Report Finds NY’s Child Care Policies Vary Based on Geography, Not Need

December 1, 2002

Author: Susan C. Antos

Wendy Rolnick

On Thursday, November 14th, GULP released its latest report, CHILD CARE IN NEW YORK STATE: A PATCHWORK OF POLICIES, a county by county review of child care subsidy administration.  The report, authored by Wendy Rolnick and edited by Susan Antos, is the first comprehensive report on New York State’s child care policies in ten years and is the result of eighteen months of research.  Based primarily on a series of surveys of local social service district administrators, the report documents wide variations in access to child care based not on need but on geography, a consequence of New York’s county based administration of child care assistance for poor and low income families.  The result is 58 different ways of administering child care subsidies; a literal “patchwork of policies.”
 
In addition to creating confusion and disparity for poor and low income parents attempting to access child care assistance, New York’s county based administration of child care assistance (one of only three such systems in the nation) poses a complex “trilemma” for local social services districts.  The term “trilemma” refers to the difficult position districts are placed in due to the limited amount of federal and state child care funding which constantly forces districts to choose between affordability, quality or availability.  For example, districts that place a priority on quality by paying more money to accredited child care providers will pay more per child care slot and thus be able to fund fewer slots with the finite amount of funds available.  A district that values affordability will keep its co-pay or family share low, which means that each slot will cost the county more than it would if the parent paid a higher share.  With a higher cost per slot, the district will have fewer funds to purchase accredited care (quality) and may run out of funds to subsidize all eligible families (availability).  Local district’s differing responses to the “trilemma” are in fact one of the major reasons for the broad variations in child care subsidy administration across the state.   To address the problem of this “trilemma”, GULP has called on state and federal policy makers to increase the amount of available funding and to support initiatives aimed at increasing the quality, availability and affordability of child care.

Other key findings and recommendations contained in the report include:

Finding 1:

• Most Children on Public Assistance are in Legally Exempt Care:  Statewide, only 46% of the children whose parents receive Public Assistance (PA) are cared for by licensed and registered providers compared to 61% of the children whose parents are either transitioning off public assistance or are income eligible.  These percentages vary widely.  In Albany County for example, regulated providers care for 30% of the PA subsidized children, whereas in Rockland County they care for 69%, in New York City 19% and in Delaware County 100%.

Recommendations:

• State policy makers must analyze and investigate the disparities in the use of regulated and legally-exempt care to assure that parental choice is the reason that the poorest children are less likely to be cared for by regulated providers. 
• Additional educational supports must be developed at the state and federal levels.  These supports must effectively engage legally-exempt providers, especially those who wish to remain “informal,” and have no desire to become registered or licensed.

Finding 2:

• The Size of Parental Co Payments Varies Dramatically By County: The cost of child care for a low-income family depends upon the county of residence.  For example, a family of three with an income of $30,040 per year is at 200% of the poverty level.  Such a family would pay just over $5,200 per year for child care in Onondaga and 14 other counties, while in 20 other counties, including New York City, families at 200% of poverty pay $3004 or less annually.

Recommendation:

• Co-payments should be based on a statewide formula that assures equitable access to subsidized child care slots regardless of county of residence.  Such a formula should require a low-income household to pay no more than 10% of its income toward child care.  

Finding 3:

• The Higher Rates Allowed For Children with Special Needs are Infrequently Used: Early education for children with special needs is critical, and caring for them often creates increased costs.  State regulations allow social services districts to pay providers a special rate – the actual cost of care up to the statewide limit of $267 per week - for children with special needs. However, providers often do not know how to request the higher rate, or find the process to be confusing.  The Office of Child and Family Services (OCFS) does not require Social Services Districts to report the number of special needs children served, and there is little data on the number of children receiving a higher rate for special needs care.  In the 38 social services districts responding, only 52 children with special needs were cared for at the higher market rate of reimbursement in the year 2000.

Recommendation:

• OCFS should require local social services districts to report the number of special needs children served each year along with the number served at the higher market rate, and the dollar amount of the rats.  Additionally, OCFS should provide outreach and technical assistance to providers so that they can appropriately use this subsidy.

Statewide Recommendations:

Until such time as adequate funding becomes available, GULP calls on New York State to make a commitment to quality care and to address these and other critical issues by:

• Making the higher market rate for accredited providers apply statewide, rather than keeping it as a county option;
• Defining appropriate and suitable care in a way that assures that public assistance recipients have access to quality care;  
• Requiring districts to pay deposits unless the provider waives the requirement;
• Providing outreach and technical assistance to expand the use of special needs subsidies and require that social services districts report on the use of these subsidies. 
• Making co-payments uniform statewide; 
• Establishing a statewide definition of “reasonable distance” with uniform standards for those with access to public transportation, those who own cars, and those with neither public transportation or automobiles;
• Ensuring that income eligible families are not required to submit a new application for child care when leaving transitional child care; 
• Allowing families to move from district to district without having to reapply for a child care subsidy, particularly if they move to a neighboring county and their income and provider remain the same.

The executive summary of the report includes additional findings and recommendations.  The full report, including almost 50 pages of county by county data can be purchased by sending a check for $25 to Connie Wiggins, Empire Justice Center, 119 Washington Avenue, Albany, NY 12210.  Questions about orders can be directed to Ms. Wiggins at 518.462.6381.