ACF Banner
[NCCIC header image][NCCIC Header Image]

Part I – Administration

  • Table 1.3 Estimated Funding for Child Care Services, Federal Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), and State Monies, FFY 2002
  • Table 1.4 Estimated Costs of Administration of the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF)
  •  Table 1.5 Other Agencies that Administer and Implement CCDF Programs and Activities
  • Chart 1.6 Number of States in which Lead Agency Itself Administers Eligibility, Provider-Locating, and Provider Payment Functions

Sections 1.1 and 1.2 – Child Care and Development Fund Lead Agency

The State Plan Preprint requests that States identify the State's Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) Lead Agency, the agency that "has been designated by the Chief Executive Officer of the State (or Territory), to represent the State (or Territory) as the Lead Agency. The Lead Agency agrees to administer the program in accordance with applicable Federal laws and regulations and the provisions of this Plan, including the assurances and certifications appended hereto. (658D, 658E)" An updated list of the State Lead Agency contacts is provided as an Appendix to this report.

Section 1.3 – Estimated Funding for Child Care

The Lead Agency estimates that the following amounts will be available for child care services and related activities during the one-year period: October 1, 2001 through September 30, 2002. (98.13(a))

The purpose of this question is to provide the public with information on the amount of funds available for child care activities using CCDF. The amounts listed are for informational purposes only and are only for the first year of the fiscal year 2002-2003 Plan Period—October 1, 2001 through September 30, 2002. Table 1.3 lists the following estimated amounts: Federal Child Care and Development Fund; Federal Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) transfer to CCDF; direct Federal TANF spending on child care; State maintenance of effort funds; and State Matching Funds.

Section 1.4 – Estimated Costs of Administration

The Lead Agency estimates that the following amount (and percentage) of the CCDF will be used to administer the program (not to exceed 5 percent). (658E(c)(3), 98.13(a), 98.52)

By rule, administrative costs are capped at 5 percent of the State's CCDF allocation. Table 1.4 identifies the amounts and percentages States estimated they spend on administration of the block grant. These figures are for informational purposes only.

Section 1.5 – Administration and Implementation

Does the Lead Agency directly administer and implement all services, programs and activities funded under the CCDF Act, including those described in Part V – Activities & Services to Improve the Quality and Availability of Child Care?

Nine States (AR, DC, ID, IA, KY, LA, NM, OK, SD) responded that the Lead Agency directly administers and implements all services, programs, and activities funded under the CCDF Act.

While many Lead Agencies assume primary responsibility for administering funds for child care and related services, all States reported contracting with at least one other entity to administer funds to improve the quality and availability of child care. The other entities identified by the Lead Agencies as participating in the administration and implementation of CCDF-funded programs include such agencies as: child care resource and referral agencies (CCR&Rs); State TANF agencies; State Departments of Education and other State agencies; child care providers and family child care networks; universities and colleges; Tribal agencies and organizations; and other entities. A list of examples of entities that assist States in administering CCDF funds is included in Table 1.5 : (658D(b)(1)(A), 98.11)

Sections 1.6 and 1.7 – Specific Eligibility, Referral and Payment Functions

For child care services funded under 98.50 (i.e., certificates, vouchers, grants/contracts for slots based on individual eligibility), does the Lead Agency itself: (98.11)

Determine eligibility for non-TANF families?

  • Nineteen Lead Agencies (AK, DE, DC, GA, HI, IA, KS, LA, MD, MO, NE, NH, NM, ND, RI, SC, UT, VA,WY) indicated that they determine eligibility of non-TANF families.
  • Twenty-six Lead Agencies (AL, AZ, CA, CO, CT, IL, IN, ME, MA, MN, MS, MT, NV, NJ, NY, NC, OH, OR, PA, PR, TN, TX, VT, WA, WV, WI) indicated that they do not determine eligibility of non-TANF families.

Determine individual eligibility of TANF families?
  • Twenty-two Lead Agencies (AL, DE, DC, GA, IN, IA, KS, LA, ME, MD, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, RI, TN, UT, VA, WA, WY) reported that they determine eligibility for TANF families.
  • Twenty-three Lead Agencies (AK, AZ, CA, CO, CT, HI, IL, MA, MN, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OR, PA, PR, SC, TX, VT, WV, WI) reported that they do not determine eligibility for TANF families.

Assist parents in locating child care?
  • Sixteen Lead Agencies (AZ, DE, DC, GA, HI, KS, MA, MS, NE, MN, PA, PR, RI, SC, TN, VA) indicated that they directly assist parents with locating child care.
  • Twenty-eight Lead Agencies (AL, AK, CA, CO, CT, IL, IN, LA, ME, MD, MN, MO, MT, NV, NH, NJ, NY, NC, ND, OH, OR, TX, UT, VT, WA, WV, WI, WY) indicated that they do not themselves assist parents with locating child care.

Make payments to providers?
  • Twenty-four Lead Agencies (AK, DE, DC, GA, HI, IL, KS, LA, ME, MD, MA, MS, MO, NE, NH, NM, ND, PR, RI, SC, VT, WA, WV, WY) reported that they make payments to child care providers.
  • Nineteen Lead Agencies (AL, CA, CO, CT, IN, MN, MT, NV, NJ, NY, NC, OH, OR, PA, TN, TX, UT, VA, WI) reported that the provider payment function is performed by another agency.

