Calendar of Events
Empire Justice Testimony on New York State’s Draft Child Care Development Fund Plan for FFY 2012-2013
Good morning. My name is Susan Antos and I am a Senior Staff Attorney at the Empire Justice Center, a support center for legal aid and legal services organizations across the state. We have offices in Rochester, Albany, White Plains and Central Islip. We provide training, litigation support and policy analysis to 20 legal aid offices, from Long Island to Chautauqua. In addition, we assist hundreds of community groups that serve low income clients, and also represent low income clients in a wide array of poverty law areas. My work focuses on public assistance programs, child support issues affecting low income individuals and families, and child care. Other Empire Justice attorneys focus on Health and Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income and Social Security Disability benefits, public and subsidized housing, legal issues affecting low income immigrants, consumer law and domestic violence. Michael Hanley, who contributed to this testimony, serves on the Boards of the Coalition to Prevent Lead Poisoning (Rochester) and the Coalition to Eliminate Lead Poisoning in New York State (statewide). His legal practice focuses on civil rights and housing issues, and he frequently writes on racial disparities related to lead-poisoning. Barbara Weiner, who also contributed to this testimony, serves on the boards of the New York Immigration Coalition and the New York Immigrant Action Fund. Her legal practice focuses on immigration, especially immigrants’ access to benefits as well as the general area of public benefits with a focus on the food stamp program.
In a time of economic instability, subsidized child care provides multiple vital supports to low-income families. First, child care provides a nurturing and enriching environment in which children may learn and develop. Children receiving quality child care exhibit a higher degree of language and cognitive development than those who do not receive high quality child care.  Also, children who receive quality child care in their early childhood are less likely to be anxious or develop impulse control problems than children receiving less responsive or erratic care.  Longitudinal studies of at-risk children who received early child care found that, by the age of 40, children who had received high quality early child care experienced fewer arrests, less drug abuse, and less public welfare use, along with higher earnings, more home ownership and greater educational achievement than a control group of similarly situated children who did not receive high quality early care. 
We applaud the efforts of the Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) to improve the quality of child care and promote ways that parents can identify high quality care. The Infant Toddler Initiatives, the Early Learning Guidelines, the increasing focus on professional development and the investment in the QualitystarsNY program are evidence of your commitment to quality.
Access to subsidies gives children in low income families the opportunity to engage in an early learning experience that their families could not ordinarily afford. Much of our testimony today will focus on areas where we believe the Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) can expand access to child care subsidies to two underserved populations: children in immigrant families and children with special needs. Our largest concern is the inequitable co-payment structure in New York State which impairs the ability of families with incomes over 150% of poverty to participate in the child care subsidy program when the district chooses to impose child care co-payments that are unrealistically high. We will also address the unique opportunity that OCFS has to play a leadership role in eliminating lead poisoning in small children, a scourge which has a disproportionate impact on children of color. Finally, we will discuss our thoughts about the fact that 44% of children who receive subsidies are in legally exempt child care, a form of care that is minimally regulated.
I. Barriers To Access
A. Parent Fees (pages 60-62, 74 of the draft plan, §§2.4;2.7.9 and attachment 2.4.1)
In New York State parent fees are determined by the local social services district despite the fact that more than 85% of child care funding in this state comes from the federal government.  This results in an inequitable system where parents in one county may pay as much as five times more for a child care subsidy than a parent in a nearby county even though the parents in both counties have the same incomes and child care needs, simply because their county has chosen a higher co-payment multiplier.
New York has a complicated parent fee schedule which subtracts the State Income Standard  from the parent’s income, and allows local social services districts to multiply the remaining number by a percentage of the district’s choice, between 10%-35%.  This means that parent fees vary dramatically across the state. In section 3.5.1 of New York’s previous CCDF plan, OCFS explained that these differences are due to “wide disparity in per capita income, consumer price levels and the cost, availability and accessibility of child care among geographic jurisdictions.” This 2011-12 plan simply says that “OCFS believes that local social services districts are in the best position to determine the needs of their communities and how best to meet those needs.” This change in language is probably due to recognition of fact that the parent fees bear no relationship to any economic factors. The Empire Justice Center has examined the relationship between geography, cost of child care, per capita personal income, median monthly housing costs and family co-payments, and found that there is no correlation between any of these factors and parent fees. 
