U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

87–137 PDF 2015

THE FOUNDATION FOR SUCCESS: STRENGTHENING 

THE CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT BLOCK 

GRANT PROGRAM 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD, 

ELEMENTARY, AND SECONDARY EDUCATION 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MARCH 25, 2014 

Serial No. 113–54 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: 

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/committee.action?chamber=house&committee=education 

or 

Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota, Chairman 

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Tom Price, Georgia 

Kenny Marchant, Texas 

Duncan Hunter, California 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Tim Walberg, Michigan 

Matt Salmon, Arizona 

Brett Guthrie, Kentucky 

Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee 

Todd Rokita, Indiana 

Larry Bucshon, Indiana 

Trey Gowdy, South Carolina 

Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania 

Martha Roby, Alabama 

Joseph J. Heck, Nevada 

Susan W. Brooks, Indiana 

Richard Hudson, North Carolina 

Luke Messer, Indiana 

George Miller, California, 

Senior Democratic Member 

Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Carolyn McCarthy, New York 

John F. Tierney, Massachusetts 

Rush Holt, New Jersey 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

David Loebsack, Iowa 

Joe Courtney, Connecticut 

Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio 

Jared Polis, Colorado 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 

Northern Mariana Islands 

John A. Yarmuth, Kentucky 

Frederica S. Wilson, Florida 

Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon 

Juliane Sullivan, Staff Director 

Jody Calemine, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD, ELEMENTARY, AND 

SECONDARY EDUCATION 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana, Chairman 

John Kline, Minnesota 

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Kenny Marchant, Texas 

Duncan Hunter, California 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Martha Roby, Alabama 

Susan W. Brooks, Indiana 

Carolyn McCarthy, New York, 

Ranking Minority Member 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio 

Jared Polis, Colorado 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 

Northern Mariana Islands 

Mark Pocan, Wisconsin 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on March 25, 2014 ............................................................................ 1 

Statement of Members: 

Rokita, Hon. Todd, Chairman, Subcommittee On Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education ............................................................. 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Scott, Hon. Robert, C. ′′Bobby′′, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Virginia ............................................................................................ 4 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 6 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Golden, Olivia, Dr., Executive Director, Center for Law and Social Policy 

(CLASP), Washington, DC ........................................................................... 90 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 92 

Jarmon, Gloria, Deputy Inspector General for Audit Services, US Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC ............................ 97 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 99 

Koos, Paula, Executive Director, Oklahoma Child Care Resource & Referral Association, Inc., Oklahoma City, OK ................................................... 8 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 10 

Kostantenaco , Linda, President, National Child Care Association, Washington, DC ..................................................................................................... 85 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 87 

Additional Submissions: 

Kline, Hon. John, Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce: ...............................................................................................................

National Child Care Association, prepared statement of ...................... 124 

Miller, Hon. George, Senior Democratic Member, Committee on Education and the Workforce: 

Child Care Assistance Spending and Participation (CLASP) in 2012, 

prepared statement of ........................................................................... 131 

Chairman Rokita questions submitted for the record to: 

Ms. Jarmon ................................................................................................ 140 

Ms. Koos ..................................................................................................... 142 

Mrs. Kostantenaco ..................................................................................... 144 

Response to questions submitted: 

Ms. Jarmon ................................................................................................ 147 

Ms. Koos ..................................................................................................... 152 

Mrs. Kostantenaco ..................................................................................... 155 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(1) 

THE FOUNDATION FOR SUCCESS: 

STRENGTHENING THE 

CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT BLOCK 

GRANT PROGRAM 

Tuesday, March 25, 2014 

House of Representatives, 

Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, 

and Secondary Education, 

Committee on Education and the Workforce, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:06 a.m., in Room 

2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Todd Rokita [chairman 

of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Rokita, Kline, Scott, Davis, Fudge, 

Polis, and Pocan. 

Staff present: James Bergeron, Director of Education and Human 

Services Policy; Cristin Datch Kumar, Professional Staff Member; 

Nancy Locke, Chief Clerk; Daniel Murner, Press Assistant; Krisann 

Pearce, General Counsel; Mandy Schaumburg, Senior Education 

Counsel; Dan Shorts, Legislative Assistant; Nicole Sizemore, Deputy Press Secretary; Alex Sollberger, Communications Director; 

Alissa Strawcutter, Deputy Clerk; Tylease Alli, Minority Clerk/Intern and Fellow Coordinator; Jamie Fasteau, Minority Director of 

Education Policy; Scott Groginsky, Minority Education Policy Advisor; Julia Krahe, Minority Communications Director; and Megan 

O’Reilly, Minority General Counsel. 

Chairman ROKITA. Good morning. A quorum being present, the 

subcommittee will come to order. 

Welcome. 

I would like to thank our witnesses for joining us to discuss opportunities to improve the Child Care and Development Block 

Grant Program. 

My apologies for not being able to visit with you before the hearing. We will hopefully get some time to visit afterwards, but again, 

thank you all for being here. 

As you may know, the full committee recently held a hearing to 

review the federal investment in early childhood care and development. During the hearing, we explored opportunities to streamline 

and improve existing programs to better serve children and their 

families. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

2 

Today we will continue that discussion as we examine one of the 

largest and most critical programs in the nation’s network of early 

childhood programs, called the Child Care and Development Block 

Grant, or CCDBG as we call it here in Washington and other 

places. 

Authorized in 1996 under the Child Care and Development Block 

Grant Act the CCDBG program provides funds to states to help 

low-income families access child care. 

Parents receive funds in the form of vouchers or certificates to 

pay for the child care provider of their choice, be it public or private, secular or religious, or in a home-based or center setting. 

CCDBG is invaluable to parents who are struggling to provide 

for their families. As a father of two boys myself, I know firsthand 

child care isn’t just finding a place for your kids to go during your 

work day. It is a far more difficult decision about choosing a provider where you can trust trained professionals who will care for 

your child in a safe environment. 

Unfortunately, this is where CCDBG falls short. In the nearly 

two decades that have passed since the last reauthorization of the 

law, it has become increasingly clear the CCDBG program fails to 

ensure states develop or adequately enforce the health and safety, 

training, and inspection standards that really are the foundation 

for quality child care. 

Last year Child Care Aware of America released a report ranking 

the child care center regulations and oversight. The report found 

10 states failed to conduct monitoring visits or inspections at least 

once a year. Even more troubling, five states do not check the child 

abuse registry before allowing an individual to even work in the 

center. 

With nearly 1.5 million children and their families participating 

in the CCDGB program, federal policy makers must take steps to 

strengthen the program and ensure enhanced program quality and 

accountability are the focus and the outcome. 

As many of you know, our colleagues in the Senate recently approved the Child Care and Development Block Grant Reauthorization Act of 2014. As Chairman Kline noted in our previous hearing 

on early care programs, the Senate legislation presents a solid 

foundation for reform, and I agree. 

I am pleased the Senate legislation includes language to raise 

the standards for child care providers, requiring states to implement minimum training requirements and conduct annual inspections of licensed providers. 

These provisions will help ensure caregivers are equipped to handle common health conditions and emergency situations, while also 

promoting facilities that are cleaner and safer for our nation’s children. 

The Senate legislation also takes important steps to enhance 

transparency and better inform parents of their child care options. 

Under the bill, states are required to make public information on 

a range of key issues, including availability of child care services, 

the quality of providers, data on childhood development research, 

and general best practices. 

While many of these provisions will help to improve the quality 

of child care, we must also take steps to ensure these new requireCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

3 

ments will help and not hinder, as is often the case, states in meeting the needs of children and their families. 

I also hope today we can discuss policy changes that work to 

streamline the federal early childhood system and help increase coordination among existing programs. 

If we are truly here to fight for people, and to empower people, 

so that they can build better lives for themselves and their families, access to quality child care is something we must address and 

frankly it is something we can do. 

The reauthorization of the Child Care and Development Block 

Grant Act provides that opportunity to work together to advance 

bipartisan legislation that will help our nation’s most valuable children and families. 

I also look forward to examining the strengths and weaknesses 

of the CCDBG program and discussing opportunities for consensus 

between House priorities for reauthorization and the alreadypassed Senate legislation. 

Once again, I thank our witnesses for joining us today. We look 

forward to your testimony and a productive discussion on this important matter. 

I will now yield to my distinguished colleague and friend from 

Virginia, Mr. Scott, for his opening remarks. 

Mr. Scott? 

[The statement of Chairman Rokita follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Todd Rokita, Chairman, Subcommittee On 

Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education 

As you may know, the full committee recently held a hearing to review the federal 

investment in early childhood care and development. During the hearing, we explored opportunities to streamline and improve existing programs to better serve 

children and their families. 

Today we will continue that discussion as we examine one of the largest and most 

critical programs in the nation’s network of early childhood programs, the Child 

Care and Development Block Grant, or CCDBG, program. 

Authorized in 1996 under the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act the 

CCDBG program provides funds to states to help low-income families access child 

care. Parents receive funds in the form of vouchers or certificates to pay for the 

child care provider of their choice, be it public or private, secular or religious, or 

in a home-based or center setting. 

CCDBG is invaluable to parents who are struggling to provide for their families. 

As a father of two boys, I know firsthand child care isn’t just finding a place for 

your kids to go during your work day. It’s a far more difficult decision about choosing a provider where you can trust trained professionals will care for your child in 

a safe environment. 

