Policy & Practice April 2015

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE continued from page 24

effective implementation, states will need to work with their governors, Cabinet leaders, and state legislatures to make up for these costs. States must also work closely with and engage providers, parents, and stakeholders to inform them of the intricacies of this new law and how it affects them. But this change may also present some opportunities to collaborate and coor- dinate with other agencies, beyond economic support and early childhood programs like Head Start and state- funded pre-kindgergarten. States will need to work with Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies and webmasters to ensure that “cus- tomer-friendly” information, such as health and safety and monitoring and inspection results, and child care sub- sidies and policies are made publicly and electronically available to families to help themmake informed deci- sions about their children’s care and education. Child care administrators will also need to work closely with information and technology special- ists to update and modernize income eligibility systems to comply with these new requirements. They will need to engage procurement officers on con- tracts and agreements and with budget officers to discuss the financial implica- tions, while working toward long-term planning, program viability, and sus- tainability. Child care administrators will need to maintain strong relation- ships with university partners and TANF administrators to help carry out these new reforms. These agencies play an important role in coordinating the myriad of publicly funded child care programs and the success of these rela- tionships will be critical as states roll out these reforms. During this imple- mentation period, a strong federal-state partnership is essential to ensure that proper guidance, technical assistance, and support can be effectively and efficiently achieved, not only for this five-year reauthorization period but for subsequent years and the future.

CCDBG dollars to meet the current demand for child care services and the program’s needs. States also voiced their interest in continuing to seek early childhood innovation through the flexible use of dollars slated for quality activities. State child care administrators also remained constant in expressing the importance of main- taining CCDBG’s partnership with the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, which was the impetus for child care’s inclusion in welfare reform and one of the major drivers for increasing TANF’s work par- ticipation rate. APHSA and NASCCA’s recommenda- tions were closely aligned with, and a part of, APHSA’s Pathways initiative, which forges a vision for a trans- formed human service system and for the outcomes that such a system can achieve. Pathways emphasized the need for embracing streamlined approaches and strengthening coor- dination among health and human service programs like Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, child care, and TANF. But for child care administrators, this also meant encouraging greater coordina- tion among early childhood programs through the alignment of program goals and priorities that focus on improved well-being and educational outcomes for children. Human services and the education sector would be charged with increasing their commu- nication and collaboration to ensure positive and robust results. APHSA and NASCCA worked closely with members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee while the bill was in draft form and as the legislation moved through committee. APHSA and NASCCA also worked with the House Education and Workforce Committee to ensure that the voice of state child care administrators was heard. S. 1086 later moved into final passage in the fall of 2014 as a part of a bipartisan, bicameral agreement among House and Senate leaders. As the new law’s funding did not match the demand for

the basic skills needed for academic achievement, especially in such areas as reading comprehension and math. Yet, changes in the fiscal and political environment and constant congres- sional discord greatly affected the federal program’s viability over time. The program’s funding levels remained stagnant for years due to delays in reau- thorization. There was also an urgency to adjust the consumer price index to ensure that public child care services met the demands of the private market. With each new Congress, the American Public Human Services Association (APHSA) and its affiliate, the National Association of State Child Care Administrators (NASCCA), voiced the need for CCDBG reautho- rization. On June 13, 2013, APHSA and NASCCA released a policy brief announcing their recommendations for CCDBG’s reauthorization. Two weeks prior to this release, Senators Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) and Richard Burr (R-N.C.) introduced the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act (S. 1086), which provided a five-year reauthoriza- tion and proposed a 12-month initial income eligibility and redetermination period for families, ensuring that their employment is not unduly disrupted; a comprehensive background check requirement for providers; minimum health and safety standards for child care families; newmandates on monitoring and inspection reports; workforce training and development to ensure a competent and well-trained workforce, and a gradual increase of the quality set-aside for states to imple- ment a wide range of quality activities, including the use of early learning guidelines in child care settings. States would also be required to describe, in their state plan submission to the federal government, what children should know and be able to do based on their age and stage of development, from birth to kindergarten entry. APHSA and NASCCA’s recommen- dations supported Congress’ broader reauthorization principles, but called for a specific set of reforms that would leverage states’ ability to maximize

Rashida Brown is a senior policy associate at APHSA.

Policy&Practice   April 2015 36