Federal regulations require that co-payments be set at an affordable level that assures “equal access” to child care services comparable to those used by families who are not subsidy eligible.  The Administration for Children and Families has stated that “co-payment scales that require a low income family to pay no more than 10% of its income for child care, no matter how many children are in care, will help ensure equal access,” and that “a fee that is no more than 10% of a family’s income would generally be considered to be an affordable co-payment.”  As indicated by Chart A attached to this testimony, social services districts with co-payment multipliers of 35% charge families with incomes at 200% of poverty parent fees that equal 17.5% of their annual gross income. Common sense tells us that these families cannot afford to pay such a high percentage of their income for child care. Unfortunately, because data is not kept on participation by income level, we do not have the data which would illustrate the overall effect of co-payments on participation. We urge OCFS to update its data system so that it can have this critical information and we urge the agency to do so with all deliberate speed.
The current formula for determining the family co-payment makes participation in facilitated enrollment nearly impossible in a county with a 35% multiplier, where the annual parent share for a family at 250% of poverty would be $9,612.75, or 21% of the household’s income. In many cases, the parent fee exceeds the cost of child care. As pointed out by the facilitated enrollment program in Monroe County:
The formula was designed for lower income families. The formula disadvantages families who are above approximately 215% (of poverty) by either denying them because the calculation implies that they can afford to pay an amount that is higher than the actual cost of care or by calculating a high co-payment that borders on the cost of care. 
It is not only families at the highest end of the eligibility range who are assessed crushing co-payments. As indicated by Chart A, as a result of the formula families in counties with multipliers of 35% who have incomes at 175% of poverty must pay 15% of their annual income for a parent fee.
These high co-payments jeopardize the financial stability of low income families. New York must develop a uniform statewide policy regarding co-payments across the state to assure that all of the children in the state are treated fairly. No parent under the poverty level should be required to pay a co-payment, and for parents over the poverty level, the assessed co-payment should not exceed more than 10% of household income.
To make matters more confusing, counties can change their rules by simply amending their plans. This means that parents are not able to budget and plan properly. From year to year, their co-payments and their very eligibility may change at any time.
An example of this is New York City. As recently as April, 2009, New York City had set its family share at 25.5%, but then added a second calculation to the formula, which would look at the resulting assessed co-payment in relation to total household income and cap it at 10% of the total household income. For low income parents with incomes over 150% of poverty, the cap prevented the co-payments from absorbing increasingly large amounts of the family’s income. Effective May 1, 2009, New York City adopted a 35% multiplier and increased its cap to 12% of parent income.  Most recently, as of May 1, 2011, New York City has a 35% multiplier with a 17% cap. This means that a family of three with a total gross income of $36,620 (200% of poverty) in New York City that had no increase in income, would see its co-payment rise from $3662 per year ($70 per week) in January, 2009 to $4394 ($84.50 per week) in January 2010 to $6225 per year ($120 per week) in May of 2011.
There is precedent for asserting a moderate approach to what families can afford. In 2001, the New York State Insurance Department Commissioned a study that revealed that where individuals were required to pay more than 5% of their income for health insurance, most families were unable to afford it.  In 2009, in determining what was an “affordable” contribution to a health insurance policy when determining a child support order, the legislature amended the Family Court Act to define health care as “reasonable in cost” when a premium and deductible is less than 5% of the parties’ combined gross income.  When a health care policy is not reasonable in cost, it is not considered “available,” in most cases, allowing the child to be funded by public health insurance program.
If the goal of equal access is to be realized, New York State must make a commitment to the development of a statewide system of child care co-payments that are truly based upon a family’s ability to pay, as required by Social Services Law §410-x (6). Failure to do so is not only a violation of state law, but also a violation of equal protection of the laws since the effect of the regulation is to treat similarly situated families differently with no rational basis and further, impinging on the right of families to travel.
We urge OCFS to take several steps to deal with inequitable co-payments:
1. Immediately begin work on a statewide parent fee schedule that is truly based on a family’s ability to pay, as required by law. This schedule need not be uniform - like food stamps, it could have adjustments for persons who pay high rents, or pay child support, etc. Geographic disparities would be permissible, but must be based upon economic indicators which justify such distinction.