Unfortunately, this is where CCDBG falls short. In the nearly two decades that 

have passed since the last reauthorization of the law, it has become increasingly 

clear the CCDBG program fails to ensure states develop or adequately enforce the 

health and safety, training, and inspection standards that are the foundation for 

quality care. 

Last year Child Care Aware of America released a report ranking state child care 

center regulations and oversight. The report found 10 states failed to conduct monitoring visits or inspections at least once a year. Even more troubling, five states do 

not check the child abuse registry before allowing an individual to work in a center. 

With nearly 1.5 million children and their families participating in the CCDBG 

program, federal policymakers must take steps to strengthen the program and ensure enhanced program quality and accountability. 

As many of you know, our colleagues in the Senate recently approved the Child 

Care and Development Block Grant Reauthorization Act of 2014. As Chairman 

Kline noted in our previous hearing on early care programs, the Senate legislation 

presents a solid foundation for reform. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

4 

I am pleased the Senate legislation includes language to raise standards for child 

care providers, requiring states to implement minimum training requirements and 

conduct annual inspections of license providers. These provisions will help ensure 

caregivers are equipped to handle common health conditions and emergency situations, while also promoting facilities that are cleaner and safer for our children. 

The Senate legislation also takes important steps to enhance transparency and 

better inform parents of their child care options. Under the bill, states are required 

to make public information on a range of key issues, including availability of child 

care services, the quality of providers, data on childhood development research and 

best practices. 

While many of these provisions will help to improve the quality of child care, we 

must also take steps to ensure these new requirements will help – not hinder – 

states in meeting the needs of children and their families. I also hope today we can 

discuss policy changes that work to streamline the federal early childhood system 

and help increase coordination among existing programs. 

If we are truly here to fight for people, and to empower people, so they can build 

better lives for themselves and their families, access to quality child care is something we must address. 

The reauthorization of the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act provides 

an opportunity to work together to advance bipartisan legislation that will help our 

nation’s most vulnerable children and families. I also look forward to examining the 

strengths and weaknesses of the CCDBG program, and discussing opportunities for 

consensus between House priorities for reauthorization and the Senate-passed legislation. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank you for convening the panel and our distinguished witness panel for their participation in today’s hearing. 

I look forward to learning about the Child Care and Development 

Block Grant or CCDBG. I am going to call it a block grant, which 

is the largest federal program providing funding for child care. 

Through reauthorization of the block grant, which hasn’t seen reauthorization since 1996, presents this committee with the unique 

opportunity to ensure access to affordable, quality, child care that 

will benefit our children and their parents. Quality child care programs can act as the first part of a continuum of learning that sets 

children on the path to success. 

A recent report released by the Center for American Progress 

showed that over 85 percent of Americans, including 77 percent of 

Republicans, support expanding access to child care programs. 

Today, the Child Care and Development Block Grant supports 

low-income parents’ ability to work or participate in training or 

education programs, and thus their self-sufficiency, and provides 

young children with early childhood experiences that can improve 

their learning readiness. 

The goals of the block grant are strongly related to preschool 

goals that our recent full committee hearing examined. Despite the 

similarities between child care and preschool services there are 

some fundamental differences between the two. 

Preschool is mostly aimed at 4-year-olds, whereas the block grant 

funds child care for children from birth to age 12. Most preschool 

programs require specific teacher credentials, such as bachelor degrees, and child care tends to lack such provider requirements. PreK programs often have a specific evidence-based curriculum requirements which are mostly absent from child care settings. 

A number of issues come to mind when we discuss federallyfunded child care programs. In order to make the best of our investment, these programs must provide access to those who need 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

5 

the care, it must be affordable for enough families to be able to use 

it, and services must be of high quality. 

Poor child care access, affordability, and quality means that the 

continued congressional support or reauthorization of the block 

grant, including a modest funding increase, will be insufficient to 

meet the needs of low-income working parents and their young 

children. 

On the topic of access, we know that despite about 1.4 million 

children receiving block grant subsidies, only one in six children eligible for federal child care systems under the block grant actually 

receives it. 

There are almost 600,000 children eligible for child care on waiting lists in just 19 states. Some states don’t even keep waiting lists. 

They just turn eligible families away. 

About 40 percent of eligible children have access to Head Start, 

barely half of the 3-to 4-year-olds are enrolled in preschool programs, but just a third of the low-income children are enrolled in 

those programs and that is the group that really can benefit the 

most. 

Early Head Start was established to provide quality child development services for children birth to age 3; it reaches of less than 

4 percent of eligible infants and toddlers. 

Even when low-income families do have access to child care, it 

is often unaffordable, forcing them to choose between paying for 

food, clothes, heat, or child care. 

According to the US Census Bureau, families living in poverty 

spend an average of 30 percent of their income on child care, compared to only 7 percent for those who are well above the poverty 

level. 

On the access and affordability issues that American families 

face, we know that barely a third of 4-year-olds that are in child 

care centers receive high-quality care. Because the block grant 

prioritizes workforce support for parents over education for children, the quality of some child care funds is poor, hindering some 

children’s development and learning. 

One report found that 42 percent of children are in state pre-K 

programs that meet less than half the recommended quality standards. 

The block grant requires that states spend 4 percent of their 

grants on quality service—quality activities for this floor is clearly 

insufficient. 

Research from the National Center for Children and the National 

Institute of Child Health and Human Development confirms that 

children receive numerous benefits from high-quality care, such as 

better cognitive development, fewer behavioral problems, enhanced 

cooperation, increased school readiness, and improved language use 

and comprehension. 

They will also be less likely to be involved in the criminal justice 

system, become a teen parent, or drop out of school. 

As with pre-K, the return on public investment and positive outcomes are generated only when you have quality care. Poor quality 

care can in fact be harmful and put children on the wrong path. 

That is why an expanded federal investment in quality child care 

is needed, including Head Start, along with support for preschool 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

6 

programs, given the importance of quality of care and early education to future outcomes. Congress and this administration are examining ways to improve the quality of publicly-funded child care 

under this block grant. 

Bipartisan reauthorization passed by the Senate 2 weeks ago emphasizes the necessary quality improvements including increasing 

the quality set aside for 4 percent to 10 percent in critical health 

and safety provisions such as program inspections, monitoring, provider training, credentials, and professional development. 

I am eager for a bipartisan collaboration as we reauthorize the 

block grant, as well as other legislation that addresses the educational needs of our children, such as HR 3461, the Strong Start 

for America’s Children Act. 

We need bipartisan collaboration to allow all children to receive 

the opportunity to fulfill their potential. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

[The statement of Mr. Scott follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert C. ′′Bobby′′ Scott, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Virginia 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to thank our distinguished witness panel 

for their participation in today’s hearing. I look forward to learning about the Child 

Care and Development Block Grant, or CCDBG, which is the largest federal program providing funding for child care. 

Reauthorization of the Child Care and Development Block Grant, which hasn’t 

seen a reauthorization since 1996, presents this Committee with a unique opportunity to ensure access to affordable, quality child care that will benefit our children 

and their parents. Quality child care programs can act as the first part of a continuum of learning that sets children on the path to success. A recent report released by Center for American Progress showed that over 85% of Americans ? including 77% of Republicans ? support expanding access to child care programs. 

Today, the Child Care and Development Block Grant supports low-income parents’ ability to work or participate in training or education programs, and thus their 

self-sufficiency, and provides young children with early childhood experiences that 

can improve their learning readiness. These goals of CCDBG are strongly related 

to the preschool goals that our recent full committee hearing examined. 

Despite the similarities between child care and preschool services, there are some 

fundamental differences between the two: preschool is mostly aimed at 4-year olds, 

whereas CCDBG funds child care for children from birth to age 12; most preschool 

programs require specific teacher credentials, such as bachelor’s degrees, and child 

care tends to lack such provider requirements; and prekindergarten programs often 

have specific evidence-based curricular requirements, which are mostly absent from 

child care settings. 

A number of issues come to mind when we discuss federally funded child care programs - in order to make the best of our investment, these programs must provide 

access to those who need child care, must be affordable enough for families to use, 

and services must be of a high quality. 

Poor child care access, affordability, and quality means that continued Congressional support or reauthorization of CCDBG, including a modest funding increase, 

will be insufficient to meet needs of low-income working parents and their young 

children. 

On the topic of access, we know that despite about 1.4 million children receiving 

CCDBG subsidies, only one in six children eligible for federal child care assistance 

under CCDBG actually receives it. An estimated 590,000 children eligible for child 

care are on waiting lists in 19 states and that number doesn’t include two states 

that don’t keep waiting lists and instead simply turn away eligible families. Just 

40% of eligible children have access to Head Start. Barely half of 3 and 4 year olds 

are enrolled in preschool programs, and just a third of low-income children are enrolled in such programs. Early Head Start, established to provide quality child development services to children birth to age 3, reaches less than 4% of eligible infants 

and toddlers. 

Even when low-income families do have access to child care, it’s often 

unaffordable, forcing some of them to choose between paying for food, clothes, heat, 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

7 

or child care. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, families living in poverty spend 

an average of 30% of their income on child care, compared with 18% for families 

earning between 100% and 150% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL), and 7% for 

families earning at or above 200% of the FPL. 

