Transcript EEC REGULATION REFORM – Subsidy Revisions and Public Comment November 7, 2011

EEC REGULATION REFORM –
Subsidy Revisions and Public Comment
November 7, 2011
1
EEC Subsidy Regulations

What Are the Subsidy Regulations?
EEC is the Lead Agency responsible for compliance with early education
and care services under the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-193). As such, EEC
is responsible for administering and providing early education and care
programs and services to children, through grants, contracts and
vouchers. The current regulations (606 CMR 10.00) identify the general
provisions and eligibility requirements for families with children seeking
subsidized child care in the Commonwealth.

2
EEC Child Care Subsidy Program Governance
EEC’s Financial Assistance Program is governed by both federal and
state laws and policies:

Federal Statutes -- The Child Care and Development Block Grant
Act and the Social Security Act

Federal Regulations -- The Child Care Development Fund

Federal Policies, Program Instructions and Other Guidance

State Regulations -- Subsidized Child Care

State Policies -- EEC Financial Assistance Policy Guide
FY11 EEC Budget Breakdown
3
Why Amend the EEC Subsidy Regulations?

4
4
Factors contributing to the need to review and amend the
Regulations include:

Identifying and Implementing Best Practices
•
Review regulations every 5 years (last updated in 2006)
•
Analyze other State child care subsidy laws and policies
•
Address unique challenges/weaknesses identified due to recent
fiscal constraints/system restructuring (e.g., closure/limited
access to EEC financial assistance, CPC transition, Voucher Pilot)

Targeting/maximizing limited resources

Addressing user feedback/achieving efficiencies

Addressing Federal & State Oversight concerns
•
Reduce opportunities for Fraud, Waste and Abuse
•
Address Improper Authorizations for Payment (IAP) results
•
Respond to ACF regarding EEC’s State Plan
•
Align with ANF Task Force established to review MA public
assistance programs
•
Ensure Program Integrity
Technical Regulatory Changes
To ensure compliance with current laws/policies and aid in the
interpretation and enforcement of the regulations
5
•
Family Size and Household Composition (codifies existing practice)
o
Clarifies verification of household members necessary for
purposes of determining eligibility and establishing parent fees.
•
Data Sharing/Interfaces Authorization (new)
o
Authorizes EEC to request and/or provide information to/from
other government agencies, contracted providers, other states
and financial institutions for purposes of verifying eligibility.
•
Additional Documentation (codifies existing practice)
o
Authorizes providers and/or CCR&Rs to request additional
documentation, if file indicates application inaccuracies/
contradictions.
•
Travel Time (codifies existing practice)
o
Requires applicants to present a minimum of 20 hours of service
need before allowing travel time to be factored in.
Technical Regulatory Changes (cont’d)
6
•
Termination and Reduction of Services (amends current regulations)
o
Allows for denial or termination upon (1) submission of false or
misleading information and/or documentation or (2) outstanding
child care debt owed to the Commonwealth.
o
Allows for reduction if a change in the total household income
results in an increase the parent(s)’ co-payment fee.
•
Review Process (codifies existing practice)
o
Clarifies scope of review to reflect recoupment process.
o
Allows for termination of continued subsidized child care when it
is determined that there is no genuine issue of material fact as
presented by the parent in the Request for Review.
o
Allows for dismissal of a request for informal hearing when
parent (1) fails to prosecute his/her claim and (2) has already
agreed in writing to repay the debt at issue.
Substantive Regulatory Changes
7
•
Identity, Residency & Citizenship Status
o
Requires verification of applicant’s identity and residency, as well as
the citizenship/ immigration status of each child seeking assistance.
•
Child Support Enforcement Requirement
o
Requires single parent applicants to submit evidence of child support
and/or cooperation with the Commonwealth’s Child Support
Enforcement agency, as a condition of eligibility.
•
Child Attendance/Reimbursement Requirements
o
Requires children to regularly attend early education and care
programs subsidized by the Commonwealth or risk termination
and/or non-reimbursement.
•
Limitations on Self-Employment
o
Imposes restrictions on certain work-related service need activities,
in particular, “at home” self-employment
o
Changes methodology for calculating service need – total earnings
divided by minimum wage to establish amount of care needed.
•
Special Needs (Protective Services)
o
New definition of protective services to include parents and children
with documented disability and/or special need; limits authorization
period.
o
Eliminates child with special need as a single service need.
Identity, Residency & Citizenship Status – Proposal
(codifies existing practice)
EEC seeks to formally codify the Citizenship and
Immigration Status policy issued in April 2010, in order to:
o
Address the deficiency in EEC’s regulations and policies
identified by ACF in the 2008-2009 Federal Improper
Authorization for Payment review