2. Until the adoption of a parent fee schedule that is based on an analysis that assures affordability and equal access, OCFS should take two steps:
a. amend the state co-payment regulation to cap child care co-payments at 12% of gross household income, regardless of the multiplier used by the Social Services District, and until a statewide standard is developed, reduce the percentage annually by one percentage point;
b. require social services districts to affirmatively set forth how they have complied with the public comment requirements of 18 NYCRR 407.10 before OCFS approves a change in co-payment for any social services district.
B. Children with Special Needs (pp. 62-63, § 2.5.1)
Federal law requires states to give priority to children with special needs. This plan recites this requirement but does not tell us how local districts assess whether children receiving child care services have special needs, how parents are advised that they are to be given priority or are eligible for a special enhanced payment rate. The standard application for child care assistance does not afford the parent the opportunity to make the child’s particular special needs known, and many parents and providers are not aware that such a benefit is available. More needs to be done to make parents and providers aware that the special needs of children can be met.
Thirty-eight social services districts responded to a survey conducted by the Empire Justice Center 9 years ago,  and in all of those districts, a total of only 52 children received the enhanced market for special needs children. That year, the number of 3-5 year olds receiving special educational services was 34,492. Today, we do not know how many children in New York State receive priority or an enhanced rate because of their special needs status. We urge OCFS to require districts to report on the number of children who are provided care with an enhanced rate due to special needs.
Additionally, parents and providers need clearer guidance on how to obtain the special needs rate for child care. It is likely that most parents do not even know that enhanced rates exist. The only guidance that exists is 18 years old and in a short Administrative Directive, 91 ADM-34. The ADM needs to be rewritten in clear and understandable language with easy instructions and forms for parents and providers.
C. Immigration Status of the Child
The Department of Health and Human Services, directly after the enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act (PRWORA), clarified that with respect to childcare services, it is the immigration status of the child, not the parent that counts.  This makes it clear that U.S. citizen children or children with legal status of a working but undocumented immigrant parent are entitled to childcare services regardless of the lack of status of the parent.
It is critical that these young American citizens receive safe, affordable and appropriate child care while their parents are working. However, a substantial barrier to the access of such children to childcare is that local districts do not readily accept the income verification evidence that is available to such households. Since the parents do not have work authorization, it is unlikely that they are receiving regular pay stubs or, if they are, that they have a valid SSN attached to them. In other programs, for example the Food Stamp Program and in the Child Health Plus program, guidance to the local districts clarifies that if no other evidence is available, a sworn affidavit by the working household member as to his or her income must be accepted. 
A number of other states have policies that expressly allow child care applicants to provide statements or attestations regarding their income when the applicant has been unable to obtain verification and/or the employer refuses to provide verification when sought by the applicant applying for child care assistance. These states are: Connecticut, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Nevada and Wisconsin. 
The establishment of similar guidelines for income verification in New York’s child care subsidy program is critical if the illegal denial of childcare services based on the immigration status of the parent is to be avoided. We request that OCFS issue such guidance.
D. Equal Access for Families with Teens
Families that have older teens in the household may or may not qualify for child care assistance depending on the age of the teenager and whether the local district chooses to include the teen and the teen’s income in the household when determining eligibility. Although a teen’s income is disregarded for the purposes of determining cash public assistance eligibility, when determining eligibility for a child care subsidy, only the income of a child under the age of 14 is disregarded.  The income of children between the ages of 14 and 18 is counted and local districts are provided the option of whether to allow local districts to determine whether to count the income of 18, 19 or 20 year olds when determining a parent’s financial eligibility for child care for a younger child in the household. 
Thirty social services districts opt to count an 18, 19, or 20 year old child residing at home as part of the child care services unit when calculating the family’s eligibility for child care subsidy benefits.  Approximately three-quarters of the 30 districts that include the adult child living at home will only count the child if it is beneficial to the family. This would happen when the adult child is not earning income and counting that child would increase the household size, respectively decreasing the family’s co-payment. For example, a three person family with annual earnings of $25,000, where the parent has an 18 year old child and a 4 year old child, would pay a family share of $2,590 per year in a county where the family share is 35%. The same family would pay a family share of $3,850 per year if the 18 year old child was not included in the child care services unit. Including the 18 year old in the unit would be beneficial to the family.