On top of access and affordability issues American families face, we know that 

barely a third (35%) of 4-year olds in child care centers receive high-quality care. 

Because CCDBG prioritizes workforce support for parents over education for children, the quality of some of the child care it funds is poor, hindering some children’s 

development and learning. One report found that 42% of children are in state prekindergarten programs that meet less than half of the recommended quality standards. CCDBG requires that states spend at least 4% of their grants on quality activities, but this floor is clearly insufficient. 

Research from the National Center for Children and the National Institute of 

Child Health and Human Development confirms that children receive numerous 

benefits from good quality care such as better cognitive development, fewer behavioral problems, enhanced cooperation, increased school readiness, and improved language use and comprehension. They will also be less likely to be involved in the 

criminal justice system, become pregnant as a teenager, or drop out of school. As 

with prekindergarten, the return on public investment and positive outcomes are 

generated only by quality care - poor quality care can in fact be harmful and put 

children on the wrong path. 

That’s why an expanded federal investment in quality child care is needed, including Head Start, along with state support for preschool programs. Given the importance of the quality of care and early education to future outcomes, Congress and 

the administration are examining ways to 

improve the quality of publicly funded child care under the CCDBG. The bipartisan CCDBG reauthorization passed by the Senate two weeks ago emphasizes necessary quality 

improvements, including increasing the quality set-aside from 4% to 10%, and 

critical health and safety provisions, such as more program inspections and monitoring, and provider training, credentials, and professional development. 

I am eager for bipartisan collaboration to reauthorize the Child Care and Development Block Grant, as well as other legislation that addresses the educational needs 

of our country, such as the H.R. 3461, the Strong Start for America’s Children Act. 

We need bipartisan collaboration to allow all children receive the opportunity to fulfill their potential. Thank you. 

Chairman ROKITA. I thank the gentleman. 

Pursuant to Committee Rule 7(c) all subcommittee members will 

be permitted to submit written statements to be included in the 

permanent hearing record. 

Without objection the hearing record will remain open for 14 

days to allow statements, questions for the record, and other extraneous materials referenced during the hearing to be submitted into 

the official record. 

It is now my pleasure to introduce our distinguished panel of witnesses. First we have Ms. Paula Koos. She is the executive director 

of the Oklahoma Child Care Resource and Referral Association. 

Welcome. 

Next we have Mrs. Linda Kostantenaco. She is president of the 

national Child Care Association, the owner director of the Kiddie 

Koup Children’s Enrichment Center in San Antonio, Texas. 

I practiced your name much better then when I actually said it. 

That is the story of my life. Excuse me. Welcome. 

Dr. Olivia Golden is the executive director for the Center for Law 

and Social Policy otherwise known as CLASP. 

Welcome. 

Ms. Gloria Jarmon is Deputy Inspector General for Audit Services within the Office of the Inspector General at the US Department of Health and Human Services. 

Thank you for your public service, and welcome. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

8 

Before I recognize each of you to provide your testimony, let me 

briefly explain our lighting system. This is more of a reminder for 

us up here probably than it is for you, but just for the record, you 

each will be given 5 minutes to give your testimony. 

When there is 1 minute remaining, the green light will turn to 

a yellow light, and of course when it turns red, that means you 

need to have stopped unless you get gaveled down by me in an 

angry manner. 

I am sure it won’t be the case. It will be interesting dinner conversation. You can go home and say, ‘‘I was gaveled down in Washington.’’ In fact, I think there are T-shirts in the gift store. ‘‘I went 

to Washington and got gaveled down.’’ 

Now I would like to recognize Ms. Koos for 5 minutes. 

Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF MS. PAULA KOOS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

OKLAHOMA CHILD CARE RESOURCE & REFERRAL ASSOCIATION, INC., OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 

Ms. KOOS. Good morning. I want to thank the chairman, Mr. 

Kline, of the committee, Chairman Rokita of the subcommittee, and 

the members of the subcommittee for inviting me to testify today. 

Child care is a way of life for the majority of families. It is the 

same in Oklahoma, but child care is hard to find. It is hard to afford, and too often the quality is questionable. Parents worry about 

the cost and they worry about the safety of their kids when mom 

and dad are at work. 

I am the executive director of the Oklahoma Child Care Resource 

and Referral Association. My agency is one of about 600 CCR&Rs 

across the country. We help parents locate child care, and we give 

families consumer education so that they can make informed 

choices. Our services to families are free because of the child care 

development block grant, CCDBG. 

We also work with providers every day to help improve the quality of child care through training and technical assistance. Child 

care is actually a network of small businesses mostly owned by 

women. In my state this is an industry that generates $500 million 

in revenues and it employs over 20,000 workers who earn $290 million annually. 

My agency offers training related to strengthening the workforce 

and also business related training and technical assistance because 

we know sound fiscal management is the foundation of quality programs. 

I urge the subcommittee to consider business TA as an important 

component within the quality set aside. Oklahoma is well known 

for our strong child care system. Child Care Aware of America consistently ranked Oklahoma among the top five states in its review 

of child care licensing policies. We were also the first in the nation 

to establish a quality rating and improvement system for child 

care. 

Our Reaching for the Stars Program gives parents a better way 

to understand and choose quality settings. All child care programs 

that accept subsidy payments funded by CCDBG participate in the 

rating system. This offers parents choices and ensures that there 

is accountability in the expenditure of public funds. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

9 

But Oklahoma does not have a perfect system. We continue to 

work toward safety, accountability, and quality. 

Two child tragedies in Oklahoma led to the strengthening of our 

child care system. In May 2007, 2-year-old Joshua Minton died in 

a family child care home in Tulsa. The child care owner admitted 

to using masking tape to tape his hands and mouth because he was 

whining just prior to naptime. She is serving a life sentence today 

for first-degree murder. 

Despite a history of licensing violations the state did not act to 

close the program. Since Joshua’s death the state has revised its 

program closure policies and tightened state background check requirements and inspection enforcement activities. 

The second boy whose story I would like to share with the committee did not die. Demarion Pittman, a 3-year-old boy suffered 

heatstroke and extensive brain damage after being left in a stifling 

hot van operated by an uninsured child care program in August of 

2007. His family has already faced millions of dollars in medical 

costs. 

In 2008 state legislation was enacted to require all licensed child 

care programs to carry liability insurance. The measure also requires agencies that aren’t able to obtain insurance to inform parents that they have no liability coverage. 

Most states do not require child care programs to purchase liability insurance. And of the states that do, many are in response to 

tragedies. 

In conclusion, it has been 17 years since the child care and development block grant was last reauthorized. We now have the benefit 

of researched data that demonstrates clearly the disparity among 

state policies. It is time to provide some minimum protection for all 

our children to ensure the public dollars are spent in an accountable way. 

I urge the subcommittee to give every consideration possible to 

requiring comprehensive background checks for child care providers and volunteers who care for unrelated children; set minimum health and safety requirements for all children in child care; 

require those who work in child care to have at least 30 hours of 

pre-service training and 24 hours of annual training; ensure that 

all child care programs are subject to inspection prior to licensure 

and at least once annually, especially when CCDGB dollars are 

used to pay for care; increase the quality set aside for activities related to improving the quality of care; and consider a study by the 

National Academy of Sciences to review the cost of child care and 

recommend ways to design a better system. 

Thank you. I have several documents I would like to submit for 

the record. 

[The statement of Ms. Koos follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

10 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 1 here 87137.001
11 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 2 here 87137.002
12 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 3 here 87137.003
13 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 4 here 87137.004
14 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 5 here 87137.005
15 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 6 here 87137.006
16 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 7 here 87137.007
17 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 8 here 87137.008
18 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 9 here 87137.009
19 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 10 here 87137.010
20 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 11 here 87137.011
21 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 12 here 87137.012
22 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 13 here 87137.013
23 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 14 here 87137.014
24 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 15 here 87137.015
25 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 16 here 87137.016
26 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 17 here 87137.017
27 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 18 here 87137.018
28 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 19 here 87137.019
29 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 20 here 87137.020
30 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 21 here 87137.021
31 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 22 here 87137.022
32 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 23 here 87137.023
33 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 24 here 87137.024
34 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 25 here 87137.025
35 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 26 here 87137.026
36 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 27 here 87137.027
37 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 28 here 87137.028
38 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 29 here 87137.029
39 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 30 here 87137.030
40 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 31 here 87137.031
41 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 32 here 87137.032
42 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 33 here 87137.033
43 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 34 here 87137.034
44 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 35 here 87137.035
45 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 36 here 87137.036
46 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 37 here 87137.037
47 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 38 here 87137.038
48 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 39 here 87137.039
49 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 40 here 87137.040
50 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 41 here 87137.041
51 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 42 here 87137.042
52 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 43 here 87137.043
53 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 44 here 87137.044
54 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 45 here 87137.045
55 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 46 here 87137.046
56 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 47 here 87137.047
57 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 48 here 87137.048
58 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 49 here 87137.049
59 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 50 here 87137.050
60 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 51 here 87137.051
61 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 52 here 87137.052
62 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 53 here 87137.053
63 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 54 here 87137.054
64 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 55 here 87137.055
65 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 56 here 87137.056
66 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 57 here 87137.057
67 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 58 here 87137.058
68 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 59 here 87137.059
69 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 60 here 87137.060
70 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 61 here 87137.061
71 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 62 here 87137.062
72 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 63 here 87137.063
73 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 64 here 87137.064
74 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 65 here 87137.065
75 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 66 here 87137.066
76 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 67 here 87137.067
77 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 68 here 87137.068
78 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 69 here 87137.069
79 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 70 here 87137.070
80 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 71 here 87137.071
81 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 72 here 87137.072
82 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 73 here 87137.073
83 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 74 here 87137.074
84 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 75 here 87137.075
85 

Chairman ROKITA. And without objection, we will put those in. 