8
Massachusetts, along with all other Year 2 States,
were given a one time exemption to implement this
requirement
o
Achieve consistency between regulations and policies and
ensure efficient and uniform outcomes for families.

Requires verification of applicant’s identity and
residency, as well as the citizenship or immigration
status of each child seeking child care financial
assistance.
Child Support Enforcement Requirement –
Proposal (new)
•
Addresses concerns about the accuracy of household size
reported by families and supports the mission of the MA Child
Support Enforcement Agency (CSE).
•
At least 20 States currently impose a CSE requirement
•
Benefits of instituting a Child Support Enforcement policy:
o
o
o
•
Key issues to consider during implementation:
o
o
o
o

9
Keep families out of poverty and provide adequate food, shelter
and clothing
Add to the overall stability, security and well-being of families
and children
Intended to lessen the existing burdens of second parent in the
household documentation
Avoid duplication
Identify exceptions (i.e. domestic violence or child protection)
Identify required documentation
Monitor and evaluate effectiveness
Requires single parent applicants to submit evidence of child
support and/or cooperation with the Commonwealth’s Child
Support Enforcement agency, as a condition of eligibility.
Child Attendance Requirement – Proposal (amends
current requirements)
•
Review of annual billing and current EEC regulations related to
absences identified potential abuse/waste (EEC’s annual billing for FY08-10
shows):
o
o
o
•
Research shows that chronic absenteeism in the early years, such as
kindergarten, predicted continuing absences in later grades.
•
EEC reviewed other states and ESE’s requirement to identify best
practice:
o
Ohio – limits absences to 10 in 6 months
o
Maryland – limits absences to 60 in 12 months
o
Delaware – limits absences to 5 per month
o
MA- allows 10 absences per month

10
Over each of past 3 years, providers have billed EEC for over
$37M related to absent days
Absence rates for some children approach 50%
Providers acknowledge billing for “regularly scheduled” absences,
such as families that only need 4 days/week
Requires children to regularly attend early education and
care programs subsidized by the Commonwealth or risk
termination by limiting absences to 30 per 6 months*
*Reflects an average of 5 absences/month enforced over a 6 month period.
Self-Employment – Proposal (amends current
requirements)
To improve program integrity and efficiency, EEC proposes to
limit the types of work-related activities that satisfy the service need
requirement:
11

No home-based self-employment, unless the work performed:
•
creates a clear and present danger to children
•
requires regular face-to-face meetings or appointments with
clients, which prevents direct supervision of children

Propose a launch/grace period for new self-employment business – 3
month start up