Additionally, eight districts will count the adult child in the household under some specific set of circumstances. Suffolk and Otsego Counties always count the adult child in the child care services unit. Allegany County will always count an 18 year old child, but not a 19 or 20 year old child. Chemung, Putnam, and Columbia Counties will always count a child who is enrolled in school. St. Lawrence County will always count an adult child who is enrolled in school full time or a child with a disability.
In each of these counties, a risk arises that the presence of the adult child in the household could harm the family for the purpose of calculating child care subsidy benefits because any income earned by the adult child would be deemed toward the family. There is no requirement that this money be made available to the parent. For example, in our previous example, a three person family comprised of one parent earning $25,000 per year, an 18 year old child, and a 4 year old child, the family share will vary significantly if the 18 year old child has even a part time job earning minimum wage. If the 18 year old child earns $3,718 per year ($7.15 per hour, 10 hours per week for 52 weeks) and this income is counted as part of the family’s total income, the family share will be $3,891 per year by comparison to the $2,590 per year family share if the adult child is not counted against the family. When the adult child is unconditionally counted as part of the child care services unit, a family with an adult child who works will pay a larger family share than a family whose adult child does not work.
OCFS should promulgate one uniform budgeting regulation- that the income of all children under the age of 18 be disregarded and that the income of 18,19 or twenty year olds should be included in the budget only if it is beneficial to the family. In this federally funded program, families should be subject to the same income budgeting rules no matter where they live in the state.
II. Lead Poisoning (p. 33-34, §1.5.1of the draft plan)
Lead is the leading environmental poison of young children in New York State, and has been linked to serious and lifelong adverse health, developmental, and cognitive outcomes that are completely preventable.  When lead is absorbed into the body, it causes damage to the central nervous system and vital organs, including the brain, kidneys, nerves, and blood cells.  Even at low levels, lead poisoning in children causes intelligence deficiencies, reading and learning disabilities, impaired hearing, reduced attention span, hyperactivity, and behavioral problems.  Childhood lead poisoning levels have even been associated with increased levels of delinquent and criminal behaviors later in life. 
We know that young children are at the highest risk of damage because it affects their developing brains. Accordingly, targeting lead poisoning prevention efforts at day care centers and family providers serving subsidized children and finding lead hazards in children’s homes should be high priority.
OCFS is uniquely situated to use its programs and resources to eliminate lead poisoning. The draft plan states that the goal of the Lead Poisoning Advisory Council, of which OCFS is a part, is to eliminate lead poisoning in children in New York State. While the statewide lead poisoning rate has dropped dramatically - down to nearly only 1% of the children tested -tragically, that reduction has not been true for many low income children. Minority children in New York State are at far greater risk of being exposed to lead-paint hazards. In fact, a Black child under age five in New York State is 8.5 times more likely than a White, non-Latino child to live in an area identified by the New York State Department of Health as a “high risk” area.  In many low income neighborhoods the lead poisoning rate still exceeds 10% to 15%.  Consequently, children participating in OCFS child care programs make up a large proportion, probably the majority, of the 10,000 or more children in the state who continue to be poisoned by lead paint each year. Although there has been little public discussion of this matter, these high-risk areas are home to a stunningly large portion of the state’s minority children.  Over a half century ago the housing in those neighborhoods was, quite literally, painted with hundreds of pounds of pure lead. That housing, much of it now severely deteriorated, is the very housing where thousands of children are cared for with Child Care Block Grant subsidies in family and informal child care settings.
Thus OCFS may well be the state agency best positioned to take the steps needed to finally eliminate lead poisoning in New York. OCFS has the ability to be help make the initial identification of the housing units that contain lead paint hazards and, most importantly, to reach the children who are at risk in that housing before they are poisoned. Put simply, we know who these children are, we know where they live, and we know what needs to be done to protect them.
OCFS should develop a plan in conjunction lead poisoning prevention advocates and child care resource and referral agencies in the specific communities affected, to reach the children at risk before they are poisoned. Individuals who make OCFS mandated inspection visits can act as the "eyes and ears" needed to spot lead hazards and make appropriate referrals so that dangerous housing gets inspected by local health officials whenever deteriorated or peeling paint is observed. For decades the State Department of Health only inspected housing for lead-paint hazards once a child had already been poisoned, and by then it was too late for that child. Although efforts are now underway to change that approach, the Department of Health cannot do it alone. Much more inter-agency planning is needed. The OCFS state plan would be a great place to start to identify the steps needed to make that happen.