Thank you for your testimony. 

Ms. Kostantenaco? 

STATEMENT OF MRS. LINDA KOSTANTENACO, PRESIDENT, 

NATIONAL CHILD CARE ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mrs. KOSTANTENACO. Good morning, Chairman Rokita, Ranking 

Member Scott, and ranking members of the subcommittee. 

My name is Linda Kostantenaco, and I am the president of the 

National Child Care Association. NCCA represents over 12,000 private child care centers throughout the United States. 

Our membership is comprised of independently owned and operated family run businesses, employing over a quarter of a million 

Americans; most of whom are women. 

Our child care centers provide two vital components; education, 

along with a nurturing, healthy and safe environment. The balance 

of education and care is a crucial factor of education and care for 

parents finding the best child care center for their children. 

Further, our centers provide the peace of mind that enables parents to do productive during their working hours; working men and 

women are able to be contribute to society while their children 

learn and grow in child care centers across the country. 

But not every center satisfies every need. It should be noted that 

the importance of parental choice be maintained. Such flexibility 

ensures parents the opportunity to provide an appropriate child 

care center which satisfies their needs and the unique needs of 

their children. It is in this array of choice that facilitates the best 

partnership between a family and their child care center. 

When examining the need for parental choice, and the benefits 

private child care centers provide, it should also be noted that the 

significance of parental education and understanding of the available choices in their community. 

For example, it is important that we educate parents regarding 

the vital choice of identifying a licensed child care center that is 

regulated, inspected, and monitored by regulatory agencies to insure that the rules and regulations are kept at their highest standards. 

Our membership strives to offer the best child care available, 

and in these centers that ensure that high quality is met and 

maintained. Setting these standards ensures that such centers that 

receive private pay or subsidy funds for their children are performing at their best, and we should never compromise their values. 

Regarding my own center, I am located in San Antonio, Texas, 

and I receive funding for approximately 10 percent of my children 

in our care. In other communities through the United States the 

percentage of children receiving these funds can be as high as 95 

percent. 

Such funding not only assists low-income families but also includes care for children in protective services and foster parents. 

This enforces the need to place children in an environment that is 

conducive to their needs and providing them with a healthy and 

safe environment. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

86 

My center employs 22 hard-working women, and I would not be 

here sitting in front of you today without their unwavering commitment to quality care. My staff not only is hard-working, but dedicated, and as a private child care operator I understand the vital 

role continuing education which plays as part of maintaining a 

well-rounded, dedicated staff. Providing them with training opportunities that will help them in the classroom is essential in their 

workplace environment. 

Unfortunately, we cannot afford to pay our employees what they 

so deserve, as the profit margins within the child care industry is 

not significant, and a weakened economy only compounds this reality. 

Aside from salaries and maintaining an engaging center with 

toys and educational resources, I must also consider food, milk, 

utilities, gas prices for transportation, building and playground 

maintenance, and many other costs that create significant challenges in operating a private child care center. 

Due to all of these economic forces, we are not always in the position to pass these higher costs on to our parents, leaving me to 

absorb them as best I can. You can imagine the difficult situation 

I find myself in each year in awarding my staff with the pay they 

so deeply deserve. Their genuine dedication truly becomes a blessing when we move forward each day. 

That said, we offer a service to our working parents that is essential to affordable care for their children while they try to improve their family’s lives. 

These parents are working long hours, multiple jobs, or going to 

school to improve their own skills and education, and the funding 

from the Child Care Development Block Grant Program, CCDGB, 

goes a long way to help the families succeed. 

CCDBG assists low-income families in obtaining a safe, reliable 

and affordable place for their children while they continue to work 

for a better life. This program greatly supports the child care industry and it is comforting to know that the Congress is invested 

in child care as I am. 

I thank you all for your dedication and attention regarding the 

child care industry and the unique needs of our centers and staff. 

Funding and supporting our industry allows parents the opportunity to keep succeeding in this country and gives their children 

the opportunity to receive the nurture and education vital to their 

future success. 

I thank you, Chairman Rokita, for having me here today, and I 

look forward to the subcommittee’s questions regarding the private 

child care provider. 

[The statement of Mrs. Kostantenaco follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

87 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 76 here 87137.076
88 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 77 here 87137.077
89 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 78 here 87137.078
90 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Dr. Golden? 

STATEMENT OF DR. OLIVIA GOLDEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

CENTER FOR LAW AND SOCIAL POLICY (CLASP), WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Ms. GOLDEN. Good morning, Chairman Rokita, Ranking Member 

Scott, members of the subcommittee, I am delighted to be here 

today to discuss the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act. 

As we heard, it is abbreviated CCDBG. I am Olivia Golden, executive director of the Center for Law and Social Policy. 

I will very briefly touch on four topics; why CCDBG matters so 

much for parents and children, the federal-state partnership that 

is at its core, the program’s successes and remaining gaps, and 

next steps. 

Why it matters: The Child Care and Development Block Grant 

is an essential work support for low-income parents, as you heard 

from Mrs. Kostantenaco. 

Every day it provides access to child care for 1.4 million children. 

For those children’s parents, working long hours for little pay, help 

with child care is necessary if they are going to work and cover 

other basic expenses. 

The average annual cost of center-based care for a 4-year-old ranges from more than $4,500 in Tennessee to more than $12,000 

in New York State. When poor families get help with this cost, 

studies show that they can stretch their paychecks to buy needed 

food and clothing. 

But more than that, child care systems also helps parents get 

and keep a job and strengthen families’ economic security. Compared to families without subsidies, the research shows fewer job 

disruptions due to child care problems, better job retention, and 

higher earnings when families get help. 

Let me put a face to these findings. In July 2012, Rita, a lowincome working mother in Maryland, talked about the importance 

of child care assistance. 

‘‘These federal investments were a lifeline for me. I know where 

I came from and I do not want to go back.’’ CCDBG helped Rita 

afford child care, attend classes to develop work skills, and secure 

and keep a job. 

CCDBG doesn’t just help parents, it helps children. It provides 

an early learning experience for approximately 1 million children 

under age 6 each month and helps about 400,000 school-aged children access safe afterschool programs. 

When CCDBG is strong, when it is working well, it also promotes 

quality by helping low-income parents afford high-quality programs, which would be impossible or at least very difficult without 

assistance. 

A recent study confirmed that parents receiving child care assistance access better quality than parents who can’t get help. Studies 

of families on waiting lists for child care assistance confirm that 

families without help are often left with low-quality or unsafe options. 

Finally, CCDBG helps parents who work nonstandard hours on 

the weekends or evenings, which many low-wage workers do, by alCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

91 

lowing them to use more informal care settings that meet their 

needs. 

Since its inception, CCDBG has been a state-federal partnership. 

The federal government sets the broad parameters, including income eligibility limits and a floor for basic health and safety. The 

states make policy decisions within those parameters; who to serve 

and what specific health and safety standards to set above the minimum floor. 

In addition to providing direct help to families, CCDBG also 

funds something else important. It provides the bulk of the funding 

that supports child care and early childhood quality improvement 

in the states. That includes money to pay for inspections and monitoring of child care programs as well as training, professional development, and scholarships for early childhood educators, and 

many other things. 

Despite the importance of these accomplishments, significant 

gaps remain. Since 2006, more than 260,000 children have lost 

CCDBG-funded child care assistance. The number of children is 

now at a 14-year low. Rates paid to providers are extremely low, 

getting in the way of quality improvements. Many states fall short 

of ensuring the most basic health and safety protections for children. 

The Senate reauthorization for CCDBG is an important next step 

in the direction of fixing these challenges; improving continuity for 

children and parents, ensuring children’s health and safety, 

strengthening the quality of care and skills of child care teachers, 

and promoting program integrity. 

In addition though, to move towards these goals, given the low 

payment rates and the decline in children served, increasing resources for child care must also be a top priority. 

In conclusion, it has been nearly 20 years since the CCDBG has 

been reauthorized. We know a lot more now about the importance 

of the early childhood years, the quality of care, and the role of 

family income in children’s development than we did then. For all 

these reasons, I urge the committee to seriously consider these improvements to CCDBG. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Dr. Golden follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

92 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 79 here 87137.079
93 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 80 here 87137.080
94 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 81 here 87137.081
95 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 82 here 87137.082
96 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 83 here 87137.083
97 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank you, doctor. 

Ms. Jarmon? 

STATEMENT OF MS. GLORIA JARMON, DEPUTY INSPECTOR 

GENERAL FOR AUDIT SERVICES, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN 

SERVICES, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Ms. JARMON. Good morning Chairman Rokita, Ranking Member 

Scott, and other distinguished members of the subcommittee. 

Thank you for the opportunity to be here today to discuss the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General’s recent reviews of the Child Care Development Fund Program 

or CCDF. 

