding streams. Four States use all 

of their block grant money before drawing down funds for matching programs. Eight 

require that families use Transitional Child Care before receiving At-Risk services. 

Several of these eight States automatically inform Transitional Child Care recipients that 

they are eligible for At-Risk services once their Transitional benefits have expired. 

Concerns exist about the variation among different child care funding streams 

While States believe they are effectively coordinating the At-Risk Child Care program 

within their States to provide seamless services, it is not without difficulty. Many State, 

local and advocate respondents feel that States are accomplishing this despite funding and 

statutory variations among Federal funding streams which make them fragmented, 

inconsistent and difflcuh to administer. 

COMMENTS 

We shared a copy of the draft of this report with ACF and subsequently met with ACF 

representatives to discuss their comments. All of ACF’S comments were technical in 

nature, and corresponding changes have been incorporated into this final report.