We also call on OCFS to require visual inspections and dust wipe sampling for lead paint hazards in all regulated day care homes or centers and the homes of all legally exempt providers receiving subsidy funds, where the home or facility was built before 1978. When that dust wipe and visual inspection indicates a risk, we recommend that public funds be used for a formal “risk assessment “(a detailed inspection that is conducted under established EPA procedures by EPA certified assessors). If the unit does not obtain an appropriate EPA “clearance” within a reasonable time, the consideration should be given to the suspending the child care provider’s license or registration. Additionally, we would ask OCFS to support legislation that would allow tax credits and low interest loans, so that the necessary lead hazard abatement action can be taken when a risk is indicated.
III. Legally Exempt Care (Sections 3.1.1 – 3.1.3, pp. 82-90 Compliance with Applicable Requirements on Licensing and Health and Safety)
In New York State, 44% of the children receiving a child care subsidy are enrolled in legally exempt care. New York is one of only five states in the nation where more than 40% of all child care subsidies are provided to children receiving care in unlicensed (legally exempt) care. New York also has among the highest (8th highest) rates of subsidized child care being provided in the child’s own home.  While these statistics don’t directly speak to the quality of care that children receive, they do raise questions and concerns. Child care centers, registered family day care and group family child care, must meet regulatory standards that help to promote child safety and, hopefully, the quality of the child’s experience in the child care setting.
Every family circumstance is different, and non-traditional work schedules and transportation logistics are significant barriers for some families. In many cases, legally exempt care is the preferred or only option. Nevertheless, given the large numbers of children in legally exempt care in New York State, and given the hundreds of millions of public dollars that we invest in providing legally exempt care, we recommend that New York provide more training, support and oversight of legally exempt providers. Particularly, we recommend that New York State embark on a legally exempt quality initiative that moves towards a comprehensive oversight of legally exempt providers, with a focus on accountability and enhanced personal contact with the providers.
A. The current system of legally exempt oversight: self-attestation and a hodge-podge of local rules 
New York State “enrolls” all providers of legally exempt care and requires that that the provider and the parent both attest that they meet certain health and safety requirements contained in 18 NYCRR 415.4(f)(7) of the state regulations. Systems checks are run through the child welfare database, the child care facility system and the New York State sex offender registry. The regulations require that inspections be made of 20% of legally exempt providers each year, which amounts to one visit every five years. It is our understanding that this inspection requirement is not extended to providers who care for children in the home of the parent. If true, this is a matter of concern since one-half of all legally exempt care in New York is provided in the parent’s home.
There are no experience or training requirements for providers of legally exempt care. New York does provide an enhanced reimbursement rate for legally exempt providers who complete 10 hours per year of training, but this training is not required. Requiring ten hours of training within three months of enrollment, as a condition of enrollment, would be better.
Some districts have imposed additional requirements on legally exempt providers. The result is a hodge-podge of oversight – 44% of New York’s children receiving subsidies deserve more than that. Some of the oversight seems promising. For example, Niagara County requires that all legally exempt providers be enrolled in CACFP, which assures that all legally exempt providers get a home visit. Two counties require annual home visits – Tompkins County requires a “quality home visit,” at least once per year by early childhood consultants. The purpose of this is to make the provider aware of available resources and the enhanced market rate if the provider meets the enhanced training requirements. In contrast, Schenectady County’s home visit is made on an annual basis by a fraud investigator. Wayne County will only visit if the provider refuses to sign a release allowing a check of the child welfare database. 
Many districts (Albany, Clinton, Columbia, Cortland, Greene, Jefferson, Ontario, Orange, Schenectady, Schuyler, Tompkins, Wayne) require local agency child welfare database checks. Jefferson County indicated that it began doing these checks after an audit revealed that 25% of the providers were not self disclosing information regarding criminal history and their involvement with child protective services. Other districts require local criminal background checks (Albany, Cayuga, Chemung, Erie, Jefferson, Lewis, and Steuben). Jefferson County requires a New York State Department of Motor Vehicles check.
Whether any of these initiatives are effective assurances of safety, let alone quality, is anyone’s guess. Given the large amount of money spent on legally exempt care, New York State must do better. New York can start by evaluating the local initiatives that it has approved and by amending its regulations to require training and home visits for all legally exempt providers within the first 6 months of their enrollment.