My testimony will summarize our office’s findings and recent reports and has three key takeaways. 

First, vulnerabilities exist in state standards and monitoring of 

child care providers that put the health and safety of some children 

at risk. Federal requirements mandating that states strengthen 

minimum health and safety requirements including background 

checks and strengthen monitoring including unannounced site visits would reduce those risks. 

Two, weaknesses in certain states’ fiscal controls over obligation 

and liquidation activities put CCDF funds at risk of being 

misspent. 

And three, HHS has identified the CCDF program as being susceptible to significant improper payments. HHS reported substantial progress in reducing the improper payment rate for the CCDF 

program from 9.4 percent in fiscal year 2012 to 5.9 percent in fiscal 

year 2013. However sustained attention will be needed to further 

reduce improper payments in this program. In fiscal year 2013, Congress appropriated $5.1 billion to CCDF 

which provides financial assistance for child care for approximately 

1.6 million children each month. 

CCDF subsidizes child care for low income children under age 13 

whose parents work or attend educational or job training programs. 

States are required to have health and safety standards in place 

for all child care providers including those providers receiving 

CCDF funds. 

These standards must cover three areas: prevention and control 

of infectious disease, building and ground safety, and health and 

safety training. 

Our work has demonstrated that guidance from the Administration for Children and Families or ACF recommendations may not 

be strong enough to ensure that the necessary background 

screenings of providers and unannounced inspections occur. 

We are performing health and safety reviews at a number of 

states. Our recent completed review of Connecticut showed that all 

20 of the providers reviewed did not comply with one or more state 

licensing requirements to ensure the health and safety of children. 

An example of noncompliance included flammable items such as 

lighter fluid and gasoline found either in unlocked cabinets or in 

the outdoor play area all accessible to children. 

We also review at each state the monitoring of licensed child care 

providers and report that all states comply with the federal reCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

98 

quirements to have health and safety requirements in place for licensed child care providers. 

However, states monitoring requirements for license providers 

did not always meet ACF’s recommendations for background 

screenings or the recommended standards for unannounced inspections. 

Additionally, we reviewed each states health and safety requirements and monitoring requirements for license-exempt child care 

providers. 

We found that a number of states did not report having any requirements for certain licenses and providers, and some reported 

that they did not have requirements in place to monitor licenses 

and providers. 

Other states reported limited monitoring and limited use of background checks. 

Our work also includes reviews of states’ use of funds for targeted purposes that are 100 percent federally funded. Weaknesses 

in certain states fiscal controls over obligating and liquidating 

these funds put CCDF money at risk of being misspent. 

To date our audits in four of seven states reviewed have identified a total of $5.8 million in targeted fund expenditures that did 

not comply with federal requirements over a 6-year period. 

Lastly, as part of our oversight activities we are required to review HHS’ annual improper payment information related to CCDF 

and other risk susceptible programs to determine and report compliance with the Improper Payments Information Act as amended. 

In fiscal year 2013 reporting, HHS estimated that improper pay- ments for CCDF program totaled about $306 million or a 5.9 percent error rate. This is a significant reduction from the prior year 

estimated improper payment error rate of 9.4 percent and represents much progress. 

Looking ahead, sustained attention by HHS will be needed to 

continue achieving reductions of improper payments in the CCDF 

program. 

In closing, I thank the subcommittee for its interest in our work 

and commitment to our shared goals: ensuring that federal CCDF 

dollars are used for their intended purposes of providing affordable 

child care to low income families that does not sacrifice quality or 

safety. 

I will be pleased to answer your questions. 

[The statement of Ms. Jarmon follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

99 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 84 here 87137.084
100 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 85 here 87137.085
101 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 86 here 87137.086
102 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 87 here 87137.087
103 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 88 here 87137.088
104 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 89 here 87137.089
105 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 90 here 87137.090
106 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 91 here 87137.091
107 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 92 here 87137.092
108 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 93 here 87137.093
109 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 94 here 87137.094
110 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Again I thank all the witnesses. 

Now I would like to recognize the chairman of the full committee, 

Chairman Kline. 

Recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank you for holding the hearing. I want to thank the 

witnesses for making the trip here. Delightful weather outside. 

Thank you for your testimony and for your work in this important 

area. 

As the House starts its process, this committee and the House 

starts its process of looking at reauthorizing this important legislation, we are very pleased that you were able to come here today 

and help us take a look at this. 

Mrs. Konstantenaco—I practiced as well—why do you think it is 

important for a state child care system to offer a mixed delivery 

model? And then can you tell us how private providers contribute 

to that mixed delivery model? 

Mrs. KOSTANTENACO. Well, it gives the parents a choice. Again 

we need to make them aware of the regulations that we follow, 

that they need to go to licensed child care in that vicinity. We want 

to make sure that there is a continuity of care. 

Again, we are there to nurture those children and take care of 

them on their daily needs through educating them as well. But 

again, for most of them the health and safety are a vital concern. 

Again, it is parents’ choice. They know what is best for their children, but again, sometimes they need that educational background 

to know that they need to go to a licensed child care and have that 

option to be able to choose where they need to go. 

Mr. KLINE. And the private providers offer those different approaches? 

Mrs. KOSTANTENACO. Yes. Some doing different hours of care, et 

cetera. 

Mr. KLINE. Okay, thank you. 

Ms. Koos—I didn’t practice that quite as much and probably 

should have—what steps do you think Congress should take to 

strengthen coordination among the early childhood education and 

early childhood care programs? 

Ms. KOOS. Well, I think the Headstart preschool partnership is 

probably a good start—that we are going to be working early Headstart and child care are going to be working together. 

I think one of the things that we need to be sure happens is that 

everybody is working under some of the same standards, that they 

are all looking at the health and safety of children. Not every program has the same standards. 

In Oklahoma we are attempting right now to come up with a system that incorporates pre-K, Headstart, and child care so that if 

you meet certain standards in Headstart you are also meeting the 

same standards in the QRS program for child care and you are 

meeting the same standards that the education department has established for pre-K. 

That is not necessarily true and so it makes it difficult to know 

when you are going program to program to program are they equal, 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

111 

are they comparable, do they have the same quality standards in 

place. 

Ms. GOLDEN. If I may add a comment about the national experience, I do think that there is a lot of really good work going on, 

as you describe, in states that are doing coordination. 

So for example, when I worked in New York State, partnerships 

between pre-K, Head Start, and child care, the potential for a 

child—because the Child Care and Development Block Grant is 

unique in its ability to support the children of working families full 

day and full year, so you might be able to have the core preschool 

program delivered for several hours in a setting and then support 

with child care dollars the full day. 

So I do think that collaboration is very important. All the systems need resources to make it work and the Senate reauthorization encourages even more of that, but I do think that is an important area where the child care block grant program is contributing 

to good partnerships going on around the country. 

Mr. KLINE. Okay. Thank you very much. I see my light has 

turned yellow and in probably a futile effort to set the example for 

the rest of my colleagues, I will yield back. 

Chairman ROKITA. I thank the chairman. 

Mr. Scott is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Golden, we just heard the question about interaction between pre-K and Head Start. If we want quality education, why 

don’t we just put all of the money in pre-K and Head Start? Why 

do you have to have the child care in addition to that? 

Ms. GOLDEN. Well, the reason we need all those programs to be 

strong—I think there are two big reasons—one of them which I 

just mentioned is that the Child Care and Development Block 

Grant has as its mission supporting care for working parents and 

so it has the capacity to provide full-day and full-year care. 

So there are, for example, partnerships like the one I mentioned 

where a child might be in prekindergarten or in a Head Start program but need care for the whole day—a mother who is working 

can’t take a child to a 4-hour program and pick them up again. 

I think a second really important reason is that the Child Care 

and Development Block Grant addresses children of all ages, and 

for infants and toddlers - I think it may have been in your opening 

statement - highlighting only about four percent reach through 

Early Head Start. 

We need far more resources in Early Head Start, but we also 

need the capacity through the block grant to reach those children 

and to reach school-age children. 

I guess the last thing I would highlight is that when researchers 

look at all those programs and look at the universe of needs, the 

families who are working and struggling to find care, what they 

find is a lot of unmet need in all of them. So we need to strengthen 

each of the pieces and make them fit together well. 

Mr. SCOTT. I think, Ms. Jarmon, you might be able to answer 

this. 

Everybody is talking about quality in general. What kind of initiatives are funded with the quality set-asides? Is that something 

that you looked at? 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

112 

Ms. JARMON. We haven’t looked at the initiatives related to the 

quality of set-asides. We are doing some health and safety reviews 

at several states. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay, let me get back to Ms. Golden. 

Ms. GOLDEN. Sure. I can give some examples and then you may 

have examples in other states. The quality resources from the child 

care block grant are really important for a whole range of things. 

They pay for training, professional development, a program that 

is sometimes called the TEACH program, where somebody in a 

child care program can get some further training and then come 

back and get a boost in their salary to reflect that credential. 

The quality rating system that I think Ms. Koos described in 

most states, setting that kind of system up where you would be 

able to give it from one star to four or five stars depending on the 

quality, and then you would be able to provide a program say that 

was a three star and wanted to get better, you could give them 

some resources to do that. 

