Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ED 459 919
TITLE
INSTITUTIONSPONS AGENCYPUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM
PUB TYPEEDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS
IDENTIFIERS
ABSTRACT
DOCUMENT RESUME
PS 029 987
Sound Investments: Financial Support for Child Care BuildsWorkforce Capacity and Promotes School Readiness.Southern Inst. on Children and Families, Columbia, SC.David and Lucile Packard Foundation, Los Altos, CA.2000-12-00168p.; For the related action plan, see PS 029 986.Southern Institute on Children and Families, 500 TaylorStreet, Suite 202, Columbia, SC 29201. Tel: 803-779-2607;Fax: 803-254-6301; Web site: http://www.kidsouth.org.Reports Descriptive (141)MF01/PC07 Plus Postage.*Change Strategies; *Day Care; Early Childhood Education;*Financial Support; *Labor Force; *Public Policy; *SchoolReadinessAccess to Services; Availability (Programs and Services);State Policy; *Subsidized Child Care Services; *UnitedStates (South)
In 1999, the Southern Regional Task Force on Child Care,comprised of appointees from 16 southern states including Oklahoma and themayor of the District of Columbia, with additional appointees from the otheragencies, was formed with the charge of developing a plan to improve accessto child care assistance for low-income families in the southern region. Thetask force received testimony from professionals, families, andrepresentatives of the business communities, identified barriers that impedeaccess to child care assistance for low-income families, and developed anaction plan to improve access to financial aid for families needing andseeking assistance. This report presents the plan, along with supportinginformation. Chapter 1 describes the work of the task force. Chapter 2discusses the reasons priority attention must be given to making qualitychild care more accessible and affordable for low-income families, includingthe positive effect child care can have on workforce capacity, the advantagesavailability of such care can bring to the welfare reform effort, and thefinancial support it can provide for early learning opportunities forchildren in low-income families. Chapter 3 presents an action plan settingforth 10 goals and 52 action steps to improve access to child careassistance. This chapter also includes descriptions of initiativesrepresenting progress made by various states in addressing the goals. Chapter4 describes planned activities for 2001 and beyond to promote implementationof the action plan goals and to address additional issues associated withimproving access to quality child care. The report's appendix presentsresults of a survey detailing the state/federal subsidy system policies andprocedures in each of 17 participating states. (Contains 56 endnotes.) (KB)
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)
)(This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it.
0 Minor changes have been made toimprove reproduction quality.
DecembeT 2000
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS
BEEN GRANTED BY
Kri5tine_14-arba5,,oi
Points of view or opinions stated in this TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESdocument do not necessarily represent INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)official OERI position or policy. 1
SoLO-ker% Re 5limet1 Tots It Force o% Ckild CaveRepo+ ot%di Acfio% Plot% -Por 44e Sotki-k
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
2
IKISTITUTC
ilcIrev 0,11\8 Fo"ilie,s
Tkis repot+ wots made possible by ot 5romf ;VONATke Dowid otvid LIAcile P OtCalr A FOIAttatOlfi0%.
3
Sound Investments:
Financial Support for Child CareBuilds Workforce Capacity
and Promotes School Readiness
The Southern Regional Task Force on Child CareReport and Action Plan for the South
December 2000
Southern Institute on Children and Families1821 Hampton StreetColumbia, SC 29201
(803) 779-2607http://www.kidsouth.org
4
Southern Regional Task Force on Child CareAlabama
Sophia Bracy HarrisExecutive DirectorFederation of Childcare Centers ofAlabama (FOCAL)
Arkansas
Janie FletcherDirectorDivision of Child Care and EarlyChildhood EducationArkansas Department of HumanServices
Delaware
Lynne HowardSenior Advisor on Family IssuesOffice of the Governor
District of Columbia
Carrie ThomhillVice PresidentYouth Investment & CommunityOutreachDC Agenda
Florida
Pat CrononExecutive DirectorHand 'N Hand Child Care Center
Georgia
Julie ShameGeorgia Child Care Council
Kentucky
Kim Townley, Ph.D.Executive DirectorGovernor's Office of EarlyChildhood Development
Louisiana
Gwendolyn HamiltonExecutive DirectorChildren's CabinetOffice of the Governor
Maryland
Linda HeisnerExecutive DirectorChild Care AdministrationMaryland Department of HumanResources
Mississippi
Carol BurnettDirectorOffice of Children and YouthMississippi Department of HumanServices
Missouri
Gary J. Stang lerProgram DirectorCenter for Family Policy &Research
North Carolina
C. Robin Britt, Sr.Executive DirectorUnited Child DevelopmentServices, Inc.
Oklahoma
Robert HarbisonRetiredChild Advocate
South Carolina
Candy Y. WaitesDirectorDivision of Children's ServicesOffice of the Governor
Tennessee
Natasha K. MetcalfCommissionerTennessee Department of HumanServices
Texas
Diane D. RathChairTexas Workforce Commission
West Virginia
Joan E. OhlSecretaryDepartment of Health and HumanResources
Southern Growth Policies BoardAppointment
Tommy DeweeseDivision Manager - ArkansasSouthwestern Electric PowerCompany
Southern Institute on Childrenand Families Appointments
Rebeca Maria BarreraPresidentNational Latino Children's Institute
Andy DownsExecutive Vice PresidentKentucky Chamber of Commerce
James T. McLawhorn, Jr.President and CEOColumbia (SC) Urban League
Sandra L. MurmanFlorida House of Representatives
Sarah C. Shuptrine, ChairmanPresidentSouthern Institute on Children andFamilies
Staff Work GroupGlenda Parker BeanExecutive DirectorSouthern Early Childhood Association
David DentonDirectorHealth and Human Services ProgramsSouthern Regional Education Board
Barbara GarrisonChildren and Families Program SpecialistChild Care UnitAdministration for Children and Families
Luis HernandezDirectorHead Start Quality Improvement CenterDHHS Region IV
Linda HokeSenior Program ManagerSouthern Growth Policies Board
Barbara Ferguson KamaraExecutive DirectorOffice of Early Childhood DevelopmentDC Department of Human Services
Desiree ReddickRegional TA Specialist
Susan D. RussellExecutive DirectorChild Care Services Association
Nancy von BargenChild Care AdministratorOklahoma Department of Human Services
Consultant
Gina C. AdamsSenior Research AssociatePopulation Study CenterThe Urban Institute
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgments
Executive Summary iii
Chapter
1. Introduction 1
2. Call to Action 4
Why Invest in Child Care? 4Child Care Costs More Than Public College Tuition, So
Where's the Financial Aid? 6Will Welfare Reform Succeed Without More Child CareResources? 8Rethinking Public Support for Child Care 11
How Support for Child Care Serves Local Economies 12The Benefits Few Employers Know About 13Does the Child Care Application Process Deter Families
from Applying? 14Affordable, Quality Child Care is an Investment in
America's Future 16
3. Action Plan 17
4. Southern Regional Initiative on Child CareAgenda for 2001 and Beyond 38
Endnotes 40
Appendix
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Southern Institute on Children and Families would like to express appreciation to TheDavid and Lucile Packard Foundation for providing support for the Southern Regional
Initiative on Child Care. Special appreciation is extended to Marie Young, our ProgramOfficer, for her support and leadership throughout the first year of the initiative.
The Southern Institute also would like to extend special appreciation to the followinggovernors of the 16 southern states and Mayor Anthony Williams of the District of Columbiafor their appointment of dedicated Task Force members: Governor Don Siegelman (AL),Governor Mike Huckabee (AR); Governor Tom Carper (DE); Governor Jeb Bush (FL);Governor Roy Barnes (GA); Governor Paul Patton (KY); Governor Mike Foster (LA);Governor Parris Glendening (MD); Governor Ronnie Musgrove (MS); Governor Jim Hunt(NC); Governor Frank Keating (OK); Governor Jim Hodges (SC); Governor Don Sundquist(TN); Governor George Bush (TX); Governor Cecil Underwood (WV); and the late GovernorMel Carnahan (MO).
The Southern Institute is especially grateful to the members of the Southern RegionalTask Force on Child Care, who have given of their time and expertise to develop a plan ofaction that stands as an example of effective collaboration.
Special appreciation also is extended to the members of the Staff Work Group, whoprovided invaluable guidance and assistance throughout this project. They served as ourbrain trust during the deliberations of the Task Force.
Special appreciation is extended to Joan Lombardi for her guidance and counselduring the initiative and to Gina Adams for her assistance to the Southern Institute and theStaff Work Group throughout this project.
The Southern Institute is also grateful to Louise Stoney and Jane Daugherty of StoneyAssociates for sharing their expertise and invaluable assistance in the design and executionof the Southern Institute survey.
The Southern Institute would like to thank the speakers and panelists who presentedduring the four Southern Regional Task Force meetings. They are: Gina Adams (UrbanInstitute, DC); Linda Hassan Anderson (National Black Child Development Institute, GA);Yeshey Beyene (Neighborhood Centers Inc., TX); Helen Blank (Children's Defense Fund,DC); Dennis Campa (Department of Community Initiatives, TX); Stephanie Fanjul (Division ofChild Development, Department of Human Resources, NC); Janie Fletcher (Division of ChildCare and Early Childhood Education, AR); Colleen Gallagher (Community Coordinated CareFor Children Inc., FL); Doris Hallford (Missouri Department of Social Services, MO); LindaHeisner, (Department of Human Resources, MD); Pennye G. Hicks (Gate City Day NurseryAssociation, GA); Barbara Ferguson Kamara (Office of Early Childhood Development, DC);Joan Lombardi (Child and Family Policy Specialist, VA); the Honorable Sandra Murman(Florida House of Representatives, FL); Doug Oakes (Coordinated Child Care, FL); theHonorable Howard Peak (Mayor of San Antonio, TX); Diane Rath (Texas WorkforceCommission, TX); Ann Rosewater (Regional Director, Region IV, U.S. Department of Healthand Human Services, GA); Susan Russell (Child Care Services Association, NC); DebraRusso (Florida Department of Children and Families, FL); Louise Stoney, (Stoney Associates,NY); Jerry Walker (Kids Advocacy Coalition, GA); Peggy Walker (Senior Vice President andRelationship Manager, Bank of America, and Chairman of San Antonio Smart Start, TX);Jearlyn Ann Weaver (Douglas County Department of Children and Family Services, GA);
Marianne White (Bank of America, FL); Don Winstead (Department of Children and Families,FL); Tracy Wolff (Smart Start Kindergarten Readiness, TX); and the Honorable Leticia Van dePutte (Texas State Senate, TX).
The Southern Institute also would like to thank those individuals who served asmoderators during the Task Force meetings: Andy Downs (Chamber of Commerce, KY) andPat Cronon (Hand 'N Hand Child Care Center, FL).
A special thank you is extended to the parents and members of the businesscommunity who participated in the community meeting in Rocky Mount, North Carolina, andto Bill Potapchek (Community Building Institute, VA) for his facilitation of the communitymeeting.
Special appreciation is extended to Henrietta Zalkind (The Down East Partnership ForChildren, NC) and Alethia Willingham (Very Truly Yours, NC) for their assistance withcoordinating the community meeting in Rocky Mount.
Appreciation also is expressed to representatives Of the Good Samaritan Child CareCenter in San Antonio, TX, for allowing the Task Force and Staff Work Group to tour theirchild care center.
The Southern Institute also would like to thank the child care administrators and childcare representatives of the 16 southern states and the District of Columbia for theircooperation and responses to the Southern Regional Initiative on Child Care Survey and forproviding the Southern Institute with information on child care subsidy program policies andthe application process in their respective states.
In addition, the Southern Institute would like to acknowledge Charlotte Brantley,Commissioner for Child Care, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administrationfor Children, Youth and Families, for her assistance and the assistance of her staff inproviding information needed by the Task Force.
9 ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N ever before has there been a more compelling need in our country to enact progressivechild care policies. For now, our economy is healthy and employment is up. America's
work ethic is a source of national pride. Americans also place family high on their list ofpriorities and want their children in safe, affordable, quality child care while they work. Withmillions of parents working at the lower end of the wage scale, and with many leaving thewelfare rolls, assistance in paying for child care is perhaps the most critical work-supportmeasure in which the federal government, states and the private sector can invest.
The inability of many families to pay for child care is a public policy issue with far-reaching consequences for southern states. To develop and maintain the Workforce requiredto fuel economic progress throughout the South, greater investments in strategies that makechild care more accessible and affordable are essential. To sustain the ability of families tostay off the welfare rolls, financial assistance in paying for child care is imperative. To assurethat all children have greater opportunities to participate in early childhood developmentprograms that enhance their readiness to learn, helping families afford quality services isbasic. Yet, there is inadequate attention given to the huge gap between the price of child careand the ability of families to pay.
The Southern Regional Task Force on Child Care
I n late 1999, at the invitation of the Southern Institute on Children and Families, governorsfrom 16 southern states and the mayor of the District of Columbia appointed representatives
to the Southern Regional Task Force on Child Care. Additional appointments were made bythe Southern Institute and by the Southern Growth Policies Board. The charge to the TaskForce was to collaborate in the identification of issues and the development of strategies toimprove access to child care assistance for low-income families in the southern region.During its deliberations, the Task Force received testimony from professionals, families andrepresentatives of the business community, identified barriers that impede access to childcare assistance for low-income families and developed an Action Plan to improve access tofinancial aid for families who need and seek assistance. Support for the Southern RegionalInitiative on Child Care is provided by a grant from The David and Lucile Packard Foundation.
The Action Plan goals presented below address the initial charge of the Task Force.The Task Force recognizes that improving access to financial aid for child care is a criticalcomponent in an overall plan to assure that low-income families are able to obtain affordable,quality child care that will improve opportunities for children and their parents. Beginning inJanuary 2001, the Task Force will move to the next phase .of its work and will addressadditional issues that affect access to affordable, quality child care.
Chapter 2 of this report discusses the many reasons priority attention must be given tomaking quality child care more accessible and affordable for low-income families, includingthe positive effect child care can have on workforce capacity, the advantages it can bring tothe welfare reform effort and the much-needed financial support it can provide for earlylearning opportunities for children in low-income families.
A survey of the 17 participating states was conducted for the Task Force to collectdetailed information on the state/federal subsidy system policies and procedures in each
III
10
state. Survey results are presented in the appendix to this report. In-depth discussions,testimony and survey data all contributed to the identification of issues and opportunities. TheTask Force identified the following issues as barriers to child care financial assistance:
A significant underfunding of the public child care subsidy system;A eligibility policies and systems that hinder access to public child care subsidies;A the need to create employer partnerships;A the lack of federal and state tax strategies, e.g., refundable child care anddependent tax credits.
Action Plan
The Action Plan developed by the Southern Regional Task Force on Child Care calls forbold action to make child care financial aid available and accessible for low-income
parents who need and seek it. The Action Plan contains 10 goals that urge public and privatesector leaders to support specific initiatives, including significant increases in child careresources, eligibility simplification, improved customer service, implementation of taxstrategies and creation of employer partnerships. Fifty-two action steps that addressimplementation of the goals are listed in Chapter 3. Participating states have submittedinformation on initiatives that represent progress made toward addressing the goals andaction steps. The brief descriptions include contact information.
GOAL 1
Federal, state, local and private funds should be sufficient to meet 100% of need fordirect child care assistance, based on initial eligibility levels at 85% of the state medianincome. Redetermination levels should allow families to retain child care assistanceuntil they reach 100% of the state median income.
GOAL 2
States and communities should broaden their child care eligibility and subsidy policiesto meet the economic, work and education needs of families.
GOAL 3
Outreach initiatives should be designed and aggressively implemented to assure thatfamilies have accessible and easy-to-understand information on child care assistanceand are provided assistance in applying.
iv
GOAL 4
The child care application and redetermination processes should be uncomplicatedand family friendly.
GOAL 5
Establish a coordinated, seamless eligibility system so that funding sources areinvisible to families and support continuity of child care.
GOAL 6
Establish customer service outcome goals and set standards to ensure that all familiesare treated with dignity and respect and are served in an efficient manner.
GOAL 7
Design the subsidy system so that rate structures assure that families receiving childcare assistance have access to all types of child care and disallow charges aboveestablished co-payments
GOAL 8
Create partnerships with employers to expand child care assistance for workingfamilies.
GOAL 9
Provide child care assistance to working families through federal and state tax laws.
GOAL 10
States should have effective, coordinated systems to guide child care and earlychildhood policy decisions and direct use of resources.
2001 AND BEYOND
The Southern Regional Task Force on Child Care will monitor progress towardaccomplishing the Action Plan goals. As described in Chapter 4, implementation activities
will include state site visits to each of the 16 states and the District of Columbia, a SouthernRegional Forum on Child Care and a report issued in December 2001 on progress made bythe states toward achieving the goals. In addition to implementation activities, the Task Forcewill begin to address additional issues related to accessing quality child care.
12 v
Chapter 1INTRODUCTION
mrhe inability of many families to pay for child care is a public policy issue with far-reachingconsequences for southern states. To develop and maintain the workforce required to fuel
economic progress throughout the South, greater investments in strategies that make childcare more accessible and affordable are essential. To sustain the ability of families to stay offthe welfare rolls, financial assistance in paying for child care is imperative. To assure that allchildren have greater opportunities to participate in early childhood development programsthat enhance their readiness to learn, helping families afford quality services is basic. Yet,there is inadequate attention given to the huge gap between the price of child care and theability of families to pay.
Following a series of site visits in 1997 by the Southern Institute on Children andFamilies to 17 southern states and the District of Columbia, it was apparent that child careagencies and advocates had been unable to garner the commitment of policymakers toaddress the unmet need for child care assistance. Thousands of families needed help withpaying for child care and were not receiving it due to limited public funding of child caresubsidies. They needed child care assistance in order to work. They needed it to attendschool or job training classes. And they needed it to search and interview for jobs.
Discussions duringthe Southern Institute sitevisits in 1997 revealedmajor concern on the partof state agencies andadvocates regardinginsufficient funding forpublic child caresubsidies, especially inlight of the passage ofwelfare reform. In additionto the lack of publicfunding, there were fewexamples of businesses weighing in to help low-wage parents pay for child care.
Subsequent to the site visits, the Southern Institute surveyed the southern states andthe District of Columbia to identify issues related to improving access to child care assistance.The 1997 Southern Institute survey requested information related to policies that govern childcare eligibility, funding and child care application/redetermination process requirements. Areport by the Southern Institute published in February 1998 outlined the findings of the sitevisits and the state survey and led to the establishment of the Southern Regional Initiative onChild Care in January 2000.1
The Southern Regional Initiative on Child Care provides southern states and theDistrict of Columbia with the opportunity to collaborate on strategies to bring about moreinformed leadership, to develop policy recommendations and to achieve results in improvingaccess to child care assistance for families who are unable to pay for child care on their own.
To develop and maintain theworkforce required to fuel economic
progress throughout the South, greaterinvestments in strategies that make child
care more accessible and affordableare essential.
131
Support for the initiative is provided by a grant from The David and Lucile PackardFoundation.
A 22-member Southern Regional Task Force on Child Care guides the initiative. TheTask Force is composed of public and private sector representatives from 16 southern statesand the District of Columbia. Task Force membership includes appointees recommended byeach state's governor and the mayor of the District of Columbia. A Staff Work Groupcomposed of child care experts, as well as policy staff from the Southern Growth PoliciesBoard and the Southern Regional Education Board, supports the Task Force.
Because financial aid issues are central to helping lower-income families accessquality, affordable child care, the initial area of focus for the Southern Regional Initiative onChild Care is improving access to financial aid through strategies such as public subsidiesand corporate partnerships. Beginningin January 2001, continued supportfrom The David and Lucile PackardFoundation will enable the initiative tofacilitate collaboration across thesouthern region to address issuesrelated to accessing quality child care.
In April 2000, the SouthernRegional Initiative on Child Carepublished a report titled Child Care inthe Southern States: ExpandingAccess to Affordable Care for Low-Income Families and FosteringEconomic Development.2 The reportpresented a strong case for thesouthern states to place priorityattention on making child care moreaffordable. Findings from the reportare discussed in Chapter 2.
The Southern RegionalInitiative on Child Care also surveyedthe southern states and the District ofColumbia during the summer of 2000to gather information needed to makeinformed decisions on improvingpolicies that govern access to childcare assistance. The results of thesurvey are discussed in Chapter 2,and survey tables are attached as anappendix to this report.
The Task Force met four timesduring 2000 to receive testimony anddeliberate on issues related toimproving access to child care
Southern Regional Initiativeon Child Care
Participating States
AlabamaArkansasDelaware
District of ColumbiaFlorida
GeorgiaKentucky.LouisianaMaryland
MississippiMissouri
North CarolinaOklahoma
South CarolinaTennessee
TexasWest Virginia
Notes:
For purposes of simplification in this report, the Districtof Columbia will be identified and referenced as a"state."
Virginia was invited to participate in this initiative butdeclined.
14 2
assistance. The meetings held in Georgia, North Carolina, Florida and Texas identifiedissues and led to the development of goals and action steps designed to achieve greateraccess to affordable child care across the southern region.
Chapter 2 describes the many reasons the federal government and public and privategroups throughout the southern states should move aggressively to take actions to assurethat lower-income families have the financial assistance needed to greatly improve theiraccess to quality, affordable child care.
Chapter 3 provides an Action Plan that sets forth 10 goals and 52 action steps toimprove access to child care assistance. Participating states have submitted informationabout initiatives that represent progress made toward addressing the goals and action steps.These brief descriptions include contact information. Chapter 4 describes planned activities in2001 and beyond to promote implementation of the action plan goals across the southernregion and to address additional issues associated with improving access to quality childcare.
A statement in the recently released report of the National Research Council and theInstitute of Medicine puts into perspective the reasons efforts to improve access to child carefor low-income families are of critical importance to our nation :
"The developmental effects of child care depend on its safety, theopportunities it provides for nurturing and stable relationships and its provisionof linguistically and cognitively rich environments. Yet the child care that isavailable in the United States today is highly fragmented and characterized bymarked variations in quality, ranging from rich, growth-promoting experiences tounstimulating, highly unstable and sometimes dangerous settings. The burdenof poor quality and limited choice rests most heavily on low-income, workingfamilies whose financial resources are too high to qualify for subsidies yet toolow to afford quality care."3
15 3
Chapter 2A CALL TO ACTION
Never before has there been a more compelling need in our country to enact progressivechild care policies. For now, our economy is healthy and employment is up. America's
work ethic is a source of national pride. Americans also place family high on their list ofpriorities and want their children in safe, affordable, quality child care while they work. Withmillions of parents working at the lower end of the wage scale, and with many leaving thewelfare rolls, assistance in paying for child care is perhaps the most critical work-supportmeasure in which the federal government, states and the private sector can invest.
As a nation, we are poised at an important crossroads. Will we provide assistance tohard-working families who need child care in order to remain employed but cannot afford topay for it? Will we make prudent investments in our children's earliest care and educationalexperiences, proven bythe latest research toenhance their futurelearning potential andachievement$ Or willwe continue to toleratepatterns of underfundingthat place millions ofchildren and theirparents at risk offailure? The way we choose to respond to this challenge has profound implications, especiallyfor families residing in the South, where the number of employed women with childrenexceeds the national average.
Child care assistance is perhaps the mostcritical work-support measure in which
the federal government, states andthe private sector can invest.
Why Invest in Child Care?
it is essential to invest in child care because times have changed. In what the U.S.!Department of Labor calls "one of the most significant social and economic trends inmodern U.S. history," the percentage of women in the workforce has jumped from 28 percentin 1940 to 40 percent in 1966, and to 60 percent in 1998.5 The number of working womenwith children under the age of six proportionately increased even faster in the workforce. By1998, almost three out of four women with children were in the workforce (see Exhibit 1).
Additionally, the number of single-parent families, most headed by women, has morethan doubled in the past 30 years. In 1970, 11 percent of family households with childrenwere headed by a single parent, and today more than one out of four American families withchildren, 27 percent, are headed by a single parent.6
Ever-increasing numbers of American families with children, especially.low-incomefamilies, now rely on the incomes of both parents working outside the home! In fact, onlyabout 12 percent of American children under the age of six live in families in which the motherdoes not work outside the home and is available to care for preschool children. In the South,
Increase in Working Mothers
','-:,:is.,'
.._.
,..; ,::!sz:`,`,
:::;.,.:4'::::::::
.1947
.."s' ,,,L''...:. ,-..!..;
1999
"i'a
vs.;
z r
4i.dir
'?
1
,`$.. -"'-'1 :-',.. ,..1i...4".i. :80 esI.,
:.:"....2 2.::::., ..T..'z.?
%, C''''''.ee'4,',":'....;:Ye Y'AS
'''.. ' Aq:`'Zij.";1{1::."''' ('1.1.''2:4: s', ,::,,:h ' ::%3;`, .A1...,-.'
''' '''' '',:',A:,1 ',';L3 '.,-''-,.,....,,,,...., ......,
%,...,....,,,m,.,. . ,... , r ......
Children less than 6 Children 6 and over
SS
Exhibit 1
where 14 out of 17 southern states exceed the national average of women with childrenworking outside the home, even fewer preschool children have mothers who can stay athome to care for them.8
Clearly, the 1950s image of the two-parent American family, with the mother as full-time homemaker and the father in the workplace, has become the exception rather than thenorm in our society. Child care policy, unfortunately, has not kept up with the rapid increase ofmothers working outside the home.
The importance of child care in building workforce capacity was stressed in an April2000 report prepared for the Southern Institute:
"In many ways, the economic expansion that is currently occurring in theUnited States has been possible because of dual-income families. And it ischild care that has made it possible for families to work. Subsidized child careis an especially important support for the service industry. Comprised largely ofsmall businesses with jobs at hourly wages, the service industry is the fastestgrowing employment sector in the country. By making subsidized child careavailable to the parents who assume low-wage, entry-level jobs, government issupporting the service industry itself (which could not grow without a stronginflux of new workers) as well as the parent (who could not afford to take a low-wage, entry-level job without help in paying for child care)."9
In addition to building workforce capacity, assistance in paying for child care canprovide otherwise unattainable opportunities for children in low-income families. Such
51_7
assistance supports the efforts of states across the South to improve the readiness of youngchildren to succeed in school. The links between early education and child care are profound.Children don't wait until they officially enter school to begin learning; children learn from thetime they are born, during every moment of the day. New brain research has underscored thislink and demonstrated that the first three years of life are critical in children's intellectualdevelopment."0 And longitudinal studies have shown that investments in pre-kindergartennot only can boost IQ but also have a lasting and sizable effect on school achievement, graderetention, high school graduation, special education and socialization.11 But because so fewfamilies receive help paying for care, and financial support is rarely made available to childcare programs, most low-income families have few choices about the child care they use.
Child Care Costs More Than Public College Tuition,So Where's the Financial Aid?
Acritical issue for working families is the undisputed fact that child care is expensive. Childcare, on average, is the third largest expense for all families with preschool-age Children,
after housing and food expenditures.12 In 1993, the most recent year for which U.S..Censusdata are available, the average child care expenditure for families with a preschool-age child
$6,000
$5,000
$4,000
$3,000
$2,000
$1,000
$0
Child Care Costs More Than Public College Tuition
Annual Cost of Child CafeClAnnual Cost of Tuition
111111111s ,,e ee die de0C de so.
coo AXer2
Source: Louise Stoney, Child Care in the Southern States (Columbia, SC: Southern Institute on Children and Families, April 2000).