It would increase the economic stability of low income working families and provide a safe nurturing foundation for the next generation if New York State established statewide standards for the rules of its child care subsidy programs. We urge OCFS to review the concerns expressed herein and work toward making child care a program that serves all the children in New York on a fair and equitable basis.
 Griffin, James A. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development, Phases 1 and 2 (1999). Available at http://www.nichd.nih.gov/research/supported/seccyd.cfm.
 Don Brower, “What Child Care Can Do” Better Brains for Babies, University of Georgia (1998), available at http://www.fcs.uga.edu/ext/pubs/chfd/FACS01-5.pdf
 L.J. Schweinhart,, J. Montie, Z. Xiang, W.S. Barnett, C.R. Belfield, & M. Nores, Lifetime Effects: The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study Through Age 40, High/Scope Press: 2005. General information available at http://www.highscope.org/Content.asp?ContentId=219
 For example, 09 OCFS-LCM-05, which sets forth the 2009-2010 New York State Child Care Block Grant allocations, indicates that local districts would receive just over $778 million dollars in federal and state funds ($736 from the Block Grant and $42 million in federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act stimulus funds) and that a $68 million maintenance of effort requirement from the local social services districts. See also: 09OCFS LCM-14 and 10 OCFS LCM-3.
 Currently this figure is identical to the federal poverty level. See 10 OCFS INF-3, available at: http://www.ocfs.state.ny.us/main/policies/external/
 18 NYCRR 415.3(f).
 S. Akhtar and S. Antos, Mending the Patchwork: A Report Examining County-by-County Disparities in Child Care Subsidy Administration in New York State, pp. 5-10, Empire Justice Center (2010), available at http://www.empirejustice.org/assets/pdf/publications/reports/mending-the-patchwork-1.pdf
 45 CFR 98.43 (2010).
63 FR 39936, 39960-61 (7/24/98).
 G. Young-Miller, B. Lotyczewski, L. VanAuken, S. Moore, Children’s Institute, Child Care Dollars Evaluation 2006-2008 (October, 2008) at p. 8, available at: http://www.childrensinstitute.net/sites/default/files/documents/T08-005.pdf
 Even more puzzling is OCFS’s approval of New York City’s imposition of a $15 per week fee upon families who are otherwise eligible for public assistance but who choose to only take the child care subsidy. Since page 62 of the Draft CCDF plan (§2.4.6)makes clear that OCFS has exempted temporary assistance recipients from the payment of a parent fee, it is puzzling why these families are being punished for choosing to forgo the temporary assistance grant for which they would be otherwise eligible.
 K. Schwartz, Healthy New York: Making Insurance More Affordable for Low-Income Workers, Commonwealth Fund Report 484, November 200, p. 14.
 Family Court Act §416(d); Domestic Relations Law §240(1)(b)(3). Additionally, no payment towards health insurance is required if to do so would bring the parent’s income below the self-support reserve of 135% of poverty for a single individual.
 The Greater Upstate Law Project (now the Empire Justice Center), Child Care in New York State, A Patchwork Of Policies, November, 2002 at page 40. The executive summary of this report is available at http://www.empirejustice.org/assets/pdf/publications/reports/a-patchwork-of-policies.pdf
 Program Instruction from James A. Harrell, U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Deputy Commissioner, Administration for Children, Youth and Families to Lead Agencies Administering Child Care Programs Under the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) Act of 1990 as amended, and other interested parties, Log. No. ACYFPI- CC-98-08, Re: Clarification of Interpretation of “Federal Public Benefit” Regarding Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) Services, (Nov. 25, 1998).
 See e.g., Food Stamp Sourcebook, Section 5, page 114: http://otda.ny.gov/programs/food-stamps/FSSB.pdf
 For Connecticut’s policy see: Care4Kids, 17b-749-06, http://www.ct.gov/dss/cwp/view.asp?a=2353&q=305180#_Toc519328198. Minnesota’s policy can be found at Verification,” Child Care Assistance Program Policy Manual, http://www.dhs.state.mn.us/main/groups/county_access/documents/pub/dhs16_145270.pdf, p.146. Nebraska’s policy can be found at: Child Care Subsidy Program, http://www.sos.state.ne.us/rules-and-regs/regsearch/Rules/Health_and_Human_Services_System/Title-392/Chapter-3.pdf, 12. New Hampshire’s policy can be found in its Family Assistance Manual, 933.03, http://www.dhhs.state.nh.us/FAM_HTM/NEWFAM.HTM. The policy is identified as a “Previous Policy” but there is not a newer or different policy provided on the website. Nevada’s policy can be found at “Income,” http://dwss.nv.gov/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=42&Itemid=287, p. 6-7. Wisonsin’s policy can be found at: Wisconsin Shares Child Care Assistance Manual Chapter 1: Program Information and Eligibility, http://dcf.wisconsin.gov/childcare/wishares/pdf/chapter1.pdf, 54.
 N.Y. Social Services Law §§ 131-a(8), 131-a(10).
 18 NYCRR 415.1(l).
 S. Akhtar and S. Antos, Mending the Patchwork: A Report Examining County-by-County Disparities in Child Care Subsidy Administration in New York State, pp. 5-10, Empire Justice Center (2010), available at http://www.empirejustice.org/assets/pdf/publications/reports/mending-the-patchwork-1.pdf
 “Eliminating Childhood Lead Poisoning in New York State: 2004-2005 Surveillance Report,” New York State Department of Health, available at: http://www.nyhealth.gov/environmental/lead/exposure/childhood/surveillance_report/2004-2005/.
 See U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control, Fact Sheet on Lead Poisoning, available at: http://www.nchh.org/Portals/0/Contents/Lead_Factsheet.pdf
 Findings of Congress, 42 USC 4851(2).
 Nevin, 2000. “How Lead Exposure Relates to Temporal Changes in IQ, Violent Crime, and Unwed Pregnancy;” Environmental Research, 83(1). See also, “Research Links Lead Exposure, Criminal Activity”, Washington Post, July 8, 2007, Page A02; and “Lead’s Societal Toll May Be High: Exposure Linked to Intelligence Loss, Violent Behavior in Our Area,” Rochester Democrat & Chronicle, June 26, 2006, available at: http://www.leadsafeby2010.org/LinkClick.aspx?link=News%2fLeads+societal+toll+may+be+high.pdf&tabid=71
 See, “A Matter of Racial Justice: The Alarming Disparities of Lead-Poisoning Rates in New York State,” by Empire Justice Center attorney Michael L. Hanley; Vol. 17: Issue No. 1, Poverty and Race, (Jan/Feb 2008), a publication of the Poverty and Race Research Action Council, available at http://prrac.org.
 A May 2002 report by the Center for Governmental Research entitled “Lead Poisoning Among Young Children In Monroe County, A Needs Assessment, Projection Model, and Next Steps,” showed that of the thirty-one neighborhoods defined by the city for its planning purposes (areas which are smaller than zip codes), eighteen neighborhoods had rates of lead poisoning greater than 15%, including three neighborhoods with poisoning rates in excess of 30%. See page 26 of the report, available at: http://www.cgr.org/reports/02_R-1342_MonroeLeadPoisoning.pdf. More recent neighborhood level data is not available, but the NYS DOH’s most recent zip code level data identifies several zip codes with incidents rates around 10% which indicates that neighborhoods within those areas have even higher poisoning levels as had previously been documented in Rochester.
 Based on the 2001 Department of Health data, one of every three African-American children under age five living outside of New York City lived in one of the 36 (out of over 1600) zip codes identified by the state as a “high risk” zip code. Those zip codes accounted for over 41% of all new incidences of child lead poisoning at that time. In fact, based on the 2001 data, an African American or Latino child under age 5 was up to nine times more likely to be exposed to lead-paint hazards than a non-minority child. More recent data provided by DOH shows that the concentration of lead poisoning cases in a small number of geographic areas is a persistent pattern. In 2005, nearly 40% of the new incidences of lead poisoning outside of New York City came from only 22 zip codes.
 See chart attached as Exhibit B. Most states have fewer than 20% of their children enrolled in legally exempt care.
 The local initiatives set forth in this section of our testimony are derived from a review of the local plans on the OCFS website at: http://www.ocfs.state.ny.us/main/childcare/plans/plans.asp
 The county information in this section was obtained by reviewing the county plans on the OCFS website at http://www.ocfs.state.ny.us/main/childcare/plans/plans.asp May 9, 2011.