That is another example. Sometimes things just as basic as the 

kind of equipment or materials that a home family child care provider needs to be able to provide an educational experience. Those 

are all examples. 

Ms. JARMON. Can I add a little bit more because I was thinking 

about the quality setting—we do work on targeted funds and some 

of those are for quality issues. 

Our work on the targeted funds is also in several states and we 

are actually looking at how the funds are accounted for and that 

is where we have found some issues where in some cases funds 

were obligated beyond the obligation period and had been in some 

cases liquidated beyond the liquidation period, but there we were 

focusing more on the accounting related to what we call targeted 

funds and I believe the quality is one of the three areas of the targeted funds, so I wanted to correct that. 

Ms. KOOS. What we know about quality is that the education of 

the child care provider makes a huge difference in the experience 

that a child is going to have in child care. 

One of the things that states can use their CCDBG dollars to do 

is to help pay for educational opportunities for child care providers. 

In Oklahoma we assist child care providers with college tuition. 

It also helps pay for training in general. Most of the CCR&R budgets come from the CCDBG dollars and most of the CCR&Rs provide 

training in Oklahoma. We provide about 50 percent of the training 

that child care providers receive in a year. 

Mr. SCOTT. I don’t want to cut you off— 

Ms. KOOS. It is also used to just improve training practices, so 

if you— 

Mr. SCOTT. I don’t mean to cut you off, but I am trying to get 

in another question before the red light comes on. 

Ms. KOOS. Okay. 

Mr. SCOTT. Ms. Golden, quality costs more than lack of quality. 

What are some of the costs if we don’t make these investments? 

Ms. GOLDEN. I think the costs if we don’t make quality investments are a lot better known now than they were 20 years ago. 

That providing quality care for children for young children pays off 

in terms of their later ability to succeed in life, so their ability to 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

113 

succeed in school, to make good choices as adolescents, to succeed 

as adults and the costs of not doing that are that children potentially to not finish high school or become parents too early. 

I also think that when it comes to the— 

Mr. SCOTT. Do these have an effect on the teen pregnancy rate, 

criminal justice system, drug abuse, dropping out? 

Ms. GOLDEN. I think it is fair to say that quality in early childhood has an effect on all of those things, yes. I also just want to 

say that in this program quality and continuity also have an effect 

on the parents’ work because if the problems cause the setting— 

cause it to be disruptive than the parent isn’t going to be able to 

work steadily either. 

Chairman ROKITA. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman’s time 

has expired. 

Ms. Fudge is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. FUDGE. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank you all for being here today. Thank you for your testimony. 

I would like to begin with Ms. Kostantenaco. A question—you 

mentioned the fact that most child care workers are women— 

Mrs. KOSTANTENACO. Yes. 

Ms. FUDGE.—who are paid low wages. 

Mrs. KOSTANTENACO. Yes. 

Ms. FUDGE. Can you give me some idea of what you think the 

effect of the low wages have on the child care programs themselves 

as well as the families of the people who work in this industry? 

Mrs. KOSTANTENACO. Okay. Well, if you don’t—if you are not 

able to pay your staff they go someplace else. In my history I have 

been very lucky to have a supportive staff that some of them have 

raised their children in my center when they started working for 

me. 

Again, it is hard to retain staff in some areas. I have been very 

lucky, but other people there is always an in— 

Ms. FUDGE. You have a great deal of turnover—it is a possibility 

for a great deal of turnover? 

Mrs. KOSTANTENACO. It can be, yes, it can be. 

Ms. FUDGE. And often a lot of these people too use safety net programs from the government to make ends meet, sometimes, right? 

Mrs. KOSTANTENACO. Yes. 

Ms. FUDGE. Okay. Thank you. 

Ms. Koos, let me just ask this question. You have been talking 

about raising the standard minimum requirements, which I agree 

with. But you know a lot of people in the House of Representatives 

don’t believe in regulation. 

Please express to me again why you think it is so important that 

there be some basic minimum standard to protect our children. 

Ms. KOOS. Well I think it is very important because we are talking about the safety of our children. In some states where there is 

no inspection prior to licensure and there is no inspection on a regular basis, a child can go into child care and wind up in kindergarten and the facility that they have been in has never been inspected. 

If people don’t know what they don’t know they can’t improve 

their practices and without some standards, some basic standards 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

114 

that say every program needs to meet this standard you can’t leave 

it to chance. 

Parents assume when you tell them that a program is licensed 

that they have met a certain limited number of regulations and 

that somebody has checked on it. That is not true in every state. 

We are very fortunate in the State of Oklahoma that if you get 

a license in Oklahoma you are inspected three times a year. That 

is very unusual because it is significantly less than that in many 

states. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you. I am assuming no one disagrees with the 

fact that there needs to be some basic—thank you very much. 

Ms. Jarmon, what are your thoughts on the Senate-passed bill as 

it relates to strengthening training for providers—you talked about 

in your testimony—strengthening training for providers and intake 

workers, plus monitoring, plus talking about background checks? 

You talked about all of that. Tell me again why you believe that 

would reduce the amount of fraud or abuse in this program. 

Ms. JARMON. Our reports have recommended some minimum 

level of standards also for heath and safety requirements including 

comprehensive background checks and strengthening the monitoring including unannounced visits, so our work has supported the 

need for that also. 

Ms. FUDGE. I just want to—and I am going to yield back—but 

I want to thank you all for coming. I know how important it is. 

Child care is a very important issue in this country for working 

people, in particular especially for poor working parents, for those 

who are just trying to get by, and I know the cost of it has continually gone up and our salaries haven’t gone up and people are having a very difficult time in this nation. 

So I thank you all for your care and concern whether you agree 

or disagree, I know that you all care about America’s children, and 

I thank you for that. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROKITA. I thank the gentlelady. 

Mr. Pocan is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. POCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you to the witnesses today. I come from a state where we 

have a Quality Star Program as well. In fact, we created it when 

I was in the legislature and now we are trying to see the impact 

and implementation of how that is coming together. 

First of all, let me start with Dr. Golden specifically to what the 

Senate passed. 

One, I am just wondering—you briefly touched some of the improvements that you perhaps suggest to that bill. Can you just expand on that a little bit? 

Ms. GOLDEN. In terms of the provisions of the Senate bill that 

are improvements to the program. 

Mr. POCAN. Yes. 

Ms. GOLDEN. I would highlight several categories. We have 

talked particularly about the improvements to the basic health and 

safety standards and the states monitoring, and we think that is 

about raising the floor from the federal point of view. That is important. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

115 

There are also improvements that focus on quality, on directing 

more state resources toward programs like what you heard about 

in terms of education and training. 

And then there are provisions that focus on continuity, on helping a parent and a child stay in that program for not—right now 

many parents get in and then in 3 months something bureaucratic 

has happened that isn’t their fault and they are moved out, and 

that is not good for children or for parents. 

So I think there are some very important provisions on all of 

those areas. At the same time I think we also think that resources 

are going to be an important part of making those provisions effective as another step for moving forward. 

Mr. POCAN. And that is what I meant—your suggestions for improvements to the Senate bill—I am sorry. 

Ms. GOLDEN. I am sorry. I think that the headline from our perspective would be that in addition to those improvements—to what 

the Senate bill does. 

The other big problems right now are problems about access; the 

number of children in the child care and development block grant 

program is going down because of resource constraints that affect 

the states—the federal dollars going down and affecting the states. 

A second problem is rates. You heard from Mrs. Kostantenaco 

about the salaries she pays her employees and that of course is directly affected by the rate that is possible that is paid to her. 

The Senate bill again includes improvements in terms of what 

states should take into account in setting rates. It tells them to 

take into account the cost of high quality care, but without resources to back that up and make it possible to do that, it is an 

important step. It is a key step along the way. It doesn’t get you 

all the way there. 

Mr. POCAN. Sure. 

I guess the same question that Ms. Koos. Since you have a system that is somewhat similar it sounds like to Wisconsin and that 

you have got a Quality Star system. What other improvements 

would you recommend perhaps to the Senate-passed bill? 

Ms. KOOS. We really believe that background checks would be 

very important to the safety of children. When state auditors 

looked across state lines, they found that Illinois had 90 matches 

for people who had sex offender status. Kentucky had 30, Massachusetts had 119, and Washington had 28. 

These were all people working in child care and they were working in child care because there was no background check, and no 

one knew that they were a sex offender, so background checks are 

really important. 

We are also concerned about safety issues and the training that 

happens for child care providers. 

Mr. POCAN. If I can get one more question in I think I can. 

Dr. Golden, the question would be when you look at some of 

these innovative child care assistance programs, things like the 

Quality Star et cetera, what are some of the other programs out 

there that are really worth taking a look at? 

Ms. GOLDEN. Besides the rating systems which we have talked 

about and the programs that provide help for college or for other 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

116 

experiences, I would highlight some innovations that help families 

get child care and keep it better. 

The provision in the Senate bill that suggests for example that 

when you re-determine eligibility, when you look again at a family 

you don’t have rules that make it impossible for a working parent 

to do it, like requiring them to stand in line all day. 

There are states that are experimenting with how to make the 

rules and the bureaucracy much, much simpler so that you don’t 

contradict the purpose of that underlies all this. 