Implement new mechanism for confirming minimum service need
•
Current practice – service need hours are self-declared
•
Proposed practice – divide gross income by MA minimum wage
rate to determine service need hours
Special Needs: Federal Regulatory Compliance –
General Issues
Federal regulations establish two foundational requirements for all
children seeking CCDF-funded child care services:
1.
Children must reside with a family whose income does not exceed
85% of SMI; and
2.
Reside with parent(s) who are working, or participating in job training
or an education program, or are receiving or need to receive
protective services.
In 2009-2010, ACF identified two instances where EEC policies and
regulations did not align with these requirements:
12
1.
Children with Special Needs – 1) allowing children to remain in care
up to 100% SMI; 2) allowing a categorical waiver of the work,
education and training requirement, and 3) not clearly defining such
families “in need of protective services.”
2.
Parents with Special Needs – 1) allowing children to remain in care
up to 100% of SMI, and 2) not clearly defining such families “in need
of protective services.”
Special Needs: Federal Regulatory Compliance –
General Issues (cont’d)
CCDF regulations provide some flexibility to States for purposes of
defining and implementing laws and policies related to protective
services and allows for some exemptions from eligibility
requirements:
1.
Children residing in a family that is receiving or needs to receive
protective intervention services may be eligible for CCDF-funded child
care, if they remain in the home, even if the parent(s) is not working or in
an education or training program. See 45 CFR 98.20(a)(3)(ii).
2.
States have the discretion to waive the 85% SMI limitation if a child is
residing in a family that is receiving or needs to receive protective
intervention services if determined necessary on a case by case basis.
See 45 CFR 98.20(a)(3)(ii)(A).
Massachusetts proposes to define protective services as:

13
“Families, who have active protective needs documented in a supported
report of abuse or neglect within the previous 12 months or when there is
a determination of need to begin or continue supportive child care at a
Department of Children and Families Progress Supervisory Review, will be
deemed to be in need of protective services. Additionally, children may
be deemed at risk of needing protective services in special circumstances,
wherein families are unable to provide child care for any portion of a 24
hour day due to a situation of domestic violence or homelessness, a
physical, mental, emotional or medical condition, or participation in a drug
treatment or drug rehabilitation program.”
Special Needs Parents – Unique Issues/Best Practices
Issues:
• In practice, “special need of parent” definition misaligned with federal “in
need of protective services” intention.
• Examples identified through central office review: headaches, backaches,
carpal tunnel syndrome.
• Data shows inordinate number of special need of parent service need
approvals in contract slots.
• “Special need of parent” service need currently approved for indefinite
time period irrespective of the stated need.
• Federal laws prohibit use of CCDF funding for respite care.
Research/Best Practices: What do other states do?
14
•
Most states limit eligibility for special need or disabled parents to 2-parent
households
•
Some states limit eligibility for a short duration (e.g., no more than 6
months for medical illnesses, etc.)
•
Some states impose restrictions based on the age of the children in the
household (i.e., not a valid service need unless the child is under 8) and
limit eligibility for a shorter duration (i.e., no more than 6 months for
medical illnesses, etc.)
•
At least one state limits eligibility to “continuity of care” for a limited time
(i.e., previously employed, upon reassessment disabled – allowable
service need not to exceed 30 days)
Special Needs – Length of Authorization Consistency
15
Subsidy Type
Initial Duration
I/E Continuity
TANF/DTA
Up to 12 months, in
accordance with DTA
authorization
Upon closure of DTA
case, must comply
with I/E regulations
and policies for
continuity
Supportive/DCF
Up to 6 months
One 6 month extension
allowed, after which
must comply with I/E
regulations and
policies for continuity
Special Need Parents
or Children
Up to 12 months,
renewable at the end
of each authorization
for as long as condition
exists
Indefinite. Exempt
from I/E regulations
and policies and
continuity allowed for
as long as special need
exists
Income Eligible
Up to 12 months
must comply with I/E
regulations and
policies for continuity
Special Needs Parents – Proposal (amends current
requirements)
EEC will seek to amend current policies related to
Child Care Financial Assistance eligibility requirements
for families with special needs parents to:
16

Only allow for new access through vouchers

Heighten the bar on what is deemed “at risk of needing
protective service”