As shown in Chart 1.6, in the 2002-2003 CCDF Plans, fewer States reported that eligibility determination and provider payment are functions they perform directly.

Is any entity named in response to Section 1.6 a non-governmental entity? (658D(b), 98.10(a), 98.11(a))

Most States reported that they delegate one or more of the CCDF-funded tasks outlined in Section 1.6 to a nongovernmental agency, such as a contracted voucher management agency or a child care resource and referral agency (CCR&R). Six States, (DE, DC, GA, KS, NE, RI) indicated that none of the agencies determining eligibility, assisting parents with locating child care, or making payments to providers under 98.50 are nongovernmental agencies.

Section 1.8 – Use of Private Donated Funds

Will the Lead Agency use private donated funds to meet a part of the matching requirement of the CCDF pursuant to 98.53(e)(2) and (f)?

Five States (MA, NV, NY, SD, TX) indicate that they use private, donated funds to meet a part of their matching requirement of the CCDF pursuant to 98.53. Nevada designates a nongovernmental agency to receive those funds.

Section 1.9 – Use of State Prekindergarten Expenditures

During this Plan Period, will State expenditures for pre-K programs be used to meet any of the CCDF maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement?

During this Plan Period, will State expenditures for pre-K programs be used to meet any of the CCDF Matching Fund requirement? (98.53(h))

Will the State use pre-K expenditures to meet more than 10 percent of the maintenance of effort or Matching Fund requirement?

  • Eleven States (AL, AR, GA, NJ, OK, OR, SC, TX, VA, WA, WI) reported that they will use State expenditures for prekindergarten programs to meet a portion of the CCDF maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement. These States assure that their level of effort in full-day, full-year child care services will not be reduced, pursuant to 98.53(h)(1). Texas and Wisconsin reported that more than 10 percent of the MOE will be met with prekindergarten expenditures. In the 2000-2001 Plan Period, seven States (AR, HI, MI, NJ, OR, TX, WA) reported using State pre-K expenditures to meet the MOE requirement.
  • Twelve States (AL, AR, CO, HI, MD, MA, NV, NJ, OR, SC, TX, WI) reported that they will use State expenditures for prekindergarten programs to meet a portion of the CCDF Matching Fund requirement and that prekindergarten programs will meet the needs of the working parents in their States, pursuant to (98.53(h)(2)). Texas reported that more than 10 percent of the Matching Fund requirement will be met with prekindergarten expenditures. In the 2000-2001 Plan Period, nine States (AR, FL, HI, MD, MA, MI, NJ, OR, TX) reported counting State pre-K dollars as match for CCDF, with four of those States (MA, MI, NJ, TX) meeting more than 10 percent of the Matching Fund requirement from this source.

    The State-funded Colorado Preschool Program requires that local programs and parents create an agreement on how family needs will be met. Recent legislation allows two slots to be used per child if needed to provide full-day care.

    The State of Hawaii has proposed a new pre-K program titled Pre-Plus. This program will be offered on the grounds of various Department of Education Elementary School campuses. The State has appropriated $2.5 million annually for capital improvements (i.e., to construct portable units) for this program. Although school ends at 2:30 p.m. most days, the State has requested that all Pre-Plus Programs operate until 5:30-6:00 p.m. This will assist parents with their work efforts. The State's primary interest is to offer more access to high-quality preschool programs for low-income 3- and 4-year-olds.

    In 2001, the Commissioner of the Massachusetts Office of Child Care Services (OCCS) was appointed co-chair of the Governor's Commission on School Readiness. By focusing on school readiness, the Commission will further enable OCCS to ensure that pre-K programs meet the needs of working parents.

    Nevada is in the process of developing a Statewide system for collaboration that will bring all funding and program sources together to provide accessible, affordable and quality early care and education programs. As part of this effort, the Lead Agency will be working with regional collaboratives such as the Washoe County School District Early Education Committee to establish preschool programs with wrap-around child care services in low-income communities with inadequate child care services.

    Texas coordinates its pre-K and child care services to expand the availability of child care, at both the State and local levels. At the State level, the Texas Education Agency (TEA) and the Commission have designated staff to coordinate individual and joint efforts. Matching funds are targeted to prekindergarten programs providing full-day, full-year programs to meet the needs of working parents. An interagency agreement documents coordination strategies. At the local level, Workforce Development Boards and child care contractors coordinate with local independent school districts.

    In the State of Washington, 23 percent of the prekindergarten programs are either wrap-around or integrated with child care programs. Efforts are under way at both the State and program level to expand the pre-K program to provide full-day services. Through the Governor's Head Start Collaboration, the State is developing a set of guiding principles to identify target programs, roadblocks, and resolutions.

    In Wisconsin, the Department of Workforce is using State expenditures for pre-K programs to meet part of the CCDF Matching Fund requirement. Additionally, the Department has encouraged local collaborative efforts to school districts, county and Tribal governments, technical colleges and others to develop full-day kindergarten and 4-year-old kindergarten programs. The Department is a full participant in Wisconsin Early Childhood Collaborating Partners, a Statewide collaborative group, which encourages blending of funding to meet the full-day needs of working families.

Continue to Part II
Return to Introduction
Return to Child Care and Development Fund Report of State Plans FY 2002- 2003 main page