The 12-month eligibility provision in the Senate bill grows out of 

innovations in some states now where they are trying again to 

make sure that you are meeting the original goal of the program 

which is not to put blocks in the way of people’s work but to make 

it easy, so I think there are innovations on that side as well as on 

the quality and the improvement of care. 

Mr. POCAN. Great. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Chairman ROKITA. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Polis is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. POLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for organizing this important hearing today. 

More than a decade ago in Colorado, I co-chaired a task force on 

high school reform. We had a bipartisan task force, a great group, 

and we parted out our final report by saying the best way to reform 

high schools is to ensure that we have universal access to highquality, early childhood education and then sit back and wait 14 

years and the high schools will look a lot better. 

Now that should not detract from the importance of improving 

our high schools today, but certainly all the major studies show 

that one of the most important investments we can make in closing 

the achievement gap and increasing graduation rates is at those 

early education levels; preschool, kindergarten, and even before. 

If we are serious about closing the achievement gap, we need to 

begin by ensuring that the achievement gap doesn’t arise in the 

first place and that children have access to high-quality child care 

and early learning opportunities. 

There have been a number of great studies that have been done, 

longitudinal studies over decades, 30 years that show that early 

childhood education is a good investment for our economy in terms 

of saving resources later on, in terms of reduced adjudication and 

incarceration rates, increased graduation rates and employment, 

and of course transformation in all of the lives of the people who 

receive those of services. 

Unfortunately, there is not enough high-quality early learning 

opportunities for families who stand to benefit from them and of 

course society stands to benefit from them. In my own city in Colorado, the Colorado Preschool Program only enrolls 29 percent of the 

state’s 4-year-olds. 

We do not have universal full-day kindergarten in my state of 

Colorado either. We estimate in Colorado that more than 16,500 atrisk 4-year-olds do not have preschool available to them through either Colorado Preschool Program or Head Start. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

117 

It is not just a point of frustration that preschool is not available. 

It is an issue of equity and achievement and of course long-term 

costs not only to the families affected but to society as a whole. 

I was certainly glad to see the Senate bipartisan reauthorization 

that would improve the quality of care that children receive. Of 

course we need a lot more than just that reauthorization, but I 

think there is certainly some language we can agree on. 

My first question is for Dr. Golden. 

Recently I introduced the Bipartisan Continuum of Learning Act, 

which would improve the quality of early childhood education without new federal spending by improving early learning standards or 

early childhood certification training and coordinating early learning programs with school districts. 

My question is around that latter point. I will open it up to the 

rest of the panel. 

How does child care fit into the continuum of early childhood in 

the K–12 system and why is it important to have child care coordinate its efforts in terms of deliverables on curriculum with the 

school districts in the K–12 system, and what can we do better on 

that front? 

Dr. Golden? 

Ms. GOLDEN. I would say that there is coordination of several 

kinds and it is uneven across states. I have seen it close up in a 

couple of states and in others a little less close-up. 

I think one kind of coordination we have talked about is around 

pre-K. In many states child care providers that meet a sufficient 

standard offered pre-K themselves. 

I remember when I was in New York State we were looking for 

child care and Head Start providers because they had the experience with young children and could work with the school district 

in a close way. 

There is also coordination often as I think you heard from Ms. 

Koos around trying to get your standards consistent and trying to 

have a shared training framework. 

Then there are kids in school and after school care, and so I 

think the goal there may not be you don’t necessarily need to have 

the same content in the after-school part of the day but you want 

to make sure that it works for children and for parents. 

I do want to highlight that almost a third of the children served 

by CCDBG are infants and toddlers, and so for them early childhood settings, like child care programs and family care homes that 

you can help to do a really good job, will have far more experience 

with infants and toddlers. The school system may not have as 

much helpful experience there. 

But I do think that the other key feature of the child care programs and of the early childhood system that I think is helpful to 

the school system and can improve quality in schools is that the 

early childhood and child care world has a tradition of being two 

generational, of caring about parents and about kids, and that is 

something that I have often seen is wisdom and experience and 

knowledge from the early childhood world that can come back and 

improve school programs. 

Mr. POLIS. Great. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

118 

Does anyone else want to briefly address this issue of coordination? 

Ms. KOOS. I think it is very important because if you look at 

child care, the average child spends 36 hours a week in child care. 

If you don’t acknowledge that child care exists and that is an important function of the family life right now you have missed a 

large portion of the population and a large portion of their day. 

You have to acknowledge that they are in child care. That is 

where they are. That is where we need to address policies and procedures for them. 

Mr. POLIS. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman ROKITA. I thank the gentleman. 

I recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

Again, I thank the witnesses. It has been instructive. Like many 

things around here we seem to have two common themes as I see 

them. One revolving around the standards and the other revolving 

around money. 

With regard to the money first, I am a budget committee member 

as well so I have to apologize, I guess, but that is of concern because if you all haven’t heard, we are broke, Dr. Golden. 

It is not just the $17 trillion that we owe—kids that don’t yet 

exist pay for. I can make a pretty strong argument if I wanted to 

suck up my 5 minutes about why that is so immoral. 

Notwithstanding everything each of you said. But it is the $200 

trillion that is on the way over the next 75 years that we are not 

going to survive. 

What I appreciate is when witnesses come with not only the 

problem but with the solution; not just we need more, we need 

more, we need more, but if that is the priority as each of you said 

led by Dr. Golden I would say in terms of testimony, okay, who am 

I to judge? But if that is the priority, what is not so much the priority anymore? That is the kind of leadership we need. 

So with that, I am going to ask Ms. Jarmon—talk to me about 

improper payments. Give me some specific examples of what you 

are seeing, what we can do to stop the waste and abuse if not outright fraud and direct existing dollars to the valid needs that have 

been discussed by the other witnesses here. 

Ms. JARMON. Yes, Chairman Rokita, as I mentioned, the improper payment rates for this program actually went down but is 

it still a large number. It still $306 million that was reported for— 

Chairman ROKITA. Yes, 5.9 percent. What does that mean? 

Ms. JARMON. That number—51 percent of—HHS reported that 

51 percent of that relates to administration and documentation errors like missing information in case records. 

Chairman ROKITA. So does that mean there are not many savings there to be had or there is? We can save money there or not? 

Ms. JARMON. What they can do is try to find ways to better train 

to make sure that these things are corrected so that the money is 

going to the providers who should be in the program and to the 

children who are eligible because the other 49 percent of the errors 

related to lack of verification. 

In some cases not properly verifying that these children who are 

in the program were eligible to be in the program and HHS has 

been working with the states to try to address this issue. They 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

119 

have incorporated—they are facilitating more peer-to-peer reviews 

between states because there are some states that have much higher error rates than other states so the states who have lower their 

rates maybe they can learn from each other so they are trying to— 

if more of those things can happen that should help to further reduce the improper— 

Chairman ROKITA. Have you found any fraud? 

Ms. JARMON. We haven’t in our work on improper payments. 

Chairman ROKITA. Have you looked for it? 

Ms. JARMON. Our work is focused on reporting improper payments. We have a fraud hotline where some fraud is reported to 

us, but I am not aware of it related to this program. I could get 

back to you on that. 

Chairman ROKITA. So nothing that you know that is retail or 

wholesale in that regard? 

Ms. JARMON. Right. 

Chairman ROKITA. Okay, thank you. 

Dr. Golden, really briefly; solutions. If this is the priority and I 

will note that since the last reauthorization we have more than 

doubled our spending in this area, so I am sure your testimony if 

it was back in 1996 would have been we are not spending enough 

and now we are still not spending enough. 

I don’t know the numbers on how many more kids that we are 

helping but I imagine that has gone up too. So the point I am trying to make, Doctor, is that this can’t be an open ended thing. 

There have got to be limits and priorities put on this. 

Talk to me in a positive manner about what we can do to better 

direct money to children so that they and their parents can lead 

better lives for themselves because that is what we want. We don’t 

want dependency on government right? 

Ms. GOLDEN. What I find particularly heartening about this 

hearing is the commitment that you and that everyone have expressed to child care as a central issue. 

I guess I do want to note one thing before going to the solutions 

which is that your thought about the trend that actually I think 

many people believe we have been going up but in fact, we have 

just fallen to a 10-year low. 

Both total spending at a 10-year low and average of children 

served at a low since 1998, so more than 10 years. That is a challenge in terms of— 

Chairman ROKITA. I am not sure—I just disagree with you. I 

would like you to submit that for the record because the figures I 

am looking at go from nearly 2 billion in 1997 to 5 billion now. I 

am running out of time. You have 5 seconds for a solution. 

Ms. GOLDEN. Sure. I think the solution we would be glad to work 

with you about the focusing on this priority and where else we believe there are resources— 

Chairman ROKITA. So not much of a solution at least right here. 

Thank you. 

I yield to Mrs. Davis for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you to all of you. 

I am sorry I am doing double duty here, so I wasn’t able to hear 

all of your discussion but I wanted to just go back to a few issues 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

120 

that I know you have covered today but if you could respond to 

those. 

Part of it is the options that parents have and again this is part 

of the solutions; access to affordable quality and I say child care 

and pre-K and we know that there are differences. 

Dr. Golden, do parents have enough options? We talk about block 

granting and the opportunities that states have used for that, but 

truly, what are the different options that parents have and if you 

as well could note those differences. 

I think you have talked about that a little bit but in terms of 

credentialing, in terms of there are so many issues involved if we 

try to separate out child care and true quality pre-K. 