Only allow these to be short term vouchers -- 12 months,
renewable once –- with the intended purpose of helping
to serve as a bridge while parents seek other resources
to address the “protective service” issue and/or become
employable; further extensions may be allowed with EEC
authorization upon a showing of extraordinary
circumstances.
Special Needs Children – Proposal (amends current
requirements)
Issues:
•
Exemption was originally based on assumption that special needs
children are “educationally at risk”
•
Misaligned with federal exemption definition of “in need of
protective services”
•
Research based risk factors show that ALL low-income children are
“educationally at risk”
•
Streamlining and coordinating resources:
•
Other agencies are charged with providing services to special
needs children -- ESE (IEP) or DPH (IFSP)
•
EEC should support ESE and/or DPH with wrap-around services for
otherwise eligible children
Current MA practice:
•
Parents are not required to engage in work, education and/or training
activities
•
Families may enter care at 85% SMI and exit at 100% (no change)
•
Children are eligible for full-time care regardless of need (no change)
17
Proposal:

Align EEC regulations with Federal regulations and require parents
of children with special needs to participate in work, education or
training.
Proposed Policy Statement
EEC proposes that the Board adopt the following policy
statement to address this tension and reaffirm its statutory
mandate:
The Board of Early Education and Care acknowledges that the federal
funding supporting the Commonwealth’s child care financial assistance
program is subject to several conditions. These conditions impose
certain limitations related to the evaluation of children and families
seeking early education and care subsidies in Massachusetts, including,
but not limited to, financial thresholds, work, education or training
requirements and verification of residency, citizenship and immigration
status. In light of the Department of Early Education and Care’s mission
to support all children in their development as lifelong learners and in
acknowledgement of the limitations of the federal funding, the Board will
continue to advocate for a system of early education and care assistance
that is accessible for all children, irrespective of the federal funding
limitations. The Board acknowledges that this effort is subject to the
Commonwealth appropriating additional state-funding to support this
endeavor.

18
Formal Public Comment Period
Formal public comment on the proposed amendments
began on September 21st and ended October 21, 2011:
•
6 Hearings were conducted across the State:
•
10/12: Boston (evening)
•
10/13: Taunton
•
10/14: Lawrence
•
10/17: Holyoke
•
10/18: Quincy, and
•
10/20: Worcester (evening)
Approximately 150 attended; Over 50 individuals testified
Additionally, EEC received 42 written comments
19
Post-Formal Public Comment Period
20
•
Post-closure of the formal public comment period,
EEC has been analyzing and compiling the
comments to present to the Committee on Policy &
Research and the Board
•
On November 2nd, EEC staff held formal meetings
with the Governor’s Council to Address Sexual
Assault and Domestic Violence, as well as
representatives from legal advocates, including
Greater Boston Legal Services and the
Massachusetts Law Reform Institute
•
In addition, EEC has continued discussions on the
proposed amendments with the Procedures Working
Team and other Executive Agencies, including the
Department of Revenue’s Child Support Enforcement
Division.
Summary of Common Themes from Public
Comment Received by EEC
Strong Opposition to the following topics:




Imposition of a Child Support Requirement on Single Parents
• Impact on families experiencing domestic violence
• Complexities and dangers of Family & Probate Court System
Changes to Laws related to Special Needs Families
• Time limits imposed on special need/disabled parents
• Removal of the single service need for children with special needs/disabilities by
requiring parents to work/educate/train
Verification of Citizenship/Immigration Status
• Undocumented children are part of our communities and should not be denied access to
early education programs
Home-Based Self-Employment Restrictions
• Potential impact on Family Child Care programs
• Potential impact on school-aged children, especially during vacations and holidays
Support or Understanding to the following topics:


21
Child Absences provided that EEC Systems monitor/track absence data
Inclusion of Homeless Child Care Program, but sought clarification on HomeBASE
Common Themes from Public Comment
Received by EEC
Child Support Requirement for Single Parent Families
•
•
•
•
Providing child support services should not be conditioned on
“going to court” – complex adversarial forum; large time
commitment may impact employment
Concern about EEC’s infrastructure to adequately identify and
assess good cause exemptions (i.e., domestic violence)
Voluntary/Informal Child Support, whether monetary or other
support arrangements (i.e., absent parent provides evening care,
if parent has evening work/school schedule) should be sufficient
Court requirement imposes risk of physical or emotional harm on
victims of domestic violence
• Family may be safely and effectively managing situation,
which could be disturbed by court involvement
Alternative Consideration: Explore the use of data matches or
other options for purposes of verifying household composition, as
opposed to child support.
22
Common Themes from Public Comment
Special Needs – Parent:
•
•
Limiting renewals/time limitations inappropriate particularly
for those with chronic disabilities
Criteria for approvals beyond express limitation not stated
Elimination of Separate Special Needs – Child Service Need:
•
•
•
Change will result in terminations of children w/ high needs
Importance of early education regardless of parent status
Children that experience high needs risk factors require early
education to bridge achievement gap
Note: No alternate considerations suggested. MA is one of
three states that uses any CCDF funds to support families
with special needs or disabilities. Funds insufficient to serve
existing low income, working families.
23
Common Themes from Public Comment
Citizenship or Immigration Status Requirement for Children:
Short-sighted to deprive undocumented children – they
live in our communities and attend our public schools
• No child should be denied without prior review by EEC –
complexity noted
•
Note: EEC required to demonstrate compliance with the federal
citizenship and immigration requirement during the current improper
authorizations for payment audit. ACF-OCC contacted the Department
last week to verify requirement implemented.
24
Common Themes from Public Comment
Self-Employment – Home-Based Restrictions:
Hardship on families with school-aged children – ineligible
for After-School or out of school time subsidies
 Involving school-aged children in FCC setting may be
inappropriate for educators providing only I/T or Pre-K FCC
programs or may put FCC Provider over licensed capacity
(i.e., licensed for 6, but 2 SA children enter home during
vacations and holidays)
 Dangerous or face-to-face limitation – hardship to parents
engaged in legitimate home-based employment, such as
writing/data processing

Alternative consideration: Consider elimination of age restriction
for children of home-based self-employed parents and/or exemption
from the requirement for family child care providers.
25
Common Themes from Public Comment
Allowable Absence Reductions from 10/month to 30/6 months:
•
•
•
•
•
Amounts to a 50% reduction in billable absent days – too drastic
Impossible to track/monitor unless on-line capabilities exist
Impact on priority populations – DCF/Teens/Homeless – that
may experience a higher incidence of absenteeism
EEC should broaden the definition of “excused” absences AND
not count “excused” absences against families… only unexcused
absences should subject child to termination
Impact of absence limitations and due process rights  seeking
assurances that will providers be paid if families are absent for
30+ days during appeals
No Alternative Considerations: Commenters recognized the
impact of billing for excessive absence - ~$40M/year – but
requested assurances that monitoring tracking would be
automated, as opposed to current manual system.
26
Common Themes from Public Comment
Homeless Family Access:
•
•
•
•
•
Families experiencing homelessness should have access to both
contracts AND vouchers  homeless contracts may not
accessible to all families/regions
Unclear if involvement in DHCD’s HomeBASE program is
included within the definition of “homelessness”
Parent fees – unclear how/when fees can be waived; why
authorize DHCD or DCF to make these case-by-case decisions?
Express language related to “continuity of care” should be
included and allowance of 3 month transition period
Communication/Knowledge of available slots – inadequate
implementation
No Alternative Considerations: There was large support for
the Department’s efforts to expressly include Homeless Child
Care within its regulations. Commenters expressly requested
clarification related to HomeBASE.
27
Next Steps
28

EEC to review recommendations and directions from the
Policy & Research Committee of the Board

EEC to review alternative considerations submitted by
advocates, particularly related to the areas of child
support, special needs and self-employment

EEC to complete review of all regulations, as requested
by the Governor’s Office, for purposes of ensuring small
business friendly approaches
Proposed Regulation Promulgation Timeline
29
Tasks
Date
Revisions to proposed regulation changes based
upon Board and Committee input
November –
December,
2011
Board votes to approve regulations and
promulgate
Jan/Feb
2012
Technical Assistance Training
Feb 2012
and ongoing
New regulations are promulgated (take effect)
March/April
2012
Roll out implementation/trainings
April 2012
and ongoing