Exhibit 2
was $4,108 per year. In each of the 17 southern states, the annual cost of enrolling afour-year-old in a full-time child care center is more than annual state university tuition (seeExhibit 2).13
Obviously, the expense of child care disproportionately impacts low-income families,who pay a much higher percentage of their income for child care than middle or upperincome families. Forexample, anunsubsidized family withtwo parents workingminimum wage jobs inFlorida, Georgia, NorthCarolina or Virginia couldspend as much as 40percent of their incometo purchase center-based child care for an infant and a four-year-old. In Texas, such a familywould have to spend one-third of their income for child care, in Delaware, 47 percent of theirincome and in Maryland 60 percent of their income, based on the average price of child carein those states.14 In fact, for a two-parent family with an infant and a four-year-old in whichboth parents work full-time in minimum wage jobs and earn a combined income of $21,400before taxes, the cost of child care is a serious barrier to work.15
For single parents, the cost of the child care that allows them to work can be evenmore staggering. Single parents typically use more hours of child care per week to work full-time because they do not have another adult in the home to help them transport children orcare for them in the event of illness or other emergencies." In Florida, Georgia or NorthCarolina, a single parent earning a good salary in a service-industry job one and a halftimes the minimum wage ($16,068 annual/full time) could spend as much as 53 percent oftheir income to purchase center-based care for an infant and a four-year-old. Similar care inVirginia could consume 53 percent of a working single parent's income and in Missouri 63percent.17
A common misconception is that many parents can use free child care provided byrelatives or friends, who are often referred to as "kith and kin." But most families do not havekith and kin available to care for their children, and many of those who do must pay thesefriends and relatives to care for their children. U.S. Census data indicate that, on average,only about a quarter of American families use informal child care provided by relatives (otherthan a parent).18 Among those who do have access to kith and kin care, one-third reportpaying family and friends for that help.19
What can be done to help low-income families with the child care affordabilitydilemmas they face? Public and private child care subsidies can help families pay for childcare. The Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) is the primary source of federal fundingfor child care subsidies for low-income families.20 Each state qualifies for an annual amountof federal funding appropriated based on federal guidelines. To receive additional federalmoney, states are required to put up matching funds. States have discretion in establishingincome eligibility levels for their child care subsidy programs.
A 17-state survey conducted for the Southern Institute this year collected data on statepublic subsidy system policies and eligibility issues. The results of the survey are presented
Child care, on average, is the third largestexpense for all families with
preschool-age children, after housingand food expenditures.
719
in an appendix to this report. Survey findings show that state eligibility levels vary significantlyacross the southern region, from 42 percent to 85 percent of the state median income.21Survey results also show that states across the South overwhelmingly cited lack of fundingfor child care assistance as a major barrier to serving all eligible families.22 And a recentfederal report stated: "In 1998, states obligated all the available federal mandatory child carefunding, including federal matching funds."3
The CCDF was designed to help states provide child care assistance to families at orbelow 85 percent of the state median income, but insufficient federal and state funds havebeen appropriated to help all families that fall within that target group.24 The result is that,nationwide, only 10 percent of income-eligible families receive child care assistance. In fact, a
recent federal study showedthat not a single state couldserve even a fourth of itseligible families.25
As shown in Table 1 onthe following page, theunderfunding of child caresubsidies is even more-
dramatic in the South. Eight states Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Maryland, Mississippi,South Carolina, Texas and Virginia provide subsidies for fewer than 10 percent of thefamilies who are eligible under the 85 percent of state median income guideline.
An additional public policy issue is that even when low-income families obtain accessto public subsidies, the co-payment amount hinders access to subsidies. States determinethe amount of co-payment families'pay. In the 17 states surveyed by the Southern Institute,the maximum co-payment families make ranges from 4 percent to 30 percent of their income.In 11 out of 17 states, the maximum co-payment is greater than 10 percent of income(Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri,Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas).26 Arkansas is the only state that does not have a co-payment for families with income at or below the federal poverty level. The other 16 stateshave co-payments ranging from .07 percent to 16 percent of income for families at or belowthe poverty level.27 To put these numbers in perspective, consider the U.S. Department ofEducation (DOE) criteria for determining eligibility for federal financial aid. The DOEguidelines would require a median-income family to pay only 5 percent of its income forcollege costs and this is after the family has had many years to save for this costlyendeavor.25
Nationwide, only 10 percentof income-eligible families receive
child care assistance.
Will Welfare Reform Succeed Without MoreChild Care Resources?
The passage of welfare reform in 1996 ended the old welfare system with a major push forall able-bodied adults to work outside the home, including single parents. Subsidized child
care is a major part of that effort.Under federal law, states have the option to increase funding for child care by
reallocating up to 30 percent of their welfare, or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
n.0 8
Table 1Estimates of Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF)
Eligibility and ReceiptChildren (AN erage Monthly Estimates)
(2) Eligible(1) Parents for CCDF (if (3) Eligible (4) Receiving (5) Served as
Working or in state limits for CCDF CCDF % ofEducation & raised to (under state Subsidies PotentialTraining (no Federal rules in effect (April-Sept. Eligibles
State income limit) maximum) OcL 1997) 1998) (Col. 4/Col. 2)
Alabama 49437.00 2:33 300 1033500 _2.20 5.3p _ix,Arka n <n<i 348,100 180,600 100,200 9,240 5%
Delaware 89,300 50,700 22,100 6,140 12%
District ofColumbia 51,100 31,500 31,500 3,850 12%
Florida 1,434,200 705,300 421,900 46,640 7%
Georgia 913,200 485,200 331,200 47,210 10%
Kentucky 427,100 170,200 90,800 25,010 15%
Louisiana 450,800 219,700 219,700 35,180 16%
Maryland 610.000 259 900 91,300 21 380 8%
Mississippi 364,600 185,500 160,000 7,870 4%
Missouri 654,000 305,600 129,400 42,600 14%
North Carolina 819,600 411,400 343,100 74,250 18%
Oklahoma 374,500 191,100 178,800 39,930 21%
South Carolina 466,400 231,000 115,200 21,730 9%
Tennessee 671,000 346,000 183,600 54,820 16%
Texas 2,309,600 1,161,700 1,013,400 78,960 7%
Virginia 685,200 348,100 216,300 23,880 7%
West Virginia 117,400 52,700 28,200 12,900 24%
United States 30,393,900 14,749,500 9,851,000 1,530,500 10%
Notes: First four columns of estimates were generated from the Urban Institute's TRIM3 mode).(1) Children <13 Or disabled and below state age limit for disabled) with both parents waiting or in .
education/trnining programs. No income limit.(2) Children from (1), if family income below 85 percent of State Median Income, the maximum limit
allowed ondar Federal law.(3) Children from (1), if family income below eligibility limits set by each state (based on limits in effect as
of October 1997).(4) Rctimated children receiving CCDF child care subsidies, April-Sept. 1998. State administrative data
reported to Child Care Bureau and adjusted to reflect CCDF subsidies only. Estimates are preliminaryand subject to revision.
Source: Excerpt from Table 1, Access to Child Care for Low-Income Working Families, US Department ofHealth and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. October 19, 1999.
(TANF), block grant to the CCDF. Between 1998 and 1999, states more than doubled theirtransfers from TANF to CCDF. According to transfer data reported during FY 1999, statestransferred $2.43 billion from TANF to CCDF, which represents 15 percent of the TANF blockgrant.29
The National Governors' Association (NGA) in 1998 commissioned a special study ofstate child care policies as a means of implementing welfare reform. While acknowledgingthat additional efforts were urgently needed, the NGA found from the responses of 32 statesthat, "States are improving services for children by maximizing the flexibility of funding
0 96.
streams and encouraging the coordination of services at the local level. The flexibilityprovided by TANF and CCDF significantly enhances state capacity to promote collaborationand create more coordinated systems."3u The NGA cited a number of effective public-privatepartnerships that contribute to the success of child care, calling the partnerships essentialcomponents of welfare-to work-policies. The NGA's citations included, as examples, programsin Florida and North Carolina.31
Research has shown that child care subsidies increase employment rates andearnings for low and moderate income parents. A study in Miami-Dade County, Florida, foundthat increasing childcare funding raises theprobability that currentand former welfarerecipients will find paidjobs. An increase of$145 dollars in subsidyspending per childincreased the likelihoodof employment from 59percent to 71 percent forcurrent and formerwelfare recipients.32
During the earlystage of welfare reformimplementation, the Southern Institute worked in cooperation with state officials to conductsite visits to 17 southern states and the District of Columbia. Site visit meetings wereattended by health and human services officials and community groups. Discussions centeredon the identification of actions needed to improve access to benefits needed by low-incomefamilies. The 1997 site visit discussions indicated that insufficient funding for child care was amajor issue for states. Participants suggested that the combination of insufficiently fundedchild care programs and the inability of many low-income working parents to pay the full costof child care could undermine state welfare reform efforts. Representatives from all statesvisited expressed concern about the future, even those from states that were able to provideassistance to all families who were filing applications.33
Findings from the Southern Institute's 2000 survey of southern states confirm thatsubsidized child care is an integral part of welfare reform efforts. Almost all of the states inthe survey took steps to ensure that families who are participating in welfare-to-work activitiesreceive assistance paying for child care.34 And most reported that they were able tocontinue to provide this assistance for at least one year and often several years afterthe family left welfare and became fully employed.35
However, as families leave welfare and join the workforce, over time they risk losingtheir eligibility for subsidized child care before they can afford to pay the full cost on their own.And families with no previous connection to the welfare system many who struggle tomake ends meet, often working several low-wage jobs may never receive help paying forchild care because they fall behind welfare-related families in the priority system that hasbeen created to ration scarce resources. None of the southern states surveyed by the
A study in Miami-Dade County, Florida,found that increasing child care funding
raises the probability that current andformer welfare recipients will find paid jobs.
An increase of $145 dollars in subsidyspending per child increased the
likelihood of employment from 59 percentto 71 percent for current and former
welfare recipients.
2210
Southern Institute was able to guarantee child care subsidies to low-income families that hadnever sought welfare assistance. Every state reported that these hard-working familiesreceive help paying for child care only when and if funds are available.36
If working families who are clearly eligible for child care assistance have difficultygetting help paying for child care, families who are not fully employed face even greaterobstacles. In order to stretch limited funds, some states do not make child care assistanceavailable to low-income parents who are looking for work, between jobs or attending collegeto enable them to get better jobs.37
The message to families is that being on welfare appears to be the surest route toobtaining public child care subsidies. The public policy question is whether we want to
encourage families to goon welfare in the hopesof obtaining assistancein paying for child care.
Funding for childcare can make thedifference betweensuccess and failure in
the workplace, and it can make the difference between success and failure in welfare reform.Looking to the future, directing money toward child care is a sound. investment. Providingmore resources today for child care will help keep families in the workforce and help themavoid welfare.
The message to families is that being onwelfare appears to be the surest route to
obtaining public child care subsidies.
Rethinking Public Support for Child Care
I n other areas of national and state policy, notably public transportation and housing, publicI support is viewed as an investment in economic development, not charity.38 Yet too often,child care assistance is characterized as welfare. Even parents, consumers of child care, buyinto the notion that only very low-income families can ask for help paying for child care.39Most families believe that they must struggle with their child care choices alone, even whenthe costs are staggering.
Unlike the costs for public transportation, public housing, public schools or tuition atstate universities and colleges, consumers of child care services working parents paythe lion's share of child care charges. U.S. families currently contribute approximately 60 per-cent of the revenue for child care, government contributes about 39 percent, and private-sec-tor contributions comprise less than 1 percent.4° That is in marked contrast to financing forother types of public services.
For public transportation, including buses, subways and roads, user fees generally payfor only a small fraction of the cost.41 In public housing, rents and loans are highlysubsidized. Public schools are tuition-free to students. Tuition at state universities andcolleges represents only a portion of the cost per student and scholarships and loans alsoare available to further defray student costs. Transportation systems allow people to get towork economically. Public housing provides people with homes, stability and an investment in
their communities. Public schools provide basic education for the next generation. Statecolleges and universities offer advanced education and professional training.
All of these areas are publicly supported based on the assumption that the servicescontribute to the public good. They are regarded as legitimate, prudent investments for thegood of a productive society. The public policy question is whether we as a society areprepared now to place a far greater value on child care and elevate it accordingly on the pub-lic agenda.
How Support for Child Care Serves Local Economies
I nvesting in child care generates jobs and pumps money into local economies.42 Child careI is not another form of welfare. It is a vital support for working families with children.Research in numerous states and communities shows that the public support of child carecreates direet and indirect economic benefits. The direct benefits include increased earningsand employment among parents receiving those subsidies. Communities also benefitindirectly from the earnings and jobs generated by the increased demand for child careservices. Families receiving child-care subsidies that enable them to work also need fewergovernment-supported services than they did when they were unemployed orunderemployed.43
An economic analysis of public spending for child care subsidies in San Antonio,Texas, showed that assistance to families in obtaining child care services ". . . is not onlyjustified on humanitarian grounds but actually more than pays its own way through localeconomic stimulus and the resulting increased tax revenues to the City of San Antonio. . . .
The City of San Antonio can expect to earn a simple annual return of about 46 percent onpublic investment in child care. In other words, not only will the program cover its ownincremental costs, but the community will realize 46 cents in additional tax revenue for eachdollar directly expendedon providing child care tothose (who) cannotpresently afford it."44
In North Carolina,an examination of thebenefits of child caresubsidies showed thatthe subsidies paid forthemselves almostimmediately in realdollars returned togovernment throughtaxes on family earnings and employment and taxation in the child care industry. That returnon investment translated to a net of $3,924 annually for a child care subsidy of $2,544 ayearfor a family with an annual income of $20,000 or a 54 percent return on investment:4°
Yet among child care administrators from the southern states who were surveyed thisyear by the Southern Institute, nine out of 17 cited "lack of adequate funding" as the single
2412
In North Carolina, an examination of thebenefits of child care subsidies showed that
the subsidies paid for themselves almostimmediately in real dollars returned togovernment through taxes on family
earnings and employment and taxationin the child care industry.
biggest barrier today to families seeking child care subsidies in their states.46 Nationwide,14.8 million parents qualify for CCDF subsides, yet only 1.5 million parents receive themone out of 10 who are eligible.47
The Benefits Few Employers Know About
nvesting in quality, affordable child care not only is good for the nation's economy, it is goodI for employers and the families who work for them, now and in the future. Employers whooffer some form of child care benefit report higher worker morale, reduced absenteeism,increased productivity and lower turnover" (see Exhibit 3). A new Treasury Departmentsurvey of more than 1,100 companies found that more than two-thirds of the employers theysurveyed reported that the benefits of child care programs are greater than the costs, or thatthe programs are cost-neutral.49 The U.S. Department of Labor reports, "Stress and thetension between work and family are increasing. Major changes in American families andthe lack of corresponding changes in many workplace policies and practices are thecauses." 50
A few employers are offering substantial child care benefits. Con Agra RefrigeratedFoods a company that processes poultry products with plants in several southern stateshas established a child care initiative tailored to meet the needs of workers who earn between$6 and $7 per hour. Since most Con Agra employees work in shifts and live in rural areas,this employer has established partnerships with Head Start/child care agencies in severalcommunities. Con Agra makes a contribution to help cover the cost of expanding the center'scapacity and/or hours of service. The company also pays a portion of the weekly cost of carefor each of its employees.51
Bank of America has developed a unique employee benefit called Child Care Plus.Employees who work at least 20 hours a week, need child care to work and have an annual
Reported Company Benefits for Offering Child Care
A 62% reported higher morale
A 54% reported reduced absenteeism
A 52% reported increased productivity
A 37% reported lower turnover
Source: Survey by The Conference Board, New York, 1995.
Exhibit 3
9 r%.)
13
base salary under $30,000 (and an annual family income under $60,000) are eligible toparticipate. Based on their child care expenses, these employees may receive up to $152 permonth per child in addition to their regular pay. Bank of America also offers benefits foremployees with higher wages (as a Dependent Care Assistance Plan), as well as onsiteand/or back-up child care in some locations. Turnover among employees who participate inChild Care Plus is halfthat of comparable Bankof America employeeswho do not use theprogram.52
Not all employersare able to make childcare investmentscomparable to thosemade by Con Agra andBank of America. On thewhole, private sector investment in child care is very small. In 1995, less than one percent(1%) of revenues for child care and early education came from the private sector.56 Butemployers are learning that one of the most effective ways to support the child care needs oftheir employees is in partnership with government. And their government partners are startingto develop some new and exciting initiatives. The Florida Child Care Partnership, outlined inChapter 3 of this report, is one example. Initiatives in San Antonio, Texas and statewide inNorth Carolina also have been effective and are briefly described in Chapter 3.
On the whole, private sector investmentin child care is very small.
In 1995, less than 1% of revenuesfor child care and early education
came from the private sector.
Does The Child Care Application ProcessDeter Families From Applying?
The need to rethink support for child care must include consideration of how families gainaccess to child care subsidies. Simplification of the application and redetermination
processes is essential to assure that eligibility services are efficient and that families aretreated with dignity.
The state site visits conducted by the Southern Institute in 1997 identified applicationand redetermination procedures that presented barriers to eligibility. The findings are outlinedin the February 1998 report by the Southern Institute, titled Southern Regional Initiative toImprove Access to Benefits for Low Income Families With Children.54 Since that time,several southern states have made strides in simplifying the eligibility process. Yet workremains to be done to make the child care application and redetermination processes morefamily friendly.
Public support for services such as transportation, housing and public education isprovided without the same stigma associated with applying for other forms of public aid.Applications for college aid are available on the internet, and a single, standardizedapplication is accepted at most colleges and universities. Yet states typically require familieswho are applying for child care assistance to make an appointment with the Department of
OL 14U
Social Services, complete detailed application forms and submit numerous documents toprove that they need help. If the family is applying for more than one program in addition tochild care subsidy, they usually are required to submit additional forms and go through yetanother separate application process.
The Southern Institute's 2000 survey revealed many eligibility process barriers in the17 southern states. Seven states (Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia,Georgia, Tennessee and West Virginia) require families to undergo a face-to-face interview inorder to apply for child care assistance. In eight states (Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware,District of Columbia, Florida, Louisiana, Texas and West Virginia) income-eligible families maybe required to reapply for assistance every six months. Multiple forms of documentation arerequired in most states. Even families who are receiving child care assistance are required toreapply when they move from welfare to work in seven of the states surveyed (Alabama,Florida, Louisiana, Maryland, Oklahoma, Tennessee and West Virginia).55
Many of these application and redetermination policies and procedures weredeveloped to ensure that families receiving subsidies are eligible under program criteria. But
each of these stepsincreases the likelihoodthat eligible families willnot even apply forassistance. The sameholds true for familiesfacing redetermination.
There are severalstrategies to simplify theprocess for families andimprove access to thesystem. Some includeallowing families to applyby mail or telephonewithout requiring a face-to-face interview. Others
involve minimizing requests for documentation and, wherever possible, attempting to utilizepublic records or documents already on file before making any such requests of the family.Verification requirements for child care assistance applications also can present eligibilitybarriers for families. Identifying areas where verification can be reduced will result inimproving access to child care assistance.
Our nation has made progress in streamlining the application and redeterminationprocesses for benefit programs such as Medicaid and the State Child Health InsuranceProgram (SCHIP) without jeopardizing the integrity of the eligibility determination process.The findings of the Southern Institute's 2000 survey indicate that there are a number ofpolicies that present barriers to applying for and retaining child care assistance. Simplificationor removal of these barriers does not require federal approval.
There are several strategies to simplify theprocess for families. . . . Some includeallowing families to apply by mail or
telephone without requiring a face-to-faceinterview. Others involve minimizing
requests for documentation and,wherever possible, attempting to utilize
public records or documentsalready on file.
W115
Affordable, Quality Child Care is an Investmentin America's Future
C hild care is a crucial support for low-income working families, employers andcommunities. Support can, and should, be part of new economic development strategies
for states. Study after study has shown that quality early care and education in the preschoolyears can greatly enhance a child's lifetime potential. But all too often children from low-income families are denied this essential "brain food," denied the opportunity to learn andgrow at a time in their lives when careful attention from adults matters the most.
Each of the 17 southern states has made substantial financial investments in theirelementary, secondary and higher education systems. In 1994, when these investments werecompared to child care, the results were startling. Florida, which has made significantinvestments in its children in recent years, in 1994 spent 23 times more on higher educationthan on child care and early learning. Texas spent 43 times more on higher education.Virginia spent 121 timesmore. And highereducation spending inMississippi was 636times what the statespent on child care.56
Children whoseparents cannot affordchild care often are leftwithout the supervisionthey need at a crucialtime in their lives.Friends, relatives orolder siblings may bewilling and able to helpout on occasion, but these arrangements often fall apart or vary from day to day. All childrenneed to have the opportunities provided by consistent, stable child care arrangements. Formany children from low-income families, child care subsidies make these opportunitiespossible.
We can wait no longer to make the kind of sound investments needed to assure thatchild care financial aid is available and accessible to families who need and seek assistance.The actions necessary to achieve results are set forth in the Action Plan presented in Chapter3. The Action Plan calls on federal, state, local and private leaders to commit to theachievement of specific goals and action steps. Making financial assistance for child care apriority will produce dividends now and in the future. Inaction will perpetuate missedopportunities that will be costly in terms of building workforce capacity, helping families avoidwelfare and providing greater support for early learning that can boost school readinessacross the South.
Making financial assistance for child care apriority will produce dividends now and inthe future. Inaction will perpetuate missedopportunities that will be costly in terms of
building workforce capacity, helpingfamilies avoid welfare and providing greater
support for early learning that can boostschool readiness across the South.
28 16
Chapter 3
ACTION PLANI n late 1999, at the invitation of the Southern Institute on Children and Families, governorsI from 16 southern states and the mayor of the District of Columbia appointed representativesto the Southern Regional Task Force on Child Care. Additional appointments were made bythe Southern Institute and by the Southern Growth Policies Board. During ongoingdiscussions convened throughout 2000, the Task Force developed an Action Plan, which isset forth below.
The charge to the Task Force was to collaborate in the development of a plan of actionto improve access to child care assistance for low-income families in the southern region.During its deliberations, the Task Force received testimony from professionals, families andrepresentatives of the business community, identified barriers that impede access to childcare assistance for low-income families and developed an Action Plan to improve access tofinancial aid for families who need and seek assistance.
The Action Plan presented below addresses the initial charge of the Task Force. TheTask Force recognizes that improving access to financial aid for child care is a criticalcomponent in an overall plan to assure that low-income families are able to obtain affordable,quality child care that will improve opportunities for children and their parents. Beginning inJanuary 2001, the Task Force will move to the next phase of its work and will addressadditional issues that affect access to affordable, quality child care.
Chapter 2 of this report discussed the many reasons why priority attention must begiven to making quality child care more accessible and affordable for low-income families,including the positive effect child care can have on workforce capacity, the advantages it canbring to the welfare reform effort and the much needed financial support it can provide forearly learning opportunities for children in low-income families. Issues identified by the TaskForce as barriers to child care financial assistance include the significant underfunding of thepublic child care subsidy system, eligibility policies and systems that hinder access to publicchild care subsidies, the need to create employer partnerships, and the lack of refundablechild care and dependent tax credits.
The following Action Plan expresses the position of the Southern Regional Task Forceon Child Care that bold action is needed to make child care financial aid available andaccessible for low-income parents who need and seek it. The 10 goals and 52 action stepscall on public and private sector leaders to support specific initiatives, including significantincreases in child care resources, eligibility simplification, improved customer services,implementation of tax strategies and creation of employer partnerships. Participating stateshave submitted information on initiatives that represent progress made toward addressing thegoals and action steps. These brief descriptions include contact information.
The Southern Regional Task Force on Child Care will monitor progress towardaccomplishing the Action Plan goals. As outlined in Chapter 4, implementation activities willinclude state site visits to each of the 16 states and the District of Columbia, a SouthernRegional Forum on Child Care and a report issued in December 2001 outlining the results ofstate efforts to achieve the goals.
170
GOAL 1
Federal, state, local and private funds should be sufficient to meet 100% of need fordirect child care assistance, based on initial eligibility levels at 85% of the state medianincome. Redetermination levels should allow families to retain child care assistanceuntil they reach 100% of the state median income.
Action Steps
1.1. Educate federal and state policymakers on the need for action.1.2. Educate the business community on the need for leadership in achieving state,federal and community resources to meet 100% of need.1.3. Increase federal funding for the Child Care Development Fund to fulfill currentpolicy allowing federal matching funds for child care assistance up to 85% of the statemedian income.1.4. Increase state funding to provide child care subsidies to all eligible families whoseek child care assistance.1.5. Mobilize federal, state and community resources in support of families who needchild care assistance.
West Virginia
In October 2000, West Virginia's child care eligibility was increased from 150% to 200% of theFederal Poverty Level (57% to 77% of State Median Income, respectively). The maximum monthlygross income for a family of four increased from $2,087 to $2,842. West Virginia's child care policyallows subsidies to cover sleep time for parents who must work night shift and study time for parentsattending educational or training programs. The state also pays for two providers when necessary tomeet a family's needs. Eligibility guidelines also were revised to benefit foster and adoptive families.Foster family income is not used in determining eligibility for foster children, and adoption subsidiesare disregarded as income.
Contact: Kay Tilton, Director, Child Day Care ServicesDepartment of Health and Human Resources(304) [email protected]
183 0
GOAL 2
States and communities should broaden their child care eligibility and subsidy policiesto meet the economic, work and education needs of families.
Action Steps
2.1. Establish co-payments not to exceed 10% of gross family income.2.2. Provide child care assistance to students who qualify under the income guidelines.2.3. Explore broad use of income exemptions to address affordability of child care.2.4. Eliniinate asset testing (e.g. automobile or savings account) from criteria for childcare assistance.2.5. Index income eligibility levels for inflation.
Kentucky
Kentucky now serves families at 165% of the Federal Poverty Level. Co-payments of families do notexceed 10% of the family's gross income. Kentucky provides child care assistance to students basedon their income and serves all teen parents working on their GED, regardless of income. InKentucky, income eligibility is indexed for inflation based on updated federal poverty guidelines. Noasset tests are required.
Contact: Dana Jackson, DirectorDivision of Child Care(502) [email protected]
Mississippi
Mississippi's co-payment fees do not exceed 8% of family income. In addition, Mississippi recentlyamended its state CCDF plan to allow full-time students to be eligible for child care assistancewithout also having to meet a work requirement, to only use employment income when determiningeligibility and to update State Median Income levels every two years for purposes of setting the 85%SMI eligibility ceiling. No asset tests are required.
Contact: Carol Burnett, DirectorOffice of Children and Youth(601) [email protected]
31 19
North Carolina
North Carolina's subsidized child care policies support the education and employment of the state'slow-income families. Child care is available to support post-secondary education for up to two years.Families are eligible for services whether employed full-time or part-time, when seeking employmentor while in-between jobs. In 1996, a new fee structure was implemented that based co-payments on7% to 9% of the family's gross monthly income, depending on family size. TANF cash assistancepayments and assets are not considered as countable income when determining eligibility or theamount of the co-payment. In 1996, North Carolina also increased its income-eligibility limits to 75%of State Median Income (up to 214% of the federal poverty level for a family of four). This allowedmore low-income families to receive services through expanded eligibility.
Contact: Nancy Guy, Program Operations Section ChiefNC Division of Child Development(919) 662-4561
Oklahoma
In Oklahoma, families earning up to 77% of the State Median Income, or $2,420 per month, areeligible to participate in the child care assistance program. There is a family co-payment rather thana per-child co-payment. Parents earning less than $855 per month have no co-payment, whileparents with a maximum co-payment would pay 9% of income after earned income deductions areapplied. Income-eligible students can receive assistance while attending high school, technicaltraining or college to receive a bachelor's degree. Oklahoma's child care policy allows subsidies tocover sleep time for parents who work a night shift. Consistent with food stamp policy, parentsreceive a work expense disregard of 20% of earned income. There are approximately 18 othersources of income that are disregarded when determining a parent's eligibility for child careassistance. No asset tests are required.
Contact: Susan Hall, Family Support ServicesOklahoma Department of Human Services(405) [email protected]
20
GOAL 3
Outreach initiatives should be designed and aggressively implemented to assure thatfamilies have accessible and easy-to-understand information on child care assistanceand are provided assistance in applying.
Action Steps
3.1. Provide information on child care subsidies through multiple sources, venues andthe media.3.2. Ensure that information is accurate, family friendly, employer friendly, culturallysensitive and provided in multiple languages, as appropriate.3.3. Present information in a manner that would remove the stigma associated withreceiving subsidies.3.4. Provide literature and assistance to help parents make informed provider choices.3.5. Coordinate ongoing and strategic outreach activities among commonorganizations and providers.3.6. Offer cross-training and information to providers, community organizations-, faithorganizations and state agencies to inform them about child care assistance programsand how to assist families in filing applications.
District of Columbia
In 1999 the Office of Early Childhood Development (OECD) prepared a plan titled "Outreach toIncrease Access to Child Care Financial Aid" and launched a multi-faceted outreach campaign thatincluded: broad-based community outreach (radio and television spots, posters); multi-agency cross-training (orientation and information packets for all government human resource managers);development of a list of liaisons that refer children to the child care subsidy program; appeals toexisting providers (regarding referrals to OECD, distribution of information, allow OECD to use up to95% of their current licensed capacity); targeted recruitment initiatives; community-based intakeactivities; initiatives in two wards with the highest level of poverty, largest number of children andhighest percentage of TANF; and monitoring and evaluation activities.
Contact: Barbara Ferguson Kamara, Executive DirectorOffice of Early Childhood Development(202)[email protected]
33 21
West Virginia
West Virginia is providing grants to each Child Care Resource and Referral agency to implement aTraveling Resource and Information Library System (TRAILS). Mobile library vans will be used toprovide resources to current providers, to furnish information to potential providers and to performcommunity outreach informing parents about the availability of child care assistance and to educateparents in the selection of quality child care providers. These vans are designed to be highly visiblefor use in community events. Multi-media material will be utilized.
Contact: Kay Tilton, Director, Child Day Care ServicesDepartment of Health and Human Resources(304) [email protected]
GOAL 4
The child care application and redetermination processes should be uncomplicatedand family friendly.
Action Steps
4.1. Simplify applications for child care assistance.4.2. Allow filing by mail, phone, fax or internet.4.3. Minimize requests for documentation at initial application and utilize documentsalready on file.4.4. Provide applications at multiple sites.4.5. Offer non-conventional hours of operation for eligibility offices and provide toll-freephone lines to include evening and weekend hours.4.6. Explore presumptive eligibility or otherwise provide immediate eligibility contingentupon final approval.4.7. Eliminate requirements for a face-to-face interview both for initial application andfor redetermination.4.8. Provide consultation on making appropriate choices when excessive requests forprovider changes are filed.4.9. Establish a 12-month redetermination period where there are no changes inincome or job status.4.10. Continue eligibility for full subsidy for 12 weeks if family loses employment butcan document that a job search is underway.
22
Maryland
Maryland created a simple accessible child care application and redetermination process by unitingprograms that benefit low-income families under the Department of Human Resources (DHR) for"one-stop" seamless services. Local departments of social services are the single point of contact forfamilies needing many types of assistance, including child care, TANF, Food Stamps, Medicaid, childwelfare and child support. Access to child care licensing and resource and referral services isprovided. Service is simplified in the following ways: by providing applications for TANF and childcare in work opportunity offices and community district offices; by using a one-page, mail-inapplication; by allowing up to 12 months before redetermination is required; and by employing anautomated system that determines eligibility, issues vouchers online and accesses neededdocumentation from other programs electronically. .
Contact: Linda Heisner, Executive DirectorChild Care Administration(410) [email protected]
Mississippi
Mississippi recently amended its Child Care and Development Fund state plan to simplify theapplication process and reduce barriers faced by parents seeking child care assistance. Specifically,Mississippi reduced the number of documents parents must obtain and attach to their applicationsfrom six to one. In addition, Mississippi went from six-month to 12-month eligibility determination,thus improving children's child care experiences by reducing interruptions in service.
Contact: Carol Burnett, DirectorOffice of Children and Youth(601) [email protected]
Oklahoma
Oklahoma's expedited eligibility process requires the social services specialist to process an applica-tion immediately when the applicant does not have the money to pay toward the cost of child careand the applicant is in danger of losing a job or cannot start a new job. The social services specialistattempts to verify need and income through collateral contacts and documents the attempt. If thesocial services specialist is unsuccessful in verifying these or any other factors of eligibility, theclient's statement is used to certify the application for a maximum of 30 calendar days. The socialservices specialist gives the client a form requesting any outstanding verification needed to establish
eligibility within the 30 days time frame before further child care is authorized.
Contact: Susan Hall, Family Support ServicesOklahoma Department of Human Services(405) [email protected]
35 23
South Carolina
South Carolina's ABC Child Care Program application can be completed by parents in the privacy oftheir home. Toll-free phone lines with extended hours are available. No face-to-face interview isrequired, and parents can return applications by mail. Parents are asked to verify or document theirwork, school or training activities; however all other information provided on the child care applicationis self-declared and accepted. Redetermination for non-welfare, low-income families is requiredevery 12 months and is fully automated. Sixty days before the end of the 12-month eligibility period,the clients are sent a completed application based on their last eligibility determination. The form isaccompanied by a request that parents update the application based on changes that have occurredand return the application by mail. The ABC Child Care program allows for seamless eligibility forfamilies moving from Family Independence (the state's TANF program) to their first year ofTransitional Child Care. Parents are not required to complete and sign a new child care application.Clients may continue to receive services for 30 calendar days if the family loses employment.
Contact: Kitty Casoli, Department HeadSC Department of Health and Human Services(803) [email protected]
GOAL 5
Establish a coordinated, seamless eligibility system so that funding sources areinvisible to families and support continuity of child care.
Action Steps
5.1. Eliminate the need for families to reapply when eligibility categories change byautomatically searching to exhaust all eligibility categories before closing cases.5.2. Explore the potential for policy and procedural changes to achieve linkages with orcombined applications for child care assistance, Head Start , Pre-K and Title I.5.3. Continue eligibility in programs with multiple funding sources to assure continuityof care in the event that eligibility has expired or terminated in one program.5.4. Work collaboratively with all public and private programs and funding sources toassure that children receive stable and consistent early child care services.
24
Florida
Effective July 1, 2001, Florida will establish a web-based Simplified Point of Entry System and aUnified Waiting List that allows parental choice. Families will fill out one application for all wait-listedprograms. The system will begin with access to Subsidized Child Care, Pre-Kindergarten, and HeadStart. Because the system is web-based, it can be easily expanded and adapted to include otherfamily support programs. If there are no vacancies in one program, the child will automatically bereferred to other programs for which the child is eligible. Families will only have to place themselveson one list. The family can use a public library computer or home computer to self-enter theirapplication, or a professional caseworker or family support screener can assist parents in completingthe application.
Contact: Susan Muenchow, Executive DirectorThe Florida Partnership for School Readiness(850) [email protected]
North Carolina
Before 1996, North Carolina's child care funds were administered by two agencies, depending onwhether child care was AFDC-related. Although the portal of entry was the same (local departmentsof social services), the application processes, eligibility requirements, parent fees and paymentsystems were separate and different. Some families lost child care assistance when they moved.from one system to the other. After welfare reform, North Carolina consolidated all funds under oneagency, including CCDF, Head Start Wrap-Around, TANF transfer, state Smart Start subsidy andstate CCDF matching funds. Uniform eligibility, fee and payment requirements were established.The funding stream that pays for child care is determined at the state level and changed as needed.More families are served, and MOE funding requirements are tracked more efficiently.
Contact: Nancy Guy, Program Operations Section ChiefNC Division of Child Development(919) 662-4561
Missouri
In Missouri, eligibility is streamlined, and has been since inception, into one subsidy program basedon two factors: income and need for child care. Depending upon availability of funding, priorities areestablished for who will receive services. Everyone applies and has eligibility determined under thesame guidelines.
Contact: Doris Ha Ilford, Assistant Deputy DirectorMissouri Division of Family Services(573) [email protected]
37 25
GOAL 6
Establish customer service outcome goals and set standards to ensure that all familiesare treated with dignity and respect and are served in an efficient manner.
Action Steps
6.1. Provide professional and well-trained eligibility staff who are culturally andlinguistically sensitive.6.2. Facilitate quick eligibility determination through reasonable caseloads and/oradministrative structure.6.3. Conduct periodic, independent and thorough consumer satisfaction assessments,assuring the confidentiality of information collected.6.4. Provide adequate support for child care resource and referral services.
District of Columbia
In 1999, the District of Columbia government conducted its first independent customer satisfactionsurvey and developed the system to be used for ongoing independent and thorough customersatisfaction assessments. The 1999 survey focused on customer need for and satisfaction with childcare during non-traditional hours for child care intake. The non-traditional child care services surveywas a postcard, mailed directly to parents with information about non-traditional services, that couldbe mailed directly back to the unit conducting the survey. There was a 14% return rate, and as aresult of this survey a community outreach initiative and provider recruitment plan were initiated.Determination of customer satisfaction with evening hours was implemented through a surveyinstrument and customer interviews. A written report with recommendations.was developed andused to increase customer use of evening services.
Contact: Barbara Ferguson Kamara, Executive DirectorOffice of Early Childhood Development(202) [email protected]
26
Georgia
Georgia has increased investments in the Child Care Resource and Referral (CCR&R) network usingCCDF set-aside funds. The state now contracts with 10 community-based non-profits and fourinstitutions of higher learning to provide CCR&R services in all of Georgia's 159 counties. During thenext 12 months, each CCR&R will be adding an inclusion specialist to its staff to help parents ofchildren with disabilities find care and to help child care providers better serve children withdisabilities in their communities. This initiative was developed by a statewide Task Force on ChildCare for Children with Disabilities that was co-sponsored by the Georgia Child Care Council, theGovernor's Office on Developmental Disabilities, and the state's 0-3 early intervention programcalled "Babies Can't Wait."
Contact: Susan Maxwell, Executive DirectorGeorgia Child Care [email protected]
Kentucky
Kentucky conducts an annual check of customer satisfaction through the audit process. Parents andproviders are surveyed regarding the service they have received. Kentucky's culture is diversifiedand is becoming more so with many ethnic groups establishing homes in the state. Most of theeligibility staff members live in the communities in which they work. This aids awareness of thecultural needs of families within the communities. In addition, several of the Child Care Resourceand Referral agencies are the service agents for the subsidy program. The CCR&R agencies'understanding of and bond with the community helps in this process.
Contact: Dana Jackson, DirectorDivision of Child Care(502) [email protected]
3927
North Carolina
Child Care Services Association (CCSA) in North Carolina, a not-for-profit agency, providesscholarships to help pay the costs of child care for families living and working in Orange County.Scholarship funds come from Smart Start, United Way, UNC-Chapel Hill, municipal and countygovernments and private contributions. Applications for child care subsidy are available in all childcare programs in the county, county human services agencies, employment centers, shelters and allCCSA offices. Bilingual family support counselors are available for Spanish-speaking families, and allinformation and applications are available in Spanish. Both initial and annual renewal applicationsmay be mailed or faxed, with appropriate documentation. Annual customer service evaluations ofthe scholarships and services received from CCSA are performed. In addition, one-third of the CCSAboard includes recipients of the agency's services, including families receiving the child care subsidy.The agency offers extended hours, including some evenings and Saturdays.
Contact: Susan Russell, Executive DirectorChild Care Services Association(919) [email protected]
GOAL 7
Design the subsidy system so that rate structures assure that families receiving childcare assistance have access to all types of child care and disallow charges aboveestablished co-payments.
Action Steps
7.1. States should cap reimbursement rates at no less than the 75th percentile basedon a market rate survey conducted every two years that accurately reflects the price ofall types of care in communities across the state.7.2. Establish and evaluate reimbursement policies that encourage providerparticipation and are responsive to family needs.7.3. Prohibit providers from charging above the established co-payments.
4028
Florida
The Gold Seal program was established to promote national accreditation of early care andeducation programs. Several accrediting associations are involved in the Gold Seal Quality CareProgram. Under Gold Seal legislation, facilities that receive a Gold Seal are eligible for higherpayment rates for Subsidized Child Care, sales tax exemptions on educational equipment and advalorum (property tax) exemptions. These incentives not only encourage improved quality but alsoencourage private child care center participation in the subsidized child care program. Thisparticipation allows full mainstreaming of children who qualify for subsidized assistance and providesparental choice of location and setting. Nearly 1,000 child care centers and family child care homesnow have received the Gold Seal.
Contact: Susan Muenchow, Executive DirectorThe Florida Partnership for School Readiness(850) [email protected]
Missouri
Missouri has instituted a tiered reimbursement incentive system. Providers are eligible to receive thefollowing percentage increases on their base subsidy rate:
* 30% increase for providers serving a disproportionate share of state subsidized children.* 20% increase for providers who are accredited by a recognized accrediting organization
approved by the state.* 15% increase for evening and weekend care.* 25% increase for special needs children.
Missouri also allows providers of special needs children to be paid at the rate associated with their"functional" age.
Contact: Doris Hallford, Assistant Deputy DirectorMissouri Division of Family Services(573) [email protected]
Tennessee
To be responsive to family needs for assistance with child care fees above the parent co-payment,the Tennessee Department of Human Services (DHS) will pay providers a one-time application fee ofup to $50 per child at the time of enrollment and an annual registration fee of up to $50 per child forchildren in the Families First and Transitional Families First programs. In addition, DHS establishedtransportation fees to pay a licensed provider for transporting a child in the Families First program tothe chili 2T program. DHS will pay providers $10 per week per child for this service.
Contact: Louis Rudolph, Director of Certificate ProgramTennessee Department of Human Services(615) 313-4870
4129
West Virginia
In West Virginia, base reimbursement rates were increased in October 2000 to 85th percentile of the1999 market rate. In addition to increases in base rates, incentive rates of $4 extra per day areadded if a provider is accredited or offers care during non-traditional work hours. The enhanced ratefor infant and toddlers also is used for children with special needs and children receiving care forchild protective services reasons. Two other incentive rates are planned for early 2001. One willprovide additional rates of $2 daily to providers who complete a 40-hour infant and toddler trainingprogram. The second will provide an additional $2 daily to providers who meet additionalrequirements but are not yet accredited. This will result in a three-tiered payment system. WestVirginia also makes subsidized payments to unlicensed school-age child care programs that registerwith the state and meet health and safety guidelines. .
Contact: Kay Tilton, Director, Child Day Care ServicesDepartment of Health and Human Resources(304) [email protected]
GOAL 8
Create partnerships with employers to expand child care assistance for workingfamilies.
Action Steps
8.1. Educate employers about the bottom line benefits associated with public andprivate child care assistance.8.2. Enlist business leaders to champion the involvement of southern businesses andto serve as mentors to other businesses.8.3. Provide information to employers on all available tax benefits related to child careassistance, including deductions for donations to tax-exempt child care organizations,capital costs for constructing a child care center and establishing a pre-tax dependentcare assistance plan.8.4. Facilitate collaborative initiatives that enable employers to share ideas as well aspool their resources to address child care needs.8.5. Provide matching funds or other tax or financial incentives for employers to investin child care.8.6. Establish incentives for employers to create child care benefit programs for theiremployees or to contribute to child care purchasing pools in their state or community.8.7. Reduce the administrative burden on employers participating in any jointpublic/private child care assistance program.
4 0 30
Arkansas
As a result of the work of the Governor commissioned Arkansas Corporate Champions for ChildrenInitiative, The Early Care and Education Trust Fund will be established during the next legislativesession, beginning January 2001. Funds will be available to match contributions from privatebusinesses and individuals. The trust fund will create a new source of funding to address lengthywaiting lists in Arkansas. The Governor's Work-Life Initiative Award will be established and presentedin April of each year to recognize and honor employers who support families. This initiative hasgenerated several very important data reports: Children and Child-Care Issues in Arkansas (graphicpresentation of 50 child care indicators by county and state summary); the Survey of EmployerOnsite Child Care (Eleven sites across the state were surveyed. They tied the success of theirprojects to recruitment, employee satisfaction and retention.); and the Survey of Family FriendlyPolicies for Employees in Arkansas. (This survey gives a percentage listing by importance of thepolicies in place now as well as a percentage of the employers desiring assistance in developingother family friendly options.)
Contact: Janie Fletcher, DirectorDivision of Child Care and Early ChildhoodEducation(501) [email protected]
District of Columbia
The District of Columbia has developed public-private partnerships to increase access to child careservices for District residents since 1987. Partnerships have been established with Early ChildhoodCollaborative of DC, Inc., Katharine Graham of The Washington Post and Terrence Golden of theHost Marriott, Donna Klein of Marriot International, Carrie Thornhill of DC Agenda, DC ChildcareCorporation, the DC Chamber of Commerce, employers, housing developers, The Banker'sAssociation, community development corporations, the faith-based community and the philanthropiccommunity. These partnerships have resulted in: new licensed capacity in child development cen-ters and homes; increased capacity for infants and school-age children; increased capacity onevenings, overnight, weekends and holidays; increased worksite facilities; increased child caresubsidy rates; seminars; expanded roles for child care resource and referral services; and increasedtraining for early care and education providers. Since 1995, the Mayor's Wish List Award has beenpresented to business partners in recognition of their contributions.
Contact: Barbara Ferguson Kamara, Executive DirectorOffice of Early Childhood Development(202) [email protected]
31 4 3
Florida
The Florida Partnership for School Readiness, based in the Executive Office of the Governor, is theprincipal organization responsible for the enhancement of school readiness. Programs are expectedto make services available on a full-day, full-year basis to assist working parents. Fifty-seven schoolreadiness coalitions have formed in the last year representing all of Florida's counties. Local countycoalitions are comprised of community leaders, school board members, private and faith-based childcare providers, Head Start, and child care resource and referral agencies. One-third of the membersmust not make their living in early education and child care. During this transition year, the coalitionsare in the process of assuming the management of the child care funding streams and pre-kindergarten funds with the intent to maximize use of services. Sliding-fee scales apply to all state-funded, out-of-home early education and child care services. Local coalitions have the authority tofund specific school readiness programs, allowing them to tailor funding to the community theyserve. Parents have a choice of settings and locations. Performance standards have beenestablished to guide the programs and a uniform screeningwill be conducted for all children enteringkindergarten.
The Florida Child Care Executive Partnership Program is a public-private partnership formedbetween businesses and the state of Florida to increase the availability of child care for low-incotheworking parents. Under the Child Care Partnership Act, the State of Florida will match dollar-for-dollar child care contributions by employers and local communities for families earning up to 200percent of the federal poverty level. Participating businesses receive a tax deduction, and parentsreceive care for about one-third the full cost. Since the program's establishment, more than $32million in business and local matching funds have been raised, enabling an additional 17,000children to receive child care tuition assistance. The current state appropriation is $10 million.
Contact: Susan Muenchow, Executive DirectorThe Florida Partnership for School Readiness(850) [email protected]
Georgia
In 1999, Georgia's Governor Roy Barnes sponsored a new corporate tax credit to encourageemployers to become partners in meeting the child care needs of their employees. Companies nowmay recoup 75% of their investment in subsidizing child care for their employees and 100% of theirinvestment, over 10 years, in building onsite child care centers. To assist employers in understandingthe tax credit and the impact of child care on the work force, the Georgia Child Care Councildeveloped and distributed a handbook titled Quality Child Care The Business Connection.Support the Workforce of 2000; Prepare the Workforce of 2020. A Powerpoint presentation specificto Georgia also is available for use with business audiences.
Contact: Susan Maxwell, Executive DirectorGeorgia Child Care [email protected]
32 4
Tennessee
Tennessee's Corporate/Community Partnership Grant is available to local governments, schooldistricts in partnership with industries, and businesses and/or public or private non-profit agenciesthat submit a proposal addressing specific, documented child care needs in a community. The grantmust be matched one-to-one by the applicant's partner. The Corporate/Community Partnership grantpool totals $200,000. To date, 14 grants totaling $287,444 have been disbursed. In addition, the101st Tennessee General Assembly authorized the Department of Human Services to exploreobtaining federal and state funding to provide an incentive to develop local match funds from localgovernment, employers, charitable institutions and others to create partnerships with employers. TheTennessee Community and Corporate Child Care Partnership Program is designed to enhance childcare in local communities. The program will be administered through the Tennessee Child CareFacilitiei Corporation.
Contact: John Gamett, Executive DirectorTennessee Child Care Facilities Corporation615-313-4700
Texas
The San Antonio Smart Start Program began as the Corporate Child Care Collaborative in 1994 as apublic/private care trust fund to enhance the quality and increase the quantity of area child careservices for employees of local businesses and for the community as a whole. In early 1997, thecollaborative launched a $50,000 marketing plan to raise awareness and to recruit new corporatemembers for its activities. The marketing plan features a media campaign with paid TV andmagazine advertising, public service announcements, billboards and brochures. All Smart Startprojects are conducted in collaboration with other community organizations. Among its mostsuccessful initial projects is a program to conduct training and provide support for community childcare centers and home-based centers. As a result of the program, 10 centers and 17 family childcare programs have received national accreditation. Since its inception, the collaboration has helped70 child care programs used by employees, benefiting 2,500 child care providers and 4,500 children.
The Texas Work and Family Clearinghouse is committed to helping Texas employers attract andretain a diverse workforce through the promotion and support of dependent care policies andprograms in the workplace. The Clearinghouse was mandated by the Texas Legislature to provideinformation concerning technical assistance, dependent care and other employment-related familyissues to public and private employers, state agencies, policymakers and individuals. TheClearinghouse has funded 15 local business collaboratives and one statewide child care resourceand referral project in FY2000.
Contact: Nancy Hard, DirectorChild Care Services(512) 463-6473
33
GOAL 9
Provide child care assistance to working families through federal and state tax laws.
Action Steps
9.1. Make the federal child and dependent care tax credit refundable.9.2. Establish refundable child and dependent care tax credits in states with incometaxes.9.3. Raise federal and state child care tax credit expense limits to accurately reflect theprice of quality care.9.4. Index for inflation the state and federal child and dependent care tax credit incomeeligibility and expense limits.9.5. Ensure that child and dependent care tax credits are clearly identified and easy toclaim by filers using either the short or long form.9.6. Encourage the use of effective state tax strategies to provide financial support forchild care.
Arkansas
In Arkansas, Act 1286 of 1993 provided an enhanced income tax credit in the amount of 20% of thefederal credit (under IRS code) for qualified taxpayers who incurred child care expenditures atapproved child care facilities. The 20%,tax credit is refundable. Legislation in 1997 provided the20% credit for all taxpayers using child care and eliminated the enhanced credit for use of anapproved/accredited program. The use of approved/accredited facilities does continue allowance forthe 20% to be refundable. Act 820 of 1993 designated and exempted from state tax thosecorporations that build and equip approved child care centers. Construction materials and furnishingspurchased for use in the initial construction and equipping of a child care center for the exclusivepurpose of providing child care to employees will be subject to the exemption. A business thatqualifies for the exemption from the Gross Receipts Tax shall be allowed an income tax credit of3.9% of the annual salary of workers emplbyed exclusively in providing child care services. Act 850of 1995 allowed companies to operate or contract the operation and further allowed two or morecompanies to participate in a single child care program.
Contact: Janie Fletcher, DirectorDivision of Child Care and Early ChildhoodEducation(501) [email protected]
34 46
GOAL 10
States should have effective, coordinated systems to guide child care and earlychildhood policy decisions and direct use of resources.
Action Steps
10.1. Facilitate greater coordination in eligibility policies across child care and earlychildhood education programs at state and local levels.10.2. All southern states and the District of Columbia should participate in acollaborative effort to develop and collect common data elements across states.
Arkansas
In the state of Arkansas, collaboration with state-level partners has been the key to progress.Leaders in this collaboration include the Division of Child Care, the Head Start Collaboration Office,the Department of Education, Higher Education, Department of Health, Special Education and theProfessional Development workgroups. Arkansas's goal is to establish a coordinated system forearly care and education across the state. Clear goals have been set, and the state is currentlyworking on the following projects: The Arkansas Early Childhood Professional Development System;the Early Learning Literacy in Arkansas Training Program for Pre-School Teachers; and a data baseof all funding available to communities from the Division of Child Care, Department of Education andHead Start. Governor Mike Huckabee has stated, "We must enlist parents, businesses, publicservants and faith-based community members in our efforts to sustain quality early care andeducation programs for the children of Arkansas."
Contact: Janie Fletcher, DirectorDivision of Child Care and Early ChildhoodEducation(501) [email protected]
35 4 7
Georgia
The Georgia Legislature established The Georgia Child Care Council in 1991 to act as a planningand coordinating body for early childhood and school-age care programs. The Council administersand distributes the quality set-aside of the CCDE Volunteer Council members are appointed by theGovernor and by law must represent specific segments of the child care community, including: non-profit, for-profit and faith-based child care providers; family child care providers; chambers of com-merce; child care resource and referral agencies; early childhood academic experts; Head Start; andparents, including those who have a child with a disability. The Lieutenant Governor and theSpeaker of the House also appoint members to represent the general public. Ex officio membersrepresent state agencies with responsibilities for or an interest in child care availability and quality.The Council's mission is to influence public policy, elevate public awareness and encourage partner-ships in order to make quality child care available and affordable for all Georgians.
Contact: Susan Maxwell, Executive DirectorGeorgia Child Care Council404-679- [email protected]
Mississippi
The 2000 Mississippi State Legislature established the Early Childhood Services InteragencyCoordinating Council made up of leaders of state agencies that provide services to preschoolchildren. This Council and its Advisory Committee are charged with gathering data on earlychildhood services for the purposes of better coordination of services, identifying gaps in service andmeasuring progress toward filling those gaps. This Council will issue annual reports, the first of whichwill be issued to the 2001 State Legislature.
Contact: Carol Burnett, DirectorOffice of Children and Youth(601) [email protected]
Missouri
Incentive funding from the Kauffman Foundation in Kansas City and the Danforth Foundation of St.Louis helped to establish an Early Childhood Interagency Team in Missouri consisting ofrepresentatives from the Departments of Social Services, Health, Mental Health, Elementary andSecondary Education, Head Start Collaboration, and the Children's Trust Fund. For the past threeyears, this team has met on a monthly basis and has been instrumental in reducing duplication ofservices, building critical interagency relationships and maximizing and coordinating resources withinthe state.
Contact: Doris Ha Ilford, Assistant Deputy DirectorMissouri Division of Family Services(573) [email protected]
364 8
Tennessee
The Tennessee Children's Interagency Policy Committee was initiated by the governor's office in1999 to function as an umbrella group to facilitate action and coordination among the various stateagencies that serve children. The Committee's major function is to prevent duplication andconflicting agreements and to foster improved coordination among departments for better provisionof services. Representatives from the departments of Human Services, Children's Services, MentalHealth/Mental Retardation, Health, Education and the Bureau of Tenn Care comprise the committee.
Contact: Holly ClarkAssistant to the Governor for Policy(615) 532-4648
The Tennessee Child Care Management System is a centralized automated child care data baseand payment system that includes features that assist child care certificate program staff inmaintaining and updating data on providers, parents and children.
Contact: Louis RudolphDirector of Certificate Program(615) 313-4870
37 4 9
Chapter 4
SOUTHERN REGIONAL INITIATIVEON CHILD CARE
AGENDA FOR 2001 AND BEYOND
The Southern Regional Task Force on Child Care worked diligently during 2000 to developprogressive child care assistance policy goals that help families pay for child care. This
collaboration has placed the southern states in the position to move forward aggressively.Beginning in January 2001, the Task Force will set its sights on implementation of the
Action Plan set forth in Chapter 3, and it will initiate its work to address additional issuesassociated with improving access to quality child care. The continuation of the initiative issupported by an additional two-year grant from The David and Lucile Packard Foundation.
One of the cornerstones of the implementation plan is site visits to the states, wherebriefing sessions will promote awareness and action. During 2001, the Southern Institute onChildren and Families will coordinate with members of the Southern Regional Task Force onChild Care and the Staff Work Group members to schedule a site visit to each of the 16participating southern states and the District of Columbia. Because the scope of child careassistance policycrosses agency andpublic/private sectorlines, representativesinvited to participate inthe state events will beleaders from public andprivate entities who arethe decision-makers.After presentation of theAction Plan, site visitparticipants will engagein a discussion to identify opportunities and barriers to achieving the goals and action steps.
Throughout 2001, the Southern Institute will enlist regional and national expertise toconduct research and provide technical assistance to help states address the Action Plangoals. Educational materials will be developed to assist public and private organizations asthey work to achieve action on the goals and action steps.
In June 2001, the Southern Institute will survey the 16 southern states and the Districtof Columbia to determine the status of efforts to implement the Action Plan. Findings of theSouthern Institute survey will be compiled into a report, and the results will be utilized indeveloping an agenda for the Southern Regional Forum on Child Care to be held in October2001. Invited participants will include members of the Southern Regional Task Force on ChildCare, the Staff Work Group, representatives of public and private organizations in the 16participating states and the District of Columbia, and representatives of the federal
Beginning in January 2001, the Task Forcewill set its sights on implementation of theAction Plan set forth in Chapter 3, and it
will initiate its work to addressadditional issues associated with
improving access to quality child care.
3850
government. The Forum agenda will spotlight success stories that have replication potentialand also will stimulate dialogue on issues that have impeded implementation of the ActionPlan goals and action steps.
The Southern Regional Task Force on Child Care will meet twice during 2001 tomonitor progress toward Action Plan implementation and to begin examining issues related toimproving access to quality child care. The Staff Work Group will examine the issues relatedto quality and will guide the development of new strategies for the Task Force consideration.
A report will be prepared in December 2001 outlining the results of the second year ofthe Southern Regional Initiative on Child Care. The report will specify actions that remain tobe taken and provide information on lessons learned.
The third year of the Southern Regional Initiative on Child Care will include acontinuation of efforts to implement the Action Plan developed in the first year. During 2002,
site visits will beconducted in foursouthern states, wherechild care issues will bethe focus of a discussionsession with keypolicymakers,administrators,advocates and businessrepresentatives.Technical assistance will
continue to be provided on request, and training materials will be updated. State-to-state sitevisits also will be conducted to allow states that have made significant progress towardimplementation of the Action Plan to send a team to visit states that are having difficultyimplementing the goals and action steps.
As occurred in year two, the Southern Institute will conduct a survey of the 16 southernstates and the District of Columbia during the summer months to determine the status ofimplementation of the Action Plan. A report will outline the findings.
Special events will be held in 2002 to promote dialogue and action around the issuesand opportunities identified during the work of the Southern Regional Task Force on ChildCare. Preliminary plans envision the convening of the second Southern Regional Forum onChild Care and a meeting of business organizations to raise awareness of the need foremployers to be involved with public and private sector programs that help low to moderateincome families pay for child care. Additionally, national organizations will be engaged indialogue regarding lessons learned and approaches to addressing unresolved issues.
Working together though the Southern Regional Initiative on Child Care, southernstates will maintain a strong commitment to seek greater investments in helping low-incomefamilies obtain access to affordable, quality child care. Through sustained attention, thispublic-private collaboration will facilitate sound decision-making, and the results will contributeto a more stable and productive workforce, reduced welfare dependency and improvedschool performance.
Working together though the SouthernRegional Initiative on Child Care, southern
states will maintain a strong commitment toseek greater investments in helpinglow-income families obtain accessto affordable, quality child care.
39 51
ENDNOTES1. Sarah C. Shuptrine, Vicki C. Grant, MSW, PhD, and Genny G. McKenzie, MBA Southern Regional Initiative to ImoroveAccess to Benefits for Low Income Families With Children (Columbia, SC: Southern Institute on Children and Families,February 1998), Chp. 4, pp. 53-71.
2. Louise Stoney, Child Care in the Southern States: Expanding Access to Affordable Care for Low-Income Families andFostering Economic Development (Columbia, SC: Southern Institute on Children and Families, April 2000).
3. Jack P. Shonkoff and Deborah A. Phillips, Editors, Committee On Integrating the Science of Early ChildhoodDevelopment, Board on Children, Youth and Families, National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, From Neurons toNeighborhoods: The Science of Early Childhood Development - Executive Summary (Washington, DC: National AcademyPress, 2000)
4. Rima Shore, Rethinking the Brain: New Insights Into Early Development (New York, NY: Families and Work Institute,1997).
5. U.S. Department of Labor, futurework: Trends and Challenges for Work in the 21st Century (Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Labor, September 1999).
6. U.S. Census Bureau Report, Growth in Single Fathers Outpaces Growth in Single Mothers (Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Commerce, December 1998).
7. Louise Stoney, Child Care in the Southern States: Expanding Access to Affordable Care for Low-Income Families andFostering Economic Development (Columbia, SC: The Southern Institute on Children and Families, April 2000).
8. National Council of Jewish Women, OPening a New Window on Child Care: A Report on the Status of Child Care in theNation Today (New York, NY: NCJW, 1999).
9. Louise Stoney, Child Care in the Southern States: Expanding Access to Affordable Care for Low-Income Families andFostering Economic Development (Columbia, SC: The Southern Institute on Children and Families, April 2000).
10. Carnegie Corporation of New York Starting Points: Meeting the Needs of Our Youngest Children (New York, NY:Carnegie Corporation of New York, August 1994).
11. W.S. Bamett, "Long-Term Effects of Early Childhood Programs on Cognitive and School Outcomes" The Future ofChildren 5, 3 (1995): 25-50.
12. National Council of Jewish Women, Opening a New Window on Child Care: A Report on the Status of Child Care in theNation Today (New York, NY: NCJW, 1999).
13. G. Adams and K. Schulman, The South: Child Care Challenges (Washington, DC: Children's Defense Fund, May 1998).
14. Ibid.
15. Louise Stoney, Child Care in the Southern States: Expanding Access to Affordable Care for Low-Income Families anctFostering Economic Development (Columbia, SC: Southern Institute on Children and Families, April 2000).
16. Ibid.
17. G. Adams and K. Schulman The South: Child Care Challenges (Washington, DC: Children's Defense Fund, May 1998).
18. Lynne M. Caspar Who's Minding Our Preschoolers? Fall 1994 Update (Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofCommerce, Current Population Reports, Bureau of the Census, November 1997).
19. Hofferth, et al, National Child Care Survey (Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 1990).
20. Mark Greenberg, Joan Lombardi and Rachel Schumacher, The Child Care and Development Fund: An Overview(Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy, April 2000).
21. See Appendix A, Table 16.
540 2
22. See Appendix A, Tables 20 and 29.
23. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families, Access to Child Care for Low-Income Working Families (Vienna, VA: The National Child Care Information Center, October 1999), 5.
24. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families, Access to Child Care for Low-Income Working Families (Vienna, VA: The National Child Care Information Center, October 1999), 4.
25. Ibid.
26. See Appendix A, Table 17.
27. See Appendix A, Table 18.
28. A. Mitchell, L. Stoney and H. Dichter, Financing Child Care in the United States. An Illustrative Catalog of CurrentStrategies (Philadelphia, PA: The Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation and the Pew Charitable Trusts, 1997).
29. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families, Temporary Assistance forNeedy Families (TANF) Program Federal Funds for FYs 97-99 Transferred in FY 1999 - Through the 4th Quarter. Table D -Percentages of Transfer Amounts to CCDF and SSBG, online at http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/ofs/data/g499/table-d.htm.
30. National Governors' Association Center for Best Practices, Trends in Improving Services to Children (Washington, DC:NGA, 1998).
31. Op cit.
32. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families, Access to Child Care for Low-Income Working Families (Vienna, VA: The National Child Care Information Center, October 1999).
33. Sarah C. Shuptrine, Vicki C. Grant, MSW, PhD, and Genny G. McKenzie, MBA, Southern Regional Initiative to ImoroveAccess to Benefits for Low Income Families With Children (Columbia, SC: Southern Institute on Children and Families,February 1998), Chp. 4, pp. 53-71.
34. See Appendix A, Table 1.
35. See Appendix A, Table 6.
36. See Appendix A, Table 8.
37. See Appendix A, Tables 9, 10 and 11.
38. Louise Stoney, Looking Into New Mirrors: Lessons for Early Childhood Finance and System-Building (Dorchester, MA:Horizons Initiative, October 1998).
39. Public Agenda, 2000, Necessary Comoromises: How Parents. Employers. and Children's Advocates View Child CareToday (Washington DC: Public Agenda, 2000, 2000).
40. Anne Mitchell, L. Stoney, and H. Dichter, Financing Child Care in the United States: An Illustrative Catalog of CurrentStrategies (Philadelphia, PA: The Pew Charitable Trusts and the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, 1997).
41. Louise Stoney, Looking Into New Mirrors: Lessons for Early Childhood Finance and System-Building (Dorchester, MA:Horizons Initiative, October 1998).
42. Ibid.
43. Texas Perspectives, Inc., Public Funding of Childcare Services (San Antonio, TX: Texas Perspectives, Inc., 2000).
44. Ibid.
45. M. Rohacek and S. Russell:Child Care $ubsidy: An Investment Strateay for North Carolina (Chapel Hill, NC: Day CareServices Association, December 1996).
41
46. Louise Stoney and J. Daugherty, Access to Child Care Assistance: A Survey of Sixteen Southern States and the Districtof Columbia (Columbia, SC: Southern Institute on Children and Families, 2000).
47. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families Access to Child Care for Low-Income Working Families (Vienna, VA The National Child Care Information Center, October 1999).
48. Deborah Parkinson, Work Family Roundtable: Child Care Services (New York City: The Conference Board, Winter1995).
49. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Investing in Child Care: Challenges Facing Working Parents and the Private SectorResoonse (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Treasury, 1998).
50. U.S. Department of Labor, Futurework: Trends and Challenges for Work in the 21st Century (Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Labor, September 1999).
51. A. Mitchell, L. Stoney and H. Dichter, Financing Child Care in the United States. An Illustrative Catalog of CurrentStrategies (Philadelphia, PA: The Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation and the Pew Charitable Trusts, 1997).
52. Louise Stoney, Child Care in the Southern States: Expanding Access to Affordable Care for Low-Income Families andFostering Economic Development (Columbia, SC: The Southern Institute on Children and Families, April 2000), 12.
53. Louise Stoney and M. Greenberg, "The Financing of Child Care: Current and Emerging Trends," The Future of ChildrenVol . 6, No. 2 (Los Altos, CA: The David and Lucile Packard Foundation, 1996).
54. Sarah C. Shuptrine, Vicki C. Grant, MSW, PhD, and Genny G. McKenzie, MBA, Southern Regional Initiative to ImproveAccess to Benefits for Low Income Families With Children (Columbia, SC: Southern Institute on Children and Families,February 1998), Chp. 4, pp. 53-71.
55. See Appendix, Table 25.
56. G. Adams and K. Schulman, The South: Child Care C.hallenges (Washington, DC: Children's Defense Fund, May 1998).
425 3
App
endi
x
AC
CE
SS T
O C
HIL
D C
AR
E A
SSIS
TA
NC
EA
SU
RV
EY
OF
SIX
TE
EN
SO
UT
HE
RN
ST
AT
ES
AN
D T
HE
DIS
TR
ICT
OF
CO
LU
MB
IA
Prep
ared
for
The
Sou
ther
n In
stitu
te o
n C
hild
ren
and
Fam
ilies
By
Lou
ise
Ston
eyJa
ne D
augh
erty
Ston
ey A
ssoc
iate
s30
8 T
hais
Roa
dA
beri
ll Pa
rk, N
Y 1
2018
Nov
embe
r 20
00
Lis
t of
Tab
les
Tab
le 1
Chi
ld C
are
Ass
ista
nce
for
Em
ploy
ed T
AN
F R
ecip
ient
sT
able
2 C
hild
Car
e A
ssis
tanc
e fo
r T
AN
F R
ecip
ient
s W
ho a
re L
ooki
ng f
or W
ork
Tab
le 3
Chi
ld C
are
Ass
ista
nce
for
TA
NF
Rec
ipie
nts
in a
n A
ppro
ved
Tra
inin
g Pr
ogra
mT
able
4 C
hild
Car
e A
ssis
tanc
e fo
r T
AN
F A
pplic
ants
Div
erte
d fr
om C
ash
Ass
ista
nce
by J
ob S
earc
h an
d/or
Im
med
iate
Em
ploy
men
tT
able
5 C
hild
Car
e A
ssis
tanc
e fo
r T
AN
F R
ecip
ient
s in
Hig
her
Edu
catio
nT
able
6 C
hild
Car
e A
ssis
tanc
e fo
r Fo
rmer
TA
NF
Rec
ipie
nts
Who
Hav
e L
eft T
AN
F D
ue to
Ear
ning
sT
able
7 C
hild
Car
e A
ssis
tanc
e fo
r Fo
rmer
TA
NF
Rec
ipie
nts
Who
are
Cur
rent
ly E
mpl
oyed
and
Hav
e L
eft T
AN
F D
ueto
Tim
e L
imits
Tab
le 8
Chi
ld C
are
Ass
ista
nce
for
Inco
me-
Elig
ible
, Em
ploy
ed F
amili
esT
able
9 C
hild
Car
e A
ssis
tanc
e fo
r In
com
e-E
ligib
le F
amili
es L
ooki
ng f
or W
ork
at I
nitia
l App
licat
ion
Tab
le 1
0 C
hild
Car
e A
ssis
tanc
e fo
r In
com
e-E
ligib
le F
amili
es B
etw
een
Jobs
(i.e
. gap
in e
mpl
oym
ent w
hile
rec
eivi
ngch
ild c
are
subs
idie
s)T
able
11
Chi
ld C
are
Ass
ista
nce
for
Inco
me-
Elig
ible
Fam
ilies
Atte
ndin
g E
duca
tion
or T
rain
ing
Prog
ram
Tab
le 1
2 C
hild
Car
e A
ssis
tanc
e fo
r C
hild
ren
with
Spe
cial
Nee
dsT
able
13
Chi
ld C
are
Ass
ista
nce
for
Chi
ldre
n in
Fos
ter
Car
eT
able
14
Chi
ld C
are
Ass
ista
nce
for
Chi
ldre
n R
ecei
ving
Pro
tect
ive/
Prev
entiv
e C
are
Tab
le 1
5 D
o yo
u co
nsid
er th
e im
mig
ratio
n st
atus
of
the
child
's p
aren
t or
guar
dian
whe
n de
term
inin
g el
igib
ility
for
child
-car
e su
bsid
ies?
Tab
le 1
6 In
com
e E
ligib
ility
Cei
ling
as a
Per
cent
age
of S
tate
wid
e M
edia
n In
com
e (S
MI)
(Si
ngle
Par
ent w
ith T
wo
Chi
ldre
n)T
able
16-
A I
ncom
e E
ligib
ility
Cei
ling
as a
Per
cent
age
of F
eder
al P
over
ty L
evel
(FP
L)
(Sin
gle
Pare
nt w
ith T
wo
Chi
ldre
n)T
able
17
Elig
ibili
ty C
eilin
gs a
nd M
axim
um C
o-Pa
ymen
t for
Fam
ily o
f T
hree
(as
sum
es f
amily
of
3 w
ith o
ne in
fant
and
one
4-ye
ar-o
ld in
ful
l-tim
e, c
ente
r-ba
sed
care
)T
able
18
Co-
Paym
ent f
or F
amily
of
Thr
ee a
t Pov
erty
Lev
el (
assu
mes
fam
ily o
f 3
with
one
infa
nt a
nd o
ne 4
-yea
r-ol
din
ful
l-tim
e, c
ente
r-ba
sed
care
)T
able
19
Inco
me
Dis
rega
rded
Whe
n D
eter
min
ing
Elig
ibili
ty f
or C
hild
Car
e A
ssis
tanc
e
5657
Tab
le 2
0 Fu
nds
Ava
ilabl
e to
Mee
t the
Dem
and
for
Chi
ld C
are
Ass
ista
nce
Tab
le 2
1 St
ate
Req
uire
men
ts f
or F
ace-
to-F
ace
Inte
rvie
w W
hen
App
lyin
g fo
r C
hild
Car
e A
ssis
tanc
eT
able
22
Stat
e R
equi
rem
ents
for
Fac
e-to
-Fac
e In
terv
iew
Whe
n R
edet
erm
inin
g E
ligib
ility
for
Chi
ld C
are
Ass
ista
nce
Tab
le 2
3 St
ate
Polic
ies
Reg
ardi
ng C
oope
ratio
n w
ith C
hild
Sup
port
Enf
orce
men
tT
able
24
Max
imum
Fre
quen
cy o
f C
hild
Car
e E
ligib
ility
Red
eter
min
atio
n (a
ssum
es n
o ch
ange
s in
inco
me
orem
ploy
men
t dur
ing
elig
ibili
ty p
erio
d)T
able
25
Elig
ibili
ty D
eter
min
atio
n fo
r T
rans
ition
al C
hild
Car
eT
able
26
Ver
ific
atio
n D
ocum
ents
Acc
epta
ble
in D
eter
min
ing
and
Red
eter
min
ing
Elig
ibili
ty: I
tem
s to
Ver
ify
Inco
me
Tab
le 2
7 V
erif
icat
ion
Doc
umen
ts A
ccep
tabl
e in
Det
erm
inin
g an
d R
edet
erm
inin
g E
ligib
ility
: Ite
ms
to V
erif
y A
ge o
fC
hild
(ren
)T
able
28
Ver
ific
atio
n D
ocum
ents
Acc
epta
ble
in D
eter
min
ing
and
Red
eter
min
ing
Elig
ibili
ty: O
ther
Doc
umen
tsT
able
29
Bar
rier
s to
Acc
essi
ng C
hild
Car
e A
ssis
tanc
eT
able
30
Out
reac
h A
ctiv
ities
Tab
le 3
1 St
ate
Inco
me
Tax
Pro
visi
ons
for
Chi
ld C
are
5859
Tab
le 1
Chi
ld C
are
Ass
ista
nce
for
Em
ploy
ed T
AN
F R
ecip
ient
s
Stat
e
Chi
ld C
are
isgu
aran
teed
by la
w o
rre
gula
tion
If li
mite
d,nu
mbe
r of
mon
ths
child
care
assi
stan
ce is
avai
labl
e
Chi
ldC
are
prov
ided
only
iffu
nds
avai
labl
e
Chi
ld C
are
prov
ided
onl
y if
fund
s av
aila
ble,
BU
T g
roup
isgi
ven
top
prio
rity
If f
unds
not
avai
labl
e, M
UST
be p
ut o
n w
aitin
glis
t
Var
ies
acro
sslo
calit
ies
Fam
ilyno
tel
igib
leSp
ecia
l pol
icie
s or
rest
rict
ions
Ala
bam
ano
yes
yes
no, b
ut a
llcu
rren
tly s
erve
dno
Ark
ansa
sye
sno
Del
awar
eye
sno
mus
t mee
t inc
ome
guid
elin
es
Dis
tric
t of
Col
umbi
ano
yes
yes
noal
l elig
ible
are
ser
ved
Flor
ida
noye
sno
, pri
ority
2ye
sno
Geo
rgia
nol
yes
yes
no
Ken
tuck
yye
sno
Lou
isia
naye
sno
no
Mar
ylan
dno
yes
yes
yes
no
Mis
siss
ippi
yes
5 ye
ars
no
Mis
sour
ino
yes
yes
yes,
all
serv
edno
Nor
th C
arol
ina
noye
slo
cally
est
ablis
hed
prio
ritie
sye
sye
s
Okl
ahom
ano
'ye
sye
sno
, but
all
serv
edno
Sout
h C
arol
ina
yes
24 m
onth
sno
GA
and
OK
do
not h
ave
a la
w o
r re
gula
tion
that
spe
cifi
es th
at c
hild
car
e is
gua
rant
eed;
but
as
a m
atte
r of
sta
te p
olic
y ch
ildca
re is
"gua
rant
eed"
in th
ese
stat
es f
or c
hild
ren
who
se p
aren
ts a
re a
pplic
ants
or
reci
pien
ts o
f T
AN
F an
d w
ho n
eed
child
car
e to
par
ticip
ate
inst
ate-
appr
oved
act
iviti
es.
6061
Tab
le 1
Chi
ld C
are
Ass
ista
nce
for
Em
ploy
ed T
AN
F R
ecip
ient
s
Stat
e
Chi
ld C
are
isgu
aran
teed
by la
w o
rre
gula
tion
If li
mite
d,nu
mbe
r of
mon
ths
child
care
assi
stan
ce is
avai
labl
e
Chi
ldC
are
prov
ided
only
iffu
nds
avai
labl
e
Chi
ld C
are
prov
ided
onl
y if
fund
s av
aila
ble,
BU
T g
roup
isgi
ven
top
prio
rity
If f
unds
not
avai
labl
e, M
UST
be p
ut o
n w
aitin
glis
t
. Var
ies
acro
sslo
calit
ies
Fam
ilyno
tel
igib
leSp
ecia
l pol
icie
s or
rest
rict
ions
Ten
ness
eeye
sno
Tex
asye
s.
no
guar
ante
ed o
nly
ifpa
rent
(s)
enro
lled
inC
HO
ICE
S (T
AN
Fem
ploy
men
t pro
gram
)
Wes
t Vir
gini
ano
yes
yes
nono
63
Tab
le 2
Chi
ld C
are
Ass
ista
nce
for
TA
NF
Rec
ipie
nts
Who
are
Loo
king
Var
ies
acro
sslo
calit
ies
Fam
ilyno
tel
igib
le
for
Wor
k
Spec
ial p
olic
ies
or r
estr
ictio
nsSt
ate
Chi
ld C
are
isgu
aran
teed
by la
w o
rre
gula
tion
If li
mite
d,nu
mbe
r of
mon
ths
child
care
ass
ista
nce
isav
aila
ble
Chi
ld c
are
prov
ided
only
iffu
nds
avai
labl
e
Chi
ld C
are
prov
ided
onl
y if
fund
s av
aila
ble,
BU
T g
roup
isgi
ven
top
prio
rity
If f
unds
not
avai
labl
e,M
UST
be
put o
nw
aitin
g lis
t_
Ala
bam
ano
yes
yes
no, b
ut a
llse
rved
no
Ark
ansa
sye
sno
Del
awar
eye
sno
Dis
tric
t of
Col
umbi
ano
limite
d to
3m
onth
s_y
esye
sno
no
Flor
ida
noye
sno
, pri
ority
2ye
sno
Geo
rgia
no2
up to
8 w
eeks
per
year
, 1st
inst
ance
no m
ore
than
6w
eeks
yes
yes
no
time
limits
for
job
sear
ch a
reT
AN
F ru
les,
not
chi
ld c
are
rule
s
Ken
tuck
yye
sno
no li
mit
if w
ork
sear
ch is
par
tof
app
rove
d T
AN
F ac
tivity
Lou
isia
nano
noye
s
Mar
ylan
dno
yes
yes
yes
nono
lega
l gua
rant
ees,
but
all
elig
ible
are
ser
ved
Mis
siss
ippi
yes
5 ye
ars
no
Mis
sour
ino
yes
nono
nosy
stem
not
TA
NF-
base
d
2 G
A a
nd O
K d
o no
t hav
e a
law
or
regu
latio
n th
at s
peci
fies
that
chi
ld c
are
is g
uara
ntee
d, b
ut a
s a
mat
ter
of s
tate
pol
icy
child
car
e is
"gua
rant
eed"
for
chi
ldre
n w
hose
par
ents
are
app
lican
ts o
r re
cipi
ents
of
TA
NF
who
nee
d ch
ild c
are
to p
artic
ipat
e in
sta
te-a
ppro
ved
activ
ities
.
t 465
Tab
le 2
Chi
ld C
are
Ass
ista
nce
for
TA
NF
Rec
ipie
nts
Who
are
Loo
king
Var
ies
acro
sslo
calit
ies
Fam
ilyno
tel
igib
le
for
Wor
k
Spec
ial p
olic
ies
or r
estr
ictio
nsSt
ate
Chi
ld C
are
isgu
aran
teed
by la
w o
rre
gula
tion
If li
mite
d,nu
mbe
r of
mon
ths
child
care
ass
ista
nce
isav
aila
ble
Chi
ld c
are
prov
ided
only
iffu
nds
avai
labl
e
Chi
ld C
are
prov
ided
onl
y if
fund
s av
aila
ble,
BU
T g
roup
isgi
ven
top
prio
rity
If f
unds
not
avai
labl
e,M
UST
be
put o
nw
aitin
g lis
t
Nor
thC
arol
ina
no
initi
ally
, up
to 3
0da
ys; m
ay e
xten
dto
60
days
with
case
wor
ker
appr
oval
yes
loca
lly s
etpr
iori
ties
yes
yes
Okl
ahom
ano
2ye
sye
s
no, b
ut a
llcu
rren
tlyse
rved
no
Sout
h C
arol
ina
yes
noif
atte
mpt
ing
to s
tart
a T
AN
Fco
mpo
nent
with
in 2
wee
ks
Ten
ness
eeye
sno
Tex
asye
sno
guar
ante
ed o
nly
if p
aren
t(s)
enro
lled
in C
HO
ICE
S
Wes
t Vir
gini
ano
yes
yes
no
6 7
Tab
le 3
Chi
ld C
are
Ass
ista
nce
for
TA
NF
Rec
ipie
nts
in a
n A
ppro
ved
Tra
inin
g Pr
ogra
m
Stat
e
Chi
ld C
are
isgu
aran
teed
by la
w o
rre
gula
tion
If li
mite
d,nu
mbe
r of
mon
ths
child
care
ass
ista
nce
is a
vaila
ble
Chi
ldC
are
prov
ided
only
iffu
nds
avai
labl
e
Chi
ld C
are
prov
ided
onl
y if
fund
s av
aila
ble,
BU
T g
roup
isgi
ven
top
prio
rity
If f
unds
not
avai
labl
e,M
UST
be
put o
nw
aitin
g lis
t
Var
ies
acro
sslo
calit
ies
.
Fam
ilyno
tel
igib
leSp
ecia
l pol
icie
s or
res
tric
tions
Ala
bam
ano
2 ye
ars
yes
yes
no, b
ut a
llcu
rren
tlyse
rved
nono
tim
e lim
it so
long
as
grad
esar
e sa
tisfa
ctor
y
Ark
ansa
sye
sno
Del
awar
eye
sno
Dis
tric
t of
Col
umbi
ano
vari
es b
ypr
ogra
mye
sye
sno
no
Flor
ida
noye
sno
, pri
ority
2ye
sno
Geo
rgia
no3
yes1
yes1
no
Ken
tuck
yye
sno
Lou
isia
naye
s
.
no
mus
t atte
nd jo
b tr
aini
ngpr
ogra
mor
a c
ombi
natio
n of
job
trai
ning
and
em
ploy
men
tfo
r an
ave
rage
of
20 h
ours
aw
eek
Mar
ylan
dno
yes
yes
yes
nono
lega
l gua
rant
ee, b
ut a
llel
igib
le a
re s
erve
d
Mis
siss
ippi
yes
5 ye
ars
no
Mis
sour
ino
yes
nono
nosy
stem
not
TA
NF-
base
d
3 G
A a
nd O
K d
o no
t hav
e a
law
or
regu
latio
n th
at s
peci
fies
that
chi
ld c
are
is g
uara
ntee
d, b
ut a
s a
mat
ter
of s
tate
pol
icy
child
cas
e is
"gua
rant
eed"
for
chi
ldre
n w
hose
par
ents
are
app
lican
ts o
r re
cipi
ents
of
TA
NF
who
nee
d ch
ild c
are
to p
artic
ipat
e in
sta
te-a
ppro
ved
activ
ities
.
419
'1/4
1.i
69
Tab
le 3
Chi
ld C
are
Ass
ista
nce
for
TA
NF
Rec
ipie
nts
in a
n A
ppro
ved
Tra
inin
gPr
ogra
m
Spec
ial p
olic
ies
or r
estr
ictio
nsSt
ate
Chi
ld C
are
isgu
aran
teed
by la
w o
rre
gula
tion
If li
mite
d,nu
mbe
r of
mon
ths
child
care
ass
ista
nce
is a
vaila
ble
Chi
ldC
are
prov
ided
only
iffu
nds
avai
labl
e
Chi
ld C
are
prov
ided
onl
y if
fund
s av
aila
ble,
BU
T g
roup
isgi
ven
top
prio
rity
If f
unds
not
avai
labl
e,M
UST
be
put o
nw
aitin
g lis
t
Var
ies
acro
sslo
calit
ies
Fam
ilyno
tel
igib
leN
orth
Car
olin
ano
yes
loca
lly s
etyr
iori
ties
yes
yes
Okl
ahom
ano
'ye
sye
s
no, b
ut a
llcu
rren
tlyse
rved
no
Sout
hC
arol
ina
yes
24 m
onth
sno
Ten
ness
eeye
sno
Tex
asye
s
up to
18
mon
ths
in C
HO
ICE
Spr
ogra
mno
guar
ante
ed o
nly
if p
aren
t(s)
enro
lled
in C
HO
ICE
S
Wes
t Vir
gini
ano
yes
yes
no
71
Tab
le 4
Chi
ld C
are
Ass
ista
nce
for
TA
NF
App
lican
ts D
iver
ted
from
Cas
h A
ssis
tanc
eby
Job
Sea
rch
and/
or I
mm
edia
te E
mpl
oym
ent
Stat
e
Chi
ld C
are
isgu
aran
tee
d by
law
orre
gula
tion
If li
mite
d, n
umbe
rof
mon
ths
child
car
eas
sist
ance
isav
aila
ble
Chi
ld C
are
prov
ided
only
iffu
nds
avai
labl
e
Chi
ld C
are
prov
ided
onl
y if
fund
s av
aila
ble,
BU
T g
roup
is g
iven
top
prio
rity
If f
unds
are
not
avai
labl
eM
UST
be
put o
nw
aitin
g lis
t
Polic
yva
ries
acro
sslo
calit
ies
Fam
ilyno
tel
igib
leSp
ecia
l pol
icie
s or
rest
rict
ions
Ala
bam
ano
yes
yes
no
Ark
ansa
sye
sno
mus
t be
empl
oyed
at
leas
t 30
hour
s pe
r w
eek
Del
awar
eye
sno
Dis
tric
t of
Col
umbi
aye
s
up to
3 m
onth
s fo
rjo
b se
arch
; as
long
as e
ligib
le if
imm
edia
tely
empl
oyed
yes
yes
noal
l im
med
iate
lyem
ploy
ed a
re s
erve
d
Flor
ida
noye
sno
, pri
ority
2ye
sno
Geo
rgia
no4
1 ye
arye
s'ye
s'no
Ken
tuck
yye
sno
Lou
isia
naL
ouis
iana
doe
s no
t hav
ea
dive
rsio
n po
licy
Mar
ylan
dno
yes
yes
yes
no
Mis
siss
ippi
yes
5 ye
ars
no
Mis
sour
ino
yes
nono
nosy
stem
not
TA
NF-
base
d
Nor
th C
arol
ina
noye
slo
cally
set
pri
oriti
esye
sye
s
Okl
ahom
ano
4ye
sye
sno
, but
all
no
4 G
A a
nd O
K d
o no
t hav
e a
law
or
regu
latio
n th
at s
peci
fies
that
chi
ld c
are
is g
uara
ntee
d, b
ut a
s a
mat
ter
of s
tate
pol
icy
child
car
e is
"gua
rant
eed"
for
chi
ldre
n w
hose
par
ents
are
app
lican
ts o
r re
cipi
ents
of
TA
NF
who
nee
d ch
ild c
are
to p
artic
ipat
e in
sta
te-a
ppro
ved
activ
ities
. 7.1
73
Tab
le 4
Chi
ld C
are
Ass
ista
nce
for
TA
NF
App
lican
ts D
iver
ted
from
Cas
h A
ssis
tanc
eby
Job
Sea
rch
and/
or I
mm
edia
te E
mpl
oym
ent
Stat
e
Chi
ld C
are
isgu
aran
tee
d by
law
orre
gula
tion
If li
mite
d, n
umbe
rof
mon
ths
child
car
eas
sist
ance
isav
aila
ble
Chi
ld C
are
prov
ided
only
iffu
nds
avai
labl
e
Chi
ld C
are
prov
ided
onl
y if
fund
s av
aila
ble,
BU
T g
roup
is g
iven
top
prio
rity
If f
unds
are
not
avai
labl
eM
UST
be
put o
nw
aitin
g lis
t
Polic
yva
ries
acro
sslo
calit
ies
Fam
ilyno
tel
igib
leSp
ecia
l pol
icie
s or
rest
rict
ions
serv
ed
Sout
h C
arol
ina
yes
curr
ently
2 w
eeks
*ye
sye
sno
no
*pla
n to
beg
in f
undi
ngel
igib
le f
amili
es f
or 5
2w
eeks
Ten
ness
eeN
/AT
enne
ssee
doe
s no
t hav
ea
dive
rsio
n po
licy
Tex
asye
s12
mon
ths
no
mus
t hav
e re
ceiv
ed a
refe
rral
to a
ttend
aw
orkf
orce
ori
enta
tion
and
mus
t hav
e lo
cate
dem
ploy
men
t
Wes
t Vir
gini
ano
yes
nono
, but
all
serv
ed
Is
Tab
le 5
Chi
ld C
are
Ass
ista
nce
for
TA
NF
Rec
ipie
nts
in H
ighe
r E
duca
tion
Stat
e
Chi
ld C
are
isgu
aran
teed
by la
w o
rre
gula
tion
If li
mite
d,le
ngth
of
time
child
car
eas
sist
ance
isav
aila
ble
Chi
ld C
are
prov
ided
only
iffu
nds
avai
labl
e
Chi
ld C
are
prov
ided
onl
y if
fund
s av
aila
ble,
BU
T g
roup
is g
iven
top
prio
rity
If f
unds
not
avai
labl
e,M
UST
be
put o
nw
aitin
g lis
t
Var
ies
acro
sslo
calit
ies
._
Fam
ilyno
tel
igib
leSp
ecia
l pol
icie
s or
rest
rict
ions
Ala
bam
ano
yes
yes
no, b
ut a
llcu
rren
tlyse
rved
no
mus
t be
in a
2-y
ear
prog
ram
or
the
last
2 y
ears
of a
4-y
ear
degr
ee
Ark
ansa
sye
sno
if 2
- or
4-y
ear
high
ered
ucat
ion
is a
ppro
ved,
TA
NF
wor
k ac
tivity
and
fam
ily is
rec
eivi
ng c
ash
assi
stan
ce
Del
awar
eye
sno
polic
y sa
me
for
appr
oved
2-
and
4-ye
ar c
olle
ge
Dis
tric
t of
Col
umbi
aye
sye
sye
sno
polic
y sa
me
for
appr
oved
2-
and
4-ye
ar c
olle
ge
Flor
ida
noye
sno
, pri
ority
2ye
sno
polic
y sa
me
for
appr
oved
2-
and
4-ye
ar c
olle
ge
Geo
rgia
nono
yes
high
er e
d. is
not
allo
wed
as
an e
xclu
sive
act
ivity
Ken
tuck
yye
sno
educ
atio
n m
ust b
e an
appr
oved
TA
NF
activ
ity;
may
be
2- o
r 4-
year
col
lege
Lou
isia
naye
s
1
no.
no
reci
pien
t mus
t hav
e hi
gher
ed. (
2- o
r 4-
year
) ap
prov
edby
TA
NF
and
mus
t atte
ndco
llege
or a
com
bina
tion
of e
duca
tion
and
empl
oym
ent
for
anav
erag
e of
20
hour
s a
wee
k
7 1 4
Tab
le 5
Chi
ld C
are
Ass
ista
nce
for
TA
NF
Rec
ipie
nts
in H
ighe
r E
duca
tion
Stat
e
Chi
ld C
are
isgu
aran
teed
by la
w o
rre
gula
tion
If li
mite
d,le
ngth
of
time
child
car
eas
sist
ance
isav
aila
ble
Chi
ld C
are
prov
ided
only
iffu
nds
avai
labl
e
Chi
ld C
are
prov
ided
onl
y if
fund
s av
aila
ble,
BU
T g
roup
is g
iven
top
prio
rity
If f
unds
not
avai
labl
e,M
UST
be
put o
nw
aitin
g lis
t
Var
ies
acro
sslo
calit
ies
Fam
ilyno
tel
igib
leSp
ecia
l pol
icie
s or
rest
rict
ions
Mar
ylan
dno
yes
nono
yes
mos
t loc
aliti
es a
llow
onl
y2-
year
hig
her
educ
atio
n
Mis
siss
ippi
nono
yes
stat
e pl
an d
oes
prov
ide
child
car
e fo
r hi
gher
educ
atio
n un
less
fam
ily is
also
mee
ting
wor
kre
quir
emen
t
Mis
sour
ino
yes
nono
nopo
licy
sam
e fo
r ap
prov
ed 2
-an
d 4-
year
col
lege
Nor
th C
arol
ina
no24
mon
ths
yes
loca
lly e
stab
lishe
dpr
iori
ties
yes
yes
Okl
ahom
ano
5ye
sye
s
no, b
ut a
llcu
rren
tlyse
rved
no
Sout
h C
arol
ina
yes
no
Ten
ness
eeye
sno
mus
t be
enro
lled
as a
ful
l-tim
e hi
gher
edu
catio
nst
uden
t
Tex
asye
stim
e lim
itsva
ry b
y lo
calit
y
only
tim
elim
itsva
ry
guar
ante
ed o
nly
ifpa
rent
(s)
enro
lled
inC
HO
ICE
S
Wes
t Vir
gini
ano
yes
no
no, b
ut a
llcu
rren
tlyse
rved
no
OK
doe
s no
t hav
e a
law
or
regu
latio
n th
at s
peci
fies
that
chi
ld c
are
is g
uara
ntee
d, b
ut a
s a
mat
ter
of s
tate
pol
icy
child
car
e is
"gua
rant
eed"
for
child
ren
who
se p
aren
ts a
re a
pplic
ants
or
reci
pien
ts o
f T
AN
F w
ho n
eed
child
car
e to
par
ticip
ate
in s
tate
-app
rove
d ac
tiviti
es.
7879
Tab
le 6
Chi
ld C
are
Ass
ista
nce
for
Form
er T
AN
F R
ecip
ient
sW
ho H
ave
Lef
t TA
NF
Due
to E
arni
ngs
Stat
e
Chi
ld C
are
isgu
aran
teed
by la
w o
rre
gula
tion
If li
mite
d, le
ngth
of
time
child
car
eas
sist
ance
isav
aila
ble
Chi
ldC
are
prov
ided
only
iffu
nds
avai
labl
e
Chi
ld C
are
prov
ided
only
iffu
nds
avai
labl
e,B
UT
gro
upis
giv
en to
ppr
iori
ty
If f
unds
not
avai
labl
e,M
UST
be
put
on w
aitin
glis
t
Var
ies
acro
sslo
calit
ies
Fam
ilyno
tel
igib
leSp
ecia
l pol
icie
s or
rest
rict
ions
Ala
bam
ano
yes
noye
sno
mus
t app
ly w
ithin
6 m
onth
saf
ter
leav
ing
TA
NF
in o
rder
to a
void
wai
ting
list
Ark
ansa
sye
sup
to 3
6 m
onth
sno
Del
awar
eye
sas
long
as
mee
tin
com
e gu
idel
ines
no
Dis
tric
t of
Col
umbi
ano
as lo
ng a
s el
igib
leye
sno
noal
l elig
ible
who
app
ly a
recu
rren
tly s
erve
d
Flor
ida
no24
mon
ths
yes
no, p
rior
ity3
yes
no
Geo
rgia
no6
12 m
onth
s T
CC
plus
con
tinue
dse
rvic
esye
sye
sno
"sea
mle
ss"
serv
ices
if f
amily
rem
ains
inco
me-
elig
ible
Ken
tuck
yye
s12
mon
ths
no
fam
ily m
ust r
emai
nem
ploy
ed w
ith in
com
e at
or
belo
w 8
5% o
f SM
I
Lou
isia
naye
sup
to 3
mon
ths
no
Mar
ylan
dno
yes
yes
yes
no
Mis
siss
ippi
yes
12 m
onth
sno
6 G
A d
oes
not h
ave
a la
w o
r re
gula
tion
that
spe
cifi
es th
at c
hild
car
e is
gua
rant
eed,
but
as
a m
atte
r of
sta
te p
olic
y ch
ild c
are
is "
guar
ante
ed"
for
child
ren
who
se p
aren
ts a
re a
pplic
ants
or
reci
pien
ts o
f T
AN
F w
ho n
eed
child
car
e to
par
ticip
ate
in s
tate
-app
rove
d ac
tiviti
es.
81
Tab
le 6
Chi
ld C
are
Ass
ista
nce
for
Form
er T
AN
F R
ecip
ient
sW
ho H
ave
Lef
t TA
NF
Due
to E
arni
ngs
Stat
e
Chi
ld C
are
isgu
aran
teed
by la
w o
rre
gula
tion
If li
mite
d, le
ngth
of
time
child
car
eas
sist
ance
isav
aila
ble
Chi
ldC
are
prov
ided
only
iffu
nds
avai
labl
e
Chi
ld C
are
prov
ided
only
iffu
nds
avai
labl
e,B
UT
gro
upis
giv
en to
ppr
iori
ty
If f
unds
not
avai
labl
e,M
UST
be
put
on w
aitin
glis
t
Var
ies
acro
sslo
calit
ies
.
Fam
ilyno
tel
igib
leSp
ecia
l pol
icie
s or
rest
rict
ions
Mis
sour
ino
yes
nono
nosy
stem
not
TA
NF-
base
d
Nor
th C
arol
ina
noye
slo
cally
set
prio
ritie
sye
sye
s
mus
t mee
t elig
ibili
tycr
iteri
a of
em
ploy
men
t,ed
ucat
ion,
CW
S, C
PS o
rde
velo
pmen
tal n
eeds
Okl
ahom
ano
6ye
sye
s
no, b
ut a
llcu
rren
tlyse
rved
no
Sout
h C
arol
ina
yes
24 m
onth
sno
Ten
ness
eeye
s18
mon
ths
no
mus
t hav
e so
me
paid
empl
oym
ent a
nd to
tal h
ours
of a
ctiv
ity m
ust b
e 20
hou
rsor
gre
ater
Tex
asye
s12
mon
ths
tran
sitio
nal
no
entit
led
to 1
8 m
onth
str
ansi
tiona
l if
exem
pt f
rom
CH
OIC
ES
and
volu
ntar
ilypa
rtic
ipat
ed
Wes
t Vir
gini
ano
yes
yes
no, b
ut a
ll ar
ese
rved
no
8 3
Tab
le 7
Chi
ld C
are
Ass
ista
nce
for
Form
er T
AN
F R
ecip
ient
s W
ho a
reC
urre
ntly
Em
ploy
ed a
nd H
ave
Lef
t TA
NF
Due
to T
ime
Lim
its
Stat
e
Chi
ld C
are
isgu
aran
teed
by
law
or
regu
latio
n
If li
mite
d,le
ngth
of
time
child
care
assi
stan
ce is
avai
labl
e
Chi
ldC
are
prov
ided
only
iffu
nds
avai
labl
e
Chi
ld C
are
prov
ided
only
if f
unds
avai
labl
e, B
UT
gro
upis
giv
en to
p pr
iori
ty
If f
unds
not
avai
labl
e,M
UST
be
put
on w
aitin
glis
t
Var
ies
acro
sslo
calit
ies
Fam
ilyno
tel
igib
leSp
ecia
l pol
icie
s or
rest
rict
ions
Ala
bam
ano
yes
yes
no
mus
t app
ly w
ithin
6m
onth
s of
leav
ing
TA
NF
to a
void
wai
ting
list
Ark
ansa
sno
yes
noye
sno
Del
awar
eye
sno
Dis
tric
t of
Col
umbi
ano
not l
imite
dye
sno
no
Flor
ida
noye
sno
,pri
ority
3ye
sno
Geo
rgia
noye
sno
fam
ily m
ay r
ecei
ve c
hild
care
ass
ista
nce
if th
eym
eet i
ncom
e an
dem
ploy
men
t/ tr
aini
ngel
igib
ility
cri
teri
a
Ken
tuck
yye
s12
mon
ths
no
child
car
e is
ass
ured
iffa
mily
is e
mpl
oyed
,ea
rnin
g le
ss th
an 8
5% o
fth
e SM
I, a
nd le
aves
TA
NF
for
any
reas
on
Lou
isia
nano
yes
no
Mar
ylan
dno
yes
noye
sno
Mis
siss
ippi
yes
12 m
onth
sno
Mis
sour
ino
yes
nono
no
Nor
thC
arol
ina
noye
slo
cally
set
pri
oriti
esye
sye
s
3435
Tab
le 7
Chi
ld C
are
Ass
ista
nce
for
Form
er T
AN
F R
ecip
ient
s W
ho a
reC
urre
ntly
Em
ploy
ed a
nd H
ave
Lef
t TA
NF
Due
to T
ime
Lim
its
Stat
e
Chi
ld C
are
isgu
aran
teed
by
law
or
regu
latio
n
If li
mite
d,le
ngth
of
time
child
care
assi
stan
ce is
avai
labl
e
Chi
ldC
are
prov
ided
only
iffu
nds
avai
labl
e
Chi
ld C
are
prov
ided
only
if f
unds
avai
labl
e, B
UT
gro
upis
giv
en to
p pr
iori
ty
If f
unds
not
avai
labl
e,M
UST
be
put
on w
aitin
glis
t
. Var
ies
acro
sslo
calit
ies
.
Fam
ilyno
tel
igib
leSp
ecia
l pol
icie
s or
rest
rict
ions
Okl
ahom
ano
yes
no, p
rior
ity 2
no, b
ut a
llse
rved
no
Sout
h C
arol
ina
yes
up to
24
mon
ths
no
indi
vidu
als
who
bec
ome
empl
oyed
with
in tw
o ye
ars
of lo
sing
TA
NF
assi
stan
cedu
e to
tim
e lim
its m
ayap
ply
for
tran
sitio
nal c
hild
care
onc
e th
ey b
ecom
eem
ploy
ed; i
f th
ey r
emai
nel
igib
le, m
ay r
ecei
ve c
hild
care
for
2 y
ears
Ten
ness
eeye
s18
mon
ths
no
wor
k, e
duca
tion
and
trai
ning
may
be
com
bine
dto
equ
al f
ull-
time
empl
oym
ent
Tex
asno
yes
noye
sno
Wes
t Vir
gini
ano
yes
nono
no
syst
em b
ased
on
inco
me
elig
ibili
ty, r
egar
dles
s of
TA
NF
stat
us
87
Tab
le 8
Chi
ld C
are
Ass
ista
nce
for
Inco
me-
Elig
ible
, Em
ploy
ed F
amili
es
Stat
e
Chi
ld C
are
isgu
aran
teed
by la
w o
rre
gula
tion
If li
mite
d,le
ngth
of
time
child
car
eas
sist
ance
isav
aila
ble
Chi
ld C
are
prov
ided
only
if f
unds
avai
labl
e
Chi
ld C
are
prov
ided
onl
y if
fund
s av
aila
ble,
BU
T g
roup
is g
iven
top
prio
rity
If f
unds
not
avai
labl
e,M
UST
be
put
on w
aitin
glis
t
Var
ies
acro
sslo
calit
ies
Fam
ilyno
tel
igib
leSp
ecia
l pol
icie
s or
rest
rict
ions
Ala
bam
ano
yes
noye
sno
Ark
ansa
sno
yes
nono
no
Del
awar
eno
yes
noye
sno
Dis
tric
t of
Col
umbi
ano
yes
nono
no
Flor
ida
noye
sno
, pri
ority
3ye
sno
Geo
rgia
noye
sno
nono
Ken
tuck
yno
yes
nono
no
Lou
isia
nano
yes
nono
no-
Mar
ylan
dno
yes
noye
sno
Mis
siss
ippi
noye
sno
yes
no
Mis
sour
ino
yes
nono
no
Nor
th C
arol
ina
noye
slo
cally
set
pri
oriti
esye
sye
s
Okl
ahom
ano
yes
no, p
rior
ity 2
no, b
ut a
llcu
rren
tlyse
rved
no
Sout
h C
arol
ina
noye
sno
nono
Ten
ness
eeno
yes
noye
sno
89
Tab
le 8
Chi
ld C
are
Ass
ista
nce
for
Inco
me-
Elig
ible
, Em
ploy
ed F
amili
es
Stat
e
Chi
ld C
are
isgu
aran
teed
by la
w o
rre
gula
tion
If li
mite
d,le
ngth
of
time
child
car
eas
sist
ance
isav
aila
ble
Chi
ld C
are
prov
ided
only
if f
unds
avai
labl
e
Chi
ld C
are
prov
ided
onl
y if
fund
s av
aila
ble,
BU
T g
roup
is g
iven
top
prio
rity
If f
unds
not
avai
labl
e,M
UST
be
put
on w
aitin
glis
t
Var
ies
acro
sslo
calit
ies
Fam
ilyno
tel
igib
leSp
ecia
l pol
icie
s or
rest
rict
ions
Tex
asno
yes
noye
sno
polic
y re
gard
ing
prio
rity
for
ser
vice
sdo
es n
ot v
ary,
but
inco
me
limits
for
elig
ibili
ty d
o va
ry b
ylo
calit
y
Wes
t Vir
gini
ano
yes
no
no, b
ut a
llel
igib
les
serv
edno
syst
em b
ased
on
inco
me
elig
ibili
ty,
rega
rdle
ss o
f T
AN
Fst
atus
9091
Tab
le 9
Chi
ld C
are
Ass
ista
nce
for
Inco
me-
Elig
ible
Fam
ilies
Loo
king
for
Wor
kat
Ini
tial A
pplic
atio
n
..
Stat
e
Chi
ld C
are
isgu
aran
teed
by la
w o
rre
gula
tion
For
how
long
if f
amily
mee
ts in
com
eel
igib
ility
crite
ria
Chi
ldC
are
prov
ided
only
iffu
nds
avai
labl
e
Chi
ld C
are
prov
ided
onl
y if
fund
s av
aila
ble,
BU
T g
roup
isgi
ven
top
prio
rity
If f
unds
not
avai
labl
e,M
UST
be
put o
nw
aitin
glis
t
Var
ies
acro
sslo
calit
ies
Fam
ilyno
tel
igib
leSp
ecia
l pol
icie
s or
rest
rict
ions
Ala
bam
ano
noye
s
Ark
ansa
sno
10 d
ays
yes
noye
sno
Del
awar
eno
noye
s
Dis
tric
t of
Col
umbi
ano
12 w
eeks
yes
nono
no
Flor
ida
nono
t lim
ited
byst
ate
yes
no, p
rior
ity 3
yes
no
Geo
rgia
nono
yes
Ken
tuck
yno
noye
s
reci
pien
ts w
ho h
ave
alre
ady
secu
red
but n
ot b
egun
empl
oym
ent w
hen
they
app
lym
ay r
ecei
ve c
hild
car
esu
bsid
ies
for
up to
2 w
eeks
prio
r to
sta
rtin
g th
e jo
b if
the
care
oth
erw
ise
wou
ld b
e lo
st
Lou
isia
nano
noye
s
Mar
ylan
dno
1 m
onth
yes
nono
no
Mis
siss
ippi
nono
t lim
ited
byst
ate
yes
noye
sno
Mis
sour
ino
not l
imite
d by
stat
eye
sno
nono
Nor
th C
arol
ina
nono
t lim
ited
byst
ate
yes
loca
lly s
etpr
iori
ties
yes
yes
9293
Tab
le 9
Chi
ld C
are
Ass
ista
nce
for
Inco
me-
Elig
ible
Fam
ilies
Loo
king
for
Wor
kat
Ini
tial A
pplic
atio
n
Stat
e
Chi
ld C
are
isgu
aran
teed
by la
w o
rre
gula
tion
For
how
long
if f
amily
mee
ts in
com
eel
igib
ility
crite
ria
Chi
ldC
are
prov
ided
only
iffu
nds
avai
labl
e
Clii
ld C
are
prov
ided
onl
y if
fund
s av
aila
ble,
BU
T g
roup
isgi
ven
top
prio
rity
If f
unds
not
avai
labl
e,M
UST
be
put o
nw
aitin
glis
t
Var
ies
acro
sslo
calit
ies
Fam
ilyno
tel
igib
leSp
ecia
l pol
icie
s or
rest
rict
ions
Okl
ahom
ano
yes
.
Sout
h C
arol
ina
noye
s
reci
pien
ts w
ho h
ave
alre
ady
secu
red
but n
ot b
egun
empl
oym
ent w
hen
they
app
lym
ay r
ecei
ve c
hild
car
esu
bsid
ies
for
up to
2 w
eeks
prio
r to
sta
rtin
g th
e jo
b if
the
care
oth
erw
ise
wou
ld b
e lo
st
Ten
ness
eeno
yes
Tex
asno
yes
Wes
t Vir
gini
ano
noye
s
9495
Tab
le 1
0C
hild
Car
e A
ssis
tanc
e fo
r In
com
e-E
ligib
le F
amili
es B
etw
een
Jobs
(i.e
. gap
in e
mpl
oym
ent w
hile
rec
eivi
ng c
hild
car
e su
bsid
ies)
Stat
e
Chi
ld C
are
isgu
aran
teed
by
law
or
regu
latio
n
If li
mite
d,le
ngth
of
time
child
car
eas
sist
ance
isav
aila
ble
Chi
ld C
are
prov
ided
only
iffu
nds
avai
labl
e
Chi
ld C
are
prov
ided
onl
y if
fund
s av
aila
ble,
BU
T g
roup
isgi
ven
top
prio
rity
If f
unds
not
avai
labl
e,M
UST
be
put o
nw
aitin
g lis
t
Var
ies
acro
sslo
calit
ies
Fam
ily n
otel
igib
leSp
ecia
l pol
icie
sor
res
tric
tions
Ala
bam
ano
noye
s
Ark
ansa
sno
10 d
ays
yes
yes
nono
Del
awar
eno
1 m
onth
yes
noye
sno
Dis
tric
t of
Col
umbi
ano
12 w
eeks
yes
nono
no
Flor
ida
no1
mon
thye
sno
, pri
ority
3no
no
Geo
rgia
no2
wee
ksye
sye
s.
nono
Ken
tuck
yno
1 m
onth
yes
nono
no
Lou
isia
nano
nono
yes
Mar
ylan
dno
1 m
onth
yes
noye
sno
Mis
siss
ippi
no2
mon
ths
yes
yes
nono
Mis
sour
ino
30 d
ays
yes
nono
no
Nor
th C
arol
ina
no
initi
ally
, up
to30
day
s; m
ayex
tend
to 6
0da
ys w
ithca
sew
orke
rap
prov
alye
slo
cally
set
prio
ritie
sye
sye
s
Okl
ahom
ano
no
no, b
ut a
llcu
rren
tlyse
rved
noye
s
Sout
h C
arol
ina
no1
mon
thye
sye
sno
no
97
Tab
le 1
0C
hild
Car
e A
ssis
tanc
e fo
r In
com
e-E
ligib
le F
amili
es B
etw
een
Jobs
(i.e
. gap
in e
mpl
oym
ent w
hile
child
car
e su
bsid
ies)
Stat
e
Chi
ld C
are
isgu
aran
teed
by
law
or
regu
latio
n
If li
mite
d,le
ngth
of
time
child
car
eas
sist
ance
isav
aila
ble
Chi
ld C
are
prov
ided
only
iffu
nds
avai
labl
e
Chi
ld C
are
prov
ided
onl
y if
fund
s av
aila
ble,
BU
T g
roup
isgi
ven
top
prio
rity
If f
unds
not
avai
labl
e,M
UST
be
put o
nw
aitin
g lis
t
Var
ies
acro
sslo
calit
ies
Fam
ily n
otel
igib
leSp
ecia
l pol
icie
sor
res
tric
tions
Ten
ness
eeno
1 m
onth
yes
noye
sno
Tex
asno
nono
yes
Wes
t Vir
gini
ano
1 m
onth
yes
yes
nono
Tab
le 1
1C
hild
Car
e A
ssis
tanc
e fo
r In
com
e-E
ligib
le F
amili
es A
ttend
ing
Edu
catio
nor
Tra
inin
g Pr
ogra
m
Stat
e
Chi
ld C
are
isgu
aran
teed
by la
w o
rre
gula
tion
If li
mite
d,le
ngth
of
time
child
care
assi
stan
ceis
ava
ilabl
e
Chi
ldC
are
prov
ided
only
iffu
nds
avai
labl
e
Chi
ld C
are
prov
ided
onl
y if
fund
s av
aila
ble,
BU
T g
roup
isgi
ven
top
prio
rity
If f
unds
not
avai
labl
e,M
UST
be
put o
nw
aitin
glis
t
Var
ies
acro
sslo
calit
ies
.
Fam
ilyno
tel
igib
leSp
ecia
l pol
icie
s or
res
tric
tions
Ala
bam
ano
yes
noye
s
high
er e
duca
tion
only
elig
ible
if it
is 2
-ye
ar p
rogr
am o
r th
e la
st 2
yea
rs o
f a
4-ye
ar d
egre
e
Ark
ansa
sno
yes
nono
no
Del
awar
eno
yes
noye
sno
Dis
tric
t of
Col
umbi
ano
yes
nono
no
Flor
ida
nono
noye
s
Geo
rgia
noye
sno
yes
note
en p
aren
ts a
ttend
ing
high
sch
ool/G
ED
prog
ram
are
giv
en p
rior
ity
Ken
tuck
yno
yes
nono
no
Lou
isia
nano
yes
nono
no
mus
t atte
nd jo
b tr
aini
ng p
rogr
amor
aco
mbi
natio
n of
job
trai
ning
and
empl
oym
ent
for
an a
vera
ge o
f 20
hour
s a
wee
k
Mar
ylan
dno
yes
noye
sye
sso
me
area
s do
not
allo
w 4
-yea
r co
llege
Mis
siss
ippi
noye
sno
yes
no
full-
time
stud
ents
are
not
req
uire
d to
mee
t a w
ork
requ
irem
ent,
but p
art-
time
stud
ents
mus
t wor
k at
leas
t 10
hour
s a
wee
k
Mis
sour
ino
yes
nono
no
Nor
thC
arol
ina
noye
slo
cally
set
prio
ritie
sye
sye
slim
ited
to a
tota
l of
2 ye
ars
if e
nrol
led
inpo
st-s
econ
dary
edu
catio
n
10)
101
Tab
le I
IC
hild
Car
e A
ssis
tanc
e fo
r In
com
e-E
ligib
le F
amili
es A
ttend
ing
Edu
catio
nor
Tra
inin
g Pr
ogra
m
Stat
e
Chi
ld C
are
isgu
aran
teed
by la
w o
rre
gula
tion
If li
mite
d,le
ngth
of
time
child
care
assi
stan
ceis
ava
ilabl
e
Chi
ldC
are
prov
ided
only
iffu
nds
avai
labl
e
Chi
ld C
are
prov
ided
onl
y if
fund
s av
aila
ble,
BU
T g
roup
isgi
ven
top
prio
rity
If f
unds
not
avai
labl
e,M
UST
be
put o
nw
aitin
glis
t
Var
ies
acro
sslo
calit
ies
Fam
ilyno
tel
igib
leSp
ecia
l pol
icie
s or
res
tric
tions
Okl
ahom
ano
yes
no, p
rior
ity 3
.
no
no, b
utal
lcu
rren
tlyse
rved
up to
4 y
ears
of
colle
ge
Sout
hC
arol
ina
noye
sye
sno
no
Ten
ness
eeno
yes
noye
sno
educ
atio
n or
trai
ning
mus
t be
full-
time
Tex
asno
vari
es b
ylo
calit
yye
sno
yes
nopr
iori
ty f
or, s
ervi
ces
does
not
var
y, b
uttim
e lim
its f
or e
ligib
ility
var
y by
loca
lity
Wes
tV
irgi
nia
noye
sno
nono
job
trai
ning
/edu
catio
n de
fine
d as
on-
the-
job
trai
ning
, CW
EP,
voc
atio
nal t
rain
ing,
seco
ndar
y sc
hool
pro
gram
s, p
ost-
seco
ndar
y sc
hool
pro
gram
s, c
olle
ges
and
uniV
ersi
ties;
als
o co
unt 1
to 3
hou
rs o
fst
udy
time
per
hour
of
clas
sroo
mac
tivity
103
Tab
le 1
2C
hild
Car
e A
ssis
tanc
e fo
r C
hild
ren
with
Spe
cial
Nee
ds
Stat
e
Chi
ld C
are
isgu
aran
teed
by
law
or
regu
latio
n
If li
mite
d,le
ngth
of
time
child
car
eas
sist
ance
isav
aila
ble
Chi
ld C
are
prov
ided
only
if f
unds
avai
labl
e
Chi
ld C
are
prov
ided
onl
y if
fund
s av
aila
ble,
BU
T g
roup
isgi
ven
top
prio
rity
If f
unds
not
avai
labl
e,M
UST
be
put
on w
aitin
g lis
t
. Var
ies
acro
sslo
calit
ies
Fam
ilyno
tel
igib
leSp
ecia
l pol
icie
s or
rest
rict
ions
Ala
bam
ano
yes
noye
s
Ark
ansa
sno
yes
nono
nono
rat
e di
ffer
entia
l
Del
awar
eno
yes
yes
yes
no
Dis
tric
t of
Col
umbi
ano
yes
yes
nono
no in
com
e lim
it
Flor
ida
noye
sno
nono
not t
reat
ed a
s sp
ecia
lne
eds
for
cert
ific
atio
n,bu
t dif
fere
ntia
l pay
men
tra
teG
eorg
iano
yes
yes
nono
Ken
tuck
yno
yes
nono
nofa
mily
mus
t be
inco
me-
elig
ible
Lou
isia
nano
.ye
sno
nono
Mar
ylan
dno
yes
yes,
with
in e
ach
prio
rity
cat
egor
yye
sno
fam
ily m
ust b
e in
com
e-el
igib
le
Mis
siss
ippi
noye
sno
, pri
ority
2ye
sno
high
er r
eim
burs
emen
tra
tes
Mis
sour
ino
yes
yes
yes
no
no s
lidin
g fe
e; r
ates
bas
edon
dev
elop
men
tal a
ge o
fch
ild
Nor
thC
arol
ina
noye
slo
cally
set
prio
ritie
sye
sye
s
1 0
41
0 5
_
Tab
le 1
2C
hild
Car
e A
ssis
tanc
e fo
r C
hild
ren
with
Spe
cial
Nee
ds
Stat
e
Chi
ld C
are
isgu
aran
teed
by
law
or
regu
latio
n
If li
mite
d,le
ngth
of
time
child
car
eas
sist
ance
isav
aila
ble
Chi
ld C
are
prov
ided
only
if f
unds
avai
labl
e
Chi
ld C
are
prov
ided
onl
y if
fund
s av
aila
ble,
BU
T g
roup
isgi
ven
top
prio
rity
If f
unds
not
avai
labl
e,M
UST
be
put
on w
aitin
g lis
t
Var
ies
acro
sslo
calit
ies
Fam
ilyno
tel
igib
leSp
ecia
l pol
icie
s or
rest
rict
ions
Okl
ithom
ano
yes
yes
no, b
ut a
llse
rved
no
high
er r
eim
burs
emen
tra
te; p
aren
t of
child
on
SSI
has
no c
o-pa
y
Sout
hC
arol
ina
noye
sye
sno
no
diff
eren
t elig
ibili
tycr
iteri
a (m
edic
alex
pens
es d
educ
ted
from
inco
me)
; sta
te h
as s
peci
alne
eds
"set
-asi
de"
Ten
ness
eeye
s18
mon
ths
'no
no p
aren
tal e
mpl
oym
ent
requ
ired
; hig
her
inco
me
limit
(75%
of
the
SMI)
Tex
asno
yes
noye
sno
Wes
tV
irgi
nia
noye
sye
sno
nom
ust b
e in
com
e-el
igib
le;
high
er p
aym
ent r
ate
106
107
Tab
le 1
3C
hild
Car
e A
ssis
tanc
e fo
r C
hild
ren
in F
oste
r C
are
Stat
e
Chi
ld C
are
isgu
aran
teed
by
law
or
regu
latio
n
If li
mite
d,le
ngth
of
time
child
car
eas
sist
ance
isav
aila
ble
Chi
ld C
are
prov
ided
only
iffu
nds
avai
labl
e
Chi
ld C
are
prov
idei
l onl
y if
fund
s av
aila
ble,
BU
T g
roup
isgi
ven
top
prio
rity
If f
unds
not
avai
labl
e,M
UST
be
put
on w
aitin
glis
t
Var
ies
acro
sslo
calit
ies
Fam
ilyno
tel
igib
leSp
ecia
l pol
icie
s or
res
tric
tions
Ala
bam
ano
yes
yes
no
Aik
ansa
sye
sno
child
car
e is
gua
rant
eed
only
ifch
ild c
are
is r
efle
cted
in th
eca
se m
anag
emen
t pla
n; f
amily
does
not
hav
e to
be
inco
me-
elig
ible
; fun
ds f
rom
SSB
G o
rIV
-B
Del
awar
eno
yes
noye
sno
Dis
tric
t of
Col
umbi
ano
yes
yes
nono
no in
com
e lim
it
Flor
ida
noye
sye
s
all c
hild
ren
serv
ed; t
oppr
iori
tyno
yes,
fos
ter
pare
nt m
ust b
eem
ploy
ed u
nles
s ot
herw
ise
spec
ifie
d in
ther
apeu
tic p
lan
Geo
rgia
no7
yes'
yes'
yes
nofo
ster
par
ents
mus
t be
wor
king
or in
edu
catio
n/tr
aini
ng
Ken
tuck
yno
nono
N/A
no
paid
fro
m d
iffe
rent
fun
ding
sour
ce a
nd a
dmin
iste
red
sepa
rate
ly
Lou
isia
nano
yes
nono
no
Mar
ylan
dN
/Ach
ild c
are
for
this
gro
uppr
ovid
ed b
y an
othe
r sy
stem
Geo
rgia
doe
s no
t hav
e a
law
or
regu
latio
n th
at g
uara
ntee
s ch
ild c
are.
How
ever
, as
a m
atte
r of
sta
te p
olic
y ch
ild c
are
is "
guar
ante
ed"
for
child
ren
who
are
in th
e cu
stod
y of
the
Dep
artm
ent o
f Fa
mily
and
Chi
ldre
n Se
rvic
es; c
hild
ren
who
are
in c
ourt
-ord
ered
sup
ervi
sion
whe
rech
ild c
are
is p
art o
f th
e co
urt o
rder
/cas
e pl
an; a
nd c
hild
ren
in f
amili
es w
ith o
pen
Chi
ld P
rote
ctiv
e Se
rvic
es c
ases
whe
re c
hild
car
e is
par
t of
the
case
pla
n.
9
Tab
le 1
3C
hild
Car
e A
ssis
tanc
e fo
r C
hild
ren
in F
oste
r C
are
Stat
e
Chi
ld C
are
isgu
aran
teed
by
law
or
regu
latio
n
If li
mite
d,le
ngth
of
time
child
car
eas
sist
ance
isav
aila
ble
Chi
ld C
are
prov
ided
only
iffu
nds
avai
labl
e
Chi
ld C
are
prov
ided
onl
y if
fund
s av
aila
ble,
BU
T g
roup
isgi
ven
top
prio
rity
If f
unds
not
avai
labl
e,M
UST
be
put
on w
aitin
glis
t
Var
ies
acro
sslo
calit
ies
Fam
ilyno
tel
igib
leSp
ecia
l pol
icie
s or
res
tric
tions
Mis
siss
ippi
noye
sno
yes
no
Mis
sour
ino
yes
nono
none
ed f
or c
hild
car
e m
ust b
esp
ecif
ied
as p
art o
f ca
se p
lan
Nor
thC
arol
ina
noye
slo
cally
set
prio
ritie
sye
sye
s
Okl
ahom
aye
sye
sye
sno
, but
all
serv
edno
avai
labl
e fo
r w
orki
ng f
oste
rpa
rent
s bu
t not
thos
e in
sch
ool
Sout
hC
arol
ina
noye
sye
sno
nofo
ster
par
ents
mus
t be
wor
king
or in
sch
ool;
no f
ee c
harg
ed
Ten
ness
eeno
yes
yes
yes
nono
inco
me
test
or
pare
ntal
empl
oym
ent r
equi
red
Tex
asye
sno
.
child
ren
up to
age
19
elig
ible
;gu
aran
teed
onl
y if
ref
erre
d by
prot
ectiv
e se
rvic
e w
orke
r;fu
ndin
g fo
r ch
ildre
n in
prot
ectiv
e se
rvic
es is
pro
vide
dby
CPS
age
ncy
Wes
tV
irgi
nia
no__
yes
nono
no
fost
er p
aren
ts m
ust b
e w
orki
ngor
in s
choo
l; pa
rent
s' in
com
e is
disr
egar
ded
1 I
Tab
le 1
4C
hild
Car
e A
ssis
tanc
e fo
r C
hild
ren
Rec
eivi
ng P
rote
ctiv
e/Pr
even
tive
Car
e
Stat
e
Chi
ld C
are
isgu
aran
teed
by
law
or
regu
latio
n
If li
mite
d,le
ngth
of
time
child
car
eas
sist
ance
isav
aila
ble
Chi
ld C
are
prov
ided
only
if f
unds
avai
labl
e
Chi
ld C
are
prov
ided
onl
y if
fund
s av
aila
ble,
BU
T g
roup
isgi
ven
top
prio
rity
If f
unds
not
avai
labl
e,M
UST
be
put
on w
aitin
g lis
t
Var
ies
acro
sslo
calit
ies
Fam
ilyno
tel
igib
leSp
ecia
l pol
icie
s or
rest
rict
ions
Ala
bam
ano
yes
yes
no
Ark
ansa
sye
sno
child
car
e is
gua
rant
eed
only
if c
hild
car
e is
requ
ired
by
the
case
man
agem
ent p
lan
Del
awar
eno
yes
yes
yes
no
Dis
tric
t of
Col
umbi
aye
sye
sye
sno
no
Flor
ida
noye
sye
sye
sno
top
prio
rity
by
stat
ute
Geo
rgia
no8
yes'
yes'
no
Ken
tuck
yye
sno
prot
ectiv
e ca
re is
guar
ante
ed, r
egar
dles
s of
inco
me;
pre
vent
ive
care
mus
t mee
t inc
ome
elig
ibili
ty g
uide
lines
Lou
isia
nano
yes
nono
no
Mar
ylan
dno
yes
no.
yes
no
fund
ing
for
thes
e ch
ildre
nis
ava
ilabl
e th
roug
hso
cial
ser
vice
s
Mis
siss
ippi
noye
sno
yes
no
Mis
sour
ino
yes
.no
nono
Geo
rgia
doe
s no
t hav
e a
law
or
regu
latio
n th
at g
uara
ntee
s ch
ild c
are.
How
ever
, as
a m
atte
r of
sta
te p
olic
y ch
ild c
are
is "
guar
ante
ed"
for
child
ren
who
are
in th
e cu
stod
y of
the
Dep
artm
ent o
f Fa
mily
and
Chi
ldre
n Se
rvic
es; c
hild
ren
who
are
in c
ourt
-ord
ered
sup
ervi
sion
whe
rech
ild c
are
is p
art o
f th
e co
urt o
rder
/cas
e pl
an; a
nd c
hild
ren
in f
amili
es w
ith o
pen
Chi
ld P
rote
ctiv
e Se
rvic
es c
ases
whe
re c
hild
car
e is
par
t of
the
case
pla
n.2.
2
113
Tab
le 1
4C
hild
Car
e A
ssis
tanc
e fo
r C
hild
ren
Rec
eivi
ng P
rote
ctiv
e/Pr
even
tive
Car
e
Stat
e
Chi
ld C
are
isgu
aran
teed
by
law
or
regu
latio
n
If li
mite
d,le
ngth
of
time
child
car
eas
sist
ance
isav
aila
ble
Chi
ld C
are
prov
ided
only
if f
unds
avai
labl
e
Chi
ld C
are
prov
ided
onl
y if
fund
s av
aila
ble,
BU
T g
roup
isgi
ven
top
prio
rity
If f
unds
not
avai
labl
e,M
UST
be
put
on w
aitin
g lis
t
Var
ies
acro
sslo
calit
ies
Fam
ilyno
tel
igib
leSp
ecia
l pol
icie
s or
rest
rict
ions
Nor
thC
arol
ina
noye
s
mos
t loc
aliti
esm
ake
CPS
apr
iori
tyye
sye
s
Okl
ahom
ano
yes
yes
no, b
ut a
llse
rved
no
Sout
hC
arol
ina
noye
sye
sno
no
child
car
e as
sist
ance
prov
ided
reg
ardl
ess
ofin
com
e
Ten
ness
eeno
yes
yes
yes
no
Tex
asye
sno
Wes
tV
irgi
nia
yes
nono
guar
ante
ed o
nly
ifre
ferr
ed b
y pr
otec
tive
serv
ice
wor
ker;
fun
ding
for
child
ren
in p
rote
ctiv
ese
rvic
es p
rovi
ded
by C
PSag
ency
115
Tab
le 1
5D
o yo
u co
nsid
er th
e im
mig
ratio
n st
atus
of
the
child
's p
aren
t or
guar
dian
whe
n de
term
inin
gel
igib
ility
for
chi
ld-c
are
subs
idie
s?A
laba
ma
no
Ark
ansa
sye
s, p
aren
t mus
t be
a ci
tizen
or
in th
e co
untr
y le
gally
Del
awar
eno
, if
child
is U
.S. c
itize
n
Dis
tric
t of
Col
umbi
ano
Flor
ida
yes
Geo
rgia
no
Ken
tuck
yno
Lou
isia
naye
s
Mar
ylan
dno
Mis
siss
ippi
no
Mis
sour
ino
Nor
th C
arol
ina
no, n
ot if
chi
ld is
U.S
. citi
zen
Okl
ahom
ano
Sout
h C
arol
ina
yes
Ten
ness
eeye
s, p
aren
t mus
t be
citiz
en o
r le
gal a
lien
Tex
asno
Wes
t Vir
gini
ano
Tab
le 1
6In
com
e E
ligib
ility
Cei
ling
as a
Per
cent
age
ofSt
atew
ide
Med
ian
Inco
me
(SM
I).
(Sin
gle
Pare
nt w
ith T
wo
Chi
ldre
n),
Stat
eSt
atew
ide
Med
ian
Inco
me
(fam
ily o
f 3)
Inco
me
Elig
ibili
ty C
eilin
g A
t Ini
tial
App
licat
ion
(Ent
ry)
Inco
me
Elig
ibili
ty C
eilin
g A
tR
edet
erm
inat
ion
(Exi
t) I
fD
iffe
rent
Ann
ually
Mon
thly
Ann
ually
Mon
thly
As
% o
fSM
IA
nnua
llyM
onth
lyA
s %
of
SMI
Ala
bam
a$4
0,52
2$3
,377
$18,
048
$150
445
%$2
7,75
6$2
,313
68%
Ark
ansa
s$3
2,46
3$2
,705
$22,
404
$1,8
6769
%
Del
awar
e$5
3,06
4$4
,422
$27,
768
$2,3
1452
%
Dis
tric
t of
Col
umbi
a$4
7,14
5$3
,929
$27,
924
$2,3
2759
%
Flor
ida
$41,
927
$3,4
94$2
1,22
8$1
,769
51%
$28,
296
$2,3
5867
%
Geo
rgia
$43,
385
$3,6
15$2
4,27
6$2
,023
956
%
Ken
tuck
y$3
8,66
8$3
,222
$22,
200
$1,8
50m
57%
Lou
isia
na$3
8,71
3$3
,226
$29,
040
$2,4
2075
%
Mar
ylan
d$5
5,86
7$4
,656
$25,
140
$2,0
9545
%
Mis
siss
ippi
$35,
480
$2,9
57$3
0,15
6$2
,513
85%
Mis
sour
i$4
3,83
0$3
,653
$17,
784
$1,4
8241
%
Nor
th C
arol
ina
$43,
504
$3,6
25$3
2,62
8$2
,719
75%
Okl
ahom
a$3
7,19
8$3
,100
$23,
232
$1,9
36n
62%
Sout
h C
arol
ina
$41,
714
$3,4
76$2
0,82
0$1
,735
50%
$24,
288
$2,0
2458
%
Ten
ness
ee$4
0,52
5$3
,377
$24,
324
$2,0
2760
%
9 If
this
fam
ily h
ad a
chi
ld w
ith s
peci
al n
eeds
, the
inco
me
ceili
ng w
ould
be
$2,3
34 p
er m
onth
.m
If
this
fam
ily w
ere
leav
ing
TA
NF
to e
nter
the
wor
kfor
ce (
i.e. i
n T
rans
ition
al C
hild
Car
e) th
e in
com
e ce
iling
wou
ld b
e $2
,739
per
mon
th.
" T
his
is n
et in
com
e. T
hegr
oss
inco
me
ceili
ng w
ould
be
$2,4
20 (
or 7
7% o
f th
e SM
I) a
fter
the
20%
ear
ned
inco
me
dedu
ctio
n is
app
lied
and
coul
d be
eve
n hi
gher
if o
ther
inco
me
dedu
ctio
ns a
pplie
d.
11 7
ns
Tab
le 1
6In
com
e E
ligib
ility
Cei
ling
as a
Per
cent
age
ofSt
atew
ide
Med
ian
Inco
me
(SM
I)(S
ingl
e Pa
rent
with
Tw
o C
hild
ren)
Stat
eSt
atew
ide
Med
ian
Inco
me
(fam
ily o
f 3)
Inco
me
Elig
ibili
ty C
eilin
g A
t Ini
tial
App
licat
ion
(Ent
ry)
Inco
me
Elig
ibili
ty C
eilin
g A
tR
edet
erm
inat
ion
(Exi
t) I
fD
iffe
rent
Ann
ually
Mon
thly
Ann
ually
Mon
thly
As
% o
fSM
IA
nnua
llyM
onth
lyA
s %
of
SMI
Tex
as$4
0,32
6$3
,360
$34,
272
$2,8
56"
85%
loca
lop
tion'
loca
lop
tion
Wes
t Vir
gini
a$3
6,68
1$3
,057
$28,
296
$2,3
5877
%
The
sta
tew
ide
ceili
ng is
85%
of
the
SMI,
but
som
e lo
calit
ies
have
a lo
wer
inco
me
limit
for
initi
al e
ligib
ility
. Inc
ome
figu
res
are
for
SFY
2000
and
will
incr
ease
bas
ed o
n A
CF
Issu
ance
: LIH
EA
P-IM
-200
0-11
."
Som
e lo
calit
ies
have
est
ablis
hed
a hi
gher
inco
me
elig
ibili
ty c
eilin
g at
red
eter
min
atio
n.
112
0
Tab
le I
6-A
Inco
me
Elig
ibili
ty C
eilin
g as
a P
erce
ntag
e of
Fede
ral P
over
ty L
evel
(FP
L)1
4(S
ingl
e Pa
rent
with
Tw
o C
hild
ren)
Stat
eIn
com
e E
ligib
ility
Cei
ling
At I
nitia
lA
pplic
atio
n (E
ntry
)In
com
e E
ligib
ility
Cei
ling
At
Red
eter
min
atio
n (E
xit)
If
Dif
fere
nt
Ann
ually
Mon
thly
As
% o
fFP
LA
nnua
llyM
onth
lyA
s %
of
FPL
Ala
bam
a$1
8,04
8$1
504
128%
$27,
756
$2,3
13.1
96%
Ark
ansa
s$2
2,40
4$1
,867
158%
Del
awar
e$2
7,76
8$2
,314
196%
Dis
tric
t of
Col
umbi
a$2
7,92
4$2
,327
197%
Flor
ida
$21,
228
$1,7
6915
0%$2
8,29
6$2
,358
200%
Geo
rgia
$24,
276
$2,0
23'5
172%
Ken
tuck
y$2
2,20
0$1
,850
1615
7%
Lou
isia
na$2
9,04
0$2
,420
205%
Mar
ylan
d$2
5,14
0$2
,095
178%
Mis
siss
ippi
$30,
156
$2,5
1321
3%
Mis
sour
i$1
7,78
4$1
,482
126%
Nor
th C
arol
ina
$32,
628
$2,7
1923
1%
Okl
ahom
a$2
3,23
2$1
,936
'716
4%
Sout
h C
arol
ina
$20,
820
$1,7
3514
7%$2
4,28
8$2
,024
172%
Ten
ness
ee$2
4,32
4$2
,027
172%
" B
ased
on
2000
Fed
eral
Pov
erty
Lev
el o
f $1
4,15
0 pe
r ye
ar f
or a
fam
ily o
f th
ree.
'5 I
f th
is f
amily
had
a c
hild
with
spe
cial
nee
ds, t
he in
com
e ce
iling
wou
ld b
e $2
,334
per
mon
th.
15 I
f th
is f
amily
wer
e le
avin
g T
AN
F to
ent
er th
e w
orkf
orce
(i.e
. in
Tra
nsiti
onal
Chi
ld C
are)
the
inco
me
ceili
ng w
ould
be
$2,7
39 p
er m
onth
.17
Thi
s is
net
inco
me.
The
gro
ss in
com
e ce
iling
wou
ld b
e $2
,420
(or
77%
of
the
SMI)
aft
er th
e 20
% e
arne
d in
com
e de
duct
ion
is a
pplie
dan
dco
uld
be e
ven
high
er if
oth
er in
com
e de
duct
ions
app
lied.
191
122
Tab
le 1
6-A
Inco
me
Elig
ibili
ty C
eilin
g as
a P
erce
ntag
e of
Fede
ral P
over
ty L
evel
(FP
L)1
4(S
ingl
e Pa
rent
with
Tw
o C
hild
ren)
Stat
eIn
com
e E
ligib
ility
Cei
ling
At I
nitia
lA
pplic
atio
n (E
ntry
)In
com
e E
ligib
ility
Cei
ling
At
Red
eter
min
atio
n (E
xit)
If
Dif
fere
nt
Ann
ually
Mon
thly
As
% o
fFP
LA
nnua
llyM
onth
lyA
s %
of
FPL
Tex
as$3
4,27
2$2
,856
"24
2%"
loca
lop
tion'
loca
l opt
ion
Wes
t Vir
gini
a$2
8,29
6$2
,358
200%
The
sta
tew
ide
ceili
ng is
85%
of
the
SMI,
but
som
e lo
calit
ies
have
a lo
wer
inco
me
limit
for
initi
al e
ligib
ility
."
Som
e lo
calit
ies
have
est
ablis
hed
a hi
gher
inco
me
elig
ibili
ty c
eilin
g at
red
eter
min
atio
n.
Tab
le 1
7E
ligib
ility
Cei
lings
and
Max
imum
Co-
Paym
ent f
or F
amily
of
Thr
ee(a
ssum
es f
amily
of
3 w
ith o
ne in
fant
and
one
4-y
ear-
old
in f
ull-
time,
cen
ter-
base
d ca
re)
Stat
e
Inco
me
Elig
ibili
ty C
eilin
gM
axim
um C
o-Pa
ymen
tPr
ovid
er c
an c
harg
era
te s
uppl
emen
tA
nnua
llyM
onth
lyA
s %
of
SMI
Ann
ually
Mon
thly
, for
both
chi
ldre
nA
s %
of
Inco
me
Ala
bam
a$1
8,04
8$1
,504
2545
%$2
,076
$173
12%
yes
Ark
ansa
s$2
2,40
4$1
,867
69%
$5,9
76$4
9821
27%
no
Del
awar
e$2
7,76
8$2
,314
52%
$8,3
88$6
9930
%ye
s, if
no
stat
e co
ntra
ct
Dis
tric
t of
Col
umbi
a$2
7,92
4$2
,327
59%
$5,6
88$4
7420
%no
Flor
ida
$21,
228
$1,7
69 2
251
%$1
,872
$156
9%ye
s
Geo
rgia
$24,
276
$2,0
2323
56%
$3,1
20$2
6013
%ye
s
Ken
tuck
y$2
2,20
0$1
,850
57%
$2,2
08$1
8410
%ye
s
Lou
isia
na$2
9,04
0$2
,420
75%
$5,9
40$4
9520
%ye
s
Mar
ylan
d$2
5,14
0$2
,095
45%
$5,6
88$4
7424
23%
yes
Mis
siss
ippi
$30,
156
$2,5
1385
%$2
,280
$190
8%ye
s
Mis
sour
i$1
7,78
4$1
,482
41%
$2,0
76$1
7312
%ye
s, e
xcep
t CPS
Nor
th C
arol
ina
$32,
628
$2,7
1975
%$2
,940
$245
9%ye
s
Okl
ahom
a$2
3,23
2$1
,936
2562
%$2
,628
$219
11%
26no
20 T
his
fam
ily w
ould
rem
ain
elig
ible
for
chi
ld c
are
assi
stan
ce u
ntil
its in
com
e ex
ceed
ed $
2,31
3 a
mon
th, o
r 68
% o
f th
e SM
I.21
Co-
paym
ents
var
y by
rat
e ar
ea; a
mou
nt in
clud
ed in
tabl
e is
an
estim
ate
base
d on
the
aver
age
pric
e of
chi
ld c
are
for
the
hypo
thet
ical
fam
ily.
22 T
his
fam
ily w
ould
rem
ain
elig
ible
for
chi
ld c
are
assi
stan
ce u
ntil
its in
com
e ex
ceed
ed $
2,35
8 a
mon
th, o
r 67
% o
f th
e SM
I.23
Hig
her
elig
ibili
ty f
or c
hild
ren
with
spe
cial
nee
ds..
24 C
o-pa
ymen
ts a
re b
ased
on
the
cost
of
care
in a
loca
l mar
ket.
$474
wou
ld b
e th
e hi
ghes
t co-
paym
ent i
n th
e m
ost e
xpen
sive
of
the
stat
e's
seve
n re
gion
s. T
he s
tate
ave
rage
co-
paym
ent f
or a
fam
ily o
f th
ree
with
two
child
ren
in f
ull-
time,
cen
ter-
base
d ca
re is
$33
4 a
mon
th, o
r 16
%of
inco
me.
25 T
his
is n
et in
com
e. T
he g
ross
inco
me
ceili
ng w
ould
be
$2,4
20 (
or 7
7% o
f th
e SM
I) a
fter
the
20%
ear
ned
inco
me
dedu
ctio
n is
app
lied
and
coul
d be
eve
n hi
gher
if o
ther
inco
me
dedu
ctio
ns a
pplie
d.25
The
par
ent f
ee w
ould
be
only
9%
of
inco
me
if b
ased
on
gros
s in
com
e af
ter
the
earn
ed in
com
e de
duct
ion
is a
pplie
d.
4i 2
512
6
Tab
le 1
7E
ligib
ility
Cei
lings
and
Max
imum
Co-
Paym
ent f
or F
amily
of
Thr
ee(a
ssum
es f
amily
of
3 w
ith o
ne in
fant
and
one
4-y
ear-
old
in f
ull-
time,
cen
ter-
base
d ca
re)
Stat
e
Inco
me
Elig
ibili
ty C
eilin
gM
axim
um C
o-Pa
ymen
tPr
ovid
er c
an c
harg
era
te s
uppl
emen
tA
nnua
llyM
onth
lyA
s %
of
SMI
Ann
ually
Mon
thly
, for
both
chi
ldre
nA
s %
of
Inco
me
Sout
h C
arol
ina
$20,
820
$1,7
3527
50%
$936
$78
4%ye
s
Ten
ness
ee$2
4,32
4$2
,027
60%
$2,9
04$2
4212
%ye
s
Tex
as$3
4,27
2$2
,856
85%
$3,7
68$3
1428
11%
no
Wes
t Vir
gini
a$2
8,29
6$2
,358
77%
$1,2
96$1
607%
no
27 T
his
fam
ily w
ould
rem
ain
elig
ible
for
chi
ld c
are
assi
stan
ce u
ntil
its in
com
e ex
ceed
ed $
2,02
4 a
mon
th o
r 58
% o
f th
e SM
I.28
Co-
paym
ents
var
y ac
ross
loca
litie
s; th
is is
an
estim
ate.
Tab
le 1
8C
o-Pa
ymen
t for
Fam
ily o
f T
hree
at P
over
ty L
evel
(ass
umes
fam
ily o
f 3
with
one
infa
nt a
nd o
ne 4
-yea
r-ol
d in
full-
time,
cen
ter-
base
d ca
re)
Stat
eC
o-pa
ymen
t, fo
r bo
th c
hild
ren
Prov
ider
can
cha
rge
rate
supp
lem
ent
Ann
ually
Mon
thly
As
% o
f In
com
e
Ala
bam
a$1
,560
$130
11%
yes
Ark
ansa
sno
neno
ne0%
no
Del
awar
e$2
,196
$183
16%
yes,
if c
ente
r no
t und
er s
tate
con
trac
t
Dis
tric
t of
Col
umbi
a$8
88$7
46%
no
Flor
ida
$1,2
48$1
049%
yes
Geo
rgia
$420
$35
3%ye
s
Ken
tuck
y$1
,164
$97
8%ye
s
Lou
isia
na$2
,292
$191
16%
yes
.
Mar
ylan
d$1
08$9
.07%
yes
Mis
siss
ippi
$684
$57
5%ye
s
Mis
sour
i$1
,044
$87
7%ye
s, e
xcep
t for
CPS
Nor
th C
arol
ina
$1,2
72$1
069%
yes
Okl
ahom
a$8
88$7
46%
no
Sout
h C
arol
ina
$732
$61
5%ye
s
Ten
ness
ee$8
28$6
96%
yes
Tex
as$1
,560
$130
2911
%no
Wes
t Vir
gini
a$5
16$4
34%
no
Ass
umpt
ions
: Pov
erty
leve
l inc
ome
for
fam
ily o
f th
ree
is $
14,1
50 p
er y
ear,
or
$1,1
79.1
7 pe
r m
onth
.D
aily
rat
es c
onve
rted
to m
onth
ly r
ates
by
mul
tiply
ing
by 5
day
s .a
wee
k an
d 4.
3 w
eeks
a m
onth
.
29 F
ees
vary
acr
oss
loca
litie
s; th
is is
an
estim
ate.
130
Tab
le 1
9In
com
e D
isre
gard
ed W
hen
Det
erm
inin
g E
ligib
ility
for
Chi
ld C
are
Ass
ista
nce
Ala
bam
afo
od S
tam
ps, f
oste
r ca
re s
ubsi
dies
, ene
rgy
assi
stan
ce c
heck
s, in
-kin
d in
com
e
Ark
ansa
s$1
00 p
er w
orki
ng a
dult
.
Del
awar
eno
ne
Dis
tric
t of
Col
umbi
aT
AN
F pa
ymen
ts, S
SI
Flor
ida
child
sup
port
if c
ourt
-ord
ered
Geo
rgia
SSI,
tax
refu
nds,
gif
ts, v
alue
of
food
sta
mps
, inc
ome
of c
hild
ren,
ene
rgy
assi
stan
ce p
aym
ents
, wor
k ex
pens
es,
adop
tion
supp
lem
ent,
TA
NF,
hou
sing
sub
sidi
es
Ken
tuck
ySS
I, a
ny in
com
e so
lely
to c
hild
, any
one
-tim
e pa
ymen
t
Lou
isia
naea
rned
inco
me
tax
cred
it, in
-kin
d in
com
e an
d fu
ll am
ount
of
fost
er c
are
paym
ents
, $2,
200
per
child
disr
egar
ded
for
min
or p
aren
t's f
amily
or
for
rela
tive
care
take
rs
Mar
ylan
dT
AN
F pa
ymen
ts, S
SI, t
ax r
efun
ds, f
ood
stam
ps, c
hild
sup
port
fro
m n
on-c
usto
dial
par
ent u
p to
$2,
200
per
child
Mis
siss
ippi
only
inco
me
from
em
ploy
men
t is
cons
ider
ed w
hen
dete
rmin
ing
elig
ibili
ty f
or c
hild
car
e as
sist
ance
; all
othe
rin
com
e is
dis
rega
rded
Mis
sour
ihe
alth
insu
ranc
e pr
emiu
ms
Nor
th C
arol
ina
28 in
com
e di
sreg
ards
, inc
ludi
ng: W
ork
Firs
t Fam
ily A
ssis
tanc
e, S
SI, l
ump
sum
pay
men
ts, f
ood
subs
idie
s,fo
ster
car
e as
sist
ance
pay
men
ts, a
dopt
ion
assi
stan
ce p
aym
ents
, loa
ns, g
rant
s, s
chol
arsh
ips,
Sec
tion
VII
Iho
usin
g su
bsid
ies,
in-k
ind
cont
ribu
tions
, em
ploy
ee b
enef
its f
or c
hild
car
e, e
tc.
Okl
ahom
a
20%
ear
ned
inco
me
dedu
ctio
n, le
gally
bin
ding
chi
ld s
uppo
rt p
aid
outs
ide
the
hom
e, g
over
nmen
t ren
t or
hous
ing
subs
idie
s, ir
regu
lar
inco
me
of le
ss th
an $
30 p
er c
alen
dar
quar
ter,
som
e lu
mp
sum
pay
men
ts, i
n-ki
ndin
com
e, m
oney
fro
m s
ale
of p
rope
rty,
ban
k or
trus
t acc
ount
with
draw
als,
cap
ital g
ains
, ear
ning
s of
chi
ldre
n,re
imbu
rsem
ents
, tax
ref
unds
, mon
ey f
rom
thir
d pa
rtie
s, lo
ans,
gra
nts
that
pre
clud
e th
eir
use
for
livin
gex
pens
es, e
duca
tiona
l ass
ista
nce,
IV
-E a
dopt
ion
subs
idie
s, S
CO
RE
and
AC
E in
com
e, in
com
e ex
clud
ed b
yfe
dera
l law
Sout
h C
arol
ina
SSI,
wor
k ex
pens
es, f
oste
r ca
re p
aym
ents
, inc
ome
from
pro
pert
y so
ld, l
oans
and
gra
nts,
tax
refu
nds,
gif
ts,
insu
ranc
e pa
ymen
ts, f
ood
stam
ps, w
ork/
stud
y in
com
e
Ten
ness
eeye
s, c
hild
sup
port
pai
d by
cus
todi
al p
aren
t and
foo
d st
amps
Tex
asfo
od s
tam
ps
Wes
t Vir
gini
alo
ans,
gif
ts, l
ump
sum
inco
me,
gra
nts
& s
chol
arsh
ips
131
Tab
le 2
0Fu
nds
Ava
ilabl
e to
Mee
t the
Dem
and
for
Chi
ld C
are
Ass
ista
nce
Stat
e
Wou
ld y
our
stat
e ha
ve th
e fu
ndin
g to
mee
t the
dem
and
if a
ll el
igib
lefa
mili
es a
pplie
d fo
r ch
ild c
are
assi
stan
ce in
you
r st
ate?
Ala
bam
ano
Ark
ansa
sno
Del
awar
eno
Dis
tric
t of
Col
umbi
ano
Flor
ida
no
Geo
rgia
no-
Ken
tuck
yno
Lou
isia
nano
Mar
ylan
dno
Mis
siss
ippi
no
Mis
sour
ino
Nor
th C
arol
ina
no
Okl
ahom
ano
Sout
h C
arol
ina
no
Ten
ness
eeno
Tex
asno
Wes
t Vir
gini
ano
t with
out T
AN
F tr
ansi
tion
fund
s
Tab
le 2
1St
ate
Req
uire
men
ts f
or F
ace-
to-F
ace
Inte
rvie
w W
hen
App
lyin
gfo
r C
hild
Car
e A
ssis
tanc
e
Stat
e
Is a
fac
e-to
-fac
e in
terv
iew
req
uire
din
ord
er f
or a
fam
ily to
initi
ally
rece
ive
child
car
e su
bsid
ies?
(yes
, no,
var
ies
by lo
calit
y)If
no,
can
elig
ibili
ty b
e de
term
ined
via
phon
e, f
ax, U
S m
ail o
r em
ail?
Ala
bam
aye
s
Ark
ansa
sye
s
Del
awar
eye
s, b
ut c
an b
e w
aive
d fo
r 30
day
s in
case
of
tran
spor
tatio
n ha
rdsh
ip
Dis
tric
t of
Col
umbi
aye
s
Flor
ida
no, b
ut h
ighl
y re
com
men
ded
for
addi
tiona
l R&
R s
ervi
ces
all
Geo
rgia
yes
Ken
tuck
yno
all
Lou
isia
nano
US
mai
l
Mar
ylan
dno
sta
te p
olic
y; v
arie
s by
loca
lity
US
mai
l
Mis
siss
ippi
noU
S m
ail,
fax
Mis
sour
ino
US
mai
l, fa
x, p
hone
Nor
th C
arol
ina
not r
equi
red
by s
tate
, but
mos
t cou
ntie
sre
quir
e th
emU
S m
ail (
for
sign
atur
e), p
hone
(fo
rin
terv
iew
)
Okl
ahom
ano
US
mai
l, ph
one
(man
dato
ry in
terv
iew
)
Sout
h C
arol
ina
noU
S m
ail,
fax,
pho
ne
Ten
ness
eeye
s
Tex
asno
US
mai
l and
fax
(fo
r do
cum
ents
), p
hone
Wes
t Vir
gini
aye
s
134
Tab
le 2
2St
ate
Req
uire
men
ts f
or F
ace-
to-F
ace
Inte
rvie
w W
hen
Red
eter
min
ing
Elig
ibili
ty f
or C
hild
Car
e A
ssis
tanc
e
Stat
e
For
rede
term
inat
ion
of e
ligib
ility
for
child
car
e su
bsid
y, is
a f
ace-
to-
face
inte
rvie
w r
equi
red?
If n
o, c
an r
edet
erm
inat
ion
be d
one
via
phon
e, f
ax, U
S m
ail o
r em
ail?
Ala
bam
aye
s
Ark
ansa
sno
US
mai
l, ph
one
or f
ax
Del
awar
eno
all
Dis
tric
t of
Col
umbi
aye
s
Flor
ida
no, b
ut r
ecom
men
ded
all
Geo
rgia
yes
Ken
tuck
yno
all
Lou
isia
nano
US
mai
l
Mar
ylan
dno
sta
te p
olic
y; v
arie
s by
loca
lity
US
mai
l
Mis
siss
ippi
noU
S m
ail,
fax
Mis
sour
ino
US
mai
l, fa
x, p
hone
Nor
th C
arol
ina
not r
equi
red
by s
tate
, but
mos
t cou
ntie
sre
quir
e th
emU
S m
ail (
for
sign
atur
e), p
hone
(fo
rin
terv
iew
)
Okl
ahom
ano
US
mai
l, ph
one
(man
dato
ry in
terv
iew
)
Sout
h C
arol
ina
noU
S m
ail,
fax,
pho
ne
Ten
ness
eeye
s
Tex
asno
US
mai
l and
fax
(fo
r do
cum
ents
), p
hone
Wes
t Vir
gini
ano
US
mai
l, fa
x
A
Tab
le 2
3St
ate
Polic
ies
Reg
ardi
ng C
oope
ratio
n w
ithC
hild
Sup
port
Enf
orce
men
t
Stat
e
Doe
s yo
ur s
tate
req
uire
that
app
lican
tsfo
r ch
ild c
are
assi
stan
ce c
oope
rate
with
child
sup
port
enf
orce
men
t?
Ala
bam
ano
Ark
ansa
sye
s
Del
awar
eno
Dis
tric
t of
Col
umbi
aye
s
Flor
ida
yes
Geo
rgia
no
Ken
tuck
yno
Lou
isia
nano
Mar
ylan
dye
s
Mis
siss
ippi
no
Mis
sour
ino
Nor
th C
arol
ina
no
Okl
ahom
aye
s
Sout
h C
arol
ina
no
Ten
ness
eeno
Tex
asye
s
Wes
t Vir
gini
ano
-
136
Tab
le 2
4.
Max
imum
Fre
quen
cy o
f C
hild
Car
e E
ligib
ility
Red
eter
min
atio
n(a
ssum
es n
o ch
ange
s in
inco
me
or e
mpl
oym
ent d
urin
g el
igib
ility
per
iod)
Stat
eT
AN
F R
ecip
ient
sIn
com
e-E
ligib
le F
amili
esA
laba
ma
6 m
onth
s6
mon
ths
Ark
ansa
s6
mon
ths
6 m
onth
s
Del
awar
e12
mon
ths
if p
artic
ipat
ing
inem
ploy
men
t act
iviti
es6
mon
ths
Dis
tric
t of
Col
umbi
ano
lim
it if
elig
ible
for
TA
NF
6 m
onth
s
Flor
ida
6 m
onth
s6
mon
ths
Geo
rgia
12 m
onth
s12
mon
ths
Ken
tuck
y12
mon
ths
12 m
onth
s
Lou
isia
na6
mon
ths
6 m
onth
s
Mar
ylan
d12
mon
ths
12 m
onth
s
Mis
siss
ippi
12 m
onth
s12
mon
ths
Mis
sour
i12
mon
ths
12 m
onth
s
Nor
th C
arol
ina
12 m
onth
s12
mon
ths
Okl
ahom
a12
mon
ths
12 m
onth
s
Sout
h C
arol
ina
12 m
onth
s12
mon
ths
Ten
ness
ee6
mon
ths
6 m
onth
s
Tex
asva
ries
306-
12 m
onth
s'
Wes
t Vir
gini
a6
mon
ths
6 m
onth
s
30T
AN
F re
cipi
ents
enr
olle
d in
CH
OIC
ES
rem
ain
elig
ible
unt
il th
eir
CH
OIC
ES
case
is c
lose
d by
the
CH
OIC
ES
case
man
ager
.Fr
eque
ncy
of r
edet
erm
inat
ion
vari
es b
y re
gion
al b
oard
s; m
ost l
ocal
ities
det
erm
ine
elig
ibili
ty e
very
6 o
r 12
mon
ths.
41.4
,113
8
Tab
le 2
5E
ligib
ility
Det
erm
inat
ion
for
Tra
nsiti
onal
Chi
ld C
are
Stat
eR
ecer
tific
atio
n no
t req
uire
dR
ecer
tific
atio
n re
quir
edC
an r
ecer
tific
atio
n be
don
e by
phon
e, f
ax, m
ail o
r em
ail?
Ala
bam
are
cert
ific
atio
n re
quir
ed
Ark
ansa
s
Del
awar
etr
ansf
er is
aut
omat
ical
l
Dis
tric
t of
Col
umbi
atr
ansf
er is
aut
omat
ic
Flor
ida
rece
rtif
icat
ion
requ
ired
all
Geo
rgia
tran
sfer
is a
utom
atic
; TA
NF
wor
ker
veri
fies
inco
me
and
tran
sfer
s ca
se (
no p
aren
tin
terv
iew
req
uire
d)
Ken
tuck
yre
cert
ific
atio
n re
quir
edco
nduc
ted
byT
AN
F ca
sew
orke
ral
l
Lou
isia
nare
cert
ific
atio
n re
quir
edU
S m
ail
Mar
ylan
dre
cert
ific
atio
n re
quir
ed b
ased
on
inco
me
US
mai
l
Mis
siss
ippi
tran
sfer
is a
utom
atic
TA
NF
case
wor
ker
send
s "c
hang
e in
TA
NF
stat
us"
form
to th
ede
sign
ated
age
nt.
Mis
sour
i
N/A
; TA
NF
and
inco
me-
elig
ible
chi
ld c
are
mer
ged;
no
sepa
rate
tran
sitio
nal c
hild
car
epr
ogra
mU
S m
ail,
fax,
pho
ne
Nor
th C
arol
ina
N/A
; TA
NF
and
inco
me-
elig
ible
chi
ld c
are
mer
ged;
no
sepa
rate
tran
sitio
nal c
hild
car
epr
ogra
mU
S m
ail (
for
sign
atur
e), p
hone
(fo
rin
terv
iew
)
Okl
ahom
are
cert
ific
atio
n re
quir
edU
S m
ail,
phon
e (m
anda
tory
inte
rvie
w)
Sout
h C
arol
ina
tran
sfer
is a
utom
atic
US
mai
l, fa
x, p
hone
140
Tab
le 2
5E
ligib
ility
Det
erm
inat
ion
for
Tra
nsiti
onal
Chi
ld C
are
Stat
eR
ecer
tific
atio
n no
t req
uire
dR
ecer
tific
atio
n re
quir
edC
an r
ecer
tific
atio
n be
don
e by
phon
e, f
ax, m
ail o
r em
ail?
Ten
ness
eere
cert
ific
atio
n re
quir
ed w
ithin
6 m
onth
s.-
Tex
as
tran
sfer
is a
utom
atic
; loc
albo
ards
det
erm
ine
tran
sitio
nal
elig
ibili
ty b
ased
on
docu
men
tspr
ovid
ed b
y T
AN
F ca
sew
orke
rU
S m
ail,
fax
(for
doc
umen
ts),
pho
ne
Wes
t Vir
gini
are
cert
ific
atio
n re
quir
ed if
ther
e is
a jo
bch
ange
US
mai
l, fa
x
1 4
1I
4 2
Tab
le 2
6V
erif
icat
ion
Doc
umen
ts A
ccep
tabl
e in
Det
erm
inin
g an
d R
edet
erm
inin
g E
ligib
ility
:It
ems
to V
erif
y In
com
e
Stat
e
Inco
me
can
bede
clar
ed; n
o pr
oof
requ
ired
Payc
heck
stu
bE
mpl
oyer
stat
emen
t of
pay
Tax
ret
urn,
if s
elf-
empl
oyed
Oth
er in
com
eve
rifi
catio
n
Ala
bam
a1
11
'chi
ld s
uppo
rt, S
ocia
lSe
curi
ty, S
SI, T
AN
F
Ark
ansa
s1
(4)
1I
/chi
ld s
uppo
rt
Del
awar
e1
11
Dis
tric
t of
Col
umbi
a1
11
'chi
ld s
uppo
rt, S
SI
Flor
ida
/1
I1
SSI,
TA
NF,
chi
ldsu
ppor
t
Geo
rgia
11
1K
entu
cky
I1
1L
ouis
iana
11
11
all u
near
ned
inco
me
Mar
ylan
d1(
3)1
1
Mis
siss
ippi
1/(
initi
al a
pplic
atio
non
ly)
1(in
itial
app
licat
ion
only
)
Mis
sour
i1
I1
Nor
th C
arol
ina
11
113
2
Okl
ahom
a1
for
30 d
ays
only
inin
itial
app
licat
ion
1(2
mon
ths)
i1
Sout
h C
arol
ina
I fo
ster
par
ents
onl
y1
11
Var
ious
pro
ofs
for
self
-em
ploy
ed (
e.g.
cas
hre
gist
er r
ecei
pts
from
hair
sty
lists
)
Ten
ness
ee1
11
32 S
elf-
empl
oyed
app
lican
ts m
ay b
e re
quir
ed to
sup
ply
busi
ness
rec
ords
or
acco
unt r
ecor
ds.
1. 4 3
1 4
4
Tab
le 2
6V
erif
icat
ion
Doc
umen
ts A
ccep
tabl
e in
Det
erm
inin
g an
d R
edet
erm
inin
g E
ligib
ility
:It
ems
to V
erif
y In
com
e
Stat
e
Inco
me
can
bede
clar
ed; n
o pr
oof
requ
ired
.
Payc
heck
stu
bE
mpl
oyer
stat
emen
t of
pay
Tax
ret
urn,
if s
elf-
empl
oyed
Oth
er in
com
eve
rifi
catio
nT
exas
11
1
Wes
t Vir
gini
a1
11
Soci
al S
ecur
ity I
ncom
e,co
pies
of
cour
t ord
ers
1 It
em is
AC
CE
PTE
D f
or v
erif
icat
ion.
+ I
tem
is R
EQ
UIR
ED
for
ver
ific
atio
n.It
ems
are
requ
ired
for
bot
h in
itial
app
licat
ion
and
rece
rtif
icat
ion
unle
ss o
ther
wis
e no
ted.
Tab
le 2
7V
erif
icat
ion
Doc
umen
ts A
ccep
tabl
e in
Det
erm
inin
g an
d R
edet
erm
inin
g E
ligib
ility
:It
ems
to V
erif
y A
ge o
f C
hild
(ren
)
Stat
eA
ges
can
be d
ecla
red;
no p
roof
req
uire
dB
irth
Cer
tific
ate
Scho
ol R
ecor
dO
ther
age
ver
ific
atio
n
Ala
bam
aI
Ifa
mily
Bib
le
Ark
ansa
s1
Del
awar
eI
Dis
tric
t of
Col
umbi
aI
if b
irth
cer
tific
ate
is n
ot a
vaila
ble,
pass
port
is a
ccep
tabl
e as
pro
of o
f bi
rth
Flor
ida
1G
eorg
ia1
Ken
tuck
yI
Idr
iver
's li
cens
e, I
D c
ard,
med
ical
reco
rds
for
child
ren
and
adul
ts
Lou
isia
na4.
Mar
ylan
dI
Mis
siss
ippi
1M
isso
uri
II
pass
port
, fam
ily B
ible
, or
3rd
part
y
Nor
th C
arol
ina
IO
klah
oma
1So
uth
Car
olin
aI
Ten
ness
eeI
Ifa
mily
Bib
le o
r im
mig
ratio
n fo
rms
Tex
as1
Wes
t Vir
gini
a1
I It
em is
AC
CE
PTE
D f
or v
erif
icat
ion.
+ I
tem
is R
EQ
UIR
ED
for
ver
ific
atio
n.It
ems
are
requ
ired
for
bot
h in
itial
app
licat
ion
and
rece
rtif
icat
ion
unle
ss o
ther
wis
e no
ted.
'
147
148
Tab
le 2
8V
erif
icat
ion
Doc
umen
ts A
ccep
tabl
e in
Det
erm
inin
g an
d R
edet
erm
inin
g E
ligib
ility
:O
ther
Doc
umen
ts
Stat
e
Ver
ify
fam
ilyun
it/ch
ild's
rela
tions
hip
toap
plic
ant
Chi
ld s
uppo
rten
forc
emen
tor
der
Soci
al S
ecur
itynu
mbe
rs f
or a
llfa
mily
mem
bers
Scho
ol o
rtr
aini
ngsc
hedu
le (
ifst
uden
t)
Ver
ify
resi
denc
e in
stat
e or
coun
ty
Proo
f of
imm
uniz
atio
nfo
r ch
ild(r
en)
in c
are
Oth
er p
roof
s or
veri
fica
tions
Ala
bam
a1
IIs
tate
Ark
ansa
s1
1I
1
Del
awar
e1
1
1(if
on
bord
erof
two-
stat
eto
wn)
1D
istr
ict o
fC
olum
bia
I1
1+
1
Flor
ida
I1
11
+ph
one/
utili
tybi
ll
Geo
rgia
1
Ken
tuck
y1(
initi
alap
plic
atio
n on
ly)
IJ(
initi
alap
plic
atio
non
ly)
1L
ouis
iana
I1
1Ic
itize
nshi
p/al
ien
stat
us
Mar
ylan
d'n
otar
ized
decl
arat
ion
II
/util
ity b
ill,
etc.
1
Mis
siss
ippi
Icou
ld b
e re
port
card
or
enro
llmen
tdo
cum
enta
tion
Mis
sour
i1
"(in
itial
appl
icat
ion
only
)1
I/li
cens
e,ut
ility
bill
, 3'
part
y
Nor
th C
arol
ina
11
"citi
zens
hip/
gree
n ca
rd
Okl
ahom
a1
1I
only
if"i
f ch
ild is
not
a c
itize
n,
14 9
150
Tab
le 2
8V
erif
icat
ion
Doc
umen
ts A
ccep
tabl
e in
Det
erm
inin
g an
d R
edet
erm
inin
g E
ligib
ility
:O
ther
Doc
umen
ts
Stat
e
Ver
ify
fam
ilyun
it/ch
ild's
rela
tions
hip
toap
plic
ant
Chi
ld s
uppo
rten
forc
emen
tor
der
Soci
al S
ecur
itynu
mbe
rs f
or a
llfa
mily
mem
bers
Scho
ol o
rtr
aini
ngsc
hedu
le (
ifst
uden
t)
Ver
ify
resi
denc
e in
stat
e or
coun
ty
Proo
f of
imm
uniz
atio
nfo
r ch
ild(r
en)
in c
are
Oth
er p
roof
s or
veri
fica
tions
ques
tiona
ble
need
pro
of o
f ch
ild's
stat
usSo
uth
Car
olin
a1
Ten
ness
ee1
/for
TA
NF
(ini
tial
appl
icat
ion
only
)l(
initi
alap
plic
atio
n on
ly)
I1(
initi
alap
plic
atio
non
ly)
Tex
as1
1W
est V
irgi
nia
11
1 It
em is
AC
CE
PTE
D f
or v
erif
icat
ion.
+ I
tem
is R
EQ
UIR
ED
for
ver
ific
atio
n.It
ems
are
requ
ired
for
bot
h in
itial
app
licat
ion
and
rece
rtif
icat
ion
unle
ss o
ther
wis
e no
ted.
151
Tab
le 2
9B
arri
ers
to A
cces
sing
Chi
ld C
are
Ass
ista
nce
Stat
eIn
you
r op
inio
n, w
hat i
s th
e si
ngle
mos
t dif
ficu
lt pa
rt o
f th
epr
oces
s fo
r fa
mili
es s
eeki
ng c
hild
car
e su
bsid
ies?
Ala
bam
ano
t eno
ugh
mon
ey; v
erif
icat
ion
docu
men
t
Ark
ansa
sno
t eno
ugh
mon
ey to
ser
ve a
ll fa
mili
es
Del
awar
ein
itial
app
licat
ion
proc
ess
burd
enso
me;
pro
ofs
and
com
ing
to o
ffic
e
Dis
tric
t of
Col
umbi
ahe
alth
for
m a
nd f
indi
ng p
lace
men
ts f
or in
fant
s
Flor
ida
limite
d fu
nds;
req
uire
men
t to
mee
t all
fede
ral m
anda
tes
for
fund
ing;
prov
ider
s fr
ustr
ated
with
the
bure
aucr
acy
invo
lved
in s
ervi
ng s
ubsi
dize
dch
ildre
n
Geo
rgia
limite
d do
llars
and
lack
of
tran
spor
tatio
n in
rur
al a
reas
Ken
tuck
yno
t eno
ugh
mon
ey to
bri
ng in
com
e el
igib
ility
up
to 2
00%
of
FPL
;di
ffic
ulty
in v
erif
ying
elig
ibili
ty d
eter
min
atio
n in
form
atio
n
Lou
isia
nafa
mili
es p
rovi
ding
all
requ
ired
ver
ific
atio
n
Mar
ylan
dge
tting
doc
umen
tatio
n in
on
time
for
child
car
e to
beg
in
Mis
siss
ippi
not e
noug
h m
oney
to s
erve
a s
igni
fica
nt p
erce
ntag
e of
thos
e w
ho a
pply
Mis
sour
ila
ck o
f fu
ndin
g to
incr
ease
inco
me-
elig
ibili
ty c
eilin
g
Nor
th C
arol
ina
getti
ng to
cou
nty
Dep
artm
ent o
f So
cial
Ser
vice
s du
ring
bus
ines
s ho
urs
Okl
ahom
afi
ndin
g ch
ild c
are
prov
ider
s w
ho w
ill a
ccep
t sub
sidy
pay
men
ts, t
hen
payi
ng u
ntil
subs
idy
begi
ns
Sout
h C
arol
ina
no a
cces
s to
sub
sidi
es o
n an
on-
goin
g ba
sis;
too
man
y ov
er in
com
e lim
its
Ten
ness
eelim
ited
fund
s to
ser
ve th
e lo
w-i
ncom
e el
igib
le p
opul
atio
n
Tex
aslim
ited
dolla
rs; n
on-T
AN
F fa
mili
es f
ace
long
wai
ting
lists
Wes
t Vir
gini
ain
take
; app
oint
men
ts m
ust b
e sc
hedu
led
only
dur
ing
busi
ness
hou
rs
Tab
le 3
0O
utre
ach
Act
iviti
es
Stat
e
Eff
orts
to in
form
TA
NF
fam
ilies
abo
ut th
eav
aila
bilit
y of
chi
ld c
are
subs
idie
s
Eff
orts
to in
form
inco
me-
elig
ible
fam
ilies
abo
ut th
eav
aila
bilit
y of
chi
ldca
re s
ubsi
dies
Stat
e ha
ses
tabl
ishe
d a
toll-
free
num
ber
for
appl
ican
tsfo
r ch
ild c
are
subs
idie
s
.
Stat
e ha
s ex
pand
edho
urs
for
inta
kew
orke
rs, t
o in
clud
eev
enin
gs a
nd w
eeke
nds
Stat
e ha
sco
nduc
ted
aco
nsum
er-
satis
fact
ion
surv
ey
Ala
bam
a
TA
NF
agen
cy in
form
sap
plic
ants
abo
ut c
hild
car
eas
sist
ance
som
e re
gion
al c
hild
care
man
agem
ent
agen
cies
con
duct
outr
each
but
no
stat
ewid
e po
licy
yes,
reg
iona
llyno
no
Ark
ansa
s
one-
stop
cen
ters
, loc
alco
aliti
on o
utre
ach
cam
paig
n,di
stri
butin
g in
form
atio
n in
publ
ic p
lace
s, p
ilot e
lect
roni
cpa
ymen
t sys
tem
, med
iaca
mpa
ign
for
qual
ity c
are,
CC
R&
R o
utre
ach
stat
ewid
e,w
ebsi
te in
form
atio
n fo
rpa
rent
ssa
me
as f
or T
AN
Fye
sno
no
Del
awar
eal
l TA
NF
appl
ican
ts in
form
edas
par
t of
proc
ess
flye
rs, p
ublic
info
rmat
ion
cam
paig
n, v
ideo
,in
form
atio
n on
bus
es,
info
. at C
HIP
Sye
sye
sno
Dis
tric
t of
Col
umbi
a
com
mun
ity m
eetin
gs, b
uspo
ster
s, o
utre
ach
at f
estiv
als,
wor
k w
ith f
aith
-bas
edco
mm
unity
, eig
ht-m
inut
ein
form
atio
nal v
ideo
ava
ilabl
ein
eve
ry p
ublic
libr
ary
and
heal
th c
linic
, inf
orm
atio
nav
aila
ble
at b
ank
bran
ches
,le
tter
to T
AN
F ap
plic
ants
sam
e as
for
TA
NF
yes,
sin
gle
acce
ssnu
mbe
r
.
yes
yes,
in 1
999
Flor
ida
form
atio
n of
57
loca
lsa
me
as f
or T
AN
Fye
s, r
egio
nally
;ye
s, v
arie
s by
loca
tion
yes,
ann
ually
154
155
Tab
le 3
0O
utre
ach
Act
iviti
es
Stat
e
Eff
orts
to in
form
TA
NF
fam
ilies
abo
ut th
eav
aila
bilit
y of
chi
ld c
are
subs
idie
s
Eff
orts
to in
form
inco
me-
elig
ible
fam
ilies
abo
ut th
eav
aila
bilit
y of
chi
ldca
re s
ubsi
dies
Stat
e ha
ses
tabl
ishe
d a
toll-
free
num
ber
for
appl
ican
tsfo
r ch
ild c
are
subs
idie
s
Stat
e ha
s ex
pand
edho
urs
for
inta
kew
orke
rs, t
o in
clud
eev
enin
gs a
nd w
eeke
nds
Stat
e ha
sco
nduc
ted
aco
nsum
er-
satis
fact
ion
surv
ey
.
coal
ition
s, w
eb-b
ased
sim
plif
ied
poin
t of
entr
y, lo
cal
pres
ence
via
wor
kfor
cede
velo
pmen
t boa
rds
and
cent
ral a
genc
ies
stat
ewid
e Ju
ly20
01
Geo
rgia
publ
ic a
war
enes
s ca
mpa
ign,
R&
Rs
reac
h fa
mili
es,
coor
dina
te w
ith h
igh
scho
ols,
park
ssa
me
as f
or T
AN
Fno
yes
no
Ken
tuck
y
R&
Rs
do p
ublic
aw
aren
ess,
pam
phle
ts, p
aren
t mee
tings
,po
ster
ssa
me
as f
or T
AN
Fno
yes,
eve
ning
hou
rs in
som
ear
eas;
no
wee
kend
hou
rs
limite
d nu
mbe
r of
rand
om c
alls
tocl
ient
s in
Jun
e 20
00
Lou
isia
nano
neno
neno
nono
Mar
ylan
d
stat
ewid
e I&
R f
or p
aren
tslo
okin
g fo
r ch
ild c
are,
soc
ial
serv
ice
wor
kers
info
rmed
abou
t chi
ld c
are
poss
ibili
ties,
child
car
e su
bsid
y in
form
atio
nav
aila
ble
at p
ublic
sch
ools
,ki
nder
gart
ens,
Pre
-Ks
and
all
soci
al s
ervi
ce o
ffic
es, p
lann
ing
maj
or o
utre
ach
cam
paig
n,ch
ild c
are
subs
idy
wor
kers
go
to jo
b si
tes,
pla
nnin
g st
ate
broc
hure
ssa
me
as f
or T
AN
Fno
yes
no
Mis
siss
ippi
med
ia c
ampa
ign,
app
licat
ions
avai
labl
e at
mul
tiple
loca
tions
, sim
plif
ied
appl
icat
ion
proc
ess
sam
e as
for
TA
NF
yes
nono
Mis
sour
ist
atew
ide
R&
R c
ampa
ign
for
sam
e as
for
TA
NF
nono
no
Tab
le 3
0O
utre
ach
Act
iviti
es
Stat
e
Eff
orts
to in
form
TA
NF
fam
ilies
abo
ut th
eav
aila
bilit
y of
chi
ld c
are
subs
idie
s
Eff
orts
to in
form
inco
me-
elig
ible
fam
ilies
abo
ut th
eav
aila
bilit
y of
chi
ldca
re s
ubsi
dies
Stat
e ha
ses
tabl
ishe
d a
toll-
free
num
ber
for
appl
ican
tsfo
r ch
ild c
are
subs
idie
s
Stat
e ha
s ex
pand
edho
urs
for
inta
kew
orke
rs, t
o in
clud
eev
enin
gs a
nd w
eeke
nds
Stat
e ha
sco
nduc
ted
aco
nsum
er-
satis
fact
ion
surv
eyqu
ality
chi
ld c
are,
per
iodi
cm
ailin
gs, b
roch
ures
,co
mm
unity
out
reac
h th
roug
hsc
hool
s, in
form
atio
n on
web
site
.
Nor
thC
arol
ina
som
e lo
cal a
genc
ies
offe
rex
tend
ed e
veni
ng h
ours
, som
eta
ke a
pplic
atio
ns a
tco
mm
unity
site
s, s
ome
doou
trea
ch, p
ublis
h in
form
atio
nin
loca
l new
spap
ers,
info
rmat
ion
on a
div
isio
nw
ebsi
te, s
ome
coun
ties
allo
wpa
rent
s to
sig
n ap
plic
atio
n at
child
car
e ce
nter
sam
e as
for
TA
NF
avai
labl
e in
som
eco
untie
sav
aila
ble
in s
ome
coun
ties
not s
tate
wid
e, b
utso
me
coun
ties
have
cond
ucte
d th
em
Okl
ahom
a
outr
each
cam
paig
n,di
stri
butin
g in
form
atio
n in
publ
ic p
lace
s, p
ilot e
lect
roni
cpa
ymen
t sys
tem
sam
e as
for
TA
NF
noye
s, c
ount
y op
tion
no, b
ut s
ome
coun
ties
surv
ey
Sout
hC
arol
ina
case
wor
kers
info
rm T
AN
Ffa
mili
es a
bout
chi
ld c
are
subs
idie
s.
use
"enh
ance
dpr
ovid
ers"
todi
stri
bute
appl
icat
ions
, R&
Rs,
WIC
-out
reac
h,fa
mily
-nig
htpr
ogra
ms
yes,
but
can
'tha
ndle
all
the
calls
yes
yes,
in A
ugus
t,Se
ptem
ber
and
Oct
ober
199
9
Ten
ness
ee
post
ers,
pam
phle
ts, n
otic
es in
busi
ness
es a
nd s
ocia
l ser
vice
agen
cies
, cou
nsel
ing
duri
ngap
plic
atio
n pr
oces
ssa
me
as f
or T
AN
Fye
sye
sye
s, in
199
9
158
159
Tab
le 3
0O
utre
ach
Act
iviti
es
Stat
e
Eff
orts
to in
form
TA
NF
fam
ilies
abo
ut th
eav
aila
bilit
y of
chi
ld c
are
subs
idie
s
Eff
orts
to in
form
inco
me-
elig
ible
fam
ilies
abo
ut th
eav
aila
bilit
y of
chi
ldca
re s
ubsi
dies
Stat
e ha
ses
tabl
ishe
d a
toll-
free
num
ber
for
appl
ican
tsfo
r ch
ild c
are
subs
idie
s
Stat
e ha
s ex
pand
edho
urs
for
inta
kew
orke
rs, t
o in
clud
eev
enin
gs a
nd w
eeke
nds
Stat
e ha
sco
nduc
ted
aco
nsum
er-
satis
fact
ion
surv
ey
Tex
as
loca
l boa
rds
run
care
erce
nter
s (o
ne-s
top,
eas
y ac
cess
reso
urce
roo
ms
with
sta
ff to
help
pot
entia
l chi
ld c
are
subs
idy
reci
pien
ts);
sta
tew
ide
R&
R, w
ebsi
tesa
me
as f
or T
AN
F
all l
ocal
boa
rds
have
est
ablis
hed
loca
l 800
num
bers
for
inta
ke a
ndpu
blic
inqu
irie
s
hour
s ar
e no
t set
by
the
stat
e, b
ut m
ost l
ocal
boa
rds
have
exp
ande
d in
take
hour
s
surv
eys
not d
one
atst
ate
leve
l, bu
t som
elo
calit
ies
have
cond
ucte
d co
nsum
er-
satis
fact
ion
surv
eys
Wes
t Vir
gini
a
new
soc
ial s
ervi
ces
web
pag
eha
s ch
ild-c
are
elig
ibili
tygu
idel
ines
, wor
king
on
onlin
eap
plic
atio
n fo
rm w
ith in
com
e-el
igib
ility
cal
cula
tor
sam
e as
for
TA
NF
nono
no
1 6
06
t
Tab
le 3
1St
ate
Inco
me
Tax
Pro
visi
ons
for
Chi
ld C
are'
Stat
e
Typ
e of
child
car
epr
ovis
ion
Des
crip
tion
Ref
unda
ble
Is th
ere
anin
com
e ca
p?
Max
imum
bene
fits
(1
depe
nden
t/2 o
rm
ore
depe
nden
ts)
Ala
bam
ano
ne
Ark
ansa
scr
edit
20%
of
fede
ral c
redi
t
no, e
xcep
t for
care
for
3-
to 5
-ye
ar-o
lds
inac
cred
ited
cent
erno
$144
/ $2
88
Del
awar
ecr
edit
50%
of
fede
ral c
redi
tno
no$3
60 /
$720
Dis
tric
t of
Col
umbi
acr
edit
32%
of
fede
ral c
redi
tno
no$2
30 /
$461
Flor
ida
N/A
; no
stat
e pe
rson
al in
com
e ta
x
Geo
rgia
none
Ken
tuck
ycr
edit
20%
of
fede
ral c
redi
tno
no$1
44 /
$288
Lou
isia
na'
cred
it10
% o
f fe
dera
l cre
dit,
up to
$25
nono
$25
/ $25
Mar
ylan
d'de
duct
ion
expe
nses
elig
ible
for
fed
eral
cre
dit
nono
$117
/ $2
344
Mar
ylan
dcr
edit
begi
nnin
g in
tax
year
200
1, 3
2.5%
of
fede
ral c
redi
t if
fede
ral
AG
I le
ss th
an o
r eq
ual t
o $4
0,00
0, r
educ
ed b
y 10
% f
or e
ach
$1,0
00 o
r fr
actio
n th
ereo
f by
whi
ch f
eder
al A
GI
exce
eds
$40,
000
no$5
0,00
0fe
dera
l AG
I$2
34 /
$468
Mis
siss
ippi
none
Sour
ce: N
atio
nal W
omen
's L
aw C
ente
r, 2
000,
"M
akin
g C
hild
Car
e L
ess
Tax
ing:
Im
prov
ing
Stat
e C
hild
and
Dep
ende
nt C
are
Tax
Prov
isio
ns,"
Was
hing
ton,
DC
.2
Lou
isia
na: I
n co
ntra
st, L
ouis
iana
off
ers
a cr
edit
for
expe
nses
und
erta
ken
for
"dep
ende
nts
phys
ical
ly o
r m
enta
lly in
capa
ble
of s
elf-
care
"eq
ual t
o 10
0 pe
rcen
t of
the
fede
ral c
redi
t.'M
aryl
and:
Beg
inni
ng in
tax
year
200
0, M
aryl
and
fam
ilies
may
cla
im b
oth
the
dedu
ctio
n an
d th
e cr
edit.
4Mar
ylan
d: M
aryl
and'
s to
p ta
x ra
te is
4.8
75 p
erce
nt.
Tab
le 3
1St
ate
Inco
me
Tax
Pro
visi
ons
for
Chi
ld C
are'
Stat
e
Typ
e of
child
car
epr
ovis
ion
Des
crip
tion
Ref
unda
ble
Is th
ere
anin
com
e ca
p?
Max
imum
bene
fits
(1
depe
nden
t/2 o
rm
ore
depe
nden
ts)
Mis
sour
ino
ne
Nor
th C
arol
ina
cred
it
13%
of
expe
nses
elig
ible
for
fed
eral
cre
dit f
or c
are
for
child
ren
unde
r 7,
9%
for
chi
ldre
n ov
er 7
, if
fede
ral A
GI
is le
ss th
an$2
5,00
0; 1
1.5%
of
elig
ible
exp
ense
s fo
r ca
re f
or c
hild
ren
unde
r 7,
8% f
or c
hild
ren
over
7 if
AG
I is
$25
,001
-$40
,000
; 10%
of
elig
ible
expe
nses
for
car
e fo
r ch
ildre
n un
der
7, 7
% f
or c
hild
ren
over
7, i
fA
GI
is m
ore
than
$40
,000
5no
no$3
12 /
$624
Okl
ahom
acr
edit
20%
of
fede
ral c
redi
t act
ually
rec
eive
d th
ough
if s
tate
AG
I is
less
than
fed
eral
AG
I, c
redi
t is
pror
ated
nono
$144
/ $2
88
Sout
h C
arol
ina
cred
it7%
of
expe
nses
elig
ible
for
fed
eral
cre
dit
nono
$168
/ $3
36
Ten
ness
eeN
/A; n
o st
ate
pers
onal
inco
me
tax
Tex
asno
ne
Wes
t Vir
gini
ano
ne
5 N
orth
Car
olin
a: T
he a
pplic
able
inco
me
rang
es v
ery
with
taxp
ayer
fili
ng s
tatu
s. T
he f
igur
es g
iven
abo
ve a
re f
or m
arri
ed ta
xpay
ers
filin
gjo
intly
.
SOUTHERN INSTITUTE ON CHILDREN AND FAMILIES1821 HAMPTON STREETCOLUMBIA, SC 29201
(803) 779-2607
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Unita Blackwell Washington Clark Hill The Southern Institute onChairman Director, Maternal-Fetal Medicine Children and Families is anPresident Emeritus Sarasota Memorial Hospital independent nonprofit publicNational Conference of Black Mayors Sarasota, Florida policy organization. ItMayersville, Mississippi endeavors to improve
Judy Langford opportunities for children andSarah C. Shuptrine Senior Consultant families in the South with aPresident Family Resource Coalition focus on disadvantagedSouthern Institute on Children Chicago, Illinois children. Through special
and Families projects and surveys, theColumbia, South Carolina Ray Marshall Southern Institute on Children
Michael N. CastleRapoport Centennial Chair in
Economics and Public Affairsand Families spotlights health,social, education and
Congressman At Large, Delaware University of Texas economic issues of regionalU. S. House of Representatives Austin, Texas significance. It works toWashington, DC encourage public/private
F. David Mathews sector collaboration on behalfMarian Wright Edelman President and CEO of children and families andPresident ,
Children's Defense FundThe Kettering FoundationDayton, Ohio
seeks to remove bureaucraticand other barriers that restrict
Washington, DC access to needed services.Paul M. Starnes The Southern Institute on
Reuben M. Greenberg President Children and Families isChief of Police Star Trend Products funded through grants andCharleston Police Department Chattanooga, Tennessee contributions.Charleston, South Carolina
Beegie TruesdaleProducerLos Angeles, California
Southern Regional Task Force on Child CareSouthern Institute on Children and Families Project Staff
Zenovia VaughnDeputy Director for Child CareSouthern Institute on Children and Families1821 Hampton StreetColumbia South Carolina 29201Phone: 8031779-2607 Fax: 8031254-6301E-mail: zenovia©kidsouth.org
Kristine HartvigsenCommunications DirectorSouthern Institute on Children and Families1821 Hampton StreetColumbia South.Carolina 29201Phone: 8031779-2607 Fax: 803/254-6301E-mail: kristine©kidsouth.org
Lynn AmmonsExecutive AssistantSouthern Institute on Children and Families1821 Hampton StreetColumbia South Carolina 29201Phone: 803/779-2607 Fax: 8031254-6301E-mail: lynn©kidsouth.org
87
iik511 INISTI1-U1-5
ov eqargN cva F&ACwf2. I Hotmpi-o% Si-reei-
Col Immbiat, SC 2.92.01Voice: 8'03-771-2.607 Fax: $03-23-4-4301
168
YI0 F
40s4
71,7
75..
stirEs
U.S. Department of EducationOffice of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)
National Library of Education (NLE)
Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)
NOTICE
Reproduction Basis
ERIC
This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release(Blanket)" form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing allor classes of documents from its source organization and, therefore,does not require a "Specific Document" Release form.
This document is Federally-funded, or carries its own permission toreproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore, maybe reproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Release form(either "Specific Document" or "Blanket").
EFF-089 (3/2000)
p5 0071,13 7