Ms. GOLDEN. Well I guess first of all on the question of parents’ 

options I think—and I guess that this has come through in all of 

our testimony that the child care, the CCDBG program helps parents have more options than they would have otherwise. 

It helps them gain access to higher quality care than they would 

otherwise, and to safer care, and it enables them to gain access to 

options that could be in a family setting, in a center, that could accommodate low-wage work, late night, weekends, so that is an important strength. 

I think the other side of that which you have also heard in our 

testimony and which I am wrestling with as we talk about resources, is that many parents don’t have access to any of those 

things. The Child Care and Development Block Grant reaches 

around one in six of the eligible parents. 

Many states have waiting lists. Parents who don’t have help paying for care find themselves making choices that every day when 

they get to work your heart is in your throat because you are not 

sure it is a good choice or you lose your job. That I think would 

be number one headline. 

I think the second would be that making sure that parents who 

get help from the child care program are getting a high-quality setting for their young child. I think is what we have all been talking 

about. That involves both improvements within the program and 

coordinating well with other programs like Heart Start, Early Head 

Start, and prekindergarten. 

The Child Care and Development Block Grant often provides 

some of the glue to do that. For example, the rating system that 

lets you put the pieces together. Does that cover what you are 

thinking about? 

Mrs. DAVIS. Yes. I think part of it is where there are communities where this is not necessarily the case with the coordination 

isn’t as strong— 

Ms. GOLDEN. Absolutely. 

Mrs. DAVIS.—How do we provide those kinds of best practices or 

what is it that they need to be able to move forward? 

Ms. GOLDEN. Well, I think some of what they need is in the Senate reauthorization proposal, which talks about a variety of coordination requirements around a training framework that supports 

young children’s development and really highlights coordination 

not only with Early Head Start, Head Start, pre-K, but for example, programs with children with disabilities. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

121 

The Senate reauthorization puts in place a lot of the key pieces. 

I do think that beyond that federal framework there is a lot of 

technical assistance and then there are again the resources that it 

will take to do it, but I do think that the reauthorization includes 

some of the crucial pieces that put the building blocks in place so 

you can go ahead and make it happen. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Does anybody want to respond to what is missing in 

that? 

Ms. KOOS. It is possible to do. 

In Oklahoma, the subsidy system is tied to the Stars rating system and so 96 percent of the children who receive subsidy for child 

care are in 2-or 3–Star facilities, so they are in quality settings 

even though they get—they are in a subsidy situation. 

That is not true in every state. In some states the subsidy level 

is the same regardless of the quality of the program and so parents 

have to make choices that aren’t necessarily tied to quality but 

they are more tied to what they can afford from their pocketbook 

because a higher quality program costs more so they have a larger 

share to pick up if they go to a quality program, so that is an issue. 

We also have 76 percent of the children in the state of Oklahoma 

in our pre-K program, so we have to get them ready for that preK program, and then once they are in that pre-K program we have 

a larger percentage of the children in a pre-K program getting 

them ready for kindergarten. 

Ms. GOLDEN. One other thing that brings to mind that is helpful 

in the Senate bill and that could spread it further is that one of 

the obstacles to coordinating is sometimes if a state’s child care 

subsidy policies aren’t very strong. 

So for example, if a state doesn’t let children stay in the program 

for the full year but has policies that lead to lots of churning and 

turnover, that is going to make it really hard to coordinate with 

your child care programs, to coordinate with quality because the 

quality provider isn’t going to want to have to deal with that constant churning. So if the state— 

Chairman ROKITA. The gentlelady’s time has expired. I appreciate it. 

The gentlelady yields back. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROKITA. The ranking member is recognized to close. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank our witnesses. This has been an excellent hearing. We 

have heard that it’s quite necessary to fund the block grant as well 

as keep pre-K and Head Start and coordinate them together particularly in light of the fact that many pre-K and Head Start programs are only half-day, that is not enough for a full-time working 

person. 

We have also heard the cost of not making these investments. 

When you talk about the long-term budget situation when you have 

an initiative that can reduce teen pregnancy, dropouts, criminal 

justice involvement, drug abuse, suicide, and everything else many 

of which have extraordinary long-term cost implications, if you can 

make those investments upfront, you can do a lot to reduce the 

long-term budget implications. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

122 

So I think there is a consensus that we need to do something to 

improve the quality of the programs, and I look forward to working 

with you as we do that. 

I yield back. 

Chairman ROKITA. I thank the gentleman. 

I don’t have much in terms of a closing that hasn’t already been 

discussed except to say a few things. 

The first being thank you. I appreciate each of the witnesses 

leadership in their particular subareas of what I think is a very important obviously subject matter but also an important profession, 

one that it would seem to me is executed more out of love than for 

any kind of monetary gain. 

If I had more time, Mrs. Kostantenaco, in my questioning I 

would have asked you about if you found an employee shortage 

really or not or if regardless of the pay amount that you were or 

any of you were paying your employees whether that is really why 

they came to work or not. 

I would have also asked how many are you losing not just to 

other companies in the industry or other industries but if you are 

losing any to staying at home and collecting unemployment checks 

instead. That goes on for 2 years now in this country. 

Yes, and for the record, I am seeing some nods. Seeing some 

nods. 

There is some interesting comments that have been made here 

today about how people are struggling over 6 years now and there 

are other ways rather than more government dependence to get 

this economy going again. 

I think as Americans we ought to go back and explore some of 

those. That is a different hearing perhaps, but you all touched on 

it in a way. 

For the record, I want to make sure that I understood Ms. 

Jarmon’s testimony correctly. 

You haven’t necessarily found fraud in these programs, but you 

haven’t been looking for it either. You do a documentary review if 

I understand it correctly to look for based on paper reviews whether or not an improper payment has been made. That is a different 

kind of audit, correct? 

Ms. JARMON. Right. 

Chairman ROKITA. I see the witness nodding her head yes, so I 

want to make sure that is clear. 

I also appreciate what help will be Dr. Golden and for the other 

witnesses and others that are watching this hearing now about 

what the solutions can be that don’t necessarily involve throwing 

new money at a problem but what we can do to make sure the 

money that we have allocated gets to the people that really need 

it again so they don’t have to be dependent on this kind of program 

or any other one really. 

That should be our goal, so that people can be creating an environment where people can build the best lives for themselves and 

their families. It that should be it quite simply, and as I look at 

the witnesses here today I see that in your eyes and in the words 

you uttered that is the goal as well and that is very much appreciated. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

123 

With regard to the solutions and since this has been done to me 

in the past as I chaired this subcommittee by other ranking members not necessarily this one but I have sat in that they have asked 

questions as part of their closing. 

Very briefly I want to say out of fairness is there anything that 

you two, Ms. Koos, Mrs. Kostantenaco, want to add in terms of the 

solutions discussions that we started and what we can do to make 

these—aside from what has been said without throwing more 

money at the problem necessarily what we can do to make sure the 

money gets to where it is needed mostly? 

Mrs. KOSTANTENACO. Well, that we all work together and that 

the rules do not supersede state regulations and that we are all 

working together under the same thing to have it all work to the 

best of our abilities. 

Chairman ROKITA. Not supersede state regulation. 

Mrs. KOSTANTENACO. Right. 

Chairman ROKITA. So there is a recognition there that some 

states actually do it right. There is also a recognition of what you 

said I would think that a bureaucrat in Health and Human Services that is hundreds maybe thousands of miles away doesn’t necessarily care more for our kids than those adults that are closest 

to our kids— 

Mrs. KOSTANTENACO. That is correct. 

Chairman ROKITA.—including your employees. Thank you. 

Ms. Koos, anything else? 

Ms. KOOS. I would just say that we would like to see CCDBG 

focus on safety accountability for children. We want protections put 

in place for children so that all children when they go to child care 

are safe. 

Chairman ROKITA. Seeing no more business before the committee, we remain adjourned. Thanks. 

[Additional Submissions by Mr. Kline follow:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

124 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 95 here 87137.095
125 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 96 here 87137.096
126 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 97 here 87137.097
127 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 98 here 87137.098
128 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 99 here 87137.099
129 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 100 here 87137.100
130 

[Additional Submissions by Mr. Miller follow:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

131 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 101 here 87137.101
132 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 102 here 87137.102
133 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 103 here 87137.103
134 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 104 here 87137.104
135 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 105 here 87137.105
136 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 106 here 87137.106
137 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 107 here 87137.107
138 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 108 here 87137.108
139 

[Questions submitted for the record and their responses follow:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

140 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 109 here 87137.109
141 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 110 here 87137.110
142 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 111 here 87137.111
143 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 112 here 87137.112
144 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 113 here 87137.113
145 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 114 here 87137.114
146 

[Ms. Jarmon response to questions submitted follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

147 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 115 here 87137.115
148 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 116 here 87137.116
149 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 117 here 87137.117
150 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 118 here 87137.118
151 

[Ms. Koos response to questions submitted follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

152 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 119 here 87137.119
153 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 120 here 87137.120
154 

[Mrs. Kostantenaco response to questions submitted follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

155 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 121 here 87137.121
156 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 122 here 87137.122
157 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 123 here 87137.123
158 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 124 here 87137.124
159 

[Whereupon, at 11:20 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER